• 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!

01/21/07 show


CapnG

Devil's Advocate
Now that was a good show. Informative, insightful, thought provoking and most importantly, novel. Many aspects of what were discussed where hitherto at the periphery of my thoughts on the ufo subject. The tie-in with the ability to actually predict these events based on the names seemingly pulled out of the air was most intriguing.

On the subject of thought forms, I have to take a real issue though. The idea that we can shape reality by thought alone always rings false to me for one reason: money. Don't you wish you had more money? Doesn't everyone? If our thoughts can mould reality, shouldn't we all be filthy rich?

Bonus points to Mr. Greenfield for actually using the proper expression "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"! ;)
 
I gritted my teeth and got through it, as I have some of the last few episodes. Just awful. Strange how two folks see the same show so differently.

Glad you enjoyed it, though. Different folks, different mileage.
 
hopeful skeptic said:
I gritted my teeth and got through it, as I have some of the last few episodes. Just awful. Strange how two folks see the same show so differently.

Glad you enjoyed it, though. Different folks, different mileage.

Sorry it didn't meet your expectations.

Just what didn't you like about it?

Specifics might enhance the discussion here.
 
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 among UFOlogy theoreticians...if you work with the cipher, and coordinate it with a reasonably fresh case - like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you fail to get outstanding results, please post it. Negatives are as good as positives as far as I am concerned. But if you have a positive result, post that, too. I think, if you are skeptical - and you should be - you will be well-rewarded by giving it a try.

With regard to "thoughts becoming reality" I did not assert that any thought produces a material object. I suggest only that there is a considerable body of evidence in paranormal research for some thought-forms, under some circumstances, taking on the appearance of physical reality. The example I gave were certain instances of psychic photography. Add to this the concept of mass hypnosis, and you can have a case of multiple witnesses and photographic evidence when either (A) nothing 'real' is there, or (B) what is seen and photographed is very different from what either the human eye or the camera can reveal.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Sorry it didn't meet your expectations.

Just what didn't you like about it?

Specifics might enhance the discussion here.

I've written and erased this reponse six times, and decided brevity is best.

The Paracast is a free radio show, so I don't think I have the right to listen in with any expectations. I do enjoy many episodes of the show and do appreciate the opportunity afforded to us all to listen at our leisure.

The point of The Paracast, as I have come to understand it, is to seek to arrive at some degree of truth regarding UFOs. (I'm aware the show covers other "paranormal" phenomena, but since I see absolutely zero evidence for ghosts, ESP, psychics, remote viewing, et al, I don't hold much interest in those shows. UFOs present an honest skeptic with hard radar hits, some interesting documentation, some possible physical traces and a few compelling photographs.)

I don't believe anything valuable can be obtained from folks offering ufological surmises based on thought-photography, pseudo-demonology, ceremonial magic and unproven string dynamics.

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that ufology is stuck in "compiling" mode. We're not breaking any new ground by listening to someone who believes that UFOs are the byproduct of thought transmission, the Devil and magic. This is medieval nonsense, cloaked in the veneer of string dynamics.

Biedny can criticize Stanton Friedman all he likes, but Friedman is a scientist with verifiable academic and professional credentials. He has formulated a nuts-and-bolts hypothesis about UFOs based on the available hard evidence: some interesting (non-MJ12) documentation, some compelling photographs, some physical traces and hard radar hits. Biedny thinks the conversation about UFOs is being moved forward with the likes of Greenfield? Wow.

The realities of presenting a weekly show with fresh material probably dictate appearances by folks like Greenfield or Ritzman (Ritzmann?), but I can't deny being more than a bit frustrated and disappointed when it occurs.
 
I feel like I'm in the same boat as hopeful skeptic; the whole idea that UFO's could come from someplace other than outer space is valid and I think, should be part of the whole investigation. BUT, over the past few episodes its gone from 'they might not be from another planet' to 'I haven't seen any proof of them being from another planet' to, 'It fits what I know to be true that they are -probably- like this'. Lets step back into 'I don't know how -probable- any of this is-, because we don't. You can talk about physics and lofty sciences, but I seriously wonder how much of that is actually being applied and what is wordplay.

