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.