August 27, 2017 — Don Ecker with J. Randall Murphy

[marduk]

I'm going to go easier on this comment because essentially it's a fair observation. However like Gene was saying, we need to reiterate this stuff from time to time because nobody else with the reach that The Paracast has bothers to do it, and Don does a pretty good job of telling the stories and has been instrumental in helping to bring these issues to light.

That being said, if I'm invited back again, I hope to be able to focus more on the progressive and positive side of ufology. I really don't like trashing the field all the time, and was somewhat uncomfortable being backed into a corner where I felt that because I'd gone and opened my big mouth, I had to participate in dishing out some of the dirt , so I hope that my comments were taken in the spirit they were intended.

Is there something you'd like to see the show focus on in the future that would help make a more positive impression on you? If so I'll try to work it in in the future ( if I get the opportunity ). Thanks for listening!

That post is so Canadian it hurts! It's just missing an apology.

Where would you focus, man?

Some thoughts of mine:

• I'd love to hear an update on Chris' project, as well as any findings, if any. Also any "what to do/what not to do" tips for future data gatherers.
• I'd love to hear Bigelow on the air and have Chris go after him (in a collaborative but pointed way). Of course there's little possibility of that happening, I guess?
• How about a show on how to actually investigate UFOs or paranormal events? Some of us have this stuff happen to us sometimes - hell in my house right now we're having weird stuff go on with light switches turning themselves on. How should one go about investigating these kind of small-scale events? How does one use the scientific method? Gather and provide objective evidence?

That kind of stuff might be fun.

 

[Randall]

That post is so Canadian it hurts! It's just missing an apology.

Where would you focus, man?

Some thoughts of mine:

• I'd love to hear an update on Chris' project, as well as any findings, if any. Also any "what to do/what not to do" tips for future data gatherers.
• I'd love to hear Bigelow on the air and have Chris go after him (in a collaborative but pointed way). Of course there's little possibility of that happening, I guess?
• How about a show on how to actually investigate UFOs or paranormal events? Some of us have this stuff happen to us sometimes - hell in my house right now we're having weird stuff go on with light switches turning themselves on. How should one go about investigating these kind of small-scale events? How does one use the scientific method? Gather and provide objective evidence?

That kind of stuff might be fun.

Some excellent suggestions. I had wanted to get into some of that too. It's a time and opportunity thing.

Light switches turning themselves on? What kind of switches? I have a couple of touch lamps that act weird sometimes.

BTW I've tried on several occasions to get people interested in doing a more focused series of podcasts, but there's always been some complication in other people's situations that gets in the way. I'll probably try again next time I see an opportunity, but I have other priorities right now, like trying to find some sort of income. So if it's not other people's situations, it's my own. But it is on the back-burner and it's just a matter of time before I get the right people.

 

[marduk]

Some excellent suggestions. I had wanted to get into some of that too. It's a time and opportunity thing.

Light switches turning themselves on? What kind of switches? I have a couple of touch lamps that act weird sometimes.

They're old school physical switches which is what makes it really weird. I haven't ruled out mundane explanations - I have kids and pets in the house, but will be diverting one of my Nest cams over that way.

Whenever I do that, stuff quietens down or goes elsewhere, though.

 

[Randall]

They're old school physical switches which is what makes it really weird. I haven't ruled out mundane explanations - I have kids and pets in the house, but will be diverting one of my Nest cams over that way.

Whenever I do that, stuff quietens down or goes elsewhere, though.

Interesting. I would suggest keeping the surveillance unannounced so that any potential pranksters aren't aware of it. I've heard some rather bizarre stories where when a home is left alone, people often known to the resident with keys come in and muck around, and only after hooking up cameras do they get caught. Most often it's the landlord. On one show I saw a guys neighbor came in every couple of weeks or so to get little things like toilet paper and small food items. Nothing that would attract much attention, but just enough to make the guy curious.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

If a couple of credible and independent witnesses had seen the same event from another vantage point, then that would be far better corroboration. Other sightings around the area may or may not have anything to do with Walton's experience, so without more evidence about them, it doesn't seem wise to me that we should jump to the conclusion that the other sightings are directly connected.

