• 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/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

July 15, 2018 — Allen Greenfield with J. Randall Murphy



Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
#1
With Allen Greenfield, all you have to do is say "go," and you will be rewarded by an ever-fascinating conversation on a variety of subjects. This time, the discussion included a debate with our guest cohost, J. Randall Murphy.

...And it continued on this week's episode of After The Paracast, an exclusive feature of The Paracast+. For more information about our premium subscription package, please visit:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#2
This was a really enjoyable episode which continued into the ATP where Allen fell into the quicksand over our differences on the evolution of stealth aircraft. To hear all the gory details you need to be a member of the Paracast Plus, but here's a teaser for you:

Greenfield: 22:25: "Unless of course one believes the stories about alien and human interactivity producing such things as stealth technology. The UFOs of the 1940s are remarkably like much later aircraft, and I'm aware of the flying wing and I'm aware you know that you can project out and I'm aware, very aware of the whole long history of science fiction cause it's kinda my hobby, but nevertheless it is rather remarkable that the stuff that appeared on the cover of Kenneth Arnold's Book, looks remarkably like a stealth bomber of today, almost as if the idea was given to the government. Certainly there's no reason to believe that Arnold or his friend Ray Palmer never had sufficient engineering knowledge to project that as a probable future."

My response to the above was essentially that stealth aircraft were a natural progression of the flying wing designed by the Horton brothers in Germany. If Greenfield was really aware of the flying wing then how is it that he doesn't know this? Here's the Wikipedia article: Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia

Arnold with artist's rendition for the cover of The Coming of the Saucers ( 1952 )



Horton Brother Flying wing ( conceived in the 1930s and flown in 1945 )


The comparison is obvious, and the flying wings built by Northrop were directly inspired by the Horton Brothers flying wing ( one reference here ). To Continue:

26:30: Murphy: I don't think we need to attribute the rise of the Internet to any sort of alien involvement ..."

26:50: Greefield: I said stealth technology I didn't say anything about the Internet being an alien technology.

26:55: Murphy: We can do the same thing with stealth technology ...

Greenfield: Absolutely not

Murphy: Going back to the Horton Brothers. Yes we can.

Greefield: No ...

27:45: Murphy: You've got no mystery there. You've just got a development of the technology where low ratio aircraft are competing with better and better quality radar, and then they develop radar absorbing materials and so on along the way. So it's all engineering, and radar, and radio, and electronics, we don't need to invoke aliens at all.

Greenfield: No we don't need to and you're kind of missing my point. I mentioned the flying wing which I'm very well acquainted with and I don't see that as being a precursor of stealth technology as it's developed.

Murphy: It is though. That's taken for granted in aeronautics in terms of the engineering. You just gotta go back and read enough about it.

Greenfield: Let's assume that you're correct. No I have read that and you're being insulting now. The notion that I'm not well read on these subjects is absurd, and just because you have a very physicalist point of view doesn't mean you're the sage of these subjects. I'm sorry. You're not. The point is that I'm not suggesting that alien technology which I mention in a different context if you will rewind later anticipated that science fiction writers were not anticipating but which was anticipated by early UFO cases ...

Okay. I think most people can see where this is going. Greenfield clearly brings up the idea of alien and human interactivity producing such things as stealth technology. I make the point that one just needs to read enough about stealth technology to know that it evolved from the flying wing, and the response from Greenfield is denial and to take it as personal slight on his reputation ( which wasn't the case at all ). While he's at it, he lobs one back at me and attempts to invoke the argument that I don't get it because I have a physicalist perspective. You can hear Greenfield continue his descent into the quicksand by joining the Paracast Plus and checking out the ATP episode.

In the meantime, on whether or not sci-fi alluded to anything like the internet before it was invented:


 
Last edited:

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
#3
Frankly, I found Allen's positions to be vague and confusing. It's semi-mystical without being overtly committed to a religious ideology. It's idealistic without denying the possibility of concrete alien vehicles. In other words, I lack clarity about what he believes.
 

Nix

Paranormal Novice
#5
Frankly, I found Allen's positions to be vague and confusing. It's semi-mystical without being overtly committed to a religious ideology. It's idealistic without denying the possibility of concrete alien vehicles. In other words, I lack clarity about what he believes.
Allen was once a high ranking member of an occult magic organisation. So that might help peg his religious ideology :p - I’d say he’s far more a mystic than a concrete UFOlogist - but I’d also say he crosses a lot of fields and is really in a category (or brane) all by himself
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#6
Allen was once a high ranking member of an occult magic organisation. So that might help peg his religious ideology :p - I’d say he’s far more a mystic than a concrete UFOlogist - but I’d also say he crosses a lot of fields and is really in a category (or brane) all by himself
Oh yes, the brane thing. Apparently a p-dimensional brane is generally called a "p-brane" :p . ( Wikipedia ).

