• 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!

Nick Redfern--For Nobody's Eyes Only


wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
Nick is always great when he's on. You covered the JFK assassination in some detail. Why won't you delve into the 9/11 conspiracy theory? There are many engineers and scientists who are truthers. One of them could make for a decent interview.
 
Nick is always great when he's on. You covered the JFK assassination in some detail. Why won't you delve into the 9/11 conspiracy theory? There are many engineers and scientists who are truthers. One of them could make for a decent interview.

Nice idea.. how about a round table of them?
 
As per usual a very interesting episode w/mr. Redfern. Call me impartial but I always enjoy any guest that is willing to pay lip service to synchronicity and/or a trickster element....maybe they're part of the same thing....because it's these elements that got me interested in this field in these first place as I'm more uap/ high strangeness than ufo.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
 
Time to come clean, Chris!

During the time you shared a room with Nick, just how many books did he manage to complete??

:p

It was great seeing you at the Paradigm Symposium. Even if we didn't manage to have enough time to chat, the couple of hours we hung out on Sunday night was quite memorable :)

PS: On the subject of attendance numbers this year, Scotty Roberts informs me they managed to get around 200-225 people, total.
 
Redfern's approach is to be relentlessly diligent with a love of hard work. Only he could write a book based on a defecit of information as opposed to his usual well researched FOIA material. I enjoyed hearing about his very early career as school dropout, forklift operator etc., a good demonstration of indivdual effort and personal passion parlayed into prolific paranormal writer. Way to pick a peck o' paranormal pickles, Nick.
 
Gene and Chris, thanks for going through my questions and asking them.

The interview was very good as most of your shows are. Nick is fascinating to listen to (as most of your guests are).

I disagree with Nick's assessment of Sept. 11 as he miscategorized what many "9/11 Truthers" are saying. What I've seen in most cases is their focus on the identification of flaws in the government's "conspiracy theory" based on an analysis of the available facts, not the promulgation of grand "conspiracy theories" based on no evidence. I see this straw-man argument used on many so-called "conspiracy theories" (a term that I believe was invented by the CIA to dismiss people who questioned the JFK assassination).

Also, many reputable people including Paul Craig Roberts and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth question the official theory. Scientific papers and books have been written about it. There was a conference in Toronto about it with many technical people attending.

My goal wasn't to get into a debate about this topic, only to point out the flaws in Nick's analysis (and some of Gene's statements on the subject). However, to Nick's credit, he said he hasn't studied the matter thoroughly, so his point of view wasn't dogmatic, and he sounds like someone who could change his mind once he has been presented with the facts. Like the UFO subject, people who don't know much about it think it's all bunk made up by nuts and and that there is no evidence for it.

I have a feeling that Chris has a different point of view on the subject since he kept quiet about it in this session, but I recall in one of the round tables earlier in the year, he raised several points indicating he often questions official explanations. I respect Gene's ability to prevent controversial subjects from taking over and to keep guests and questions on topic in general.

Your differing perspectives and ability to not let your own opinions overshadow the guest, who is the focus of the show, is admirable.

I've heard other shows on the subject (some of them good), but yours is the best by far. I look forward to listening to your new shows and all of the archived shows.
 
I also really enjoyed this show. I just listened to it last night, since being able to tune in again to the paracast. Thank goodness. For me, the most revealing and important piece of information was the missing Roswell Air Force files from 45-49 or whatever. That's just ridiculously over suggestive.
 
Thank you for another fascinating show, and thank you for asking my questions.
After hearing the show I now want to ask Mr Redfern about all of the alleged documents and records that were supposedly stored in WTC7 and the fact that they are now destroyed or missing.
I often struggle to convey my true meaning when writing, so I just want to clarify that I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job. In fact this was the first time I have mentioned it for a number of years due to the fact that I find it all so upsetting, and a little disrespectful to the families of the victims. However I do not regret asking the question, as it has made it clearer than ever that I must improve my writing/typing speed and get some of the important (to me) ideas and theories I have on "paper" so that other people can think about them too.

Best wishes Harry.
 
I always enjoy Mr. Redfern. I especially liked his investigative technique on this book. Very clever and apparently very effective. Since I live near the Dallas area, I hope to have a chance to hear a lecture or catch him at a book signing someday. Nick is never been one to toss aside any possibility.
 