There are a million and one things you could mix up to explain UFO's that would fit it if you tried hard enough to make them fit. Hey, you know what, several of these explainations can coexist together, too. It doesn't necessarily have to be one extreme or the other.

The guest said that there are documented photographs of things showing up just from people thinking about them, or the images of which showing up. Is there a link to this? I have never seen anything like that, and I would think if its true, there has to be a website somewhere on it. I'm not saying its not true, just that I don't know that it is or not.

I do kind of cringe when it goes wayyyyyy into the paranormal end, because everyone seems to like to put ufos in with ghosts and spirits and psychics, and although this goes against the opinion of the guest [and I'm sure he'd be fine with that, he didn't sound adamant or unreasonable], what if, on the other side of things, it has NOTHING to do with all of that other stuff, and all of this is independent of the other, or some of it really is linked and some not at all? Should things be automatically linked just because they can be? If you look hard enough, you can find patterns and links and similarities in just about anything.

but just like skeptic, I know this is a free radio show and I know subjects I'm not interested in are going to come up, and by all means don't stop them altogether, but thats my opinion on the matter.
 
I like the stuff that is considered weird. Sometimes we can be need to be knocked out of our comfort zone. Even if the knocking out, confirms that the comfort zone is a nice place.

Sometimes knowledge is only available by direct experience. Such is the nature of paranormal experiences.

Horses for courses :eek:)
 
BUT, over the past few episodes its gone from 'they might not be from another planet' to 'I haven't seen any proof of them being from another planet' to, 'It fits what I know to be true that they are -probably- like this'. Lets step back into 'I don't know how -probable- any of this is-, because we don't. You can talk about physics and lofty sciences, but I seriously wonder how much of that is actually being applied and what is wordplay.

The "inter-dimensional" hypothesis is really getting played out. Evidence? Anyone?

There are a million and one things you could mix up to explain UFO's that would fit it if you tried hard enough to make them fit. Hey, you know what, several of these explainations can coexist together, too. It doesn't necessarily have to be one extreme or the other.

Right. Until someone grabs hold of one that can be tested and examined, we're all tilting at windmills.

The guest said that there are documented photographs of things showing up just from people thinking about them, or the images of which showing up. Is there a link to this? I have never seen anything like that, and I would think if its true, there has to be a website somewhere on it. I'm not saying its not true, just that I don't know that it is or not.

I know a magician in Florida who'll give him $1,000,000 if he can produce anything like the phenomena he claims.

From a broadcasting standpoint, though, I understand why loopy guests almost have to be scheduled. There are only so many ufologists to go around, and no one can listen to sixteen straight episodes from only one side of the UFO issue. Still, folks offering UFO theories based on "ceremonial magic" ought to have their evidence demanded of them. Fair's fair.

Of course, if one challenges too many paranormal guests, one builds up a certain reputation for stringency, and one soon runs out of paranormalists. It's a delicate balance I imagine the show has to strike.

I do kind of cringe when it goes wayyyyyy into the paranormal end, because everyone seems to like to put ufos in with ghosts and spirits and psychics, and although this goes against the opinion of the guest [and I'm sure he'd be fine with that, he didn't sound adamant or unreasonable], what if, on the other side of things, it has NOTHING to do with all of that other stuff, and all of this is independent of the other, or some of it really is linked and some not at all? Should things be automatically linked just because they can be? If you look hard enough, you can find patterns and links and similarities in just about anything.

Ufology's greatest single mistake was in allowing itself to be lumped in with the "paranormal." (I really dislike that term.) No self-respecting ufologist should be seen at a Paranormal Expo. The sure-fire way to guarantee that no one in the scientific community will examine anything you have to say is to rent out a booth next to a psychic, a channeler, a ghost photographer, a cosmic prayer warrior and Sean David Morton.

but just like skeptic, I know this is a free radio show and I know subjects I'm not interested in are going to come up, and by all means don't stop them altogether, but thats my opinion on the matter.

