November 27, 2016 — Paul Kimball

[Randall]

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.

OK this is definitely where we diverge. Your educated, so until you decide to apply some critical thinking supported by specific examples, your objections are groundless, and words like "bafflegab" carry no weight as counterpoint.

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.

Simply denying my statements are sincere also carries no weight as counterpoint, and surely you can't be serious about the notion that "it" ( "it" being the UFO Phenomenon ) amounts to nothing; because if you are, then that implies that you think that all the evidence could be "nothing", which isn't possible because evidence exists and therefore it cannot be "nothing".

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. I honestly think you lack a true self-awareness about your own belief system. As a result, I stand by what I said in the episode.

My personal views are as I have described them and those are more complex than you want to accept. The reasoning and evidence, and me in-person is available for you to understand it, but you choose not to. That makes any evaluation you make largely unsubstantiated.

In your bio page, 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."

I make no bones about the views I have, but that doesn't mean they are based on wishful thinking or lack objectivity. I also readily admit that there are other possibilities and that verifiable scientific evidence sufficient to prove alien visitation is real, is not readily available. So you are reading your own interpretation into what I'm saying, arbitrarily excluding the idea that my views may be accurate because they're based on reasonable analysis of the evidence. Yours on the other hand seem to be based on an ideology of denial that you attempt to justify as reasonable ( when it's not ).

Like I said, I don't know how that is open to any interpretation other than the one I put forward.

Well, you'd have to think harder, and you don't seem to want to do that.

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.

Before we part ways, just let me say a few words about "my path". It has involved a lot of study, cross referencing, analysis of case files, talking to people, and personal experience, in an effort to determine the truth about what has been going on with respect to UFO experiences. In that process, via the application of critical thinking, a most probable answer has naturally emerged that is supported by sound reasoning, not wishful thinking. So until I'm given logical reasons backed by sound reasoning and reasonable evidence to change that path, I see no reason to abandon my views or my path. If however you think you can convince me to do so, then I invite you to try, because I would sooner be proven to be in error and adapt than refuse to change.

Now perhaps you might help me understand just what path you're on, because if I'm missing something important I'd like to know about it? So let's have it.

 

[Paul Kimball]

So until I'm given logical reasons backed by sound reasoning to change that path, I see no reason to abandon my views or my path. If however you think you can convince me to do so, then I invite you to try, because I would sooner be proven to be in error and adapt than refuse to change.

I'm not in the business of trying to convince people of anything. If your views work for you, I have no problem with that. I just happen to disagree with them. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[Randall]

Unlike you, I'm not in the business of trying to convince people of anything. If your views work for you, I have no problem with that. I just happen to disagree with them.

OK, if you won't substantiate your views or your criticism, why should people take you seriously? Or do you not want to be taken seriously?

 

[Randall]

I don't care if you take me seriously or not.

OK, There's an honest answer.

I have run into a lot of folks like you over the years, in all walks of life.

I doubt it. There aren't "a lot of folks" like me.

When someone disagrees with them, and points out the flaws in their thinking,

You didn't point out any flaws in my thinking, and what issues you did have I provided an answer for, except for those you didn't elaborate on.

... they retreat to the same old line - "you just haven't looked at what I'm saying closely enough." That's the line you have pursued here. But it doesn't wash. I've read your website. I know exactly who you are and what you believe, and so would any other reasonable person who took an objective look at it. Apparently, you're the one who's confused by it.

Again, until you can cite specific examples and coherently explain why you think they're in error, then your commentary carries no weight. That is the tried and true way of evaluating information, not simply making proclamations and then refusing to accept any counterpoint. If anything, you are flagrantly contradicting what seems to be your own principles of inquiry.

I wish you well on a personal level, because I bear you no ill will. But in terms of having a rational discourse, that just isn't possible with someone like you, for the exact reasons that I spoke about in the show, and that I have laid out here.

You aren't making any sense. In a rational discussion, specific examples are given and the reasoning behind them is explained. You did a little of that, but failed to respond effectively to the counterpoint. Further, when you seemed not to understand it ( calling it bafflegab ), I offered to help you understand it, and I also gave you the opportunity to explain your position in specific terms so that I could better understand it and perhaps bridge the divide.

However because you've rejected assistance in understanding the explanations, and have reverted to your original claims without substantiating them, further stating that you don't care if you're taken seriously, it appears to be you who is at a disadvantage here. I have no doubt you mean well, and you seem like a smart guy, but maybe ease-up a bit on the criticism until you fully understand what you're getting into next time.

In the meantime, maybe we should change subjects. Any comments on what Snowden had to say in the Start Page Interview I posted?

 

[Han]

Mongolian Death Worm!

I heard of this many years ago, but never really payed it much thought because it sounded a bit silly.
But now I have been reminded of it, I think there maybe more to it......

