• 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!

June 4, 2017 — Greg Bishop


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
As usual with Greg, a thought-provoking episode that covers a host of subjects, some stretching beyond the world of UFOs.

We continued the discussion with Greg on this week's episode of After The Paracast, the exclusive premium podcast offered to Paracast+ members.

You can learn more of our premium subscription service from:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
This was really good show. I was glad to hear Chris back behind the mic and in good form. I was also pleasantly surprised by most of Greg's comments. It's been my impression in the past that he thinks he and I are at cross purposes with respect to ufology, but to me it seems more like we're both attempting to tackle the same problems from different perspectives. An example of something we have in common, and was IMO an important point, was what he had to say about UFO reports. I've been trying for ages to get people to separate the idea of UFO reports from the objects in the reports. Not every object that is the subject of a UFO report is an alien craft ( UFO ) and the way he expressed that point was excellent.

It's that kind of thinking that helps to bring focus to ufology. Now if we could just get the other issues into the same category. For example I think the ideas of cultural front loading or overlay as a belief system where the ETH is concerned is a valid point. But at the same time, the suggestion that any well-defined direction should be something to avoid, and that particular theories like the ETH should be arbitrarily downgraded because it's been popular violates pretty much every aspect of critical thinking that might be applied to the subject.

It's my view that ufology should have a well formed foundation from which to begin exploration, and it's entirely reasonable when doing so to form well defined variables. Yet what I seem to be hearing as that nothing should be defined to begin with and any idea is as good as the next, so pulling whatever ideas we prefer out of our butts and positing it as an explanation is how we should be going about it. Needless to say I don't think that's a particularly responsible approach. In fact it seems even more self-serving on an individual level that the ETH. It's one thing to re-frame the debate and another to reinvent the wheel.

It's not that I don't appreciate the spirit of the idea of starting fresh and looking at the subject with new eyes, but we need some way of doing that that is harmonious with the positive aspects of what has already been accomplished by others. Otherwise we just end-up with a whole bunch of individuals each thinking their way is the answer and that everyone should buy their book instead of someone else's. And that in my view is as much a part of the problem as anything else. Yes we need to be open minded, but not so open minded that it invites bands of vagrant hobos to take-up residence in our brains and use the furniture as firewood.
 
Last edited:
OK, but I think what Greg is also getting at is that the ETH camp must try harder to ask itself what specifically about the cases that they declare of ET origin is the determining factor. There are a lot of folks who use a half-baked process of elimination to get to the ETH, i.e. 'OK, I can't find any aircraft technology (that the public can find) and it came from the sky and such-and-such memo was probably talking about ETs, therefore I determine this UFO to come from an ET source.' I'm not saying you do that, I'm not saying all ET camp researchers do that, but some do and the ETH demographic of the public does it a lot. As regards the other possibilities that you say are simply 'pulled out of butts', be specific. What do you classify as being in this particular category?
 
I would classify the "inter-dimensional" scenario as largely pulled out of the butt scenario because I don't think it's been adequately explained; what is meant exactly by other dimensions that beings could exist in and then pop into ours? I don't think Flatland can be used as an example because we don't have any physics to describe a fourth large scale spatial dimension (correct me if I am wrong). Sure, there is theoretical physics around dimensions, but they're not the kinds needed for beings to pop in and out; it's strange for "inter-dimensional" proponents to criticize the ETH, when the ETH is much simpler and doesn't require new physics or much new anything. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I find it far more far fetched than the ETH.

I would also classify the "psychic projection" hypothesis or "collective unconscious" hypothesis as "butt-pulling" because there is no scientific attempt to even explain how this could be done. Same with time travelers; we don't even know if travel backwards in time is possible.

I think the ETH, Breakaway civilizations or possibly earth-based hidden civilizations to be the more likely explanations, although the first two make the most sense to me.
 
I would classify the "inter-dimensional" scenario as largely pulled out of the butt scenario because I don't think it's been adequately explained;.

For the record, yes indeed the ETH is solidly valid because we know outer space and other planets exist, even though we haven't publicly confirmed life out there. The ETH must always be part of the equation when having a discussion on UFOs.

However, the whole UFO thing hasn't been 'adequately explained' , lol. That's why we're here and the discussion goes on. Simple disagreement doesn't invalidate an option. And if more people spent as many decades on the interdimensional option as has been spent on the ETH, maybe we'd have more to offer in explanation. :)
 
I meant to say that the "interdimensional explanation" hasn't been adequately clarified as to what it exactly means. I don't think it's invalid, I just think it's a "butt pulled" option. But, I'm all for speculation since we have very little else to work with until Chris's camera project is done.
 
