01/21/07 show

[Brian Now]

Hi everyone,

I liked this interview/discussion in one way and not in another.

I liked that Greenfield is open to other ideas on the origins and nature of UFO's. I think it's a good idea to think of possibilities other than extraterrestrial origins (meaning visitors from another physical planet).

I didn't like the idea of talking about "thoughtography" as the reason for pictures of UFOs in Venezuela, basically dismissing David's assertion that these are pictures of physical, metallic objects in the sky. I really wonder if the guest can give good evidence of "thoughtography". I would be open to the possibility of it, but I doubt people just go around accidentally thinking objects onto film.

Brian Now

 

[CapnG]

Slight tangent: I know you don't have any personal interest in the ghost/spirit phenomena Skeptic but you should know that in terms of "proof" that particular area is light years (no pun intended) ahead of the UFO stuff, be it physical, audio or video. In fact if anything, I'd say that particular field is unfairly lumped into the catagory paranormal and is probably more accurately labelled by the term supernatural (in as much as it appears to be a part of nature beyond our current understanding).

Back on course, I never meant to imply the paracast was actively "centrist" in it's viewpoint, just me and only me.

Also I have to agree with Jeff. When no physical evidence exists (or is highly suspect) cries of "show me the proof!" ring hollow indeed.

 

[givinguptheghost]

I've got to agree with Skeptic and others here as well; although I am open and somewhat interested in other paranormal avenues, the reason I came here were the UFO's, and I really have to disagree with the notion that we've got NOTHING after years of study on this subject. We most certainly do have evidence; pictures, videos, trace evidence, even implants. Of course, many of these are false leads, but the same can be said about ghosts, about psychics, etc. To say we have gotten no where is rediculous. Its more that we do not have enough, and there is an entire world to convince; suprisingly, a world more apt to accept ghosts and angry gods without more than an old book and a myth to go on than other beings more like ourselves with a video and government official testimonies. But eh, ghosts and spirits have been here longer in the minds of men, so I guess it isn't that surprising. [and yes, despite my screenname, I do believe ghosts exist]

Thats my reasoning for disliking that one episode, but I still enjoy the paracast, ESPECIALLY because of the stated method that Gene and David speak about when looking into these subjects. Look for the truth, whether you like it or not, even if it isn't what you want to hear. I'm not religious, but that should be the damn 11th commandment. I'm still grateful that I get to listen at all, and I don't expect to change the paracast with a forum post.

In more than a couple episodes, it seems that again and again the conversation turns towards UFO's origin being terrestrial or interdimensional. Of course this could very well be, but I don't think there is NO evidence that they come from another planet. Just because we don't know why an alien race would want to study us, or even visit us, doesn't mean they don't have a reason for it and aren't doing it. The reason might just be eluding us.

little side question: anyone have any info on wether the nasa tether incident with all of the 'debris' in the background has been debunked, or is it still one of those unknowns? If it hasn't been debunked, I would think thats some evidence that they could be in outer space and could originate there. of course, they could be interdimensional as well, although i have to admit I really don't think they are a strange subspecies of asiatic humans that have amazing flight technology and live in secrecy, something that has been brought up by a guest But I don't have the authority to say I'm right, I don't know that I am. Just seems a wee bit farfetched.

nasa tether incident vid if you haven't yet seen it. The camera used could 'see' into higher light spectrums than the human eye, and the tether appears huge because of the field around it, its actually not that fat. I guess these 'debris' were invisible to the naked eye, some were even pulsing. In a comment I saw on some video similar to this one, the person brought up the question about how exactly could these 'UFO's be miles in size and still be invisible from earth? The idea that they 'exist' in a higher visible spectrum would account for that I think, but I don't think the person knew about the cameras ultraviolet viewing ability.---->

 

[Paul Kimball]

To say we have gotten no where is rediculous.

Or is it?

How much further ahead is the study of the UFO phenomenon now than it was when it started? Honestly?

Exopolitics has replaced Contactee-ism.

The ETH is still treated as a proven fact by many, especially in the United States, which diminishes the credibility of all researchers.

Science, the media, politicians - they still won't touch the subject with a ten foot poll (the odd exception proving the rule).

Almost ufologists are amateurs. A few are talented enough, but it's not a group that is ever going to "crack" the mystery, one way or another.

So, I'm curious - where exactly has ufology, or the study of the UFO phenomenon, "gotten" to that is different than it was when it started?

Indeed, considering that Congress held hearings on the subject in the late 1960s, but has not done so since, and considering the USAF once actively investigated UFOs, but has not done so in over 35 years, one might suggest that at best the study of the UFO phenomenon has stagnated, and at worst has actually gone backwards.

In that climate, perhaps what is needed is new thinking - new theories, new discussions, re-examinations of old cases, all in order to re-energize the interest of people who could actually (perhaps) make some progress.

