July 30, 2017 — Dr. Irena Scott with J. Randall Murphy

[Gene Steinberg]

Although she has a low-key delivery, Dr. Irena Scott delivered a fascinating presentation of her history in the UFO field, and some interesting encounters early on.

And wait till Gene briefly describes the memories inspired by a photo in Dr. Scott's book.

Gene and Randall were joined by Chris for a discussion about this episode and other topics on After The Paracast, the exclusive podcast available only to members of The Paracast+.

For more information about our premium subscription package, please check:

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

 

[wwkirk]

I liked her willingness to say, "I don't know."
I also noticed you went easier on her than Buchman.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Did I miss something while listening? I don't recall there being any new ground or revelations discussed during the episode. A lot of commenting on legacy events that have been gone over ad nauseam with no real additional insight or information added by Dr. Scott, for the most part. Given this interview, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason to buy her book. The only segment of interest was when she discussed working for the D.I.A. and saw, firsthand, a strange, domed, lenticular craft of some sort in top secret satellite photography.

I appreciated, as well, her willingness to say "I don't know," but given her lengthy experience and impressive background I wouldn't have minded some actual informed speculation. Otherwise, what are you doing here? None of us know anything.

I thought Randall did as good a job as one could to tease some commentary and answers from Dr. Scott with his probing questions but there were times it became like pulling teeth. She definitely will not be accused of being as loquacious as Dr. Joseph Buchman or willing to speculate like Peter Robbins.

ATP comments:
Why in god's name would Jan Harzan come on the show? I wouldn't get near The Paracast with a 10ft pole given the significant amount of criticism that's been (rightfully) broadcast lately if I were him. What would be the upside for him to appear? Nothing good would come of his participation (from MUFON's perspective). You can't successfully defend the indefensible, after all. It would, for all intents and purposes, be a suicide mission for him to open himself up to what would surely be a fair but blistering cross-examination by Gene and Chris. For that reason: Not. Gonna. Happen.

Greg Bishop had James Clarkson on the latest episode of Radio Misterioso and it was an excellent and candid discussion. I highly recommend people check it out.


Sorry to be a "Debbie Downer" about the main episode but I just felt like contributing my thoughts about this week's show. After all, that's what this forum is for, right? Finally, stoked that Chris O'Brien has his internet sorted and is hardwired and ready to go. He sounded good on his new connection and it also sounds like his health is better too (from the strength and tone of his voice), which is welcome news indeed.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Greg Bishop interview with former Police Detective was one of the best I listen too for a long time. Agree with James on the field and UFOs situation today. Now there is some great researchers out there such as Don and the Paracast team.
Agree with James on Roswell and Bob Lazar story gives more of a clue to the hidden hand running these crazy operations without caring who they pick on. The aspect to Roswell case is who was really in charge of US Atomic Defence and the establishment of NATO following years. The creation of China and Russian own atomic defence systems who was running behind the ratline not just war criminals. The current MUFON episode shows how far the field been dieing and great work of the late John Keel must be turning in his grave. It needs Mr Bob Bigelow to power charge the field with a academic research centre with a clean slate and his work under the World's Oceans is another great step. No doubt wider problem than just China
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...investigation-finds-massive-peer-review-fraud

 

[matthew1977]

"low key delivery" is an understatement.. this was a ruff show to listen too. Randall seemed quick to pick apart the guests responses based on his perception of her answers. (i.e. ufo had reflective surface similar to that of an airplane....)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

"low key delivery" is an understatement.. this was a ruff show to listen too. Randall seemed quick to pick apart the guests responses based on his perception of her answers. (i.e. ufo had reflective surface similar to that of an airplane....)

This was also difficult show for me because of the last minute preparation and the breaks in Dr. Scotts's delivery. It became almost contagious and disrupted my ability to concentrate. So I'll have to apologize for that, but I can't apologize for deferring to mundane possibilities for anomalous objects or clarifying statements like "it looked like an airplane". I think it helps to be sure exactly what someone means by what they say, and that if there's a possible mundane explanation, that it's more prudent to make that assumption than to jump to more exotic and unsubstantiated conclusions.

