November 27, 2016 — Paul Kimball

[Gene Steinberg]

Whenever filmmaker Paul Kimball joins us on The Paracast. you just know you can expect the unexpected. All right, there was a small amount of political talk; just a small amount. Paul. you see. is running for office and it's on his mind. But otherwise this was a whirlwind journey through UFO research and other topics.

It got so interesting when he got into synchronicity that we decided to hold him over for this week's episode of After The Paracast. an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

You can find more information about our premium service at: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[Paul Kimball]

Towards the end I was asked about synchronicity. There wasn't much time left in the show, so I gave one quick example, and said that I would post the chapter from my book The Other Side of Truth wherein I discussed my experiences with, and thoughts about, the subject.

Here it is:

Synchronicity chapter.pdf

We also covered the subject a bit more in the After The Paracast follow-up.

Also, at one point Gene mentions a brand new episode of The Other Side of Truth that I had just recorded with Greg Bishop. It took me a bit longer to finish post-production than I had hoped (my real world job intruded), but it's now been sent to Gene and should be available to Paracast+ subscribers by tomorrow.

Best,
Paul

 

[wwkirk]

I found Paul's story about the men in black to be quite amusing.

 

[Randall]

This was one of the best shows ever because what we had were three intelligent well informed people in a discussion about topics relevant to The Paracast. It is really great to hear people advocating quality research and being well informed prior to making comments. There was also lot of good stuff that both Chris and Paul had to say about the weaknesses and deficiencies in the field of ufology and how mainstream media tends to misrepresent it.

That being said, it's somewhat ironic that Paul's comment on After The Paracast didn't accurately represent the position of USI or mine on UFOs. Paul's answer on the poll in the thread What's The Point was also delivered from a completely different perspective than the way the question was framed, resulting in a misrepresentation of that issue as well .

Anyway, I don't think any harm was done or meant by it, and perhaps in some future show I'll have an opportunity to review those points in some finer detail. In the meantime, I think Paul's contributions of content to the Paracast is fabulous and one thing I'd definitely agree with him on is that Sting is overrated .

 

[Paul Kimball]

That being said, it's somewhat ironic that Paul's comment on After The Paracast didn't accurately represent the position of USI or mine on UFOs. Paul's answer on the poll in the thread What's The Point was also delivered from a completely different perspective than the way the question was framed, resulting in a misrepresentation of that issue as well.

A different perspective doesn't make something a misrepresentation. It just makes it a different perspective.

As for USI, my understanding is that the group, and you, believe that aliens have visited Earth. That makes you advocates for the ETF. Nothing wrong with that, but in my opinion there isn't anywhere near enough evidence upon which one could base that conclusion.

If I am in error as to your position on UFOs, I'm more than happy to stand corrected.

Glad you enjoyed the show otherwise.

All hail President Zaius!

 

[Paul Kimball]

And yes, Sting post-Police is definitely overrated.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ditto.

Let me go back to watching that documentary on Muscle Shoals, AL music.

 

[Randall]

A different perspective doesn't make something a misrepresentation. It just makes it a different perspective.

Sometimes that's true, Sometimes it's not. In this case both the nature of the question and my and USIs position on UFOs was misrepresented in a casual sense. I don't think you did it purposefully or with any ill intent, but it fits the Encarta definition: "not to be truly or typically representative of somebody or something". That is accurate in this case.

As for USI, my understanding is that the group, and you, believe that aliens have visited Earth. That makes you advocates for the ETF. Nothing wrong with that, but in my opinion there isn't anywhere near enough evidence upon which one could base that conclusion.

The position of USI and myself is a little more complex than the mass-media viewpoint because the terminology used by the mass-media is generalized, whereas the terminology used by myself and USI is a field-specific interpretation based on critical analysis of factual history. A detailed rationale can be found on the USI website, but essentially, the position is that the word UFO is interpreted to mean an alien craft, and an alien craft is interpreted to be a craft from outside the boundaries and constructs of civilization as we know it.

Therefore alien does not necessitate extraterrestrial. It is my personal position that the craft in question do exist and are probably extraterrestrial, but there is insufficient evidence, at least in the public realm, to qualify that theory as being proven. To further elaborate, the ETH is often assumed to mean from another planet, but technically it could be from another star, or universe, or they could be nomadic. So the idea of the ETH breaks down into different sub-categories.

If I am in error as to your position on UFOs, I'm more than happy to stand corrected. Glad you enjoyed the show otherwise.

No problem Thanks for the opportunity to do so, and yes I very much enjoyed the show. The enthusiasm and delivery was very good and I hope that it inspires those in the field to do a little better. I know it had that effect on me. I'm not nearly as accomplished as you guys are, but I do try to apply critical thinking and analysis whenever possible, and if provided with a claim and the associated evidence, am pretty good at figuring out the most reasonable explanations.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I think that what you're describing is effectively a distinction without a meaningful difference, but fair enough. Your position is that some UFOs are structured intelligently-controlled craft of non- human origin, yes?

