• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Chris Rutkowski and the Canadian UFO Report April 6, 2014

Sentry

Paranormal Adept
Chris Rutkowski made for a great guest, and I'm glad you had him back. So many UFO and paranormal types are just a bit too far around the bend for me, but he seems grounded and yet maintains both a sense of wonder and humor- a rare character. Plus, he's doing some very important work, the Canadian UFO report is a unique effort that provides for some meaty and meaningful statistical data, actual science.

I was especially interested in the discussion of Hangar 1 in the intro and enjoyed hearing Chris' thoughts on it, too. I agree with his views on UFO television shows, that they can raise public awareness, but dang, they could be more accurate while they entertain!

Another highlight was the discussion of Paul Hellyer, which provided a lot of background I was unaware of. All I knew was that Hellyer bases his beliefs on the claims of Col. Phillip Corso, along with some other highly suspect stuff like the tall white lore of Charles Hall. I didn't realize the big cases that happened while he was in office. I agree with Chris O that if Hellyer managed to forget all the high profile UFO stuff from his term, then something smells.

Thanks for asking my questions, I enjoyed hearing his update on the Dream Team, and it was good to have an unbiased evaluation of where the Roswell case stands (still). I've corresponded with Chris a bit, and I really like his outlook. Its incredible to me that he's been able to stay at things so long and remain realistic and positive.

Oh, here's that "Hangar 1" spoof that Chris mentioned:
 

flipper

Paranormal Adept
Thank you Gene and Chris O. This was a great show. You manged to cover all areas of the UFO phenomena. Chris Rutkowski was a great guest clear thinking, sticking with the facts and it was very easy to follow his thinking. Thanks again
 

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
Good episode. Chris (both of them really) is quite sane. I found his remarks about Hellyer to be quite informative.

Regarding Hangar 1, I've noticed that Richard Dolan is heavily involved with it. He must not realize that it threatens his credibility.
 

DaveM

Paranormal Adept
Good episode. Chris (both of them really) is quite sane. I found his remarks about Hellyer to be quite informative.

Regarding Hangar 1, I've noticed that Richard Dolan is heavily involved with it. He must not realize that it threatens his credibility.
Great Hanger 1 spoof. It makes Dolan look like a doofus. It would seem that he cares more about making money than his own credibility these days. How the mighty have fallen.
 

Sentry

Paranormal Adept
There's gold in them thar charts! I asked Chris Rutkowski some pesky questions about the data collected, fishing for how many of them represented reports of structured craft (as opposed to just lights in the sky). He directed me to the classification of "DD" for Hynek's designation of daylight disk, and also the reports grouped by specific shapes.

Also of key interest to folks here will be the "Strangeness Rating," which should weed out most of the dull misidentified aircraft that dominates UFO studies.
 

blowfish

Whittingham
Enjoyed the show lads and the issue of water does seem to have a attraction to some of these UFO sightings.
 

MAJ

Paranormal Novice
I disagree with the knock against the Hangar 1 show. I think the UFO community of avid enthusiasts/researchers is uniquely immersed in the subject, way deeper than the average demographic who this show is geared towards. We're simply not the target for the show. And it wouldn't be the first time that the entertainment industry embellishes for theatrics (does MUFON really have a hangar with boxes of paper files)? No. But one has to look past that, because in my opinion they are reporting a lot more variety of subject matter that the typical viewer may not be aware of. The back engineering of alien tech with excerpts from Corso's book. The story of Garry McKinnon. Underground facilities/bases. To me it's refreshing to watch a show projecting more than just the latest photo or video. ...my 2 cents.
 

DaveM

Paranormal Adept
What is sad is that MUFON is finally opening up its files! This group has been around for 45 years, what were they holding back all this time? These type shows aren't made to inform the public. They are made for getting ratings and making some money on the side. Let's not kid ourselves.
 

MAJ

Paranormal Novice
What is sad is that MUFON is finally opening up its files! This group has been around for 45 years, what were they holding back all this time? These type shows aren't made to inform the public. They are made for getting ratings and making some money on the side. Let's not kid ourselves.

In my opinion, most of the show content that I've seen thus far was not new to the UFO community.

Regarding their "opening up the files": I used to be a member of MUFON back in the 90's when you used to receive their printed journals, and that was their vehicle for releasing their cases. Not sure what membership is like now with them but I never saw them as holding back cases. Maybe you are aware of examples I'm not recalling.