I mean if her sighting was really that strange, what sort of person with an interest in this subject would just decide to go to bed? When I had my own UFO sighting I stayed up all night and didn't take my eyes off the spot where it went down until dawn, and then I watched it leave. Plus her counterpoint that a balloon should have moved at least some small amount could easily have been challenged by proposing that it had been tethered on three points. So really, I let her off the hook on that.

The highlight however is that it's the first time we've had the opportunity to interview someone with her credentials and firsthand experience of how anomalous objects in spy satellite photos are handled on the inside. This little gem is IMO worth more than the rest of the show. If that's all that we had talked about for the first 15 minutes, thrown in a plug for the book and then moved on to another guest, that's all we would have really needed to do the interview justice. But we didn't have another guest and I did the best I could given the time and the opportunity. It's not as easy as we imagine sometimes and although I'm grateful for the opportunity, I'm also glad Chris is back to carry-on.

 

[matthew1977]

no worries, you got me to listen to the whole show, i had to bail when she was on podcastufo, just couldn't muscle through it... it really emphasized her awkward pauses after listening to Peter Robbins who is so well spoken and the conversation just flowed from him so naturally.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Jimi]

She has a laid back cadence to her speech, which I liked, and when listening to the content I found her interesting, honest and insightful.

Her sighting, which was rightly clarified by Usual Suspect (and I think our guest co host did a great job as usual), was not proclaimed to be a space ship or anything too speculative. Just deemed anomalous by the her, the experiencer.

I liked the show and found the good Dr much more agreeable than countless others in the field.

 

[Constance]

From reviews of her book at amazon it's clear that Dr. Scott has an enormous amount of insider information to convey about Post-WW2 ufo events and US governmental efforts to understand them. See especially the amazon review by Bruce Maccabee, which I'll c&p in a next post.

Of particular interest to me, Dr. Scott informs us that metallurgists began working at Wright-Patterson or Battelle on anomalous metals even before 1947, and that she knew Harold Cross at Battelle and knew that he was directing research on 'memory metal' at Battelle in the years after Roswell. This corresponds with Anthony Bragalia's research reported a few years ago. I noticed that @Gene Steinberg asked her two questions about Bragalia, and that instead of offering information about him she remained silent. More than likely she knows him, and it seems clear that she honors his wish to maintain his privacy, which I applaud.
I've ordered a copy of Scott's book and I hope you will invite her for another interview after some of us have read it.



Also, if you haven't yet interviewed Grant Cameron to discuss his new book, Managing Magic: The Government's UFO Disclosure Plan, I hope you will do so.

 

[Constance]

Maccabee's amazon review of Irena Scott's book:

"BOOK REVIEW OF UFOs TODAY By Dr Bruce Maccabee:
Irena Scott’s Book UFOs: 70 years…..
If I had to sum it up in one word that word would be “comprehensive.”There is an abundance of sighting reports and analyses and discussions of the impact on witnesses. Many of the reports are presented by the decade 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, etc.) so that the reader can see how ufology changed and developed as the years went by. Other reports are used to characterize types of reports and are not presented in temporal sequence. This approach may at first confuse some readers not already familiar with the subject, but it should all be clear by the end of the book.

This book is also strong on government and intelligence agency activities which appear to impede civilian UFO research. I was particularly impressed by the history of the Battelle Memorial institute activities related to materials research (NITINOL, where the NOL at the end stands for Naval Ordnance Laboratory where I began my long career as a physicist) and the UFO report investigations that led to Special Report #14 and its voluminous statistical study of 3201 reports made during the first five years (1947 – 1952). I studied SR14 way back in the early 70’s and even went so far as to revise their statistics (see
brumac.mysite.com/SSUFOs). I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who wants an overview of 70 years of reports, investigations, failed explanations and government cover ups, leading to the conclusion that something unusual really is going on (“UFOs are real”)."

 

[marduk]

Randall, fantastic job.

I laughed out loud when you said something like "if it looked like a plane and it was at plane height, then maybe it was a plane."

Your skepticism is appreciated.

For the most part I found this guest to be really honest and quite clear headed. And I loved her comments about sexism in the field.

Top tier show guys.