I meant to say that the "interdimensional explanation" hasn't been adequately clarified as to what it exactly means. I don't think it's invalid, I just think it's a "butt pulled" option. But, I'm all for speculation since we have very little else to work with until Chris's camera project is done.

Unless you consider the sort of data as did Vallee. That opens up an entire spectrum which I admit isn't popular with the ETH point of view but offers a little more substantiation than mere out-of-thin-air butt-pulling. I daresay you may be dismissing an entire field of data by relegating interdimensional stuff to a meaningless bin.

And what about the Blue Avians!!!!! :D
 
Unless you consider the sort of data as did Vallee. That opens up an entire spectrum which I admit isn't popular with the ETH point of view but offers a little more substantiation than mere out-of-thin-air butt-pulling. I daresay you may be dismissing an entire field of data by relegating interdimensional stuff to a meaningless bin.

And what about the Blue Avians!!!!! :D


I did read several of Vallee's books (Dimensions, Confrontations, Revelations and Invisible College) and what he writes is very interesting, particularly about the control system, but I don't buy his arguments against the ETH nor his positing the interdimensional as an alternative that better explains the phenomena. In my opinion, his view of the ETH was very narrow, implying aliens would only do this or that and behave a certain way, so whereas if they're from another dimension, then they can behave like fairies and other strange creatures we've seen throughout the ages; and therefore that hypothesis (interdimensional) makes more sense. I think ETs can just easily do all those things for their own reasons without the need to invent or develop a whole set of physics to explain it.

Just to clarify though, I have no stake in the ETH position. If some of them are proven to be from other dimensions, I will definitely not go into a depression and in fact will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe "butt pulled" is a bit too strong, so let's say I consider it significantly more speculative than the ETH.

What are the blue avians? If I knew the reference at one point, I have forgotten it.
 
This was really good show. I was glad to hear Chris back behind the mic and in good form. I was also pleasantly surprised by most of Greg's comments. It's been my impression in the past that he thinks he and I are at cross purposes with respect to ufology, but to me it seems more like we're both attempting to tackle the same problems from different perspectives. An example of something we have in common, and was IMO an important point, was what he had to say about UFO reports. I've been trying for ages to get people to separate the idea of UFO reports from the objects in the reports. Not every object that is the subject of a UFO report is an alien craft ( UFO ) and the way he expressed that point was excellent.

It's that kind of thinking that helps to bring focus to ufology. Now if we could just get the other issues into the same category. For example I think the ideas of cultural front loading or overlay as a belief system where the ETH is concerned is a valid point. But at the same time, the suggestion that any well-defined direction should be something to avoid, and that particular theories like the ETH should be arbitrarily downgraded because it's been popular violates pretty much every aspect of critical thinking that might be applied to the subject.

It's my view that ufology should have a well formed foundation from which to begin exploration, and it's entirely reasonable when doing so to form well defined variables. Yet what I seem to be hearing as that nothing should be defined to begin with and any idea is as good as the next, so pulling whatever ideas we prefer out of our butts and positing it as an explanation is how we should be going about it. Needless to say I don't think that's a particularly responsible approach. In fact it seems even more self-serving on an individual level that the ETH. It's one thing to re-frame the debate and another to reinvent the wheel.

It's not that I don't appreciate the spirit of the idea of starting fresh and looking at the subject with new eyes, but we need some way of doing that that is harmonious with the positive aspects of what has already been accomplished by others. Otherwise we just end-up with a whole bunch of individuals each thinking their way is the answer and that everyone should buy their book instead of someone else's. And that in my view is as much a part of the problem as anything else. Yes we need to be open minded, but not so open minded that it invites bands of vagrant hobos to take-up residence in our brains and use the furniture as firewood.

I have a similar line of thought in suggesting the hypothesis technique. It doesn't matter if the hypothesis is right or wrong.

For example let's put the hypothesis forward that "flesh and blood aliens are visiting earth In structured craft" just for starters...

You can then put forward evidence for consideration that proves, part proves or disproves this theory. Any outcome advances our understanding, even if we prove the hypothesis not true

Take CERN for example. They had a hypothesis that the higgs particle existed within a band of energy, they then set about the task of building an experiment that would prove or disprove this hypothesis. Simple but effective process of discovery.

Maybe the next UFO philanthropist could find academics to form a pier review group and layout correct scientific procedure as the way we try to prove the ufo perspective could be more important.
 