You're right, TV productions are not a legitimate source for truth. A tangent subject that interests me is the UFO subject as a brand, and how it is being delivered to the general public (by design or accident). Traditionally it's made a mockery of confused irrational people and a assortment of grainy images. It certainly has changed. As a casual observer I see a push toward delivering a better brand image. Much less scoffing. More serious. More scientific. More believable.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
An important brand image builder is presenting factual content, without exaggeration, dramatic license, faked documents, and so on and so forth. Hangar 1 files, and MUFON, in attaching the group's name to that show, must share in the image that's created.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
I agreed with so many things Chris had to say that it's easier to mention the few things I didn't think were as insightful. One of the most obvious is at 2:20:00 when he says, "I'll give you an example of the iPhone, you know 20 years ago that was completely ridiculous an preposterous to think that you could have a device like that." What about the Star Trek Communicator? That was a concept dreamed up back in the 1960s, which is ironic considering that he goes on to mention how sci-fi helped to shape modern technology.

Similarly, the idea that iPhones in the hands of Leonardo DaVinci would be like alien technology in our hands today, isn't as reasonable an analogy as it sounds. It's essentially based on the idea that the universe doesn't have any limitations as to what can be done within it, and therefore aliens 10,000 years in advance of us could have technology that is similarly that much farther ahead. However the evidence doesn't appear to support that idea. We now know that the elements that make up matter and the rules that govern how it behaves are common throughout the universe, and in-turn that means there are limitations to what can and can't be done. Therefore, assuming some race 10,000 years in advance of us can come up with something that exceeds those limitations is faulty logic.

To clinch it, because of the above, the aliens ( regardless of where they come from ) don't have any more possibilities to mix and match the elements than we do, and because the tools of today's science can now see the structure of any material all the way down to individual atoms and map their precise arrangement, it's simply not possible for aliens to create something that we can't identify and figure out how to duplicate. All we need to do is get our hands on a sufficient number of working models.
 

S.R.L.

Paranormal Adept
I judged and meet everyone face to face if I have to.You ARE NOT
my Ufo Authority.
I’m no UFO authority, whatever gave you that idea? I have not made one written comment about the new MUFON. What has been presented here is simply a link to the new MUFON, for whatever its worth. I thought that was clear.
 

Jimi H.

Paranormal Adept
Chris Rutkowski made for a great guest, and I'm glad you had him back. So many UFO and paranormal types are just a bit too far around the bend for me, but he seems grounded and yet maintains both a sense of wonder and humor..
Yea, I really enjoyed it too, it's so nice to hear a show about UFOs where you're not constantly battling the guest in your mind, while listening to it.
 

Jimi H.

Paranormal Adept
.. in my opinion they are reporting a lot more variety of subject matter that the typical viewer may not be aware of.
If they want to enlighten people and make them aware, they should reveal facts and present credible people only.

..
The back engineering of alien tech with excerpts from Corso's book. The story of Garry McKinnon. Underground facilities/bases. ...
Yea, well, these are not facts nor credible reports from credible people. Quite the opposite imo. So, it does more damage than good.

Entertainment is not enlightenment. But enlightenment can be presented in an entertaining way. Even better, it can be presented in an interesting way, namely by being serious about it, in fact, that's the only requirement.

Is a loss of credibility worth it, just to entertain some people for a little bit? Not in my opinion. The entertain-or-die mentality is really quite perverted, from both a journalistic and educational viewpoint. And it's very short-sighted.

..
As a casual observer I see a push toward delivering a better brand image. Much less scoffing. More serious. More scientific. More believable.
Ok, yea, something like that.
 
Last edited:

MAJ

Paranormal Novice
If they want to enlighten people and make them aware, they should reveal facts and present credible people only.
Oh really? I think this means more to you than the general public who doesn't know ANTYHING about who a reputable researcher is. Seriously, the ones delivering the facts to these cases aren't going to be held to any scrutiny. They're just delivering the info.

Yea, well, these are not facts nor credible reports from credible people. Quite the opposite imo. So, it does more damage than good.
All of it? Well, that's a blanket statement, isn't it? Perhaps you can 'clear the air' to all of us about exactly who is 'credible', and what you consider a 'credible' case? For instance, when you cast your net with that statement did you include Corso and his book too? Nobody I know disputes the veracity of his military record, nor his testimony, and the credibility of his info about Roswell, back-engineered tech and such. Does Area 51 and S4 NOT exist?

Bottom line. There's plenty of good in the show Hangar 1
 


Top