• 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!

October 20, 2013 Jerome Clark


wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
Good interview. I agree with most of what Clark had to say. But I differ regarding Dr. Jacobs and Budd Hopkins. If the clients are not really being abducted, hypnotic regression could do more harm than good.

Regarding the lady who has a website denouncing Jacobs, I found her to be sober and sympathetic. His regressions of her were done over the phone, which seems suspect. The now defunct Paratopia did an exhaustive series on this case. As for the alternative, how about a moratorium on hypnosis and the reliance on conscious recollection?
 
There are legitimate reasons to question the investigative techniques employed by Hopkins and Jacobs, particularly when it comes to doing hypnotic regression via telephone. This is particularly true for someone they never met. And that takes us to the "lady" in question.

You may find her "sober and sympathetic." I don't disagree. But I also found her obsessive and deceptive.

When she opened a sock puppet account here to support herself, that was clear and convincing evidence of deception. As to obsessive, you merely need to consider her extreme attention to detail and her over-the-top reactions to even the most simple criticisms. So when Chris suggested she was stalking Dr. Jacobs, she first mistakenly assumed I made the statement, wrote thousands of words to dispute the contention, and even involved her followers. All because someone on a radio show accused her of behavior that, frankly, wasn't exactly inconsistent with her ongoing actions.

I really blame the original therapist that she visited. When he passed her off to Hopkins and Jacobs, people who lived on the other side of the world, he should have known that was behavior that bordered on malpractice. The lady proceeded to send them hundreds and hundreds of pages of detailed notes, clearly indicating someone in trouble, based on what they told me at the time.

I suspect Dr. Jacobs's motives were pure. He wanted to help someone clearly in deep distress, but he also was way out of his league. At the very least, he should have brought in a therapist to monitor the sessions, or perhaps take over when appropriate. Jacobs claims that the "lady" was calling him at inappropriate times, and asked it to stop, which apparently sparked the smear campaign. I do not know if this is true or not, since I wasn't there. But her behavior in other areas does make it seem as if Jacobs may indeed be telling the truth. Remember, Jacobs does not have a reputation for being untruthful. You may disagree with his investigative techniques and conclusions, but that doesn't make a liar of him.

Now if these sessions, which apparently extended over a few years, were unproductive for her, she could have stopped calling Jacobs and sought treatment elsewhere. Nobody forced her to continue. Period. She had no excuse to keep it going if all these horrible things were being done to her.

As to those recordings: I won't argue whether Jacobs allowed her to make them, or allowed her to release them. He says no, so it would appear to be he said/she said. People who claim they weren't edited miss the point. Most of the released recordings are snippets of sessions, so you don't know what happened before those segments began and after they ended. You can't know unless you had full access to the unedited recordings. Besides, how would you know you are getting the full batch?

Jacobs says they were taken out of context, but there's no way to prove that one way or the other.

My problem with the Paratopia folks was their effort to sensationalize the episode to boost their own circulation and perhaps income, rather than try to figure out what really happened, how it all happened, and find constructive ways to avoid such things from happening again. There was excessive attention placed on a pair of panties said to contain evidence of a sexual attack by aliens on this lady. With all the outrageous complaints about the possible prurient interest of Jacobs in getting her underwear, did anyone consider whether he might have wanted the item simply to test for alien DNA?

It's a mess, and I do not wish to talk about it any further. I think this very message will incite her supporters to restart their useless flamewars. We have to move beyond this and really look at abduction research and refine the research methods. There also has to be some way to deal with possible ticking time bombs of this sort, so we do not end up with more pointless controversies.

And, no, I won't entertain any more discussion on the subject. It's been done to death, and we have to move on. In other words, any more responses on this matter, pro or con, will be deleted.
 
I enjoyed this show very much and will look back through the archives for other appearances by Clark. I especially enjoyed his discussion of personal anomalous experiences - noting they have often been (for him) trivial with no larger meaning or impact. He also noted that some experiences have only appeared anomalous when looking back on them. I've had a lot of these experiences and I like the notion that we may edit most of these out of our memories over time - perhaps they are very common human experiences and the most common response is to edit them out and if so, that is very interesting in its own right. If these are hiccups in memory, you could argue the appropriate response is to edit them out but based on what comparison? Not fitting in with previous experiences or some innate template of normalcy? Another interesting aspect of some of the strangest experiences I've had is that my reaction has been to yawn and roll over and go back to sleep or to simply shrug and get on with whatever I was doing and I understand this is also not uncommon with anomalous experiences? The "oh my god" moment coming later or, even if appropriate, not at all.

