• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

David, ENOUGH ALREADY!

Forums New posts
CapnG

CapnG

Devil's Advocate
I know shows like this are really pressed for time so after the past few episodes it occured to me that it would save alot of time if David would just stop saying "I have alot of respect for Stanton Friedman... BUT..." and then slagging him for the next ten minutes. He's old and ornery and set in his ways and that bothers you. Okay David, WE GET IT!

And not to call the kettle black but, you gotta admit you're pretty dead set on the EDH, David. You NEVER miss an opportunity to shoot down the ETH and put your pet theory up in it's place. Stanton's at least got documentation which he believe's corroborate his theory. He may still be wrong but at least it's SOMETHING. What do you have? A preference? Gut feelings? That's not exactly a rock solid basis for an argument.

I guess I'm just saying "stones and glass houses" is all...
 
I agree. I think the disagreement with Stanton Friedman's comments/reaction should be put out to pasture. You are right David has his own hypothesis and seems eager to press it upon every guest who has appeared on the show post Stanton while not readily agreeing with the ETH.
Sure he has every right to have an opinion and to express it freely on his show but he comes off sounding exactly like Stanton.

However i do see validity in the inter-dimensional theory and i do agree with David that more research should be done into it as a viable alternative to the ETH. I wonder, has David done any research into his theory that he can present on the show? I would love to hear more from him on it and guests with ideas and research on this subject.

It is a great show and Gene & David are great presenters with so much to offer this field.
 
CapnG said:
I know shows like this are really pressed for time so after the past few episodes it occured to me that it would save alot of time if David would just stop saying "I have alot of respect for Stanton Friedman... BUT..." and then slagging him for the next ten minutes. He's old and ornery and set in his ways and that bothers you. Okay David, WE GET IT!

And not to call the kettle black but, you gotta admit you're pretty dead set on the EDH, David. You NEVER miss an opportunity to shoot down the ETH and put your pet theory up in it's place. Stanton's at least got documentation which he believe's corroborate his theory. He may still be wrong but at least it's SOMETHING. What do you have? A preference? Gut feelings? That's not exactly a rock solid basis for an argument.

I guess I'm just saying "stones and glass houses" is all...
Click to expand...

Personally, I think you're a bit over the top on this one. I do not see David ragging on Stan for 10 minutes, and when he does have a criticism to offer, as he's done lately, it's been confined to a fraction of that time.

As to ETH: He's not so much shooting it down as pointing out there are other answers that deserve exploration too. At this point, we know precious little about UFOs other than that they have been here an awful long time and are not ours.

That leaves open lots and lots of possibilities, and being from another planet is indeed one of them, but not the only one or necessarily the most credible. That's why we explore other answers, but that doesn't mean the core ET theory is being "knocked down" at every opportunity.

The core question is that, after 60 years of modern UFO research, how far have we advanced, really?
 
CapnG said:
And not to call the kettle black but, you gotta admit you're pretty dead set on the EDH, David. You NEVER miss an opportunity to shoot down the ETH and put your pet theory up in it's place. Stanton's at least got documentation which he believe's corroborate his theory. He may still be wrong but at least it's SOMETHING. What do you have? A preference? Gut feelings? That's not exactly a rock solid basis for an argument.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's even possible to gather any positive evidence in favor of the EDH, since extra spatial dimensions are purely theoretical at this point. Manifold spaces are a mathematical technique used to describe or explain theories that may, or may not, actually exist in reality. M-theory is a long ways off from being confirmed, IF it is even accurate to begin with.

As David is fond of pointing out, even if higher beings did say they were from another plane of existence or whatever, why would we necessarily trust them at face value?

So I would imagine that the reason the EDH is favored by some is not so much for any positive evidence as I mentioned, but because of indirect negative evidence against the ETH, and the EDH is seen as the strongest contender.

The real problem I have with pursuing ANY theory is that much of the reasons for formulating a hypothesis in the first place assumes that the body of evidence is even remotely accurate in the first place.

For example, Valles ideas for the EDH came about as a result of all the nonsensical data he was looking at in regards to the actions, descriptions, motivations etc. of what people had been describing as nuts and bolts ET aliens and their ships. In a nutshell, the strong similarties he found between mythical shape-shifters such as fairies and elves and the modern ufo phenomena helped lead him to believe that we are dealing with ancient intelligences that co-exist with us from another plane of existence. Where he went wrong I think is assuming that people's descriptions of fairy and ufo events actually happened. I don't think people saw fairies, elves, or trolls in ancient times and I dont think that the vast majority of ufo incidents and contactee/abduction stories are real and accurate either.

