Paracast Episode 11/18/2007 with Paul Kimball

[cottonzway]

I just got done listening to the most recent episode of the Paracast with Paul Kimball. It was great to hear the words of someone sane this week and away from the carnival freaks like Bushman and Goldberg. That said I found myself disagreeing with a great deal of what Mr. Kimball talked about when the conversation went towards politics. First though the topics of the paranormal and the UFO field.

I like the idea of getting the whole entire study of the topic to be taken more seriously and I like a lot of the suggestions Mr. Kimball made. I also agree that Nick Pope is an excellent person to look towards for people taking this topic seriously. Credentials go a long ways into getting to even listen to ideas that are of a odd nature to begin with let alone one that has been bastardized by hucksters and the mentally insane. I don’t know if it is feasible to get the topic taken seriously quite honestly because it has been taken in such a bad direction that getting people to change their views may not be possible. It doesn’t mean people can’t try at least. This type of effort would also in the end get those who think the more extreme ideas like “they are here” as getting it taken seriously may ultimately lead to a real answer to what the hell is going on. It’s win-win, but a difficult task.

Now the politics…

I don’t understand how Mr. Kimball can have such a view of the 9/11 events openly admitting reading the 9/11 Commission Report. I agree with you that those who have not read it have no concept of what they are speaking about. What I don’t understand is how someone who is intelligent accepted that as reality. Forget the crazy folks who think space beams took down the towers or even into “conspiracy” debates about controlled demolitions on the WTC complex. I have read the commission report in an effort to at the time prove to myself otherwise that everything was “fine” and it did the exact opposite to me in my views. There is a slew of issues about what was omitted from the final report to the compromised panel (hell, the admin wanted Henry Kissinger to run this farce before the family members threw a fit) but what is most damming is what is in the report.

How can you (or anyone) accept a report that claims that “the source of the funds of the attacks is of little importance” like was stated? How can anyone accept a report that says in regards to the put option on American Airlines and United Airlines that it wasn’t important because “those who made the put options showed no links to Al Qaeda” like the report said? Huh? No links? The commission CLEARLY came to the CONCLUSION that “Al Qaeda” did this in the middle of their own report. Wouldn’t a true investigation look for “Who” did that and not assume who it was prior to fit those who set up the panel to come to an already conceived opinion? Why would anyone accept a final report that admits that NORAD and Pentagon officals LIED UNDER OATH to them? Why would anyone accept a ridiculous claim like the “twin towers had a hollow core” when the building was built with the main core being on the inside? Hollow? That is clear misinformation. Why accept a report that lies about the time lines of the planes, in particular that of Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon? Why was the former head of transportation omitted from the final report? Norman Minetta said on C-SPAN that our VP Dick Chaney was aware of Flight 77 up to at least 50 miles away via an aide (enough time to get those 125 people who died in that building he hell out of harms way!). Why omit Sibel Edmonds? Why omit FBI agent Robert Wright? Why is this remotely acceptable to a reasonable person?

I would say personally it sounds like Mr. Kimball is jaded by the freaks and kooks in the disorganized “9/11 Truth Movement” and allowing those people to speak on behalf on those who don’t think nonsense like “space beams, no planes hit the tower, it was the “Jews”, mini-nukes” a slew of other poorly put forth concepts that are obviously wrong. I don’t know if people like that guy who claimed you were “one of them” who “sold out” also play into such a decision. I hope not, but by the sounds of it this may be true. That is a shame too because I would think any reasonable person would come away from the 9/11 Commission Report with far more questions then an acceptable answer to what happened.

My personal opinion is that Muslim extremist did infact hijack planes on 9/11 and fly them into those destinations. The complete story is no way near acceptable for me though. Someone either in high level ranks of the government, military, or the military industrial complex sold this country out in my view. War games by FEMA, USNORTHCOM, NOARD, and the NRO do not all happen on the same day by accident that allowed this to happen. It’s being extremely naïve to think that this incident was able to happen without a coup by either someone in the US or another foreign country that would have an interest in this event happening.