Thanks again, Gene, Chris and Jerome (Jerry!)

Stephen
 
On the subject of false memory syndrome etc., right, Gene? Not on the show itself. I wanted to make several comments about it. I hope this is the right place. If not, please move my comments to the right place.

First, I enjoyed the show and felt there was something in what Clark was saying about his perceptions of sincerity and good will among the ufools. I felt he was making a sly criticism of some forms of hyper-criticality which have emerged even here, on ye goode olde Paracast, but that wasn't picked up on so much by Chris or Gene, or else they deflected it with comments about junior-high clique mentality at work "in the field." I tend to agree with Clark that people are misguided rather than intentionally lying most of the time within the UFO community(-ies). Why does this lead to such vitriol, and why has it always, even if the "new generation" always discovers and is surprised by this vitriol anew (Don Ecker is still talking about unexpected sh_tstorms he experienced over 20 years ago)? That leads me to my main comment and my main point of contention with what Clark said, although I liked him as a person to the extent that I listened, and I like Gene, Chris, Don and lots of other people just fine as well.

I took exception with Clark's characterization of modern Science and the worth of input by what he called "amateurs." I think what he said about specialization and the need for professional scientists and amateurs was probably the public's general perception 20 years, 40 years and 100 years ago, but I don't think it's true, not even now. science small s is a framework for discovering and testing reality, and has been for a long time, long before the Nat Sci Foundation was handing out grants, and it will be long after the NSF no longer exists (rue the day). It is a very simple practice to "do science": look, think about what's going, devise a test to see if your thoughts are correct, look some more, think some more.

To get to the point quickly, there isn't much science or Science can do with UFOs. Even if you throw lots and lots of money at it, there's a basic lack of observational data. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about sightings, there are lots of those. But there's no way to TEST any ideas about UFOs, because they are encountered so rarely (except if you're Commander Greer or run a UFO sighting camp near Portland, OR). If yu can pull a Gorightly and get a UFO to appear by dropping acid and wishing hard, more power to you, but I don't think even Adam can repeat that sequence and precipitate a flying saucer at will.

Even if you have crash debris, what can you really do with it? So what if the isotopic ratios aren't run-of-the-mill daily averages we see here on Terra? What does that prove? What can you do with the slag to check any theory? Nothing.

In a word, we have a dearth of input, a lack of the phenomenon itself, so we fall back upon the "think about what's really going on" leg of scientific method and this leg is hypertrophied, out of all proportion to the observable data. This is natural. This is all that "professional" federally-funded Scientists could do as well. It's the nature of the phenomenon itself to conceal itself, and while this is true of other fields of inquiry to a certain extent--DNA folds up on itself, subatomic particles are hard to find, etc.--, we don't have the instruments to make UFO spotting easy (although the National Security apparatus might, I really don't know about that and can only speculate).

Spotting is merely observation, it doesn't mean you can reach out and poke a UFO to see if it's slimy, metallic, vegetable, mineral or transgender. "Repeatability" doesn't enter into the observation phase, that's a demand of the testing stage: when you check your hypothesis through an experiment you devise, you should get consistent results if your theory is correct.

I'm sorry to have to point out the obvious here, but evidently some radio hosts who shall not be named thinked "peer review" is part of the Scientific Method, and Jerome Clark thinks "climate change" and its denial actually mean something (climate has always changed, that's what it does). Of course both of them are doing much better than a certain George Ignorey who praises "high technology" developments and actually means twitter, skype and cell phones that not only represent a real regression in what was global hifi telephony via landlines, but which are actually WORSE than the primitive voice-compression technology the Apollo missions used from the Moon (leading to speculation whether he really said "One small step for Man" or whether the "a" in "one small step for a man" was dropped; oh! that it were only that nowadays, even on "professional" radio). Ignorey probably doesn't have a clear distinction in his mind between science and technology, and probably wouldn't know high technology if it saved his life, but that's a different program and a different set of problems.

