Search results

:P Don't worry, I have every intention of not passing away.....

:D Thanks, Gene. Actually, Jim talked almost as much as I did. It is interesting to me that so many people complain about "nothing new in UFO research" acting hostile to something new - which, by definition, requires a bit or more than a bit of explanation. I have been greatly frustrated...

The Wanaque Story was an interesting surprise to me on the show - I was merely citing a familiar case (to Gene; I was aware Moseley never remembered it which of itself is strange) one of many which led me to the conclusion - I was speaking to David's point about the 'cult of personality' in...

As an afterthought, I got this directly and thought I'd post it: ;) "Hey Allen, I just wanted you to know that I thought you did a great job on the Paracast. Very interesting. I have not yet finished listening to your entire interview, as I have downloaded it into my MP3 player and...

To take such a radical step, of course I'm bound to be wrong in places. I'm not sure how we got off on thought-form photography. There is good evidence for it, but my comments were offhand in response to a case you brought up, as I recall. Neither of my books are on that subject. Gene and...

To "Hopeful Skeptic" :cool: listen, bro, I'm not a superstitious person--and I'm probably closer to a skeptic than you seem to think. "Well, if you'd actually read my post thoroughly" I did. " before giving in to a knee-jerk reaction," Never do-except for the doctor hitting my knee...

:eek: Aha! This is what I am looking for. Nobody who takes - say Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" seriously, or who even enjoyed "Flatland" can rest easy that cutting-edge science today backs a nuts-and-bolts view of the universe. However, the central premise of my books is the cipher, not...

Interesting notion. If I claim, do the experiment, and it produces UFOs, isn't this clear cut? I ask only, confirm or disconfirm in public.

You have nothing that will convince an understandably skeptical scientific community, even with very considerable investigation. My conclusion is, something other than "Earth Rovers" is involved.

Agreed. June 24, 1947. Remember the date - it is sixty years this June. No verification acceptable to science in that length of time calls, at least, for rethinking of the premise.

Possibly. But what is most a barrier is simple--the same theory the leaped out of nowhere in the 1940s is still without a shread of verifiable evidence, thus leaving UFOlogy in scientific limbo. What I try to do is offer something than can be valididate or disproved in relatively short order.

Glad you liked it - I am open - I can cite a number of excellent examples of "thoughtography" under good controls - and I don't dismiss David's views at all. I do, respectfully, disagree, at least offering an alternative on the case in question. The other alternative - faked pix of a real...

Just for the record, my credentials are as good as my old friend Stan, and I held the nuts-and-bolts view for almost ten years. He is mainly a theoretician, and I am mainly a field investigator. Science is not so "nuts-and-bolts" oriented when you start to get into astrophysics and subatomic...

If the gentleman meant that he found the show uninteresting, who can disagree? This is, invariably, a matter of taste. OTOH, if the reference is to the concept I was discussing, as in Secret Cipher of the UFOnauts and Secret Rituals of the Men in Black, there is one thing I do that is rare...