• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 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!

James Fox on Larry King

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Kandinsky

Kandinsky

Curious Cat

I'm always interested in what James Fox is up to. The new movie he's been threatening to release should be out in October, "I Know What I Saw." I'm looking forward to the media perspective on what promises to be very carefully chosen evidence. No Sgt Stone's, no Jim Sparks and no clever edits to put words in mouths. Not sure I'd use the Cooper footage. He does a reasonable job in the interview, avoiding any reference to critters and aliens.

What pisses me off is Seth Shostak. Not for the usual points of 'debunking.' What pisses me off is that I love science. I respect it and know it holds the answers to most anything. I don't appreciate people that insist scientists are liars or 'bury their heads.' So when I see a guy that I respect for his work and articles over the years insist that nothing is there, I think he's tarnishing the whole of science. He almost can't bring himself to even acknowledge that there's an unknown phenomena at play. As a public face of SETI and science, he represents the dishonesty that so many think is endemic in science.

I'm a body language spotter, can't help but notice it most of the time. Shostak, looks away whenever he makes a definitive statement in opposition to the existence of UFOs. Shermer does it in his presentations. It indicates a lack of inner certainty. Conviction not so tough. I suspect Shostak chooses to ignore the possibilities of UFOs for good reason...budgets.

It's a fairly big ask to get funding for SETI if you're on record allowing for the possibility that proof of ET life is flying around the skies. Maybe, he's doing the whole denial thing because he believes science is better served by Kepler style missions? I don't know. I do think his attitude encourages the ridiculous amount of doubt in some of the public.

Any ideas?
 
Saw James Fox's final question to Seth regarding evidence/testimony. Not sure but Seth may be in a bind on how he can respond. My thoughts are that he is certainly aware that there are unknown's flying about but cannot leap to the ET hypothesis for obvious reasons,(funding,reputation),most here haven't either. :)

But he did seem receptive to Nick Pope's suggestion that they join forces for a "common goal". And did mention all the letters he receives so he was not in complete denial as he has been in the past.
 
As I said in another post, I thought Seth had a really good attitude, and that has a lot to do with James Fox and Nick Pope. All three are clearly intelligent men, and I think the discussion was one of the better ones on this topic that Larry King has had on the show.
I like the fact that Shostak doesn't deny that people have seen something, he just doesn't have enough proof to convince him that it HAS to be aliens from another planet, and I tend to agree with that. There's definitely stuff out there that we don't understand, but we have no proof to say definitively what it is.
 
Kandinsky said:
I'm a body language spotter, can't help but notice it most of the time. Shostak, looks away whenever he makes a definitive statement in opposition to the existence of UFOs. Shermer does it in his presentations. It indicates a lack of inner certainty. Conviction not so tough. I suspect Shostak chooses to ignore the possibilities of UFOs for good reason...budgets.
Click to expand...

I think you are right on target with this. His funding would evaporate if UFOs / ETs / whatever were proven. They have a lot riding on not supporting UFO evidence.
I also think he'd be worried about his reputation being hurt. We've seen how people in the UFO field stick tightly to theories they promote and don't look at other theories because they have so much invested in their own pet ideas. The same would apply to the Shermers and Shostaks. They don't want to look bad.
 
Jeff_Hansen said:
Seth Shostak is the most decent skeptic they have had on that show. Bill Nye is just a comedian.

Shostak is the most decent
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I did like the Science Guy show, but when he was on Larry King, he was acting like a jerk. Those people didn't see a lighthouse and he was really pissing off the other guests by basically calling them liars. Not cool.
 
Kandinsky, et al,

I thought the show was great! James by the way said that Larry was laughing do to an "inside joke" about Anderson Cooper.

Both James and Nick stayed on point, and in my view mopped the floor with Shostak in regards to "strength in argument."

Shows in general, and the Larry King Show in particular are not long enough, and his is always over-booked; one doesn't have time to argue ETH with "naysayers." ... Read More

The wisest move, which was performed masterfully last night is to stick to the irrefutable evidence about "UFOs!" Shostak had no where to run and it was obvious even to the most ignorant of viewers.

Cheers,
Frank
 
At least, this time, Larry King actually gave an opinion to what he thinks about the subject. In some ways, Seth is right, we dont really have evidence yet, that it is something from another world that is the world opinion, no matter how hard that is to believe. But i know, we dont have that type of technology, it is just the evidence is all we need - 'evidence that is beyond doubt'. 'Seth has his own views, he can't believe in something that he has never witnessed, in way that is understandable. I would question this topic, if i actually never seem something myself .It be also interesting, to find out who actually finances SETI who are the backers providing the cash for this incentive.
 
