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!
I don't buy it.
How much memory would be required to store human DNA?
I think it is important as I don't see how we can talk categorically about any of their actions when these actions come from witness experiences. Do we have a method to help define credibility of the story itself? We talk often about credibility of the witness but not about what they saw or experienced leaving ample room for abductee and contactee lore to become a supposedly credible subject of discussion in relation to the phenomenon. And before you know it they are sadistic sexual & medical torturers of the populace. Perhaps those stories have more to do with real life human to human experiences or past traumas of those witnesses.
no zing felt at all. We're all working on the same problem from different angles. I'm just interested in extracting some ideology out of the discussion, specifically the ETH one to see what remains when we look just at whatever might constitute data and see what can be assessed in these events.Hey ... you said "repressed hooligan", not me ... lol. But seriously, from one repressed hooligan to another, I didn't go quite as far as putting words in your mouth as much as I made a comparison that implies a similar attitude, and I only did that to illustrate a point, not to level any personal criticism. But I'll still apologize if you felt a bit of a zing just so you know we're still on the same side in the bigger picture ( or at least I'd like to think we are ).
And I think that's an admirable approach. What have you learned from this organization of the stories aside from the commonality of experiences? Does it tell you more about the phenomenon or does it tell you something about how humans relate to strange stimulus and how it gets integrated into their own personal vision of reality as they know it?
When you say "extract some ideology out of the discussion, specifically the ETH ..." you are saying that you are wanting to remove the ETH as a "belief system" as opposed to simply considering alternate possibilities. Is this what you intend? If so, I'm not sure what the point of the exercise is. Maybe you could help clear that up. In my mind there is a significant difference between tackling the issue from a belief system perspective and tackling it based on a more objective look at competing possibilities.
What organizing the subject in an encyclopedic manner does for me is help to find and compare cases and ideas in a more effective manner. That is useful when attempting to answer specific questions. So to help answer your question, I'd suggest getting a copy of the Condon Report. It's an exhaustive look at everything that the objects in UFO reports might be other than alien craft. On how the UFO experience is integrated into people's worldviews, I'd suggest Abduction, by John Mack, and look for articles like this one: UFO's, Close Encounters, and the Cry for Meaning
As soon as I hear that a blue flame and roaring engine was involved I associate the event to something manufactured here on Earth.
To me the Coyne case is solid as well as the case (I forget the gentleman's name) of the military plane flying from Iceland back to the US that had a close encounter. Just like the Coyne case, this object was close enough to see structure. I posted the interview with one of the pilots here before. I'd have to go look up again the guys name.
He'll have to check with Rudiak first to see what he thinks.Trajanus probably think's this little "Knight of the Roundtable" alien/robot visitor that Ed Walters drew & claimed knocked on his front door is real as well;
Being that I used to be an inflight photographer in the U.S. Navy, I can tell you that nothing would have appeared on any film taken at night time anyway. But if the military released the photo and it showed structure and/or showed an elliptical shaped craft with no wings or horizontal/vertical stabilizers - then no, I would not say the military was hoaxing the photo.Both witnesses were, ironically enough, lucky they didn't photograph it. Any resemblance to a known object would've sunk those cases, and totally undermined their credibility for you.
To say that it's a truck mirror is "absurd"....lol. Ok, because nobody has ever faked a UFO photo/video from regular, every day objects right? NEWSFLASH; there's a guy named Eduard "Billy" Meier in Switzerland who pulled the wool over EVERYBODY's eye. Even fancy UFO-type investigators (guys in the same category as your leader; RUDIAK). Wendelle Stevens and all kinds of other folk believed it. They even ran the pictures through "the computer" and "the computer tells us the same thing as Meier; that it's a flying disc about 30 ft in diameter a couple hundred feet from the camera."
I thought I'd elaborate a bit here, on the differences. Note that the thickness of the truck mirror tapers gradually from rear/center to edge. Whereas the McMinnville object doesn't; thickness remains the same until it abruptly tapers beginning about midway from center to edge. Also, the truck mirror has a noticeable thickening along its edge, intended to hold the actual mirror in place. No such effect is discernable in the McMinnville object.
These are obviously NOT the same objects. To assert the McMinnville object has been "proven" to be a truck mirror, based on the above, is absurd.
If a better match existed, if only a company blueprint, it would've been found by now. If, after SIXTY SIX YEARS, skeptics can't come up with anything better than this, that says a great deal...
Why?
An alien craft capable of interstellar travel would not be able to use our ancient technology as a propulsion system.
Yeah, that makes sense. Not. So if I hoaxed a UFO video and used an object that nobody could identify, than that means that it's a real flying saucer from another planet? LOLNo because unlike in other cases, the object used to "hoax" McMinnville was never identified. I pointed out obvious differences between the truck mirror and the McMinnville object, and noted a better match remains unknown, even though an extant example wouldn't be necessary, just an old company blueprint.
Then why, after SIXTY SIX years, hasn't the McMinnville object been exactly matched to ANY prosaic object?? They found a model UFO in Meier's possession. Nothing like that with Trent. You CAN'T say McMinnville is a hoax, based on what you presented.
Sure as you imply here, it HASN'T been really proven to be a hoax.