Another great show, but I have to point out some flaws in the logic that scientists from the late 1940s could not have figured out alien technology because it's akin to sending an cellular phone back to the early 1800s. The first issue is that we aren't talking about the 1800s. We're talking about the mid 1940s, and we were far more equipped to study things at that time than we were in the 1800s. For example, there were diamond saws, electron microscopes, and mass spectrometers, and there are only so many stable elements in the known universe. So straight off, scientists of the day would be able to see extremely fine details, determine what they are made of, and map how they were organized. From this, it wouldn't be too hard for them to determine what their general purpose was. Figuring out how to manufacture something identical would be a whole other matter.

The second point is that based on the material's composition, properties, and organization, it could conceivably have given scientists of the day indirect clues to explore further, and it is rather coincidental how many new high tech things came out of the industrial defense research industries. This isn't to say that I'm an absolute believer in alien reverse engineering, only that it's not as far fetched as either Nick or Gene's logic suggests. The documented history doesn't even need to be faked. It's not as if blueprints need to suddenly appear ( though I've heard claims by some NASA engineers that such things did happen ), but the point is that all that would be required is a strategically placed comment here and there in the journals of the day. From there the gears in the lab nerds heads would inevitably begin to spin and new inventions based on the material's properties would be inevitable.
 
For example, there were diamond saws, electron microscopes, and mass spectrometers, and there are only so many stable elements in the known universe. So straight off, scientists of the day would be able to see extremely fine details, determine what they are made of, and map how they were organized. From this, it wouldn't be too hard for them to determine what their general purpose was. Figuring out how to manufacture something identical would be a whole other matter.

I'm not sure I agree, and I'll give an example to illustrate my point: During the Paradigm Symposium über skeptic PZ Myers mentioned on his presentation how the chunk of the human genome that is known not to code proteins, popularly known as 'junk DNA,' is just that --junk. So according to Myers the non-coding DNA is the genetic version of the human appendix, vestigial & useless.

But now a team of researchers has found out that 'junk DNA' is responsible for sculpting the features of our faces. Pretty important if you ask me, since it may be the difference between looking like Brad Pitt, or looking like Steve Buscemi ;)

My point is that studying the structure & composition of a thing might not get you any closer to understanding its actual function.
 
From there the gears in the lab nerds heads would inevitably begin to spin and new inventions based on the material's properties would be inevitable.

I think that's a great point - "inventions based on the material's properties" don't have to mean reverse engineering to a particular device's original purpose - maybe scientists a hundred years ago couldn't reverse engineer a cell phone but maybe there would be a magnet or piece of plastic or wire or clip to hold the battery that leads to rapid innovation in what seems to be an unrelated direction . . . (and I always think of what The Professor could do with a few coconuts and a piece of vine)

I also wondered whether (presumably) interstellar travel necessarily implies the possession of all technologies far ahead of ours? I don't see that all technology increases at the same speed or even always advances in every "direction" it depends a lot on the current need and value of that technology -

Maybe there is a relatively simple discovery just a few years out that allows interstellar travel and associated technologies might then advance rapidly absorbing lots of developmental resources and leaving other areas of technology undeveloped for a time (assuming we have a value for such development - the race to see which country might take over the next galaxy for example ) . . . or maybe one of the devices found on a crashed saucer was a child's toy and just barely in advance of our current technology . . . a science-fair kit . . . just a playful thought, but I think it points up how many assumptions we can make either in the direction of alien technology just being completely in far linear advance of ours or being totally incomprehensible - it could be a bit of both, with others still recognizable to us - I think a Neanderthal could pick up my brand new high tech steel-forged axe with fiber-glass handle and immediately begin helping me chop wood!
 
I'm not sure I agree, and I'll give an example to illustrate my point: During the Paradigm Symposium über skeptic PZ Myers mentioned on his presentation how the chunk of the human genome that is known not to code proteins, popularly known as 'junk DNA,' is just that --junk. So according to Myers the non-coding DNA is the genetic version of the human appendix, vestigial & useless.
But now a team of researchers has found out that 'junk DNA' is responsible for sculpting the features of our faces. Pretty important if you ask me, since it may be the difference between looking like Brad Pitt, or looking like Steve Buscemi ;)

My point is that studying the structure & composition of a thing might not get you any closer to understanding its actual function.

I really appreciate that you use examples rather than just making proclamations. My counterpoint is that you've actually just provided an example of how scientifically studying composition and structure is responsible for understanding junk DNA's function. First you look really closely, figure out what it's made out of, and then look at how it's organized and do experiments to get more clues as to what it does.