Then I stand by the general spirit of my original comments. You advocate for a particular answer that I don't think the evidence supports, whereas I maintain a healthy skepticism / agnosticism.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in other words. No problem.

 

[Randall]

I think that what you're describing is effectively a distinction without a meaningful difference ...

You'd have to elaborate on that before I could evaluate it's accuracy.

... but fair enough. Your position is that some UFOs are structured intelligently-controlled craft of non-human origin, yes?

Not exactly. They could be craft created by humans who are outside the boundaries and constructs of civilization as we know it. This is sometimes referred to as the Breakaway Civilization Hypothesis ( which I'm sure you're familiar with ).

Then I stand by the general spirit of my original comments. You advocate for a particular answer that I don't think the evidence supports, whereas I maintain a healthy skepticism / agnosticism.

Then you'll probably want to adapt your view because that's not quite accurate either. I advocate for a clear definition and understanding of the subject matter so as to differentiate it from other areas of inquiry. That is entirely reasonable and completely different than assuming that the objects described in UFO sighting reports are in-fact alien craft.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in other words. No problem.

I suspect our thinking is much more aligned than you presently seem to assume, and that the differences are due to subtleties that are more important than you presently appreciate. But I do hope that I can help you appreciate them because they are IMO much more important to the field than they first appear. Besides that, you're someone I'd very much prefer to have on-side rather than as a critic ... lol.

 

[Paul Kimball]

From your website:

"If no manmade or natural object or phenomenon can reasonably explain all UFO sightings, then some UFO sightings must represent a form of alien technology ( ATECH ). The initial findings of Project Sign are therefore probably correct and we are probably dealing with something extraterrestrial."

I think a reasonable observer, reading that statement, would come to the same conclusion about your views, and those of your group, that I did.

Perhaps you should update your website.

In all seriousness, though, your views seem pretty clear to me, and pretty much as I stated them in the show. Folks can check your website for themselves and make up their own minds.

No big deal to me, but I just don't think it's accurate to say I misrepresented where you stand based on the available information.

 

[Paul Kimball]

By the way, my intent was not to pick on you or your organization, but merely to point out an example of a mindset with which I disagree and with which users of the Forum are probably familiar.

 

[Randall]

From your website:

"If no manmade or natural object or phenomenon can reasonably explain all UFO sightings, then some UFO sightings must represent a form of alien technology ( ATECH ). The initial findings of Project Sign are therefore probably correct and we are probably dealing with something extraterrestrial."

I think a reasonable observer, reading that statement, would come to the same conclusion about your views, and those of your group, that I did.

Perhaps you should update your website.

If what you quoted was all there was, you'd have a valid point, but there is much more than that available in the associated links, and when taken together it forms a more complete picture, and more responsible reporting does take into account all the available information to create a more complete picture, rather than cherry picking to prove a point ( I'm sure you'd agree ). So let's have a closer look from our School Of Thought:

"USI is unaware of any evidence that scientifically proves the material existence of alien craft. However the prevailing view is that the original Estimate Of The Situation reached by Project Sign is accurate to the extent that the objects in some UFO reports are alien to human civilization and probably extraterrestrial in origin.​

And if you follow the link to see how we look at the term "alien": Topics In Ufology - Alien

You'll see there that how we look at the term alien is different than that which has been skewed by popular media to the extent that it is automatically assumed to be a space alien, but that is not how we look at the issue. We take a much more objective approach that allows for several possibilities. The "prevailing view" is only what it suggests, and not a definitive belief that anyone has to adhere to.

By the way, my intent was not to pick on you or your organization, but merely to point out an example of a mindset with which I disagree and with which users of the Forum are probably familiar.

No problem. I take your criticism in the spirit in which it is intended, and therefore would like to get across that if you had a more complete picture, you'd probably be much more agreeable to the approach we take, and that is something I would prefer because you promote the idea of a responsible and informed approach to the subject. I like to think I do the same. If you don't think so, I'd prefer to hear about it so I can fix it rather than try to defend an inferior position.

 

[Paul Kimball]

You'll see there that how we look at the term alien is different than that which has been skewed by popular media to the extent that it is automatically assumed to be a space alien, but that is not how we look at the issue. We take a much more objective approach that allows for several possibilities.
No problem. I take your criticism in the spirit in which it is intended, and therefore would like to get across that if you had a more complete picture, you'd probably be much more agreeable to the approach we take, and that is something I would prefer because you promote the idea of a responsible and informed approach to the subject. I like to think I do the same. If you don't think so, I'd prefer to hear about it so I can fix it rather than try to defend an inferior position.