Maybe a refreshing review of the case and see if any correlation prior to the event or other incidents in the same area? Also any de-classified records from the military or police force?

 

[Randall]

Maybe a refreshing review of the case and see if any correlation prior to the event or other incidents in the same area? Also any de-classified records from the military or police force?

Good suggestion. Chris did say on the ATP that he looked for some cases around that time in the area and found some, which in his view added some weight to Walton's story. But without further details I can't say how much bearing they have on the Walton case. IMO only multiple witness sightings from independent sources about the same event add significant weight.

Pierce said on the taped interview that it was deer hunting season and he seemed to have some knowledge about hunters using bright lights as part of their strategy ( see Spotlighting ) and said that he thought the light resembled that sort of setup. So perhaps those lights weren't just the source of the Walton incident but others as well. I also find it very possible that not all witnesses in the truck got a good view of the scene and that they filled in the gaps by going along with what the others reported in order to get their share of the cash from the National Enquirer.

After all, the whole scene only lasted a number of seconds and if you've ever ridden in a crew cab full of guys you know that not everybody gets a panoramic view. It's just not reasonable to think that they all got as good a look as would be required to fully corroborate each other's story.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Mind you the light situation from rifle scope rather a grasp at straws and I did roo shooting 4wds and using their high beam. Mr. Walton would tell the difference, Also great director Mr. Tracy Torme like his (Star Trek stuff ) more to this regarding the amount of light in a darker environment such as a deep forest. Also Don mention the "blood issue" sounds very disturbing which did the same blood issue happen at Bentwaters Case?

 

[Randall]

Mind you the light situation from rifle scope rather a grasp at straws and I did roo shooting 4wds and using their high beam. Mr. Walton would tell the difference, Also great director Mr. Tracy Torme like his (Star Trek stuff ) more to this regarding the amount of light in a darker environment such as a deep forest. Also Don mention the "blood issue" sounds very disturbing which did the same blood issue happen at Bentwaters Case?

Don did mention something about a blood test. I don't know that source, but the stuff I dug up seemed contradictory to that:

"More telling, though, were the results of the urine analysis performed on a sample from Walton. It showed no trace of drugs, but also no trace of acetone. After going without food for more than a couple of days, the body begins to break down its own fat. The waste product of this is acetone, and it is excreted in the urine. If Walton had been without food for several days, his urine should have shown some traces of acetone. Also, Walton later claimed to have lost ten pounds during his missing five days." ( Source )
​

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Don did mention something about a blood test. I don't know that source, but the stuff I dug up seemed contradictory to that:

"More telling, though, were the results of the urine analysis performed on a sample from Walton. It showed no trace of drugs, but also no trace of acetone. After going without food for more than a couple of days, the body begins to break down its own fat. The waste product of this is acetone, and it is excreted in the urine. If Walton had been without food for several days, his urine should have shown some traces of acetone. Also, Walton later claimed to have lost ten pounds during his missing five days." ( Source )
​

Yes, that was interesting journalist report on the events that took place and the first thing which struck me was the checks everyone is holding. Also, need to hear background information of the events which lead up to Mr. Waltons and his fellow work mates interview with the journalists. Still, think it's good to hear from film producer Mr. Tracy Torme retell his research and about the production of the Movie/TV Series with Mr. Travis Walton.

 

[Spectre73]

Ecker likes to tell the same stories each appearance.

I could listen to Mr Don Ecker all day long. Great show. Randall and Don moved the show along nicely and bounced ideas off one another with no sign of ego getting in the way - this is why I listen to the Paracast

 

[technomage]

Excellent show! The discussion between Don Ecker and the Usual Suspect was both interesting and entertaining.

 

[Linton]

Great show as always guys. Loved the clarification of the difference between the concepts of multiple universes and multiple dimensions. It was a great thing to bring up. It creates a bit of a problem for me though that makes me think that neither is the origin of the phenomena, or, at least, not the origin of the actual beings that get reported. I feel that a being existing in a higher dimension would not be able to fully manifest in this dimension, and what we would see would probably just be perplexing to the point of being indescribable (which might actually apply to many "craft" sightings). While a being, however sophisticated – and most beings reported actually seem surprisingly mundane – from another universe would be highly unlikely to have stumbled upon, or even successfully sought out little ol' planet Earth in the little ol' milkyway galaxy somewhere in this universe. It's all just too vast. I think the answer lies much closer to home.