One last thing about politics. David mentioned China in regards to a power to test the US. Unfortnally he is correct though I feel missing one point of the Geo-Political piece of the conversation. China owns about $1.5 trillion in US debt and has been saying for about 14 months that is considering liquidating that debt into something other then dollars. That alone will cripple our economy. Also we have to borrow money from them to continue our war habit in the middle east. Let’s face it, it’s a habit no different then a drunk or a degenerate gambler. If they choose to stop lending us money then we are sunk. However it goes deeper then that. Who is a threat the US is not China alone, but a NATO countering group of nations in the East called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This includes China, Russia, India, Mongolia, Pakistan, and even Iran with a bunch of other countries. One country will not sink the US, but a group of countries that want to see the end of US hegemony and who are tired of us playing in their back yard. This will happen in your life time if you are alive in the next 3 years unless drastic measures are made in our foreign policy and our trade deals with this country.

Anyways, great episode. Obviously I found it interesting (as per my long reply) and here is to some good debates on it all.

 

[Don Keyhoe-Ti]

I also 100% disagree with Paul about 911, but he didn't really say anything that outraged me. He just sounded like a rational person who holds a differing view, and could cope rationally with the evidence to the contrary when presented.

 

[musictomyears]

Some people promulgate the concept that governments - in particular the US and UK ones - are fundamentally benign, never lie, and act in the best interest of their citizens. Nick Pope is such a person, have a look at his web site to get a taste of his views. I don't know much about Paul Kimball, but he seems to be of a similar persuasion, given his recent posts here.

 

[BrandonD]

This was an interesting interview. I noticed that Paul Kimball seems to hold the point of view that "there are no conspiracies, if anything suspicious happens then it happened by accident".

He actually seriously considers that cattle mutilations could potentially be explained as secret government activities in order to protect us from cattle-borne pathogens. How very quaint and 50's of him... Yes indeed, our officials are so worried about the safety of you, Mr. Anonymous Citizen, that behind your back in the dark of night they're doing secret experiments to protect you.

I mean, we all know how modest politicians can be when it comes to altruistic actions.

Ok that was my tirade, now here's my actual reason for posting: Hearing his point of view and personally disagreeing with it, I suddenly had an idea for an interesting show concept.

Perhaps you guys could try out a round table-type discussion between some of the people within the paranormal community who happen to disagree on a particular aspect of the phenomenon.

Guest selection would be limited to the sane and rational guys of course.

For example, Paul Kimball thinks there are no conspiracies. I suspect that Richard Dolan has a different point of view on the subject. They're both calm and intelligent guys, and perhaps they've even discussed the subject between each other... why not have them lay out their arguments side by side in an interview?

Another possibility: have 2 people on the show who have differing points of view on the whole MJ12 subject.

Another one: 2 people with differing points of view on the bigfoot mystery (undiscovered animal vs paranormal manifestation)

These might be fun, Gene and David could be the moderators or perhaps direct the discussion by posing questions. I think such a thing might be a very interesting and enjoyable show.

 

[Absinthe]

I haven't heard the interview yet, but does Mr. Paul Kimball think that there is no gov. cover-up of UFOs?

 

[Paul Kimball]

I don't think you guys were listening very closely, or perhaps you just heard what you wanted to hear, but nowhere did I say that I thought there is no such thing as conspiracies committed by people within government. Obviously, Watergate was such a conspiracy, although it was committed by a few people, and was not the massive, over-arching conspiracy that would be required to pull off and keep quiet something like the Roswell cover-up, or a 9/11 inside job cover-up.

My point was that it's almost always easier to believe in a conspiracy - that someone made something happen. It's almost like believing in God, i.e. that there has to be a reason, a design by a higher power (in this case malevolent) when something bad happens. It's a perverse comfort zone for folks that have trouble accepting that the world is a messy place, with bad people, and governments (in this case) that are capable of massive screw-ups.

What I have trouble understanding, for example, is that people "credit" the Bush administration with being utterly incompetent when it comes to the response to Hurricane Katrina - and rightly so - but then credit it, or elements within it of being clever enough to pull of or participate in the 9/11 attacks. Amazing. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I hope you enjoyed the show.

Paul

 

[Capnkumquat]

I didn't get the opinion that Paul Kimball believed there were NO CONSPIRACIES. He did place a cautionary note that conspiracy is something that many people rush to and glom onto because they don't like believing that they live in a world in which shit happens in ways that seem random or cannot be predicted or understood in any conventional sense.

Thusly the conspiracy theory puts complex and seemingly unknowable forces into a box that can easily be understood. Given the penchant for the human mind to put pattern to where there may be none, this seems like a pretty good opinion to me as well.

