• 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!

Leslie Kean and Charles Halt

Forums New posts
ufology said:
You're not getting it. So far as this strategy Kean's bought into is concerned, NORAD radar tracks would mean anything else but UFOs because the pursuit of ufology and belief in alien craft is for UFO nuts, and con-men.
Click to expand...

Not really... a good lawyer, using comprehensive radar data around the JAL Alaska case and the multiple witnesses (Captain and crew) could crack up the nut and get some sort of admission hinting at external non-earth based intelligence. The lawsuit would have to revolve around flight safety and UAP's whatever they are and potentially could be.

All these pilots and government officials can't all be con-men or nuts. This governmental recognition would then be translated into proper avoidance procedure until we can communicate with these entities ;)

Another benefit of recognition, it would become a crime not to report events that could interfere with flight safety. (A retroactive law.. with a grace period would be nice too)
 
Ezechiel said:
Not really... a good lawyer, using comprehensive radar data around the JAL Alaska case and the multiple witnesses (Captain and crew) could crack up the nut and get some sort of admission hinting at external non-earth based intelligence. The lawsuit would have to revolve around flight safety and UAP's whatever they are and potentially could be.

All these pilots and government officials can't all be con-men or nuts. This governmental recognition would then be translated into proper avoidance procedure until we can communicate with these entities ;)

Another benefit of recognition, it would become a crime not to report events could interfere with flight safety.
Click to expand...

You're still missing the point ... maybe you missed this part:
NARCAP - Media Page

Please do not contact NARCAP to gain participation in programs that engage
in speculation regarding extraterrestrial visitation and/or UFO as alien
spacecraft. We do not know what UAP are and do not support any claim
regarding incursions into the Earth domain by nonhuman intelligences.
NARCAP reports and studies are not entertainment.
Click to expand...
NARCAP has basically gone rogue in a attempt to gain credibility for themselves at the expense of serious ufology.
 
Ufology, you really seem to be the only person in this forum that preoccupied with the EXACT definition of the term UFO. Gene and Chris had some interesting banter about it on this week's episode. I agree with what they said. You have to face the fact that your very specific definition does not work in practice.
 
Thanks Angelo. We can argue definitions forever, but it doesn't help us solve the UFO mystery.

It sort of reminds me of the moronic hearings in Congress over some talking points about the Benghazi attack. How do a few paragraphs of talking points, released a few days after the incident, help anyone figure out what went wrong, how to protect diplomats and their staffs, and capturing the offenders? I almost think that one of the key qualifications to getting elected is a severe learning disability.
 
@Christopher Obrien @Gene Steinberg
Angel of Ioren said:
Ufology, you really seem to be the only person in this forum that preoccupied with the EXACT definition of the term UFO. Gene and Chris had some interesting banter about it on this week's episode. I agree with what they said. You have to face the fact that your very specific definition does not work in practice.
Click to expand...
Accuracy and truth aren't dependent on the opinions of a few forum members, but of independent evidence backed by logic and reason. Chris understands this perfectly and understands exactly where I'm coming from. So does Gene, and neither of them object in principle to the USI definition as it is defined within the context of ufology studies, particularly the "exactness" which makes it clear that being alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial, or for that matter even non-human. In fact we all tend to agree on the same basic ideas, and our discussions have been more to bring those ideas into focus than to express opposition. If I'm wrong, then I'm really reading them wrong, perhaps they might comment on this themselves.
 
Well--I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. I don't care what color hat Ms Kean wears as long as she is doing honest investigative work. The worst charge I might level at her as regards her attitudes and demeanor would be 'coyness'. That's pretty mild. If credible witnesses to strange events will step forward only under the aegis of an investigation labeled as something other than paranormal or ufological, I see no problem with that.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Thanks Angelo. We can argue definitions forever, but it doesn't help us solve the UFO mystery.
Click to expand...

Gene, if you're suggesting I need to get out more, I probably wouldn't disagree. There's no substitute for real field work. I'd also agree that arguing definitions forever won't help us solve the UFO mystery. So the obvious solution is to stop arguing forever about it and accept the one that gives us the most solid foundation to work from, and I know of no other definition that is as accurate and elegant in its simplicity as the one used by USI. Based on that foundation, we have sufficient historical evidence to conclude with reasonable certainty that alien visitation is a reality. This alone gives us three of the W5s with respect to the manifestation of the phenomena ( the wheres, whats and whens ). What steps should we take next to determine with the same level of certainty who they are and the why are they here?
 
The hell with what it's called. Let's find out what it is, OK? Let's nail it down if we can! We can call them Unidentified Screwball Objects if you wish and we'd still confront the same mystery.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The hell with what it's called. Let's find out what it is, OK?
Click to expand...
The what part we've got figured out. UFOs are alien craft. The where part we've got figured out. UFOs are reported on and around Earth. The when part we've got figured out. The most solid reports come from the Early Modern Era in ufology. It's who the aliens are and why they are here that we still have to nail down. We could also use some more details on the other questions, like where do they originate? What are they made of? And when did they start interacting with our civilization?
 
We have NOT confirmed that they are "alien craft," in the way I presume you mean alien, which is from another planet somewhere. The evidence may point in that direction, but there are elements about the UFO mystery that, as you know, are still not understood. As soon as you reach one conclusion without that "smoking gun" evidence, others follow that may be wrong if the original conclusion is also wrong.