Good Day IS,

Irishseekers said:
At least, this time, Larry King actually gave an opinion to what he thinks about the subject. In some ways, Seth is right, we dont really have evidence yet, that it is something from another world that is the world opinion, no matter how hard that is to believe. But i know, we dont have that type of technology, it is just the evidence is all we need - 'evidence that is beyond doubt'. 'Seth has his own views, he can't believe in something that he has never witnessed, in way that is understandable. I would question this topic, if i actually never seem something myself .It be also interesting, to find out who actually finances SETI who are the backers providing the cash for this incentive.
Click to expand...

I have to respectfully disagree; there is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs, i.e., the "ETH." "That argument" is whether it's enough; some folks say, "yes," some say no. Seth is incorrect in saying there is "no evidence."

Speaking from a "scientific point of view, for example there has been:


A). Well-observed, calibrated data.

B). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

C). Multiple observers.

Under these (re a nuts 'n' bolt craft) there have been:

1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.

2). The craft "occupies space."

3). It moves as time passes.

4). It emits "thermal effects."

5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.

6). It effects the atmosphere.

7). It can be photographed.

8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence, ejecta etc.

9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.

10). It has been tracked by radar

These facets of evidence have been attributed to "non-conventional" craft that defy the characteristics of something man-made, and many times defy physics as know it.

This of course is about a contrivance; then you have eyewitness accounts of "nonhuman entities" going back over 6 decades (some would argue evidence exists that this has been going on throughout written history).

Then there is a "abduction phenomenon" in regards to nonhuman entities etc,. which has its own plethora of evidence e.g., anecdotal, forensic, photographic, visual/radar, physical trace etc.

The list goes . . .. The point is that there is plenty of evidence, unfortunately, Seth and his ilk drop the "scientific ball" when it comes to Ufology and refuse to address it.

Cheers,
Frank
 
Heavily rushed segment. I mean Bill Cosby? BILL COSBY?! Ugh... anyway...

I found it interesting at one point when Nick (I think) is discussing UFO reports and Seth has this smirk on his face as if to say "Yeah... sure..." but then Nick adds "...with corroborating radar evidence..." and Seth's smirk immediately begins to collapse into a tight-lipped mask of seriousness, as if his own "inner scientist" was saying to him "That is actually pretty strong evidence." Very telling.

I also liked that Larry actually (finally!) asked the next question: "What do they want?" to which Nick promptly responded "I don't know". WOW. An honest answer to a simple question... on CNN!

Mark the calendar, I guarantee it'll be a while before you see that happen again!
 
Frank Warren said:
Good Day IS,



I have to respectfully disagree; there is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest an extraterrestrial origin for UFOs, i.e., the "ETH." "That argument" is whether it's enough; some folks say, "yes," some say no. Seth is incorrect in saying there is "no evidence."

Speaking from a "scientific point of view, for example there has been:


A). Well-observed, calibrated data.

B). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

C). Multiple observers.

Under these (re a nuts 'n' bolt craft) there have been:

1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.

2). The craft "occupies space."

3). It moves as time passes.

4). It emits "thermal effects."

5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.

6). It effects the atmosphere.

7). It can be photographed.

8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence, ejecta etc.

9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.

10). It has been tracked by radar

These facets of evidence have been attributed to "non-conventional" craft that defy the characteristics of something man-made, and many times defy physics as know it.

This of course is about a contrivance; then you have eyewitness accounts of "nonhuman entities" going back over 6 decades (some would argue evidence exists that this has been going on throughout written history).

Then there is a "abduction phenomenon" in regards to nonhuman entities etc,. which has its own plethora of evidence e.g., anecdotal, forensic, photographic, visual/radar, physical trace etc.

The list goes . . .. The point is that there is plenty of evidence, unfortunately, Seth and his ilk drop the "scientific ball" when it comes to Ufology and refuse to address it.

Cheers,
Frank
Click to expand...

'Frank, your right, plenty of evidence, but the public has a hard time buying into something that does not seem real to them( touching and seeing something for themselves, i am afraid is the human experience.

We know the evidence points to something unknown, definate statements to the origins of such craft 'in my opinion is wrong. Nobody can actually tell me or you that this definately ETH or something else, withount actually haveing the evidence of something to back up that claim.
The phenomen suggests something unknown, the phenomen could be very well be part of the planets history, after all it is occuring on our planet we have no knowledge to an actual experience of such craft in the solar system, so until that day, this is an Earth phenomen.

The physics we teach today and records of aviation that we know about can not give us answers, they leave us only with questions.I am right with you Frank, dont think i am not. I just dont think we have enough evidence to enable the world to think differently about that subject.'Like you siad' Frank we have six decades of evidence maybe even more going back centuries, but still us, who believe this subject to be real, at times it just seems the evidence we have got so far, is not enough for a skeptical world.