Paul

 

[givinguptheghost]

In that climate, perhaps what is needed is new thinking - new theories, new discussions, re-examinations of old cases, all in order to re-energize the interest of people who could actually (perhaps) make some progress.

Paul

I agree very much with this statement.

but we have come further, even if its not much further.

 

[DVS]

I see some of the new theories such as the UFO's being inter-dimensional, from a parallel universe or only seen in different light spectrums, like RODS, as making the entire thing harder to prove. They all sound intersting, but arent such newer type of theories makig everything more confusing or moving the goalposts because nothing else was proven yet?

 

[allengreenfield]

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.

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 physics, but it is a methodology, and one of the criteria is the ability to verify by repeating the experiment.

Perhaps you are predisposed towards "nuts and bolts" but predisposition is something like faith and very little like science. I assert if you follow the procedure I suggest, the theory becomes practice, and is self-validating. I welcome notices of disconfirmation as much as those of confirmation.

Finally, Stan trained as a nuclear physicist thirty-odd years back, and went into applied physics, in specific nuclear rockets. This project - alas, like many NASA-based programs was cancelled, and he then went on the OTO lecture circuit. Nothing wrong with this, but his ideas are, at least, a bit dated.

 

[allengreenfield]

Hi everyone,

I liked this interview/discussion in one way and not in another.

I liked that Greenfield is open to other ideas on the origins and nature of UFO's. I think it's a good idea to think of possibilities other than extraterrestrial origins (meaning visitors from another physical planet).

I didn't like the idea of talking about "thoughtography" as the reason for pictures of UFOs in Venezuela, basically dismissing David's assertion that these are pictures of physical, metallic objects in the sky. I really wonder if the guest can give good evidence of "thoughtography". I would be open to the possibility of it, but I doubt people just go around accidentally thinking objects onto film.

Brian Now

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 sighting is less credible and defamatory of the photographer on little or no evidence.

 

[allengreenfield]

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.

 

[allengreenfield]

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.

 

[allengreenfield]

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.

 

[allengreenfield]

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.

 

[DVS]

A little off topic, but I think David Biedny's big 'sigh' at the mention of Serpo is hilarious!

 

[tommyball]

Or is it?

Indeed, considering that Congress held hearings on the subject in the late 1960s, but has not done so since, and considering the USAF once actively investigated UFOs, but has not done so in over 35 years, one might suggest that at best the study of the UFO phenomenon has stagnated, and at worst has actually gone backwards.

In that climate, perhaps what is needed is new thinking - new theories, new discussions, re-examinations of old cases, all in order to re-energize the interest of people who could actually (perhaps) make some progress.

Paul

Paul-

Excellent points.

I feel that this show, the hosts and certain guests in particular such as yourself and Jeff Ritzmann have given me personally a new way of looking at the UFO phenomenon, one that is more inquisitive, objective and even optimistic. Ufology has interested me since the early 80s (thanks for posting that ASIA video on your site! - definitely one of the best of the decade) when I was around 8 or so and I ordered a book on unsolved mysteries as part of the school book club. Since then it has been fairly stagnant as far as no progress made towards knowledge or public awareness aside from the sensationalism. Then last March I started listening to The Paracast (any anniversary plans?) and have been a fan ever since. This might be the start of the "new thinking" you're talking about.

-todd

PS_ I enjoyed listening to Mr. Greenfield. I didn't agree with most of it, but it was interesting nonetheless.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Sir!

This is a fallacy! I have seen a clean pig with my very own eyes!, on sleeping with the pig, i noticed no unseemly deposits on my body.

lol

Yes, grandma's proverb is something of a fallacy. I understand from a few farming friends that pigs are quite clean, relatively speaking.

Johnny Carson used to tell the best pig stories. He was fascinated with them. He grew up in Nebraska, and often praised the intelligence of pigs.

One of my buddies has a few head, and he told me that fencing pigs is the most difficult thing he's ever done. It's a constant battle, since pigs will search the perimeter for poorly-constructed or under-electrified spots, and will actually use "tools" like branches to short out the lines and escape.

Weird.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

....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....

Physical evidence does not mean only "nuts and bolts." Hard radar targeting is evidence of physical properties, and thus physical evidence. Physical trace cases are - by definition - physical, and while some are not persuasive, and some are the clear result of fraud (Linda Howe's Brazilian abductee case, for example), enough are interesting enough to warrant further examination.

It's maddening when researchers limit the definition of "physical evidence" to crashed saucer debris. I never referenced Roswell, Kecksburg or Aurora, and see no reason to do so.

, 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.

Debunkers would suggest it means a great deal, of course. I believe, though, that an honest, robust critical thinker can find enough interesting evidence in ufology to consider it deserving of attention.

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.

Well, if you'd actually read my post thoroughly before giving in to a knee-jerk reaction, you'd have seen that I never claimed there were nuts and bolts on the ground to be discovered.