"The main stumbling block at the moment is that the mathematics involved in these theories is so difficult that it's not possible to relate the complexity of this 10- or 11-dimensional space to anything we can actually observe. In addition, although these theories may appear aesthetically attractive, and although they give us a natural interpretation of gravity, they don't yet tell us why our three dimensional world contains the types of particles that physicists study." ( Lisa Randall - Theoretical Physicist ).

Personally I dunno about the math, but I do find Lisa Randall "aesthetically attractive": A Beautiful Mind
 
Last edited:

Nix

Paranormal Novice
#7
Oh yes, the brane thing. Apparently a p-dimensional brane is generally called a "p-brane" :p . ( Wikipedia ).

"The main stumbling block at the moment is that the mathematics involved in these theories is so difficult that it's not possible to relate the complexity of this 10- or 11-dimensional space to anything we can actually observe. In addition, although these theories may appear aesthetically attractive, and although they give us a natural interpretation of gravity, they don't yet tell us why our three dimensional world contains the types of particles that physicists study." ( Lisa Randall - Theoretical Physicist ).

Personally I dunno about the math, but I do find Lisa Randall "aesthetically attractive": A Beautiful Mind
Lol. Yes I’ve read something similar - that the math/physics equations people love referencing to justify multiple-reality theory, if you really follow the math, actually rules out any interaction or travel between branes.

Not that it isn’t true, just that you can’t have it both ways. Unless you have blue hair and are called Rick
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#8
Lol. Yes I’ve read something similar - that the math/physics equations people love referencing to justify multiple-reality theory, if you really follow the math, actually rules out any interaction or travel between branes. Not that it isn’t true, just that you can’t have it both ways. Unless you have blue hair and are called Rick
You mean like this Rick ...lol ? Official funny stuff — Part 2
 

pigfarmer

Paranormal Maven
#11
Flying wings are lifting bodies with
This was a really enjoyable episode which continued into the ATP where Allen fell into the quicksand over our differences on the evolution of stealth aircraft. To hear all the gory details you need to be a member of the Paracast Plus, but here's a teaser for you:

Greenfield: 22:25: "Unless of course one believes the stories about alien and human interactivity producing such things as stealth technology. The UFOs of the 1940s are remarkably like much later aircraft, and I'm aware of the flying wing and I'm aware you know that you can project out and I'm aware, very aware of the whole long history of science fiction cause it's kinda my hobby, but nevertheless it is rather remarkable that the stuff that appeared on the cover of Kenneth Arnold's Book, looks remarkably like a stealth bomber of today, almost as if the idea was given to the government. Certainly there's no reason to believe that Arnold or his friend Ray Palmer never had sufficient engineering knowledge to project that as a probable future."

My response to the above was essentially that stealth aircraft were a natural progression of the flying wing designed by the Horton brothers in Germany. If Greenfield was really aware of the flying wing then how is it that he doesn't know this? Here's the Wikipedia article: Stealth aircraft - Wikipedia

Arnold with artist's rendition for the cover of The Coming of the Saucers ( 1952 )



Horton Brother Flying wing ( conceived in the 1930s and flown in 1945 )


The comparison is obvious, and the flying wings built by Northrop were directly inspired by the Horton Brothers flying wing ( one reference here ). To Continue:

26:30: Murphy: I don't think we need to attribute the rise of the Internet to any sort of alien involvement ..."

26:50: Greefield: I said stealth technology I didn't say anything about the Internet being an alien technology.

26:55: Murphy: We can do the same thing with stealth technology ...

Greenfield: Absolutely not

Murphy: Going back to the Horton Brothers. Yes we can.

Greefield: No ...

27:45: Murphy: You've got no mystery there. You've just got a development of the technology where low ratio aircraft are competing with better and better quality radar, and then they develop radar absorbing materials and so on along the way. So it's all engineering, and radar, and radio, and electronics, we don't need to invoke aliens at all.

Greenfield: No we don't need to and you're kind of missing my point. I mentioned the flying wing which I'm very well acquainted with and I don't see that as being a precursor of stealth technology as it's developed.

Murphy: It is though. That's taken for granted in aeronautics in terms of the engineering. You just gotta go back and read enough about it.

Greenfield: Let's assume that you're correct. No I have read that and you're being insulting now. The notion that I'm not well read on these subjects is absurd, and just because you have a very physicalist point of view doesn't mean you're the sage of these subjects. I'm sorry. You're not. The point is that I'm not suggesting that alien technology which I mention in a different context if you will rewind later anticipated that science fiction writers were not anticipating but which was anticipated by early UFO cases ...