Why the NSF and NASA and NOAA and all the rest have decided to set up a new branch of pseudo-science called "climatology" with al funding directed at global warming, not cooling, I have no idea, but that's what's happened. My best Joan Rivers voice here: "Can we get some grants for global cooling over here now please?!"

The junior-high mentality that is consensus reality popped up in the show regarding supposed new Roswell photos as well. Chris and Jerome poo-pooed the idea based on the origin in an attic in a New Age enclave in Arizona. It's sort of like rejecting Velikovsky because he sounds so wacky and none of the cool scientists like him, or, "nothing good comes from Nazareth." Given the lack of anything and everything Roswell, let's give the photos a chance at least, or at least let's not reject the idea out of hand that some photos might exist and might be discovered in this fashion.

Do we really need to apply wikipedia-style consensus reality to the "field" of ufoology? Do we really need speakers at the Fake Citizens' Hearings with "gravitas"? What if they're talking about antigravity? Shouldnt they then have "antigravitas?" I say, let all the voices be heard, because they, the big They out there, think you and me just as kooky as Linda Moulton Howe, if not more so.

I sort of felt Jerome Clark's point about the ufoology field internalizing the worst arguments of the pseudo-debunkers was lost on Gene and Chris. Yes, the idea that ufoologists making money is bad goes back to the idea that we're all charlatans anyway, so any profit becomes evidence of our motive to deceive the public and drag this supposed age of rationality and enlightenment kicking and screaming back into the Dark Ages with our horoscopes, Ouija boards, Caterbury Tales of Flying Chaucers, biorhythms, Psy-card games, pyramid power and Bigfoot sightings. Now tell me, though, what scientific progress has taken place since 1969? I don't mean crappy cell phones and home microcomputers, those are tools. Or let me put it another way: what has Man done since reaching the Moon in 1969 that is comparable in any way? It seems to me we reached civilizational zenith then, and have been going downhill ever since into a real Dark Age, scientific, cultural and political, returning to practices mankind rejected centuries ago, to torture, slavery, cannibalism.

Thank you for letting me state my opinion. I like Clark, O'Brien/Barnes and Steinberg, even if I don't always agree with them. I don't expect Science can do anything more with UFOs than we peasants have been doing for decades now, purely speculating, for lack of evidence. Surely there is over-specialization in the scientific disciplines, but surely this is because the funding has gone to make this so, and no one really wants generalists who grasp the larger picture, there is no money in that. Just as an aside, in favor of a multidisciplinary approach, am I the only one who watched Whitley Strieber's movie about his adventures in his cabin, and flashed back upon those Washington Irving stories set in roughly the same location, upstate New York, with roughly the same sort of gnome/elf creatures and missing time? I bet Chris O'Brien caught onto that right away. I wonder if Whitely ever has.
 
I meant to note that Clark's discussion of not just true/false - but what if there is a third option? reminded me of Raymond Moody's idea of the "logic of nonsense" - I believe it was in his latest book and he also offers an online course (which was too expensive for me to pursue) - other than that I'm not aware that Moody has revealed any details, so I am interested if any one else if aware of a connection or is able to flesh out this idea at all - either from Moody or Clark?

Also, a small synchronicity in that I recently heard Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hollow being read on a podcast (and it was not a podcast I normally listen to nor was reading an old ghost story the normal fare of this podcast - but synchronous experiences have those kind of characteristics for me) and I also noted the lack of a true supernatural outcome in the tale but also how superstition persisted among the people - somewhat similar to the point Clark made when he noted he had recently re-read the story . . . so I was sort of startled to hear my own thoughts echoed back to me from what felt like a digression in the discussion.
 
Moseley's 3.5-D theory probably sort of fits in a general way into the neither true nor false, third option idea. I think Whitley Strieber's ideas sort of echo that as well, the idea of a different realm, not empiraclly here, not there, but existing.