This was really good show. I was glad to hear Chris back behind the mic and in good form. I was also pleasantly surprised by most of Greg's comments. It's been my impression in the past that he thinks he and I are at cross purposes with respect to ufology, but to me it seems more like we're both attempting to tackle the same problems from different perspectives. An example of something we have in common, and was IMO an important point, was what he had to say about UFO reports. I've been trying for ages to get people to separate the idea of UFO reports from the objects in the reports. Not every object that is the subject of a UFO report is an alien craft ( UFO ) and the way he expressed that point was excellent.

It's that kind of thinking that helps to bring focus to ufology. Now if we could just get the other issues into the same category. For example I think the ideas of cultural front loading or overlay as a belief system where the ETH is concerned is a valid point. But at the same time, the suggestion that any well-defined direction should be something to avoid, and that particular theories like the ETH should be arbitrarily downgraded because it's been popular violates pretty much every aspect of critical thinking that might be applied to the subject.

It's my view that ufology should have a well formed foundation from which to begin exploration, and it's entirely reasonable when doing so to form well defined variables. Yet what I seem to be hearing as that nothing should be defined to begin with and any idea is as good as the next, so pulling whatever ideas we prefer out of our butts and positing it as an explanation is how we should be going about it. Needless to say I don't think that's a particularly responsible approach. In fact it seems even more self-serving on an individual level that the ETH. It's one thing to re-frame the debate and another to reinvent the wheel.

It's not that I don't appreciate the spirit of the idea of starting fresh and looking at the subject with new eyes, but we need some way of doing that that is harmonious with the positive aspects of what has already been accomplished by others. Otherwise we just end-up with a whole bunch of individuals each thinking their way is the answer and that everyone should buy their book instead of someone else's. And that in my view is as much a part of the problem as anything else. Yes we need to be open minded, but not so open minded that it invites bands of vagrant hobos to take-up residence in our brains and use the furniture as firewood.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I don't think I advocate throwing everything away that has gone before. I am sorry if I gave that impression or actually said it, because I don't believe it is a responsible attitude.

The main wish I have is that a greater variety of research and theorizing should be allowed into the conversation, including "butt-pulling" ideas. (I really like that new phrase.)

I think it's fine if a whole bunch of individuals think that they have the answer. I will pay attention to the ones who appear to have a good level of thought and data to back it up, or at least show inspired creativity that holds up over the long term.
 
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
You're welcome. It really was one of the better shows. I enjoyed the whole thing and the Paracast Plus too.
I don't think I advocate throwing everything away that has gone before. I am sorry if I gave that impression or actually said it ...
Certainly no need for apologies. My comments were more to address my growing sense of angst over time on ETH debates where commentators take turns voicing anti ETH sentiment, all the while claiming we need more objectivity and so on, which sort of implies that those who see the ETH as the leading theory aren't objective, or are part of some obsolete system from the 50s that by virtue of it being boring makes it no longer valid. There are dozens of quotes from various people from multiple sources to illustrate this point, but I'm sure you get what I mean.

I have to be careful here because like I was saying above, I think that at the core we are actually after the same thing, but we're both coming at it so differently that it can look like we're at cross purposes. That is sort of interesting itself . Can a non-apologist ufologist and a hardened agnostic/skeptic not have mutually exclusive viewpoints? Maybe that's a question we can explore further sometime. If it's all worthy of putting out on the table then I don't mind being the stick in the mud who thinks the ETH ( as I feel it should be defined ) deserves to remain at the forefront of the contending theories in ufology.
 
Last edited:
data to back it up, or at least . . .

IMHO, you revealed the "reality" of the situation (that most will admit to be true) by the way you framed this comment Greg. What "data" do we, John Q. Public, have in order to base our conjectures on?

We have thousands of trace cases, such as Ted Phillips' large collection, that tell us the encounter events are not "merely" dreams, but that are in some way actually occurring outside our consciousness. Yet so far, even Phillips' collection does not lead to conclusive closure as to what specifically is the cause.

Beyond trace evidence is human testimony of encounters, which typically is freaking weird. Can anyone discern much scientifically testable "data" from such testimony? On the other hand, I do think the accumulated "social" data can be sliced and diced, but that tells more about the human experiencers than anything else, other than frequency and location of events.

Then we have to ask, is there an absolute direct connection between residual trace evidence and the weird encounters, or is the association between the two far more relaxed?

Does the evidence in hand in 2017 lead to the idea of a sentient cause of UFO encounters?

If so, is there enough evidence to determine that the sentience is not derived from the human experiencer of the event, but is external to the human who reports the event?