 

[Decker]

I have always felt that regardless of the point of origin ( ET from another star system, a being from another dimension, a being from another universe) that if "they" come here no matter how or from where, they are by definition "alien", period. Now, if Walter Bosley's theory holds water about a "break-away" civilization ... they would be human and not by definition alien. Or, perhaps we are all full of ... shit ... well anyway, jus' saying ... Hmm, I think I will now go do my show tonight. Dr. John Brandenburg is on ...

Decker

 

[technomage]

I have always felt that regardless of the point of origin ( ET from another star system, a being from another dimension, a being from another universe) that if "they" come here no matter how or from where, they are by definition "alien", period. Now, if Walter Bosley's theory holds water about a "break-away" civilization ... they would be human and not by definition alien. Or, perhaps we are all full of ... shit ... well anyway, jus' saying ... Hmm, I think I will now go do my show tonight. Dr. John Brandenburg is on ...

Decker

Don, where I can download your interview with @Walter Bosley? I looked at DQRM.com but couldn't find it. Thanks.

 

[Randall]

I have always felt that regardless of the point of origin ( ET from another star system, a being from another dimension, a being from another universe) that if "they" come here no matter how or from where, they are by definition "alien", period. Now, if Walter Bosley's theory holds water about a "break-away" civilization ... they would be human and not by definition alien. Or, perhaps we are all full of ... shit ... well anyway, jus' saying ... Hmm, I think I will now go do my show tonight. Dr. John Brandenburg is on ...

Decker

Being alien is a concept that boils down to something originating from outside the environment in which it is found. So it is possible for humans to be alien as well. As I'm sure you remember, not long ago the term "illegal alien" was commonly used to identify humans residing in a country not of their origin without proper authorization. In the context of ufology however, whoever or whatever they are don't just come from another recognized nation, but from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our known civilization, and that would include secret projects.

Where it gets murky is with guys like Bosley. Does a sort of parallel infrastructure operated in secret and partly within the geographical boundaries of our own civilization actually qualify as a "breakaway civilization" or alien? It's an interesting problem to ponder. It could conceivably fall into either category depending on the details.

 

[marduk]

Being alien is a concept that boils down to something originating from outside the environment in which it is found. So it is possible for humans to be alien as well. As I'm sure you remember, not long ago the term "illegal alien" was commonly used to identify humans residing in a country not of their origin without proper authorization. In the context of ufology however, whoever or whatever they are don't just come from another recognized nation, but from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our known civilization, and that would include secret projects.

Where it gets murky is with guys like Bosley. Does a sort of parallel infrastructure operated in secret and partly within the geographical boundaries of our own civilization actually qualify as a "breakaway civilization" or alien? It's an interesting problem to ponder. It could conceivably fall into either category depending on the details.

Why is it interesting?

 

[Randall]

Great show as always guys. Loved the clarification of the difference between the concepts of multiple universes and multiple dimensions. It was a great thing to bring up. It creates a bit of a problem for me though that makes me think that neither is the origin of the phenomena, or, at least, not the origin of the actual beings that get reported. I feel that a being existing in a higher dimension would not be able to fully manifest in this dimension, and what we would see would probably just be perplexing to the point of being indescribable (which might actually apply to many "craft" sightings). While a being, however sophisticated – and most beings reported actually seem surprisingly mundane – from another universe would be highly unlikely to have stumbled upon, or even successfully sought out little ol' planet Earth in the little ol' milkyway galaxy somewhere in this universe. It's all just too vast. I think the answer lies much closer to home.

Thanks for the comment and glad you enjoyed the show. I responded in part in my post to Don ( above ). However your comment deserves a little more attention in that the points you make about dimensions and distances is certainly fair, but from my perspective might benefit from some clarification on my part that we didn't have time for in the show. For that matter I'm not even sure I have the time here. I've tried to enlist the help of some volunteer illustrators to help explain the concepts, but so far no luck. As I tried to explain on the show, the key is to differentiate between spatial dimensions and universes.