I'm trying to remember the name of the short story about the fellow whom the elves take bowling in the Catskills. Is that Rip van Winkle? I might be mixing up authors and stories, but I know I read it, and I know it sounds like Whitley's Cabin, and it was one of those early American authors who dabbled in the weird and liked to treat the Dutch in New York state. I guess I'll have to reread it now.

The persistence of superstitious belief is really true, I've had personal experiences with that, perpetuating an outlandish hoax and then trying to 'fess up. No one believes the truth.
 
I tend to agree with Clark that people are misguided rather than intentionally lying most of the time within the UFO community(-ies). Why does this lead to such vitriol, and why has it always, even if the "new generation" always discovers and is surprised by this vitriol anew (Don Ecker is still talking about unexpected sh_tstorms he experienced over 20 years ago)?

Well, I can only blame my occasional regressions on the fact that now and again I re-discover that I find myself a frustrated History teacher. So much of this resides in my brain that sometimes I am forced to "vomit it" out when I am doing the UFO thing. The fact is that most today that claim to be interested in the UFO topic were not around then (you know, back in the day) and most new folks find it too much work to do any research on this field. Mention Keyhoe, Sanderson, even Keel and you will be amazed at the blank looks you receive.

Decker
 
[This must be my first post here in a few years although I'm not sure why I left it so long, or why today's the day, as I have continued listening to the show fairly often. I see The Forum has been revamped. I don't think "like" votes existed last time I was here. That's a good addition.]
Re. Jerome's unexplained bag of lost English folk CDs mysteriously found in the drawer, it's interesting he offered only two potential explanations:
1) Someone broke in, took those specific CDs off his shelf, placed them in a bag, & stuffed them in his drawer for unknown reasons.
2) His wife did it, except she said she didn't, & she doesn't lie or play practical jokes
-He rejects both as implausible.
Gene suggested a 3rd possibility - absent mindedness on Jerome's part, i.e. he'd simply forgotten he'd put them in the drawer.Why wouldn't Jerome entertain this possibility? It seems a straightforward explanation, & perhaps the most likely, rather than invoking poltergeists as an explanation. Or is he, unlike me, never ever absent minded or forgetful?

Re. the quadruped apparition he saw several times, he describes the sightings as apparently meaningless & random, but the fact the sightings all occurred within a short span of time suggests it was something other than strictly random. I don't know why he views the sightings as meaningless. One meaning he could draw from them, reinforced by multiple incidents, is he has abilities of perception he didn't know he had before, an ability to perceive apparitions. And maybe there are larger meanings too as to why he saw those particular "ghostly dog" figures that summer at those places - meanings he hasn't yet figured out.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can only blame my occasional regressions on the fact that now and again I re-discover that I find myself a frustrated History teacher. So much of this resides in my brain that sometimes I am forced to "vomit it" out when I am doing the UFO thing. The fact is that most today that claim to be interested in the UFO topic were not around then (you know, back in the day) and most new folks find it too much work to do any research on this field. Mention Keyhoe, Sanderson, even Keel and you will be amazed at the blank looks you receive.

Decker

No, I know, Don. The point I was trying to make but failed to make was that the vitriol was already there long before you were. At least that's what I gather. Before your 20 years lost in the fog, there stretches back 40 more years of fog interrupted by occasional bar brawls. I appreciate you going back over the recent history, it's very instructive to me personally, and I remember a lot of the things you talk about from my own limited exposure to same at the time.
 
DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS:
I remember a reporter trying to explain what was happening in Vietnam. He was asked about the Pentagon's facts. He replied that the Pentagon had "several warehouses full of facts," and that they were using these facts to confuse what was going on there.
It seems to me that our task is figuring out what facts are real, which ones are important, and how to arrange them into something that makes sense. (A picture or world view)
I think this is the problem with peoples understanding of science. People are stuck with the older scientific myth of physics etc. The new science that was discussed in the show points to whole different set of facts of what is reality. We need an Einstein to give us a picture. Further it is my own thought that the new science is pointing to a reality that was already known by our ancestors. (i.e.) Do not go into the forest alone or a big hairy monster will make you disappear. The shamans new of another reality that science is just now is admitting is there.
This why there is the interest in the old stories on TV. They meet some need that gives us better picture of how the reality works.
We have the smoking gun. We have scientist, researchers, and credible witnesses that prove there is a real phenomenon that is worthy of a main branch of science. The fact is that we can never prove to anyone that things work differently than what they think. Like your ex-listener Gene with five degrees, they will never see the straight forward facts.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of things Clark said that are significant for me regarding the history of Ufology, the significance of relationships in the field and its relationshito its audience - us.