Yep. No one likes everything. I know I turn off the show immediately whenever ill-informed, one-sided political commentary is offered. That closes the door on that particular episode for me. I move on to the next one, or wait until the following week.
 
but since I see absolutely zero evidence for ghosts, ESP, psychics, remote viewing, et al, I don't hold much interest in those shows

Hi hopeful skeptic,

What objective research have you done in these fields to come to that conclusion. In the case of ghosts, would you consider independent sightings of the same apparition from people with no interests in the "paranormal" as evidence of somthing?

Why would people with no knowledge of a particular building or area, arrive at the same details in what they have seen.

Many thanks.
 
The mission of The Paracast is to seek understanding of ALL paranormal phenomenon, NOT just UFOs. While UFOs are indeed our most covered topic, a glance at our guest list will confirm that we are interested in ALL unexplained events that affect us and our understanding of the nature of the universe.

At this particular point in time, any and all theories about the origins of UFOs are on the table. There is absolutely NO solid evidence to support the idea of UFOs coming from other star systems. Seriously - as I've said on the show, I would be content to discover the truth regarding this phenomenon, no matter what that truth might encompass. I realize that the Zeta Reticulians might not agree with me, but if you're gonna go on Serpo, well, that particular fairy tale doesn't hold much water. Asking for evidence with regards to ANY aspect of discussion of UFOs is a hard nut, no one, NO ONE has any significant, tangible, verified evidence of any sort. If I'm wrong, please feel free to point out where we can find this type of evidence for ANY explanation of UFOs.

I both like and respect Stanton Friedman, and I think he has done good work on the field, but I also feel that he has a vested interested in a particular explanation for the sourcing of UFOs, and we on The Paracast have no such vested interests. The investigation of UFOs in general seems to be in a bit of stagnation, with the same ideas and theories hauled out over and over. What's wrong with expanding the discussion? We might glean some new insights.

For the record, I'm not convinced by some of the theories put forth by Allan Greenfield, especially the notion that thought projection can render an image on photographic film. I have never seen ANY example of that, and I find it highly doubtful that it's possible. On the other hand, can I prove that it's impossible? That's a tough one. Greenfield has some fascinating ideas, and that's what we're looking for - original thoughts and a clear, rational discussion.

As far as booking guests for the show, Gene & I do this as a labor of love, we don't have a dedicated crew tracking people down, prequalifying them and slotting them in. We're trying to do a weekly program, and it's sometimes difficult to line people up. I've sent out more than a few invites to folks I think would make great guests, as does Gene, and I can tell you that lots of them never respond, some make excuses for why they can't - or won't - come on, others go back and forth with us, trying to gauge how we'll treat them if they actually agree to be interviewed. I'm currently talking to someone who is an expert in a topic I find fascinating and which we haven't yet covered, and he's trying to lay down all sorts of conditions and verboten topics; chances are that we'll have to turn him down ultimately; giving in to his concerns and censoring ourselves would be a significant compromise of our integrity. How often does this happen on other shows?

hopeful skeptic, you mention that no "self-respecting UFOlogist" should attend a paranormal conference. Where would you suggest they go? The "International UFO Congress" event features luminaries such as Sean David Moron, Michael Salla, and our Meierite Psycho Jerk™ HornDog, so should a serious UFOlogist go there and speak after the audience hears about the wonders of Billy One Arm Bandit? I will remind you that we live in a society that picks it's leaders based on their belief in a nontangible, fear-mongering God, and at this point, if a politician wants a serious chance to play in the mainstream political arena, they have to stand in front of an audience and proclaim their love and devotion to a dead Jewish carpenter rabblerouser who performed miracles and came back from the dead - tell me again about the definition of paranormal.

dB
 
I know I turn off the show immediately whenever ill-informed, one-sided political commentary is offered.