Seth, your right, might be preaching to his own audience, so not rocking the boat and haveing a job to go to in the morning is important for alot of people. But if Seth, 'if he is true to himself' than he must see that evidence does exist 'if he actually looked'.But like i siad, Frank,I know, and seems like i am repeating myself again, that something is indeed flying around our skies but the evidence has to beyond doubt for the public, our we still be talking about this subject in another six decades from now.
 
Any word yet on whether the film will get a cinema release?

Why cant someone with money get behind this thing and fund distribution wide and far. Spielberg or Bigelow would do nicely. Bigelow would do more good throwing his money behind this then wasting it on MUFON IMO. He could promote the hell out of it, get publicity and interviews on mainstream everything and generally just get everybody talking.
 
Irishseekers said:
'Frank, your right, plenty of evidence, but the public has a hard time buying into something that does not seem real to them( touching and seeing something for themselves, i am afraid is the human experience.

We know the evidence points to something unknown, definate statements to the origins of such craft 'in my opinion is wrong. Nobody can actually tell me or you that this definately ETH or something else, withount actually haveing the evidence of something to back up that claim.
The phenomen suggests something unknown, the phenomen could be very well be part of the planets history, after all it is occuring on our planet we have no knowledge to an actual experience of such craft in the solar system, so until that day, this is an Earth phenomen.

The physics we teach today and records of aviation that we know about can not give us answers, they leave us only with questions.I am right with you Frank, dont think i am not. I just dont think we have enough evidence to enable the world to think differently about that subject.'Like you siad' Frank we have six decades of evidence maybe even more going back centuries, but still us, who believe this subject to be real, at times it just seems the evidence we have got so far, is not enough for a skeptical world.

Seth, your right, might be preaching to his own audience, so not rocking the boat and haveing a job to go to in the morning is important for alot of people. But if Seth, 'if he is true to himself' than he must see that evidence does exist 'if he actually looked'.But like i siad, Frank,I know, and seems like i am repeating myself again, that something is indeed flying around our skies but the evidence has to beyond doubt for the public, our we still be talking about this subject in another six decades from now.
Click to expand...

"the public has a hard time buying into something that does not seem real to them( touching and seeing something for themselves, i am afraid is the human experience."(sic)
If a T.V. news anchor on a major network reports something to be the case, with no evidence, the American public buys it.The American public buys things all the time without investigating the evidence. Trusting is easier for the American public. They've even made unquestioned trust a virtue.
Touching and seeing something is the best evidence for an individual, but the existence of public opinion is a fragile concept manipulated by the trusted. In my experience, a large majority of people have no problem buying the idea of UFOs, and subsequent theories about them. Whenever I hear people say how imperative disclosure is, it seems more about getting it on T.V., commercializing it, making money off it. That is when it would be "real" for the "public".
 
truthpandemic said:
"the public has a hard time buying into something that does not seem real to them( touching and seeing something for themselves, i am afraid is the human experience."(sic)
If a T.V. news anchor on a major network reports something to be the case, with no evidence, the American public buys it.The American public buys things all the time without investigating the evidence. Trusting is easier for the American public. They've even made unquestioned trust a virtue.
Touching and seeing something is the best evidence for an individual, but the existence of public opinion is a fragile concept manipulated by the trusted. In my experience, a large majority of people have no problem buying the idea of UFOs, and subsequent theories about them. Whenever I hear people say how imperative disclosure is, it seems more about getting it on T.V., commercializing it, making money off it. That is when it would be "real" for the "public".
Click to expand...

'I have'nt got alot of time to be on the internet today, work, but in some ways your right, media does have a far amount of influence, in way some humans think about events in the world'.As a person liveing in Europe, i saw the events of the recent Iraq war on the television, yet i knew this war was not a war to free the Iraq citizens from a tyrant. You will always have people in a given country playing along to the tune of the goverment, it up to them to gain the knowledge, to what is right and what is wrong, they are grown ups.

'The ufo topic, in my opinion will require prove, no T.V Anchor with talk alone will enable the human population to believe in something like ufos withount actually haveing a physical craft, a alien entity, or some part of technology to show.If the American people, only require a tv person to provide them information. Then to me, we live in a world that is very sad indeed.

'I have talked to close friends who have no interest in the subject and i asked them what evidence, would help them believe in ufos as something which is part of our reality.'Must siad, they would have to see something physical to believe it. "It sad in way, with all the evidence we have got so far, but that is the underlineing issue for many humans who live in different countries 'prove which is beyond doubt'.
 
Back
Top