Clark put out the notion that most in Ufology are sincerely exploring ideas, though some may be misguided, and deserve a little more credit and less accusations of profiteering, or being evil in some way. I've made similar accusations, along with many others on this forum, about various characters and researchers in the field.

The field can be toxic, as Gene outlined at the top of the thread and promptly sealed discussion on it. Some might see that as censorship, but I wonder if there is any value in wasting time on gossip, expressing hatred, and letting loose our collective sense of anger and injustice? We act like we've been betrayed, cheated, lied to etc.. But another perspective is that these are fallible people, doing the best they can in an unregulated field of study. I don't know about you, but beyond my time and the odd dollars on a few books, I'm not giving them much else. So do I have any right to get on a high horse and give it to anyone? The McCarthyisms Clark dropped in this episode were quite significant IMHO.

Even worse, I asked myself while listening to this podcast, do I have any right to insult Chris O'Brien because of relationships he personally values with people in the field that I feel are entirely misguided? I've seen that happen, and been in on that action to various extents here and there.

But was it productive and why do I feel the right, in some cases even duty, to ream out those I deem are terribly misguided charlatans? There's a lot of that going on here in the forum and everywhere else in the field. Of course this thinking starts to break down when the person in question appears to be suffering delusions of Greerlike god-hood, or when we've been lied to i.e. the exposure of Phil Imbrogno.

Judge and jury are we all in a field of study that has no pension, no guarantee of employment, no benefits package and no guarantees you won't be hanged by your own petard for your indiscretions. Just how much right does the Ufological audience have to be judge, jury and executioner and just how far should that power go? Is there any legitimate self-regulation at work or is it just one big free for all? No point in belaboring this, but after this episode I'm motivated to be a little less hateful and a little more appreciative of legitimate, unrewarded, individual human effort. We'll see how that goes.

The other important consideration Clark put out is that the entire disclosure movement is a big conspiracy and that contrary to UFO's and the National Security State there has been no significant change in public policy and that no one in the military, or elsewhere of power, cares that much really. In a previous Paracst episode with Clark, co-host Biedny suggested that the most important books in Ufology were Clark's multi-volume UFO historic oeuvre and Dolan's two volume state work. There was a pause then from Clark; I think he felt insulted in that moment.

He repeatedly emphasized in this episode that the powers that be mostly ignore the phenomenon as it continues to unpredictably mess with us every now and then with little impact or interference. Abductions exist only in the memory of the experiencer and so Clark discounts those as do those in power. He is convinced that ET is visiting, is a curious space farer like us, and apparently is nice enough not to hurt us, kill us or take us over. In fact their legacy is best found in sci-fi literature and movies, and probably very poorly so far except for maybe 2001, The Day the Earth Stood Still and Plan 9 From Outer Space (there are too many good sci-fi books; I wouldn't know where to start).

Finally, I really liked his optimism about science eventually embracing the study of exobiology via UFO occupant witness events. Given all the many advances in robotics, medicine, astronomy and our fantastic voyages to the inner world of the molecule, atom and beyond, it would be nice to see some of those new languages pursued by some future interdisciplinary scientist who, bored one day, decides to turn her imaginative brilliance to the UFO problem. Hope I'm alive to see that unfold.
 