If you're talking about my left-wing leaning and rants, man, you should hear me when Gene & I talk off air. Your head would explode. Perhaps I'll have to cave in and do the political podcast I'm thinking about, though I suspect I would end up like that Eric Bogosian character in "Talk Radio".
 
hopeful skeptic said:
Ufology's greatest single mistake was in allowing itself to be lumped in with the "paranormal." (I really dislike that term.) No self-respecting ufologist should be seen at a Paranormal Expo. The sure-fire way to guarantee that no one in the scientific community will examine anything you have to say is to rent out a booth next to a psychic, a channeler, a ghost photographer, a cosmic prayer warrior and Sean David Morton.

Hmm.. "single greatest mistake". I would have to disagree. I think the single greatest mistake has been the embrace of a theory (the ETH) as a fact by the majority of American ufologists, whether they'll admit it or not (Stan will, and I respect him for that, even as I disagree with him; others are a bit more circumspect, but they believe the same thing). Blame Keyhoe.

Having said that, I agree that showing up at a Paranormal Expo and sharing time with the likes of SDM is pretty bad. But then I think sharing a stage with the likes of Steven Greer is just as bad, maybe worse.

Paul
 
Wow, I'm surprised at you Hopeful Skeptic. I try to keep my self centralized in all things, politics, philosophy, whatever. To that end, I'll go out of my way to listen to/watch/read things my gut tells me is nonsense just so I can better guage where exactly center IS (within certain personal limits, mind you).

The fact of the matter is I don't really agree with pretty much ANYTHING Mr. Greenfield said (with a couple of minor exceptions based on my own assumptions) but at least now I know where he stands and have a better understanding of that end of the spectrum.

Regarding point of contention over "solid" evidence... there isn't ANY, for ANY hypothesis, period. There is however plenty of circumstantial evidence in the form of witness reports, abduction accounts and alleged NASA photos that do prop up the ETH as the most likely explanation. I'll say that again; MOST LIKELY. Not definite, not absolute, certainly by no means conclusive. But for now, it's the best we have.
 
"The Truth? You can't handle the truth."

"The Truth Is Out There".

It is best to believe everything. All at once.

I've had "interesting" things happen while following a shamanistic turn in the road. I don't relate them because even I don't find them believable.

BUT (I like big BUTS), since we have launched many probes, and landed a few, it is quite obvious; visitors do drop in from other planets.

That the artificial intelligences installed on some life seeking probe would perform specific tasks, and not engage in sparkling pre-anal-probe conversation is a bit shabby, but face it, martians probably wouldn't understand our babbling anyway; get with the KY jelly.

We are the aliens anywhere but here on earth.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"-POGO

Hell RoX
Sh9l0m
 
David Biedny said:
Paul,

SDM is worse than Greer, and you can quote me on that.

dB

David:

You and I definitely disagree on this one then. To me, SDM is just another quack psychic, of which there are many. Greer was and is a special case, and he single-handedly torpedoed any prospect of congressional hearings on the UFO phenomenon, at any level.

Paul
 
Wow, I'm surprised at you Hopeful Skeptic. I try to keep my self centralized in all things, politics, philosophy, whatever. To that end, I'll go out of my way to listen to/watch/read things my gut tells me is nonsense just so I can better guage where exactly center IS (within certain personal limits, mind you).

The political commentary on The Paracast is in no way centrist, and that's fine. I'm not asking that you be centrist. I'm always in hopes that the UFO topic can be discussed in a non-political way, but ufology generally seems unable to do that.

Like I wrote before, whenever I hear one-sided political commentary, I switch off the episode and wait until the next week, or download an older episode and hope for the best. I don't begrudge anyone their opinions.

Regarding point of contention over "solid" evidence... there isn't ANY, for ANY hypothesis, period. There is however plenty of circumstantial evidence in the form of witness reports, abduction accounts and alleged NASA photos that do prop up the ETH as the most likely explanation. I'll say that again; MOST LIKELY. Not definite, not absolute, certainly by no means conclusive. But for now, it's the best we have.

Well, witness and abduction reports are meaningless without corroborating evidence. So those are out, unless someone has something testable to go along with it. We can sit around the campfire and exchange sighting reports all we want, but they are evidentially meaningless.