Then too, I don't think most people conclude that all UFO reports are solely the result mistaken identification, or of direct human deception of other humans. But on that note, I do think the Roswell event and the Wilbert Smith memo may have been counter-intel operations that piggy-backed on UFOs, and evidently the MJ documents did as well. But it is highly doubtful that all UFO reports result from intel operations, even though such activity throws confusion and doubt on actual reports of UFOs.

There are many unsolved cases of cunning human crimes against other humans in the world. So, if there actually is an external sentience that dominates UFO / paranormal encounters with humans, then we humans may never be able to "solve" these cases in any scientifically conclusive way.

As for me, I am convinced that an external sentience does control encounter events, which I think of as "The UFO Show." But from my view of the world as a theist, "The UFO Show" is only one of a number of similar kinds of experiences reported by people through the ages and around the world.
 
I think there is WAAAAY too much talk about talking about it and 'how to talk about it' and let's discuss some more and how about we exercise our talking about discussing the issue of how we'll talk about it, blah blah blah. I say we get out there and do research and when talking needs to be done, talk about cases. All this 'discourse' reminds me of being married :D

But then again, I am a weirdo and not the kind of person who needs to relate to others so much, so proceed. :D
 
I think there is WAAAAY too much talk about talking about it and 'how to talk about it' and let's discuss some more and how about we exercise our talking about discussing the issue of how we'll talk about it, blah blah blah. I say we get out there and do research and when talking needs to be done, talk about cases. All this 'discourse' reminds me of being married :D

But then again, I am a weirdo and not the kind of person who needs to relate to others so much, so proceed. :D

I appreciate your point, but the thing is, the act of doing research requires that those doing it understand what it is they're doing, and that is defined and communicated by language. Therefore without a solid conceptual foundation that can be accurately communicated in language, research is essentially rudderless, which IMO is part of the overall problem in ufology. Even the basic word UFO is interpreted differently by different people, including those who have relatively high profile positions in the ufology community. And yet we still see everyone agreeing there should be standards. I guess that means: So long as those standards agree with their position :rolleyes:.

My position is that every scholarly attempt at the formation of a field of interest should contain accurate objective terminology specific to that field, and I see no reason why ufology should be exempt. Therefore the key words in ufology need to be standardized across the board, and to do that a close objective look at those terms needs to be done. I've made an attempt to do that for a number of key words, as well as charted the logical ramifications, and it seems to be spreading by capillary action out into the community, but it's slow ... so slow. So less resistance to it would IMO be more beneficial. It can only improve the quality of research you want to see done.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your point, but the thing is, the act of doing research requires that those doing it understand what it is they're doing, and that is defined and communicated by language. Therefore without a solid conceptual foundation that can be accurately communicated in language, research is essentially rudderless, which IMO is part of the overall problem in ufology. Even the basic word UFO is interpreted differently by different people, including those who have relatively high profile positions in the ufology community. And yet we still see everyone agreeing there should be standards. I guess that means: So long as those standards agree with their position :rolleyes:.

My position is that every scholarly attempt at the formation of a field of interest should contain accurate objective terminology specific to that field, and I see no reason why ufology should be exempt. Therefore the key words in ufology need to be standardized across the board, and to do that a close objective look at those terms needs to be done. I've made an attempt to do that for a number of key words, as well as charted the logical ramifications, and it seems to be spreading by capillary action out into the community, but it's slow ... so slow. So less resistance to it would IMO be more beneficial. It can only improve the quality of research you want to see done.

Im of the firm view we need to develop the language, the Lexicon first.

Its the difference between describing the phenomena as a chariot of the gods and a structured vehicle using plasma physics and repulsive force field propulsion.

Both set of words describes whats being seen within the framework of the culture describing it as an expression its own technology.

The culture with the more advanced scientific lexicon is going to be closer to describing whats actually happening though.
 
Still too much discussion about discussion. To quote Ben Stiller from the 'Starsky & Hutch' movie:

"Do it....DO it...DO it"

And Elvis: 'A little less conversation, a little more action...'

:D

Basically, just get out there, investigate sightings/reports, collect evidence, document it, try to avoid assumptive conclusions, present speculations as a side product. Meet up with other researchers and discuss then. Maybe write a book about what you found. Coming to terms will come.
 
Try to get three people interested in this field to agree on even the same lexicon. :)

In the meantime, get out there into the field because all the chin rubbing and consensus is useless UNTIL you have more experience with what you and others are dealing with. :)
 
Back
Top