I guess the best question I can ask you - and which really does boil down to a yes or no answer - is this:

Do you think that the UFO phenomenon can possibly be explained by natural and identifiable terrestrial actors and natural phenomena that are within the range of our general experience and understanding today?

 

[Randall]

I guess the best question I can ask you - and which really does boil down to a yes or no answer - is this:

Do you think that the UFO phenomenon can possibly be explained by natural and identifiable terrestrial actors and natural phenomena that are within the range of our general experience and understanding today?

I don't do "Yes" or "No" answers, especially when they're somewhat loaded to begin with. The word "possibly" can be applied to many different questions about hypothetical situations and answered in the affirmative, implying the answer is true, when in fact it's not. So let's look at it another way ( or maybe we should just do an interview ... lol ).

First there is the question of what is meant by "The UFO Phenomenon", because there's a huge difference between asking that question and asking the same question about UFOs themselves. I interpret the UFO phenomenon as the full array of experiences that are associated in some way with the idea of alien visitation ( again alien does not necessitate ET ). Can all those experiences be explained naturally somehow? Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, would that be a reasonable approach? I don't think so. Assuming all reports have a natural explanation would be as biased as assuming all reports are of alien craft.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I don't do "Yes" or "No" answers, especially when they're somewhat loaded to begin with. The word "possibly" can be applied to many different questions about hypothetical situations and answered in the affirmative, implying the answer is true, when in fact it's not. So let's look at it another way ( or maybe we should just do an interview ... lol ).

First there is the question of what is meant by "The UFO Phenomenon", because there's a huge difference between asking that question and asking the same question about UFOs themselves. I interpret the UFO phenomenon as the full array of experiences that are associated in some way with the idea of alien visitation ( again alien does not necessitate ET ). Can all those experiences be explained naturally somehow? Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, would that be a reasonable approach? I don't think so. Assuming all reports have a natural explanation would be as biased as assuming all reports are of alien craft.

You should seriously consider a career in the civil service. You are the ufological equivalent of Sir Humphrey.

 

[Paul Kimball]

 

[Randall]

Video Here: November 27, 2016 — Paul Kimball

Hilarious ... ... I've never seen this before. I've obviously been missing out ! This one seems rather apropos as well ... lol

Hey still no comment on the recent Snowdenn Interview by StartPage?
I would have guessed that you would have checked that out, being in the media and all.
Snowden Interview​

​

 

[Randall]

Anyway @Paul Kimball, while the humor above is fine, I also take ufology seriously, and it's just a fact that accuracy and precision come at the expense of convenience and speed. On one hand you criticize those who want the convenience and speed of an entertainment piece, and on the other you're making jest of people like myself who take it seriously and make an effort to work from facts and historical details. What I'm saying isn't mere gibberish. But getting those who profess to want a better approach to actually adopt a better approach is fraught with all sorts of politics that IMO should be irrelevant, but aren't irrelevant if you want to get anywhere, and finding that out is a hard lesson to learn. It slows real progress down to a snails pace while the opportunists exploit whatever they can. Is there any solution to this problem?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Anyway @Paul Kimball, while the humor above is fine, I also take ufology seriously, and it's just a fact that accuracy and precision come at the expense of convenience and speed. On one hand you criticize those who want the convenience and speed of an entertainment piece, and on the other you're making jest of people like myself who take it seriously and make an effort to work from facts and historical details. What I'm saying isn't mere gibberish. But getting those who profess to want a better approach to actually adopt a better approach is fraught with all sorts of politics that IMO should be irrelevant, but aren't irrelevant if you want to get anywhere, and finding that out is a hard lesson to learn. It slows real progress down to a snails pace while the opportunists exploit whatever they can. Is there any solution to this problem?

Where we disagree is on your characterization of what you've set out as precise, and your self-view as accurate. I read your entire website, much of which reads like bafflegab to me. But based on the totality of what is written there, I have no doubt that you're an ardent ETFer, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise by saying it could be this, or it could be that. The one thing you won't admit is that it could all just be nothing really. That leap makes you a believer, not a skeptic or an agnostic. That's fine, but that's not the kind of straight-talking, objective research I was looking for.

In your bio page at your website you write:

"Now, having followed the progress of ufology and science for over 40 years, I remain more convinced than ever that UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, and operate on technology beyond our means."​

Like I said, I don't know how that is open to any interpretation other than the one I put forward. I take people at face value. As a result, I stand by what I said in the episode.

Accordingly, the solution to the "problem" is for you to keep doing what you're doing, and me to keep doing what I'm doing, because we're on two very different paths, and I know from experience there is no point of real intersection between them. C'est la vie. No hard feelings on my end.