 

[valiens]

Re: 9/11 - I've still not read the Commission report all the way through, but as I told Paul I have read the rebuttal books to the report and (I didn't mention this) the Popular Mechanics book rebutting the first rebuttal book. I've also read every news article I could find after it happened to try to piece it together myself. I don't think this disqualifies me from a dialog about 9/11 simply because I haven't read the report. I don't need to read the Warren Commission report to know the Magic Bullet Theory doesn't fly. (Although what might disqualify me is my overloaded memory. At this point I can only recall a few details of my "argument" and the rest is the conclusion I drew when I was deeply immersed in it. So I'd have to to some prep work to be useful in a real debate.)

That said, most of the Truth Movement stuff doesn't fly either. I think they're concentrating on the wrong things. Why gamble with missile/plane substitution or controlled demolition when that's not provable and improbable? (And for those of you who think it HAD TO BE controlled demolition, there is one survivor who was near the top of the, I believe, second Tower when the plane hit. He took the elevator out of these before it was too late. He describes the floor bending and buckling underneath him. There is no doubt in his mind that these Towers fell on their own.)

I also think their focus is wrong in a different way. If they were smart they wouldn't be yelling "Bush/Cheney did this!" They'd be yelling, "There's never been an independent investigation into who to hold responsible."

On another note, Paul, you cannot keep claiming that you don't understand how some people feel like you're attacking them personally because, "This isn't personal; I'd go out for a beer with you later." It is a personal attack when you mutter under your breath or outright say that any thinking person would agree with you/any sane, rational person would come to your conclusions. That is, how you saaaaaay snooty, no?

But then I've never met a centrist who apologizes for Bush while referring to the "loony left" so what do I know?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Re: 9/11 - I've still not read the Commission report all the way through, but as I told Paul I have read the rebuttal books to the report and (I didn't mention this) the Popular Mechanics book rebutting the first rebuttal book. I've also read every news article I could find after it happened to try to piece it together myself. I don't think this disqualifies me from a dialog about 9/11 simply because I haven't read the report. I don't need to read the Warren Commission report to know the Magic Bullet Theory doesn't fly. (Although what might disqualify me is my overloaded memory. At this point I can only recall a few details of my "argument" and the rest is the conclusion I drew when I was deeply immersed in it. So I'd have to to some prep work to be useful in a real debate.)

That's not my primary point. I was referring to people who won't even read the Report because they have already made up their minds. But, if you're serious about the subject, then yes, you should read the report before you comment on it. Otherwise, your opinion is worth less. Sorry, but that's just how it is. After all, knowledge is power.

That said, most of the Truth Movement stuff doesn't fly either. I think they're concentrating on the wrong things. Why gamble with missile/plane substitution or controlled demolition when that's not provable and improbable? (And for those of you who think it HAD TO BE controlled demolition, there is one survivor who was near the top of the, I believe, second Tower when the plane hit. He took the elevator out of these before it was too late. He describes the floor bending and buckling underneath him. There is no doubt in his mind that these Towers fell on their own.)

I also think their focus is wrong in a different way. If they were smart they wouldn't be yelling "Bush/Cheney did this!" They'd be yelling, "There's never been an independent investigation into who to hold responsible."

I think people over-think these things, and see what they want to see, and then pigeon-hole anyone who disagrees (which is the majority of the public, and scientific and engineering opinion, by the way), as being "blind" or "naive" or whatever. The conspiracy was the Arab terrorists. Full stop. The government, under both Clinton and then Bush, should have been better prepared, but sometimes, no matter how prepared you are, determined terrorists are going to be able to succeed. Ask the British, who have dealt with smaller-scale versions of this for decades, or the Spanish, who were hit pretty hard in Madrid, or... well, it's a long list.

But I also have no doubt that the administration used the attacks as an excuse, and a rallying point (which was initially successful amongst both Congress and the public) for an attack against Iraq, which they were looking for an excuse to do... in the same way that Roosevelt was looking for an excuse to get into WWII (officially - the US was already for all intents and purposes engaged in the Battle of the Atlantic). But that doesn't mean that either Roosevelt then or Bush now actually planned the attackes to achieve their goals, or even knowingly allowed them to happen. There is simply no evidence for either proposition, and there is a difference between doing something, and taking advantage of a situation when it arises.