Okay. I think most people can see where this is going. Greenfield clearly brings up the idea of alien and human interactivity producing such things as stealth technology. I make the point that one just needs to read enough about stealth technology to know that it evolved from the flying wing, and the response from Greenfield is denial and to take it as personal slight on his reputation ( which wasn't the case at all ). While he's at it, he lobs one back at me and attempts to invoke the argument that I don't get it because I have a physicalist perspective. You can hear Greenfield continue his descent into the quicksand by joining the Paracast Plus and checking out the ATP episode.

In the meantime, on whether or not sci-fi alluded to anything like the internet before it was invented:

Flying wings are simply lifting bodies that are inherently unstable and didn't become practical until fly by wire systems were developed. Nothing specifically "stealthy" about their engineering however the general shape did lend itself to stealth applications later. As odd as it sounds in that era placing bright lights on the leading edges of wings and paint schemes were visual "stealth" applications. Chaff was the first thing I can think of deliberately intended to spoof radar returns.

German, British and American engineers yes. ET no.
 

Nix

Paranormal Novice
#12
I'd Never seen it before that I recall, but ended up binge watching into the early morning :D.
Haha. Glad you’re enjoying it!

I love how they take the idea of multiple worlds and just run with it.

You could devote an entire forum to discussing some of the underlying philosophy in Rick and Morty, and no doubt people have.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#13
Flying wings are lifting bodies with


Flying wings are simply lifting bodies that are inherently unstable and didn't become practical until fly by wire systems were developed. Nothing specifically "stealthy" about their engineering however the general shape did lend itself to stealth applications later. As odd as it sounds in that era placing bright lights on the leading edges of wings and paint schemes were visual "stealth" applications. Chaff was the first thing I can think of deliberately intended to spoof radar returns.

German, British and American engineers yes. ET no.
I went through a whole debate on this in another thread and to my surprise it turned out that the instability issue was far less of a problem than has been hyped and the scrapping of the first wings more to do with politics around competing military contracts than technical problems. I found quotes from pilots who flew YB-49s who said they flew beautifully, and they developed technology that compensated for their initial stability problems. Their reduced radar signature was also noticed right from the start, but the term "stealth" wasn't used until they resurrected the flying wing design precisely because it had a much smaller radar signature.

If you check out the Northrop 1949 YB-49 video, they make specific mention of how it's cross section makes it harder to detect with radar. There's also plenty of footage showing how well it flew. The more unstable versions were the early test models, but even those weren't as bad as expected. To quote test pilot Glen Edwards: “The plane flew surprisingly well,” he concluded, ”. . . far better than most would expect.” There's more, but I don't have time to dig it all up now. Maybe you might find it in a search through old posts.

BTW: I imagine it's true that the F-117 would be virtually unflyable without modern avionics, but that also seems more due to the angular design and added stealth features than the flying wing design per se. So there is definitely a combination of issues to consider. Either way, there seems to be no question that evolution of stealth aircraft began with the flying wing. Virtually every article I've ever run across or read on it ( dozens ) all say the same thing.


Interviews with Northrop & YB-49 Test Pilots

 
Last edited:

TDSR

Skilled Investigator
#14
"it turned out that the instability issue was far less of a problem than has been hyped and the scrapping of the first wings more to do with politics around competing military contracts than technical problems."

The YB49 video you linked Randall was super insightful....wow...thanks for sharing. I would consider the interviews with Mr. Northrop and Millar to be an "actual" look as to how the insiders of the military-industrial complex operates, and at a time when they were very bold and frankly not very sophisticated...direct threats during a time when loyalty was preyed on, family well-being was leveraged, and DUTY was running rampant as a lingering disease from the war.......ALL PLEASE spend more time thinking about how "obedience with blindness" and "paycheck morals" have

Catherine Austin Fitts - please subtract the cost of seven YB-49 aircraft from the $26 trillion missing from the US budget.
 

archivist13

Skilled Investigator
#15
I have been listening since the beginning. I don't comment a lot, because I am not great at putting into writing what I am thinking. I have always enjoyed the show, and was curious how this new generation of the Paracast was going to turn out. David and Chris both had their approaches and overall I liked both of them. J. Randall Murphy was/is a fairly unknown factor that I am curious as to how it will turn out. While I don't agree with everything said, think Randall has a good head on his shoulder and like your skeptical hard science approach. You aren't an apologist for mainstream science, but you aren't afraid to bring it up when it is needed.