I do stand by my assertion that reminiscences and stories, however earnest, are evidentially meaningless without some kind of corroborating physical evidence. I don't know if nocturnal visitations happen or not. I do know that I can't consider them as evidence of anything without some kind of measurable, testable corroboration.

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.

That's fine to look in other directions, and you're welcome to do so. Speculation is rife in ufology. But such speculation should not be confused with real investigation or research, and isn't getting anyone anywhere - particularly when it hinges on beliefs in supernatural silliness that have never - ever - been proven under any kind of peer-reviewed, controlled conditions.

The lack of progress in ufology is frustrating. But the willingness of UFO believers to substitue psychics, thought-photography, remote viewing and delusion for a simple acceptance of the limitations of our knowledge about UFOs is far worse.

As I told David the other day, I personally see the UFO phenomenon being a symptom of something much larger.

Ufology as religion. Ugh.

Certainly more far reaching or deeper then little green men.

This statement further indicates that you did not thoroughly read my post before responding. I clearly stated that I have no allegiance to the extra-terrestrial hypothesis. I have no idea where UFOs come from. I do believe that the preponderance of the hard data (what data there is) leads to the conclusion that UFOs are objects with physical, measurable properties.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

How much further ahead is the study of the UFO phenomenon now than it was when it started? Honestly?

I agree that progress has been very limited. Maybe non-existent.

Exopolitics has replaced Contactee-ism.

Agreed, but don't you find exopolitics and the contactee phenomenon to be byproducts of the religious pinings of many UFO believers? The world is in peril, we're killing our planet, mankind is unable to solve his own problems, we need help from an outside source, traditional religion has failed us, the ETs are genetically helping us to be better - blah, blah, blah.

I don't know if ufology would be further ahead without all the supernaturalistic claptrap, but it would be shed of some dead weight.

The ETH is still treated as a proven fact by many, especially in the United States, which diminishes the credibility of all researchers.

Agreed. Mr. Ritzmann's reply to one of my posts demonstrates how difficult it is for supernaturalists to differentiate an opponent's belief in the physical properties of UFOS from a belief in visiting Zeta-Reticulans. The two are not the same thing.

So, I'm curious - where exactly has ufology, or the study of the UFO phenomenon, "gotten" to that is different than it was when it started?

Indeed, considering that Congress held hearings on the subject in the late 1960s, but has not done so since, and considering the USAF once actively investigated UFOs, but has not done so in over 35 years, one might suggest that at best the study of the UFO phenomenon has stagnated, and at worst has actually gone backwards.

In that climate, perhaps what is needed is new thinking - new theories, new discussions, re-examinations of old cases, all in order to re-energize the interest of people who could actually (perhaps) make some progress.

We all desire to see ufology take steps forward. New thinking is one thing, but we ought not throw away good science and rigorous critical thinking in favor of nonsensical supernaturalism. A good part of science's unwillingness to examine UFO cases stems from the silly, ethereal mysticism some UFO enthusiasts heap on them. I can't blame any scientist or government official for not treating modern ufology seriously.

On balance, it seems that we do know some things about UFOs. In cases where there is corroborating physical evidence, UFOs seem to be measurable, physical objects. There seems to be something there. The origins of these UFOs? I have no idea, at present.

 

[jritzmann]

Mr. Ritzmann's reply to one of my posts demonstrates how difficult it is for supernaturalists to differentiate an opponent's belief in the physical properties of UFOS from a belief in visiting Zeta-Reticulans. The two are not the same thing.

What reply is that. I mean before I get labeled as a supernaturalist and all.

 

[allengreenfield]

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 )

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 the non-material nature of UFOs. I give reasons why this cipher might be in use even by very technologically advanced aliens (in a convention sense) might use a communication method as simple as this.

I think our military experiences from Viet Nam to Afghanistan suggests that - in asymetrical warfare (for example) digging tunnels and sharpening bamboo sticks trumps GPS and battle vests and Abrams tanks. In fact, the method used by Islamist groups to transfer funds around the world is ancient and manual and utterly confounds our 21st Century intelligence gathering methods. The cipher I write about is in the same category.

Perhaps on the show we spent a bit too much time on "thoughtography" and the like. My essential work in this is not paranormal, and would suffice as much with nuts-and-bolts UFOs as ETs as with more esoteric source notions. The fact that I'm inclined to credit the latter is not really on topic, but, as with any broafcast, I answer the questions I get, and possibly the work Gene and I were doing together thirty years ago influenced what I got asked about.

As we say in the South, y'all seem pretty nuts and boltsy to me......which is cool.

 

[allengreenfield]

To "Hopeful Skeptic" 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 with the little hammer.

" you'd have seen that I never claimed there were nuts and bolts on the ground to be discovered."

I was replying to several posts in that regard. I doubt if there are any such objects. If you do as well, we agree on that.

Are you a skeptic, or a contrarian? The latter is ok by me, I'm a big fan of Christopher Hidgens.

Ease up. Bad for the blood pressure.