On another note, Paul, you cannot keep claiming that you don't understand how some people feel like you're attacking them personally because, "This isn't personal; I'd go out for a beer with you later." It is a personal attack when you mutter under your breath or outright say that any thinking person would agree with you/any sane, rational person would come to your conclusions. That is, how you saaaaaay snooty, no?

No, Jeremy, it isn't snooty. It's how rational people discuss things, which can include the rejoinder that reasonable, rational people should come to the same conclusion I have if they would just look at the evidence in a reasonable, rational manner. I assume the 9/11 truthers here would say the same thing to me... indeed, they have - and I also assume that they don't mean it as a personal attack. I certainly don't take it as such.

But then I've never met a centrist who apologizes for Bush while referring to the "loony left" so what do I know?

Then you have a very limited range of acquaintances, very few of whom, I suspect, are truly centrist.

Besides, nowhere will you find in this discussion me apologizing for Bush, whatever that means. I'll be as happy to see him leave in 2008 as anyone else. But that doesn't mean that one can't agree with him on particular issues, when he's right - as he was when he started to talk about Mars, for example, or as I believe he was when he wanted to provide amnesty (even though he wouldn't call it that) for illegal immigrants, much to the chagrin of the majority of his own party.

Only blinkered idealogues think that someone is all bad, or all good, regardless of what they actually do. Leftists who hate Bush to the point of being unable to rationally consider the merits of a particular policy are just as bad as the rightists who hated Clinton so much that they couldn't consider the merits of his policies on a case-by-case basis, or who decry the prospect of Hillary becoming president simply because she's Hillary.

And people who think Bush is the only problem just don't understand the American political system. If you think things are screwed up, there's plenty of blame to go around (to blame just Bush for Katrina, for example, is ludicrous), and things won't magically get better once he's out of office.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

I haven't heard the interview yet, but does Mr. Paul Kimball think that there is no gov. cover-up of UFOs?

No, I don't believe there is. Has the government released all of is information about UFOs? Probably not. But is that a cover-up, in the way that most people use that term with regards to UFOs, i.e. they know the truth and just aren't telling us? I don't think so. Indeed, all of the reliable evidence that I've seen indicates the exact opposite - that the government, i.e. various agencies etc., have been and remain interested in the UFO phenomenon, but, like us, they have no idea of what the truly unexplained cases represent.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

For example, Paul Kimball thinks there are no conspiracies. I suspect that Richard Dolan has a different point of view on the subject. They're both calm and intelligent guys, and perhaps they've even discussed the subject between each other... why not have them lay out their arguments side by side in an interview?

Again, it's not correct to say "Paul Kimball thinks there are no conspiracies". I just don't think that most of the ones Rich talks about are even close to having been proved. There are some things he and I do agree on - I saw him give a super lecture once on the Singularity, for example.

Paul

 

[valiens]

Paul:

No, the Clinton haters are not the same as the Bush haters in that they went after Clinton trying to dig up anything and everything to impeach him before he even took office. The Bush haters actually waited for his crap policies to kick in and they still haven't impeached him.

But wait...you still don't see how total strangers might be put off by your calling them insane or idiots? I mean I could, in the heat of battle, blurt out, "You're an idiot" and then still go have a drink (a lovely soda) with you, but that's because there's a familiarity, dare I say friendship, there. Maybe the problem is you suffer from the "My Friend Travis Ploeger Syndrome" of never having gotten your ass kicked and so you've not learned the repercussions of just saying whatever you want to whoever you want. This is why I need to move to Canada. Way less ass-kicking. (And all the good comedians.)

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul:

No, the Clinton haters are not the same as the Bush haters in that they went after Clinton trying to dig up anything and everything to impeach him before he even took office. The Bush haters actually waited for his crap policies to kick in and they still haven't impeached him.

That's your (convenient) view, and you're entitled to it, but it doesnt accord with the facts. I remember the vitriol spewed Bush's way during the recount etc. - people who said he stole the election. He wasn't even in office yet, and people on the left were already referring to him as the "illegitimate" president. No real difference between him and Clinton in terms of how the other side treated / treats them.

But wait...you still don't see how total strangers might be put off by your calling them insane or idiots? I mean I could, in the heat of battle, blurt out, "You're an idiot" and then still go have a drink (a lovely soda) with you, but that's because there's a familiarity, dare I say friendship, there. Maybe the problem is you suffer from the "My Friend Travis Ploeger Syndrome" of never having gotten your ass kicked and so you've not learned the repercussions of just saying whatever you want to whoever you want. This is why I need to move to Canada. Way less ass-kicking. (And all the good comedians.)