Last edited:
[T]here isn't much science or Science can do with UFOs. Even if you throw lots and lots of money at it, there's a basic lack of observational data. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about sightings, there are lots of those. But there's no way to TEST any ideas about UFOs, because they are encountered so rarely (except if you're Commander Greer or run a UFO sighting camp near Portland, OR).
I disagree. That's why the San Luis Valley Camera Project (when it's fully operational) plus other related instrumentation, magneto, gravitic, radar, FLIR, etc are important. Add in similar surveillance projects in other potential areas of high incidence and you have the potential to obtain and replicate data.
I'm sorry to have to point out the obvious here, but evidently some radio hosts who shall not be named thinked [sic] "peer review" is part of the Scientific Method.
Are you kidding? Peer review is hopefully the result of applying "the scientific method."
Do we really need speakers at the Fake Citizens' Hearings with "gravitas"? What if they're talking about antigravity? Shouldnt they then have "antigravitas?"
lol, good one
[W]hat has Man done since reaching the Moon in 1969 that is comparable in any way? It seems to me we reached civilizational zenith then, and have been going downhill ever since into a real Dark Age, scientific, cultural and political, returning to practices mankind rejected centuries ago, to torture, slavery, cannibalism.
Good point, couldn't agree more…
In favor of a multidisciplinary approach, am I the only one who watched Whitley Strieber's movie about his adventures in his cabin, and flashed back upon those Washington Irving stories set in roughly the same location, upstate New York, with roughly the same sort of gnome/elf creatures and missing time? I bet Chris O'Brien caught onto that right away. I wonder if Whitely ever has.
I had my first UFO sighting in New Paltz on September 23, 1977. It was a multi-witnessed interactive experience with what appeared to be multiple objects. Not all of us (6) were stoned. :rolleyes: I love the Hudson River Valley/Catskills region. I don't think it is by accident that legends and stories have emerged from this part of the Ramapo Fault or been the location of on-going UFO flaps, Wanakee Reservoir, Hudson Valley triangles, Pine Bush weirdness, dolman sites, etc
 
On the issue of science as authority, I'm no fan of technocracy. That's how we got Fukushima, and isn't that wonderful. Science has it's own set of problems that cannot be overlooked and shouldn't be blindly subscribed to anymore than anything else. I also don't think we need to use entertainment like the new series Sleepy Hollow as a rationale to eradicate superstition. We watch it for entertainment's sake and it doesn't do anything to influence my serious analysis of supernatural claims.

I like Jerome's comment on the state of unity in the ufology community, that ufology isn't the only area of interest with internal problems. His point on the anti-ufology crowd using economic success against ufology was also really good. I deal with this regularly over at the JREF where ufologists are likened to religious panhandlers. There's no doubt that the topic of ufology includes fringe elements, but so what? So do a lot of topics. Simply writing about them and selling a book that people find interesting is perfectly fair.

I liked Clarke's take on Corso, which in turn implies that his case was exploited by his co-author ( if you can call him that ) for the purpose of selling a book. Also very good commentary by Chris on The Day After Roswell. I would point out that there have been leaks about Roswell, most notably front page headlines including a press release from the Air Force. And then there's a whole debris field of leaks after that stretching for over half a century.

Nice summary there @Christopher O'Brien. After about 10 minutes of rambling by Jerome you said something like, "It's called cultural frontloading" thereby reducing everything he'd said down to basically two words. I practically fell off my chair. Nicely done, and delivered with such finesse that it probably went right by a lot of other people. Great follow-up discussion that touched on the Trickster element.

I have a bit of a problem with Jerome saying at about 1:43:25 into the show that we don't understand what the core UFO phenomenon is about in 2013, is accurate. The core UFO phenomenon is alien visitation, plain and simple. It's as proven as it needs to be. Like @Gene Steinberg said in the last Paracast Newsletter, "What do we do next?" He goes on to say that we don't have the vocabulary, but we obviously do. We're just not using it correctly. So maybe the next thing we should do is get our house in order. There's an old saying that if you can't go fishing, then stay home and mend the nets.

Great Q & A:
  • For books on UFO related mythology and ancient history check out: http://ufopages.com/Headers/Amazon/BH_Mythology-01a.htm
  • I think Clarke greatly underestimates the effect on one's worldview that seeing alien craft well enough to be certain about it is has. It makes me think he's never actually seen one himself.
  • I also think Clarke significantly underestimates the influence UFOs have had on our civilization. It's become deeply engrained in our culture on many levels.
 
Last edited:
"Nice summary there @@Christopher O'Brien. After about 10 minutes of rambling by Jerome you said something like, "It's called cultural frontloading" thereby reducing everything he'd said down to basically two words. I practically fell off my chair. Nicely done, and delivered with such finesse that it probably went right by a lot of other people. Great follow-up discussion that touched on the Trickster element."