So for me, sifting out all the human story-telling, fantasies, BS, scams, hoaxes etc from the real, core data is essential before formulating a valid theory. If that were theoretically possible we might end up with say .01 percent of "real" data that could then be examined for consistent traits and properties. I just don't ever see that happening unfortunately.
 
It maybe, then, that whatever these intelligences are or are not, they maybe coming from within or from remote areas of our earth.
You can dismiss any theory as irrelevant or nonsensical but it does not change the fact that something or someone is visiting from somewhere and whilst i agree that the EDH is a difficult and hard to prove theory at best, if you are going to question the validity of the ETH or any other idea, there should be at least other theories to look at or research.
The thing about theories are that they are just that unless someone can come up with any evidence or research on the given subject and that's just the thing, you have to start somewhere.
There maybe many other hypotheses and ideas other than the ones we are presented with and perhaps we need to look at these as the current direction of the UFO field is heading towards a morass of in-fighting and nit picking. To simply bury your head in the sand and say that it's all too hard is defeatist.
Maybe we have been asking the wrong questions.Maybe all the answers to the current direction have all been given but we all to baffled by the b******t to see it.
Hopefully there are researchers or enthusiasts out there who do want to explore other pathways within this phenomena as the UFO field is in desperate need of rejuvenation as it has become stagnant and elitist.
Bravo to the Paracast for allowing new ideas and researchers to surface and rekindle our enthusiasm.
 
The Pair of Cats said:
Maybe we have been asking the wrong questions.Maybe all the answers to the current direction have all been given but we all to baffled by the b******t to see it.
Click to expand...

So true - Most likely the real situation, or something close to it, has been hit upon by someone at some point, but again with so much BS it's impossible to figure out what that is. Then again, the truth could be so bizarre that we haven't even come close yet, and EVERYONE is barking up the wrong tree simply becuase we can't conceive it.

When I play laser-pointer with my cat, I'm sure he thinks he's chasing something "real." But of course from our view, he's not even close. The concept of a "laser pointer" is not even with the realm of his mind's grasp.
 
The Pair of Cats said:
Gene
Are there any plans for future shows with guests/researchers discussing alternative theories such as David's and your own?
Click to expand...

We've already done shows of this sort with such people as Mac Tonnies and T. Allen Greenfield, and we'll continue to look into this issue in future episodes. Check some of our archives for the shows in question.
 
I've said this before many times, hopefully it will be the last:)

Friedman is open to other possibilities. On one of his vids Flying Saucers are real part 1 or 2, the interviewer pushed him on the eth. The reporter asked him something like, How do you know they are ets? What if they are something else like us from the future? Friedman's response was something like, call them what you will, they're not us from here and, I'll throw in now, if you want. He shrugged like it's no big deal what you want to call them and didn't seem interested in splitting hairs. His main concern was that they (whatever they are) are real. If you think about it, how many arguments or articles has SF made debunking people that think they are time travelers or from other dimensions etc? Friedman thinks SOME ufos are et spacecraft and constantly gives a healthy number to underline that statement. The Betty Hill case convinced him SOME are from Zeta 1 and 2 Reticuli. He is open to possibilities, but goes with the data that pans out to him. All ufos might not be from the same source, and he has never said anything that indicates he thinks all are, to my knowledge.

On the paracast show, Friedman mentions, "I have to call them something" after using the term eth. That indicated, again, that he is opened to other possibilities. Paul K. (a relative of Stan's) mentioned how Friedman is a lot more open to other possibilities than people give him credit for. This has been my experience with following his work, and my correspondence with him over the years.

I even recently brought the issue up to Stan, and it apparently didn't interest him to bicker about it because he didn't get back with me on it. Maybe he was busy, but that was the first time he's never replied to me on anything. So he doesn't seem to hell bent to me at least.
 
/edit, oops quoted wrong person and too lazy to go back and retry.

Hey Gene! Whens the show on how all abductions are sleep parralysis!? There seems to be a lack of shows dealing with this. /sarcasm off.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Personally, I think you're a bit over the top on this one. I do not see David ragging on Stan for 10 minutes, and when he does have a criticism to offer, as he's done lately, it's been confined to a fraction of that time.
Click to expand...
To me that's not really the issue. What is irritating is that you guys make fun of Friedman. You attempt to imitate his voice, then you laugh. Ha ha. Indeed, frequently you criticize your last week's guest on the next show. And you frequently interject your own politics into the show, as you did with Greenewald last week berating him for not succumbing to your politically correct thinking about what he ought to be doing. Rambling like a leftist sixties leftover from the SDS is not doing anything to enhance your reputation.