What scant evidence we do have seems to point toward UFOs being physical objects, controlled directly or indirectly by some kind of intelligence. I don't think hypotheses depending on thought photography, ceremonial magic and the Devil get us anywhere. That said, a weekly show devoted to only those theorists who believe a certain way would be boring.

I was asked why I didn't particularly care for that particular episode, and I explained why. I have no axe to grind against The Paracast. I've enjoyed many of the other episodes.
 
The mission of The Paracast is to seek understanding of ALL paranormal phenomenon, NOT just UFOs. While UFOs are indeed our most covered topic, a glance at our guest list will confirm that we are interested in ALL unexplained events that affect us and our understanding of the nature of the universe.

As my original post stated, I understand The Paracast covers other "paranormal" claims. I also stated that I have no interest in those claims. I see no evidence for, nor purpose in, discussing ghosts, ESP, psychics, remote viewing and the like. My interest is in ufology, so I tend to gravitate toward those shows.

(I confess to listening to the Morton episode, fingers crossed, waiting for the confrontation and lynching. I'm still waiting. I thoroughly enjoyed the second episode with He Who Shall Not Be Named.)

There is absolutely NO solid evidence to support the idea of UFOs coming from other star systems...if you're gonna go on Serpo, well, that particular fairy tale doesn't hold much water. Asking for evidence with regards to ANY aspect of discussion of UFOs is a hard nut, no one, NO ONE has any significant, tangible, verified evidence of any sort. If I'm wrong, please feel free to point out where we can find this type of evidence for ANY explanation of UFOs.

Serpo? Where did I defend Serpo? Or Roswell, for that matter?

We know that many UFOs have been hard-targeted by radar installations, and that interceptors have sometimes been scrambled in an attempt to investigate those targets. We know that the military issued a "shoot-down" order regarding UFOs that elected not to land when instructed to do so. We know that some UFOs have left some puzzling physical traces of their passing, and that aerial encounters with UFOs have sometimes resulted in missing aircraft. We know of at least one encounter with a physical, objective UFO on an important military base, and have documentation of that encounter.

These indicators, among several others, lead me to conclude that UFOs have physical, objective properties and are worthy of further study. I am not yet persuaded that they are from other star systems. I am persuaded that theories based solely on personal experiences, myth, psychic projection and unproven physics should be left on the table until a single scrap of objective evidence can be presented in their favor.

Some things are more likely than others.

I both like and respect Stanton Friedman, and I think he has done good work on the field, but I also feel that he has a vested interested in a particular explanation for the sourcing of UFOs, and we on The Paracast have no such vested interests. The investigation of UFOs in general seems to be in a bit of stagnation, with the same ideas and theories hauled out over and over. What's wrong with expanding the discussion? We might glean some new insights.

When I listen to the UFO episodes of the show, I can count on you forwarding (rather strongly) the "inter-dimensional" hypothesis. Other than witness testimony, which doesn't mean anything, I see nothing to commend this idea. I respectfully suggest that you do lean decidedly toward that explanation. That's your privilege, and you can explore it all you like. It's your show. I'd like to see evidence for it, though. Without evidence, we're spinning our wheels, and not getting anywhere.

That could be said for ufology as a whole, though. I stand by my earlier comment that the field seems to be stuck in "compiling" mode.

On the other hand, can I prove that it's impossible?

I hate this argument. I can't prove that somewhere in the world there doesn't dwell a giraffe whose coat is colored in a plaid pattern. It could exist. However, long experience has shown that giraffes, unless albino or dipped in artificial color, have a predictable pattern.

I can't prove that somewhere in the world there doesn't live a peasant who can perform amazing feats of thought photography. I can demonstrate that countless claimants of that ability have failed to demonstrate it under controlled, testable conditions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Some things are more likely than others. We have to have some kind of filter on our logic that weeds out nonsense and allows us to proceed toward better understanding.