- Chris also did something like this with: "what you are describing is jealousy" at about 35 minutes in . . . and it seems to me to be something he does fairly often (actually, get a few people together and someone will play this (useful) role) but, for me, in this instance it crystallized a point but didn't reduce/replace everything that came before it . . . although in some past shows I've been very grateful for this ability!
 
"The core UFO phenomenon is alien visitation, plain and simple. It's as proven as it needs to be."

When I read or hear such a definitive statement from someone, it's fascinating to me and I like to try and understand the thought process that led to that person's conclusion. So, if you don't mind, ufology, I have a few questions.

Now, before I ask anything, I know that I am inviting potential castigation for not being a researcher and field investigator. I understand that that is the currency in many UFO cliques, so please forgive me for being a layman.

Also, I would ask that you understand the skepticism that is prompting me to ask these questions. I am surely not trying to offend you and I am not saying you are wrong. I am just trying to understand.

So, if I may ask a few questions:

How do you define the "core UFO phenomenon"?

Are there certain types of cases you would consider as part of the core phenomenon and others you consider as lying outside of it?

Within these core phenomenon cases, what sorts of accounts or evidence contribute to your conclusion that the issue falls squarely within ETH parameters?

In your view, what role does the observer or experiencer play in the encounter? Is that person simply bearing witness or being acted upon?
 
On the issue of science as authority, I'm no fan of technocracy. That's how we got Fukushima, and isn't that wonderful. Science has it's own set of problems that cannot be overlooked and shouldn't be blindly subscribed to anymore than anything else. I also don't think we need to use entertainment like the new series Sleepy Hollow as a rationale to eradicate superstition. We watch it for entertainment's sake and it doesn't do anything to influence my serious analysis of supernatural claims.

I like Jerome's comment on the state of unity in the ufology community, that ufology isn't the only area of interest with internal problems. His point on the anti-ufology crowd using economic success against ufology was also really good. I deal with this regularly over at the JREF where ufologists are likened to religious panhandlers. There's no doubt that the topic of ufology includes fringe elements, but so what? So do a lot of topics. Simply writing about them and selling a book that people find interesting is perfectly fair.

I liked Clarke's take on Corso, which in turn implies that his case was exploited by his co-author ( if you can call him that ) for the purpose of selling a book. Also very good commentary by Chris on The Day After Roswell. I would point out that there have been leaks about Roswell, most notably front page headlines including a press release from the Air Force:

roswell-paper.jpg


And then there's a whole debris field of leaks after that stretching for over half a century.

Nice summary there @Christopher O'Brien. After about 10 minutes of rambling by Jerome you said something like, "It's called cultural frontloading" thereby reducing everything he'd said down to basically two words. I practically fell off my chair. Nicely done, and delivered with such finesse that it probably went right by a lot of other people. Great follow-up discussion that touched on the Trickster element.

I have a bit of a problem with Jerome saying at about 1:43:25 into the show that we don't understand what the core UFO phenomenon is about in 2013, is accurate. The core UFO phenomenon is alien visitation, plain and simple. It's as proven as it needs to be. Like @Gene Steinberg said in the last Paracast Newsletter, "What do we do next?" He goes on to say that we don't have the vocabulary, but we obviously do. We're just not using it correctly. So maybe the next thing we should do is get our house in order. There's an old saying that if you can't go fishing, then stay home and mend the nets.

Great Q & A:
  • For books on UFO related mythology and ancient history check out: http://ufopages.com/Headers/Amazon/BH_Mythology-01a.htm
  • I think Clarke greatly underestimates the effect on one's worldview that seeing alien craft well enough to be certain about it is has. It makes me think he's never actually seen one himself.
  • I also think Clarke significantly underestimates the influence UFOs have had on our civilization. It's become deeply engrained in our culture on many levels.
I don't think you can go through an entire episode of the Paracast without 2 things happening.

1. Gene professing they don't talk about politics, right before he talks about politics and spews his liberal leanings.

2. Chris saying "It's called cultural front loading" and then complains about the state of ufology while questioning the ETH.


It really isn't worth "falling out of your seat" he pretty much makes this point every week.
 
Back
Top