Really interesting episode, thanks to all, and best wishes.

 

[William Strathmann]

Sorry that I haven't yet had time to listen to the episode, but I wondered Paul if you have considered an up-to-date Top Ten "UFO events" from your perspective, unlike the very heavy ETH view of the Top Ten you produced about ten years ago. You could likewise do a reverse countdown, first mention the event of the old Top Ten, and then mention your event and go into what you take home from it. You could have the circle of experts that you associate with do the commentary. I'd be interested.

 

[Wade]

This episode is destined to become one of my favorite episodes. First of all because of a subject i find fascinating regardless of its source or its validity (synchronicity) but also because from the time Paul started speaking he matched my thoughts or ideas almost word for word on practically everything that was breached, mostly on the social political front and maybe a little less so on the other investigators that were mentioned. As far as that goes my “knowledge” of them only goes as far as their reputations that have been mentioned on this forum, and while i would have never thought of comparing Donald Trump to Dr. Zaius i did share a similar idea about David Icke in that it seemed to me that he can’t possibly believe in what he was dishing out ((nudge nudge wink wink) and was maybe he was acting more in a tricksterish way..maybe similar to Jim Moseley in that we would cast out his bait and see who would take it BUT i eventually gave thought that maybe after a bit David did start to believe in what he published. He even hooked himself by virtue of having repeated it over and over again. I sort of felt that no one was more surprised by the rise of Donald Trump than Donald Trump himself. i have little evidence to go on other than he’s been on my radar since 1979 but i felt he got in for a totally different reason and decided he would see this through because he’s no shrinking violet and ride it as far as he could.


Secondly, Paul you of all people should know better than to get into a head to head with Gene regarding puns, there would be no winners in that battle, and in the future please think of us...and the children.


I had my own little coincidence while listening to the episode as i so enjoyed listening to BOTH Paul and Chris take the field (and MUFON) to the mat that i had a thought that Chris and Paul would almost be like Statler and Waldorf raining abuse on the performers below i had no sooner had that thought then Paul had brought up his Uncle and how he would have handled hecklers.


It was also very refreshing to hear Paul speak so enthusiastically on his series of synchronicities (thanks for the download btw) and as i mentioned at the start even his story about this on ATP struck a chord with me as i have also been receptive to these events all my life. I’ve mentioned several times in this forum that i would tell my mother that i could predict the future because to my young mind, thinking of a person and then having them call or pop in or thinking of a song and immediately hearing iot as i turned the radio on or turned the dial was predicting the future. After a bit i didn’t give them much regard for a couple of decades...other than a passing that was “neat”.as i was to consumed with getting bye in life ... until 2009 when i had an epic one that took place over the period of a week and it really did feel like at the timeand i come to acknowledge a little later on that ‘Someone” was really trying to get me to wake up down there (with a nod to Greg Bishop)


My centipede synchronicity actually consisted of a Mantis “meme” and i also i guess you could say involved Joseph Campbell. it directed me to Chris’s work and after finding him here and upon joining i have found my eyes opened to so many other things that have been brought up here that have grabbed my attention and rounded me out as a person (i feel) that i have no problems using the expression “i feel blessed” to describe the experience because i don’t know if i would have been the person i am today w/o my Mantis friend which i wrote of in the my personal experiences thread.


My personal feeling mirrors what i (think) Christopher Knowles wrote about in that these little events that occur could very well be mere coincidences, maybe to be cast aside if desired, or even a strong capacity in pattern finding (which i do exhibit) but be that as it may i have no problems embracing fully the Mantis incidents as a synchronicity as it shook me to the core and i guess that is the hallmark of a true synchronicity.

 

[SRL+]

Refreshing..., three seasoned veterans of the Ufological trench sharing in their research & opinions. Next time, perhaps Greg Bishop or Mr. Redfern would be included in some type of round table discussion.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Sorry that I haven't yet had time to listen to the episode, but I wondered Paul if you have considered an up-to-date Top Ten "UFO events" from your perspective, unlike the very heavy ETH view of the Top Ten you produced about ten years ago. You could likewise do a reverse countdown, first mention the event of the old Top Ten, and then mention your event and go into what you take home from it. You could have the circle of experts that you associate with do the commentary. I'd be interested.

I pitched more or less that very idea to a couple of networks several years ago, including the one for which I had done Best Evidence. It was going to be called Beyond Best Evidence, and it was going to look in depth at the various theories, of which the ETH was just one. Had some great folks lined up for it.

The networks all passed, and I actually had one director of programming tell me that if it wasn't about space aliens no-one would buy it or watch it. He told me if I did another one of those (i.e. about space aliens), they would be happy to fund it. I more or less hung up on him, and I stopped even thinking about making UFO-related docs then and there. I wrote a book instead in my spare time, where the only person I had to please was myself, and where I could say whatever I wanted or theorize about non-space alien explanations to my heart's content.