Saying all this, I have been impressed so far. We hear about how the Paracast is a hard hitting conversation that won't back away from the hard questions...… but it has seemed to become a bit of a good ole boys club for the last year or two. Friendly guests that are never really called out on their opinions. Randall has definitely thrown a wrench into that equation. Within three weeks you have ruffled the feathers of Ecker, Greenfield, and to a smaller extent Coleman. I appreciate this and the fact that Ecker and Greenfield have actually gotten demeaning to you (making fun of the fact your from Canada and younger) says to me that you have hit on something. They can talk in circles amongst their cliques, but when really called out on their views they have reverted to high school name calling which is sad. Perhaps they felt that the Paracast had become a safe zone, but you have definitely changed that dynamic. The fact that Gene sits silently in the background not interrupting or stopping the conversation is nice and appears to me at least to be allowing the real discussion to happen. My only worry is that these folks decide to stop appearing because of the chance of being called out. Although with Ecker and Greenfield, that would be ok, as I have already heard their opinion (fact), and they are obviously not open to a different viewpoint.

Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing what roads the Paracast goes down.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#16
I have been listening since the beginning. I don't comment a lot, because I am not great at putting into writing what I am thinking. I have always enjoyed the show, and was curious how this new generation of the Paracast was going to turn out. David and Chris both had their approaches and overall I liked both of them. J. Randall Murphy was/is a fairly unknown factor that I am curious as to how it will turn out. While I don't agree with everything said, think Randall has a good head on his shoulder and like your skeptical hard science approach. You aren't an apologist for mainstream science, but you aren't afraid to bring it up when it is needed.

Saying all this, I have been impressed so far. We hear about how the Paracast is a hard hitting conversation that won't back away from the hard questions...… but it has seemed to become a bit of a good ole boys club for the last year or two. Friendly guests that are never really called out on their opinions. Randall has definitely thrown a wrench into that equation. Within three weeks you have ruffled the feathers of Ecker, Greenfield, and to a smaller extent Coleman. I appreciate this and the fact that Ecker and Greenfield have actually gotten demeaning to you (making fun of the fact your from Canada and younger) says to me that you have hit on something. They can talk in circles amongst their cliques, but when really called out on their views they have reverted to high school name calling which is sad. Perhaps they felt that the Paracast had become a safe zone, but you have definitely changed that dynamic. The fact that Gene sits silently in the background not interrupting or stopping the conversation is nice and appears to me at least to be allowing the real discussion to happen. My only worry is that these folks decide to stop appearing because of the chance of being called out. Although with Ecker and Greenfield, that would be ok, as I have already heard their opinion (fact), and they are obviously not open to a different viewpoint.

Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing what roads the Paracast goes down.
Thanks for the comments. It's good to know we're heading in the right direction. If circumstances permit me to stay with the show I'm sure I'll smooth out my delivery so that we can get a good balance of point/counterpoint plus exposure for the guests. Your awareness that guests might not want to participate because their views might be questioned is also astute. Personally I think that's a price worth paying to avoid the sort of wide eyed acceptance of some shows ( name redacted )..
 
Last edited:

archivist13

Skilled Investigator
#17
I feel that if a guest is worth their salt, than they will be willing to back up their opinions. If they aren't willing to come onto a show and be intelligently questioned, than they are probably not worth the time. I for one am tired of listening to the old timers say the same thing over and over and reminisce about the "old" days. Lets get some fresh young faces on the show. I am sure they would appreciate the exposure. Sure they may not be refined and a great interview, but unless they are given chances to hone their speaking they will just be forgotten. I keep hearing that their are no young people in the field, yet their are podcasts galore for paranormal subjects and most of them are young folks. Lets give them the audience that the Paracast can provide. Who knows they might just surprise us!
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#18
I feel that if a guest is worth their salt, than they will be willing to back up their opinions. If they aren't willing to come onto a show and be intelligently questioned, than they are probably not worth the time. I for one am tired of listening to the old timers say the same thing over and over and reminisce about the "old" days. Lets get some fresh young faces on the show. I am sure they would appreciate the exposure. Sure they may not be refined and a great interview, but unless they are given chances to hone their speaking they will just be forgotten. I keep hearing that their are no young people in the field, yet their are podcasts galore for paranormal subjects and most of them are young folks. Lets give them the audience that the Paracast can provide. Who knows they might just surprise us!
Thanks for your comments, and by all means feel free to make guest recommendations. I love the stories from the old timers who were there at the start of the Modern Era, and I like the enthusiasm and fresh attitudes of younger folks who are just discovering what it's all about. So I'm good either way, but f I end up as a regular co-host, I'll be taking a more active role in sourcing guests and will certainly take your suggestion into account.
 

Top