So let's not put the cart before the horse please.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
We have NOT confirmed that they are "alien craft," in the way I presume you mean alien, which is from another planet somewhere. The evidence may point in that direction, but there are elements about the UFO mystery that, as you know, are still not understood. As soon as you reach one conclusion without that "smoking gun" evidence, others follow that may be wrong if the original conclusion is also wrong.

So let's not put the cart before the horse please.
Click to expand...

But Gene I thought you said "The hell with what it's called." Now you want to get picky over the word "alien"? I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

I use the word as it was meant to be used by the people who created it as applied to the study of ufology.

How exactly do you mean it?
 
Alien has a distinct meaning for most people who follow UFO lore. It means spaceships. I do want to know if they are spaceships or something else, but assuming spaceships until we get some sort of conclusive evidence is not the way to go.

Again, this discussion doesn't advance research one iota. It's a word game, and I have better things to do.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Alien has a distinct meaning for most people who follow UFO lore. It means spaceships. I do want to know if they are spaceships or something else, but assuming spaceships until we get some sort of conclusive evidence is not the way to go.
Again, this discussion doesn't advance research one iota. It's a word game, and I have better things to do.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not quite accurate. In ufology aliens from space are commonly known as extraterrestrials (ETs). Sometimes they are also referred to as extraterrestrial biological entities ( EBEs ). There are a whole range of theories regarding the who and why of alien existence and visitation. The word "alien" includes but has never necessitated ET. You may be right that our discussion may not advance research one iota because these have been well established facets of ufology for many years. It may however help to remove some of the confusion taking place in our discussion and in the Paracast forum in general. Given that it's your forum, I would think that you would have few better things to do. But by all means take a break if you want. Think it over. Look it up.
 
Well, you can have aliens from another dimension too, and that's still just a fork in the definition. Can't we move to something that actually gets something accomplished?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Well, you can have aliens from another dimension too, and that's still just a fork in the definition. Can't we move to something that actually gets something accomplished?
Click to expand...
Trust me, I empathize. But there's an old saying that if you can't go out and fish, you can still stay home and mend the nets. I have no X-Files type FBI budget to fly around investigating every decent report. So I do what I can by maintaining the USI website and contributing content to the Paracast. Lately there has been a lot of talk about the need for a more academic approach to ufology. In that spirit I've been trying to preserve what's left of serious ufology by doing just that. Sure it's tedious to dig through reams of NARA files to find out where some thing or another happened and compare it to other sources and arrive at an answer that fits. But at least it's serious ufology. I'm not pushing bunk or lunatic fringe theories. Our reputation matters to me, and I'd like to think I'd be accomplishing something worthwhile if I can get that message across.

BTW, the interview was still very good. I'm not criticizing that at all. I've also moved the subject off this thread and made it more generic. This isn't an issue that is exclusive to Kean and keeping it going here singles her out too much. I don't think she deserves that. It's more than just about her, and so far as I'm concerned her book is still worth having in any UFO library.

So did you have another topic that you think would help us accomplish more? How can I help?
 
Very interesting show, specially with the inclusion of Col. Halt --although I think many of us would like to hear him debate Peter Robbins ;)

As for Leslie, I understand her approach, even though I'm not so sure if one can simply wish that all the discussions, stories & lore of interaction between UFOnauts & witnesses be erased from the field, so the media can only stick to query about Close Encounters of the 1st & 2nd kind. Whether we like it or not, the cat's out of the bag.

Ranting about what Bassett should have or shouldn't have done in Washington, I guess it's like something you gentlemen experienced the 1st time you invited a girlfriend to meet your parents on Thanksgiving: you want to make a good first impression & that everything will work out without incidents. You arrive home, introduce your gal to your parents, go into the living room where everyone is already gathered... and there's old uncle Karl, the 'eccentric' black sheep, sitting on the couch with no pants --oh great, so much for making a 1st good impression, right?

And the worst thing is, that perhaps uncle Karl is the mot interesting member of your family! the one who has the best anecdotes, from back when he joined the Army or was in the Merchant Marine or whatever. But right now all you feel is embarrassment because of him --"God dammit, uncle Karl! couldn't you just once act like a normal person?? is that too much to ask for?!"

I think that perhaps that's what happened with the Citizens Hearing on Disclosure --it all could've gone sooo much better... if only uncle Karl had remembered to put on his pants...

PS: Since we're talking acronyms here, this is one of my own:

Deceptive
Entities
Roaming our
Planet

Troll_Face.jpg
 
PPS: I've never understood Leslie's angle re. the 'flight safety issues' UFOs represent. In all the years of commercial travel, how many solid examples do we have of a UFO actually colliding with a commercial aircraft, resulting in the loss of life?

(Capt. Thomas Mantell doesn't count. He was a military pilot actively engaging a UFO)

It occurs to me that either a)UFOs are incapable of causing any serious damage to our planes; or b)the intelligence presumably controlling these objects takes sufficient precautions to avert catastrophes. They might not have a problem scaring the Bejezus of the crew & passengers aboard the airliners, though.

Frankly, I'd be more worried about commercial drones invading the fligh paths of airline jets, than the potential threat of modern Foo Fighters.
 
Back
Top