OF COURSE you have the right to do that. I am fully aware it's your ball and your money and by God if I don't like it I can leave. Yersiree! Where have we heard that before? Commonly, on ATS. Freedom of the press is for those who own one, and you own one. Got the message loud and clear.

I hope one of your steadfast goals is to build your show so that it has a journalistic reputation for open and fair mindedness to distinguish it from oh, say CtoC, or some other agenda-specfic shows designed to get ratings at the expense of truth. You obviously want to be seen as the guys who "ask the really tough questions." In my opinion you are not going to gain that kind of reputation by openly making fun of your guests or berating them behind their backs the next week. Those are not the acts of professional journalists. If your guests actually listen to your show, half of them would refuse a return invitation.

Now don't just get angry at me and shoot the messenger, fellas. THINK about this--and mend your errant ways.
 
I don't think I'm off the mark at all, Gene. Exaggerated, maybe but not by much. I have no problem with David taking Freidman to task once in a while but this has been what, three? Four weeks in a row? Yes, I realize it's all been related to the Roswell anniversary and no, I have no appreciation of David's character as a person so I can't sit back and say "Oh, that's just David being David". The point is it comes off as disingenous to say how much you respect someone and then go on to mock them and cut down their theories.

Personally, I don't cleave to the EDH as readily as the ETH for one reason: there are other planets. They exist, we can see them. Even the ones in other star systems that we can't see directly, we can at least detect. Not unreasonable then to suppose that some of them might have life, some of THOSE might have intelligent life and maybe a handful of those have sufficiently advanced life to have cracked the superluminal barrier. That's all Stanton cares about because he's a scientist and you can measure that.

Espousing the EDH on the other hand is basically saying you believe in magic because you cannot disprove it; a hunch, a guess really. It's a hair's breadth away from Sylivia Browne and the psychic fair crowd as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't even call it a theory, since theories require testing to prove or disprove them.
 
I don't like the commercial breaks.

And it bugs me that you guys never have hot chicks on either. Rick Deckard says that's cuz you guys don't know any hot chicks, but I don't believe him. :p

Either way . . . ENOUGH ALREADY! Let's have some commercial-less shows where you interview some voluptuous bimbos already!

Jeez!

-DBTrek
 
Schuyler said:
... And you frequently interject your own politics into the show, as you did with Greenewald last week berating him for not succumbing to your politically correct thinking about what he ought to be doing. Rambling like a leftist sixties leftover from the SDS is not doing anything to enhance your reputation.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't understand why the hosts insist on insulting their viewers a well. According to Dave, I'm "delusional" because I happen to watch Fox news. The weekly political sniping at people, values, and institutions I respect is getting worse and worse. David's cheap shot at Reagan last week was way over the line. For someone who constantly adminishes people for thinking in an extremist boolean fashion on the topic of UfOs, David's own politics of self-described "anarchism" are as extreme as they come.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The weekly interjecting of poltics adds NOTHING to the content of the show and only detracts from the professionalism. I don't buy the argument that slamming conservatives is somehow "essential" to the discussion of whether or not ETs come from outer or inner space. I would love someone to please explain what one has to do with the other.
 
DamnDirtyApe said:
Schuyler said:
... And you frequently interject your own politics into the show, as you did with Greenewald last week berating him for not succumbing to your politically correct thinking about what he ought to be doing. Rambling like a leftist sixties leftover from the SDS is not doing anything to enhance your reputation.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't understand why the hosts insist on insulting their viewers a well. According to Dave, I'm "delusional" because I happen to watch Fox news.
Click to expand...

Watching it doesn't make ya delusional. Believing it is anything more than a propaganda tool for the Right does. So as long as you're not deluding yourself there, you're fine.

I don't understand what the griping is about from any of you. What is it you want, another crap show where the hosts are too afraid of losing their audience to express themselves? You want a couple of yes men shedding light on these topics?
 
well said valiens.

i suggest you boys start your own podcast if you dont like this one.
 
DBTrek said:
Rick Deckard says that's cuz you guys don't know any hot chicks, but I don't believe him.
Click to expand...

If you're gonna make stuff up like this, please give some indication that you're joking. Otherwise it could it be misconstrued as slander/libel.

Thanks.
 
DB is just trying to reaffirm is own masculinity. ;)

no commercials? well then I am sure DB wouldnt mind financing the next few podcasts.
 
Back
Top