There's no market in television for anything that isn't about space aliens. Anyone who tells you otherwise is dreaming.

 

[Paul Kimball]

It's worth noting that there are plenty of interesting UFO stories out there that are not Roswell and that in many cases are still waiting to be discovered. Here's one I wrote about at my old blog back in 2007:

A couple of years ago, I was told a story by some folks I know on Prince Edward Island, one of them a very nice and thoroughly honest lady in her late 80s at the time, and the other her son, who is in his 40s. Let's call them Mrs. X and Mr. Y.

One of my favourite UFO cases is the Vins-sur-Caramy case from France in 1957. Why? Because in many respects it mirrors exactly the story that these two people, who I know to be very credible, told me.

Mrs. X and other members of her family, including her husband, a civil servant of impeccable reputation who is, alas, deceased, saw an oval-shaped object descend down into their field one afternoon in the mid-1960s, which Mrs. X and her son, who related what he had been told by people who were there, described pretty much exactly the way the Vins-sur-Caramy witnesses described the object they saw in April, 1957.

The object seen by Mrs. X and other members of her family hovered over their field, perhaps a hundred yards away from their house, and then moved away at a high rate of speed (this part is a bit different from the Vins-sur-Caramy account). It had made what can only be described as a small crop circle in the field - my term for what Mrs. X described (she did not use this term to me, nor did her son).

Mr. Y said that this incident had a profound impact on their family over the years, which Mrs. X confirmed, as have others. Mrs. X, a religious woman, called it a "forerunner" - a well-known concept in the folklore of Atlantic Canada which is seen as a sign from God that something was going to happen (indeed, someone they knew was killed in a car accident a couple of days later). But it's clear that what they saw was a UFO.

When people ask me why UFOs interest me, one of the reasons is because of stories like this, which was told to me by credible people who did not want to talk about it until I pressed them. I need to stress - I heard about it second-hand, and then went to these folks to talk about it. They did not come to me.​

 

[Creepy Green Light]

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 .

I believe Paul was on one of the first Paracast episodes I ever heard (which was back in approximately 2011). After only a minute of listening, I thought "Jesus - where has this guy been the last 20 years and how come I haven't heard of him before?" He has to be one of the most logical & level headed people that I have heard on any TV or radio show - ever.

I just wish there was a way to weed out all of the kooks in the field (and all of you can name a handful). Those individuals contaminate the entire subject. If you have one glass of clean water & one glass of dirty water and you pour both glasses into a bucket - what kind of water do you have now? Same with the UFO subject.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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.

This episode is now posted, an exclusive for subscribers to The Paracast+. Thanks for making it happen, Paul.

If you haven't joined yet, now may just be the time to get in on all the action.

 

[Paul Kimball]

This episode is now posted, an exclusive for subscribers to The Paracast+. Thanks for making it happen, Paul.

If you haven't joined yet, now may just be the time to get in on all the action.

I might do a few more new ones if time permits. There are still a few folks I either enjoy chatting with because they think outside the box, or would like to interview for the same reason but have not yet done so.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I look forward to the new shows.

We also have a number of episodes, audio and video, in the wings from Paul that will be posted over the coming weeks.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Can you two pause I need to get more popcorn

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just do it faster. Exercise is good.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Still lots of old material to wade through. Unfortunately, a number of my old podcasts are on my previous computer - Dean Radin, Micah Hanks, Nick Pope, and Aaron Gulyas, for example - and I have to take it in, get the hard drive removed and put in a case, and then hook it up to my new computer. Hopefully this week. The Radin interview in particular was fascinating.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I believe Paul was on one of the first Paracast episodes I ever heard (which was back in approximately 2011). After only a minute of listening, I thought "Jesus - where has this guy been the last 20 years and how come I haven't heard of him before?" He has to be one of the most logical & level headed people that I have heard on any TV or radio show - ever.

Thanks for the kind words!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Still lots of old material to wade through. Unfortunately, a number of my old podcasts are on my previous computer - Dean Radin, Micah Hanks, Nick Pope, and Aaron Gulyas, for example - and I have to take it in, get the hard drive removed and put in a case, and then hook it up to my new computer. Hopefully this week. The Radin interview in particular was fascinating.

We'll get that one up once you have this straightened out and submitted. Seeing people encountering such problems, I make 3 backups of everything. Really.

 

[Paul Kimball]

We'll get that one up once you have this straightened out and submitted. Seeing people encountering such problems, I make 3 backups of everything. Really.

Didn't have a problem with the old computer, really - still works. But I had to upgrade several months ago to a new one with better capacity for editing video, and I have no desire rep the old one around, so I'll ditch it into the recycle shop as soon as I've extracted the hard drive. I took most of the important stuff off and transferred it to an external drive when I got the new one, but I missed a number of the old podcasts for some reason.