As far as booking guests for the show, Gene & I do this as a labor of love, we don't have a dedicated crew tracking people down, prequalifying them and slotting them in. We're trying to do a weekly program, and it's sometimes difficult to line people up. I've sent out more than a few invites to folks I think would make great guests, as does Gene, and I can tell you that lots of them never respond, some make excuses for why they can't - or won't - come on, others go back and forth with us, trying to gauge how we'll treat them if they actually agree to be interviewed. I'm currently talking to someone who is an expert in a topic I find fascinating and which we haven't yet covered, and he's trying to lay down all sorts of conditions and verboten topics; chances are that we'll have to turn him down ultimately; giving in to his concerns and censoring ourselves would be a significant compromise of our integrity. How often does this happen on other shows?

Mr. Biedny, I addressed this in my original post. I fully understand the travails of trying to run a radio show. I appreciate the show, and understand why you sometimes have to entertain the "out there" crowd.

Mr. Steinberg asked me for specific reasons why I didn't enjoy this particular episode. I gave them. I'm not belittling The Paracast. I'm stating my preference for the episodes that don't lend nonsensical claims the same weight as more sensible ones.

hopeful skeptic, you mention that no "self-respecting UFOlogist" should attend a paranormal conference. Where would you suggest they go? The "International UFO Congress" event features luminaries such as Sean David Moron, Michael Salla, and our Meierite Psycho Jerkâ„¢ HornDog, so should a serious UFOlogist go there and speak after the audience hears about the wonders of Billy One Arm Bandit?

My hope is that the internet age will reduce the necessity of holding these silly conventions in the first place. My grandmother used to tell me: "Sleep with a pig, and you'll get dirty." A serious ufologist who shows up at a paranormal conference where ghosts, ESP, psychics, thought photographers, the Rael cult, He Who Shall Not Be Named, et al, are in attendance has to understand that his work will be meshed in with the company he keeps.

I think it's incumbent upon ufologists who value the integrity of their work to present their findings in the best light possible. Of course, some ufologists do their work as a full-time gig, and go where the money is. There is money in ufology. But there's a price to be paid for that.

I suggest that these conventions are more about money-making and socializing than about presenting new, meaningful research. I like Stanton Friedman, too, but I've heard his presentations before, and it's pretty much the same recycled material. So why is he there? He's probably there because someone paid him to appear, and that's fine, but he has to understand that the company he keeps at these silly shows taints his work and hampers his push for a serious investigation of UFOs.

I will remind you that we live in a society that picks it's leaders based on their belief in a nontangible, fear-mongering God, and at this point, if a politician wants a serious chance to play in the mainstream political arena, they have to stand in front of an audience and proclaim their love and devotion to a dead Jewish carpenter rabblerouser who performed miracles and came back from the dead - tell me again about the definition of paranormal.

As a skeptic, and someone who tries to be a critical thinker, I can't and won't defend religion. I'd love to say something about the last half of the last sentence, but it's off-topic and won't get us anywhere.

I enjoy the show, just not this particular episode. I'm eager to hear what Peter Davenport has to say next week, and I'll be sure to listen.
 
hopeful skeptic said:
The realities of presenting a weekly show with fresh material probably dictate appearances by folks like Greenfield or Ritzman (Ritzmann?), but I can't deny being more than a bit frustrated and disappointed when it occurs.

Well I hate to frustrate anyone, but your ultimate answer here may be that there's no hard evidence that fits within the parameters of "proof" as we know it. It seems you appear to find the "nuts and bolts" stuff more interesting, but there's no nuts and bolts to examine. Thats fact, and since the UFO phenomenon came to public light so many years ago and we still have nothing, that in itself ought to tell interested parties something. You can document all the nuts and bolt ya want, when there's no nuts and bolts to look at it's as meaningless as any testimony you apply the same worthlessness to.

I for one think it's high time to look in different directions that might lead us to something...what I dont know, but something a little more productive then making excuses as to why we dont have "proof" by now, if this is a physical reality. As I told David the other day, I personally see the UFO phenomenon being a symptom of something much larger. Larger then what? I dunno. Certainly more far reaching or deeper then little green men.
 
Back
Top