Note that time is not a spatial dimension. It is simply referred to as a "dimension" in general terms for the sake referencing the idea of spacetime. Time is another concept altogether. With spatial dimensions there exists a hierarchal dependency. A higher dimension cannot exist without there first being a lower one in place. The final result is that any hypothetical 4th or 5th spatial dimension would still require the first 3 we're familiar with to be in place in order to exist, so any 5D skyscraper would still have it's foundation firmly planted in the ground where we could all see it.

Further reflection leads to the conclusion that all dimensions therefore must exist simultaneously in any given universe, and consequently there can be no situation where something can come down into our 3D space from some hypothetical "higher dimension" because everything is already part of all available dimensions in the first place. Other universes are however another story. There's no reason another universe with all the properties this one has cannot exist, and no reason why things could not be exchanged between the two if some means were available to make that happen. For all we know, if there is another universe, it might be easier to get to than the nearest star if we only knew how.

 

[Randall]

Why is it interesting?

Interesting question ... .

 

[marduk]

Thanks for the comment and glad you enjoyed the show. I responded in part in my post to Don ( above ). However your comment deserves a little more attention in that the points you make about dimensions and distances is certainly fair, but from my perspective might benefit from some clarification on my part that we didn't have time for in the show. For that matter I'm not even sure I have the time here. I've tried to enlist the help of some volunteer illustrators to help explain the concepts, but so far no luck. As I tried to explain on the show, the key is to differentiate between spatial dimensions and universes.

Note that time is not a spatial dimension. It is simply referred to as a "dimension" in general terms for the sake referencing the idea of spacetime. Time is another concept altogether. With spatial dimensions there exists a hierarchal dependency. A higher dimension cannot exist without there first being a lower one in place. The final result is that any hypothetical 4th or 5th spatial dimension would still require the first 3 we're familiar with to be in place in order to exist, so any 5D skyscraper would still have it's foundation firmly planted in the ground where we could all see it.

Further reflection leads to the conclusion that all dimensions therefore must exist simultaneously in any given universe, and consequently there can be no situation where something can come down into our 3D space from some hypothetical "higher dimension" because everything is already part of all available dimensions in the first place. Other universes are however another story. There's no reason another universe with all the properties this one has cannot exist, and no reason why things could not be exchanged between the two if some means were available to make that happen. For all we know, if there is another universe, it might be easier to get to than the nearest star if we only knew how.

Hey, it's not just me that gets it!

I thought I was going to go mental about dimensions.

Look folks - the number of dimensions are the number of numbers you need to describe an objects position. That's it. If you need more numbers to define something, that doesn't mean it wouldn't still exist in our plain old for dimensional topology. It would, it would also just need more numbers to define it within more topologies.

Everything else is a mathematical abstraction.

 

[Linton]

Note that time is not a spatial dimension. It is simply referred to as a "dimension" in general terms for the sake referencing the idea of spacetime. Time is another concept altogether. With spatial dimensions there exists a hierarchal dependency. A higher dimension cannot exist without there first being a lower one in place. The final result is that any hypothetical 4th or 5th spatial dimension would still require the first 3 we're familiar with to be in place in order to exist, so any 5D skyscraper would still have it's foundation firmly planted in the ground where we could all see it.

Love the 5D skyscraper example. Great visual. I've heard arguments before regarding two seemingly separate three dimensional objects connected via larger dimensions, which would allow for the conveyance of information, at least, from one to the other instantaneously from a 3D perspective. Regardless, what you boiled down nicely is that anything of a higher dimension is going to consist of the first three dimensions as well (we may have higher dimension aspects of ourselves that we are unaware of), and therefore be subject to the rules of those three dimensions. Beyond that it's just a perspective issue and still makes it highly unlikely that any such beings have found us.

Now on the otherhand with multiple universes there is one way that I would accept the concept of visitors being able to happen upon us. If the universe we exist in were something of a "holographic" fractal there could be an uncountable number of similar and yet different iterations of our little location, and if one could just bounce from iteration to iteration there is a potentially infinite number of "Earths" to explore. The farther down the chain you go the greater the potential variations until you might reach a universe very different content-wise, but still following all of the same rules of physics. ( insert "Sliders" references here.)