Also, I never claimed that a single look at a small segment of alien technology would instantly provide all the answers. So using your example of DNA, it's like figuring out it's basic function first, which coincidentally, was done in the early 1940s. At that time, even though there was a lot of work to be done after that, it was still understood that DNA was responsible for inheritance, and this might be equated with understanding the basic properties and function of some component of an alien craft without knowing exactly what every piece does.

I'm 100% confident that scientists in the 40s and 50s would not have been entirely clueless if they had been given materials to study under laboratory conditions. They may seem primitive by today's standards, but in reality they had a lot more capacity than is generally recognized. Most people don't understand the power of science when it has tools that can magnify things tens of thousands of times, determine what it's made of, how it's organized, and set about understanding what it does. Scientists in the 1800s are whole other matter.

So what's implied by this then? It makes me curious why we don't have full scale working models by now. By now scientists should have figured out something as basic as a vehicle well enough to duplicate one with reasonable precision. This is why I've become increasingly leery about Roswell. Though I suppose it's possible that what you suggest may also apply to the extent that perhaps there just wasn't enough intact debris to determine everything just by looking at a few small parts. If that's the case, we can forget the idea that they got their hands on a relatively intact craft.
 
Last edited:
I'm 100% confident that scientists in the 40s and 50s would not have been entirely clueless if they had been given materials to study under laboratory conditions. They may seem primitive by today's standards, but in reality they had a lot more capacity than is generally recognized. Most people don't understand the power of science when it has tools that can magnify things tens of thousands of times, determine what it's made of, how it's organized, and set about understanding what it does. Scientists in the 1800s are whole other matter.

Well, the thing why the metaphor of the XIXth century scientists investigating an iPhone works so well, it's because back then they were just starting to figure out the first basic elements of the scientific fields than eventually produced our modern technology. For them magnetism & electricity was still a quaint parlor trick to entertain bored courtesans, not something that could become the life-blood of a whole civilization.

Overall we humans can only understand things based on our previous experiences. When Jules Vernes first tried to imagine a trip to the Moon, he could go no further than what was already in his familiar context --a cannon. When Von Braun & the consultants to the 1950's Look magazine tried to envision a practical plan for humanity's first steps into space, they were constrained by 1950's Science & expectations --humans would go to the Moon & Mars using propulsion chemical rockets.

So, imagining a scenario that a team of scientists were trying to figure out how a flying saucer worked, they would still be constrained by the expectations & experience of their era. I gather the 1st thing they would ask is "where's the energy source running this thing?" . Well, what if flying saucers don't have an energy source? What if UFO's use the background energy filling the 'empty space' of the Universe?

Better yet, what if the occupants' minds ARE the energy source? The idea that the human mind when focused its intention can be a source of energy --or could even alter physical reality-- sounds like mystic mumbo jumbo or even plain nuts, but so would the idea of a stream of electrons being powerful enough to light an entire city, to a scientist of the XVIIIth or XIXth century.

This is purely speculative on my part, but maybe that's one of the reasons they haven't figured out how to replicate the (hypothetical) alien tech, even if they actually have a couple of intact craft stored in a secret hangar somewhere.

Then again, we keep hearing all these MILAB stories of abductees being grilled by men in military uniforms, asking them if they've flown an alien craft, and what's the secret of their propulsion. Perhaps my ramblings are not that delusional ;)
 
Better yet, what if the occupants' minds ARE the energy source? The idea that the human mind when focused its intention can be a source of energy --or could even alter physical reality-- sounds like mystic mumbo jumbo or even plain nuts, but so would the idea of a stream of electrons being powerful enough to light an entire city, to a scientist of the XVIIIth or XIXth century.

This is purely speculative on my part, but maybe that's one of the reasons they haven't figured out how to replicate the (hypothetical) alien tech, even if they actually have a couple of intact craft stored in a secret hangar somewhere.

. . . Perhaps my ramblings are not that delusional ;)

pidgeon.jpg
 
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the technology and occupants are actually the same thing.

I mean, look at us. We're increasingly merging with technology and treating it as an extension of who we are. What if the craft and occupants are the same thing, and the reason we can't replicate any junk that we find is because the junk at it's most fundamental level is both alive and technology.

I mean, the iphone wouldn't work without a cell service to make it work. The network is increasingly the device, and if the network isn't there or we don't know how to use it...

And the network is the intelligence...

All the junk lying around wouldn't do a damn thing, and would make no sense to us at all.
 
Back
Top