People are welcome to disagree with me. The exchange of information and opinions is how we learn. If someone wants to take something personally, that's their problem, not mine.

And if I call someone an idiot, which I don't recall doing on the show the other night, then I meant it, which also means that I probably don't want to have a beer with the guy, so I won't be too upset if he gets twisted out of joint about it. No great loss to me. Life is to short to spend it arguing with idiots and insane people. ;-)

Paul

 

[valiens]

That's because he stole the election, Paul. STILL didn't get impeached. But again, that's different than the cabal of conservatives who went digging around Arkansas to get Clinton. Stealing an election is an actual crime. And if you tell me there's no proof I will refer you to the work of Greg Palast who broke the story for the BBC.

 

[BrandonD]

Again, it's not correct to say "Paul Kimball thinks there are no conspiracies". I just don't think that most of the ones Rich talks about are even close to having been proved. There are some things he and I do agree on - I saw him give a super lecture once on the Singularity, for example.

Paul

Looks like I generalized a little too much there. I think it might be more precise to say that "Paul thinks that there is not an over-arching government conspiracy relating to ufos."

But the fact that you also spoke of 9/11 in apparent support of the prevailing government-sanctioned conspiracy theory, and also mentioned that cattle mutilations might be secret government projects taking place in order to protect us, hopefully you can see how this might lead someone to assume that you generally believe that high officials in the government are honest, benevolent and working for the "little guy's" best interest. To a person with this point of view, our government would really have little reason to keep secrets.

I see no reason to cry conspiracy any time that something awful happens. And a conspiratorial scenario to the ufo phenomenon or 9/11 may be "far from proven" as you say.

However, when officials involved in these events display the textbook psychological traits of a guilty party, then one can't help but wonder... maybe there is something more to this story than meets the eye.

And any government organization in which officials can tell "benevolent little white lies", or keep secrets that are ostensibly intended to protect us, there is a space created in which those officals can conceal darker and dirtier lies, should they have the inclination. There are more than a few of those spaces in the NSA, CIA, etc.

Extrapolating such a scenario over time, it seems plausible that the longer such insititutions with state-sanctioned secrecy exist, the greater the latitude for larger and more malignant forms of secrecy.

So in conclusion to this ramble... large-scale conspiracies at this point in time (over 50 years after the creation of our national security complex), though certainly not "proven", may not be as inconceivable as they appear.

p.s. That's a very interesting subject, singularities... is there anywhere online that I can check out either your or Richard's thoughts on the subject?

 

[musictomyears]

Has the government released all of is information about UFOs? Probably not. But is that a cover-up, in the way that most people use that term with regards to UFOs, i.e. they know the truth and just aren't telling us? I don't think so.

The government doesn't release all information, but this doesn't equate a cover-up?

You are a government shill. Just like Nick Pope.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Has the government released all of is information about UFOs? Probably not. But is that a cover-up, in the way that most people use that term with regards to UFOs, i.e. they know the truth and just aren't telling us? I don't think so.

The government doesn't release all information, but this doesn't equate a cover-up?

You are a government shill. Just like Nick Pope.

If anything, Paul is as far from a government shill as you can get. Let's not go there.

As to cover-up: I think it's more than just casually putting "Top Secret" on documents, but the theory that there is an organized campaign to keep what the government knows -- or doesn't know -- a secret.

That is, of course, assuming such a cover-up exists, and I just don't know.

 

[Woody Sideman]

Hi cottonzway

I'm not an American citizen and it may be inappropriate to comment on a large amount of your post. However I've selected one little paragraph.

My personal opinion is that Muslim extremist did infact hijack planes on 9/11 and fly them into those destinations. The complete story is no way near acceptable for me though. Someone either in high level ranks of the government, military, or the military industrial complex sold this country out in my view. War games by FEMA, USNORTHCOM, NOARD, and the NRO do not all happen on the same day by accident that allowed this to happen. It’s being extremely naïve to think that this incident was able to happen without a coup by either someone in the US or another foreign country that would have an interest in this event happening.

Coincidences do happen. The day that President Reagan was shot, the first thing that was noticed by USA security was that Government Cypher Headquarters (GCHQ) staff in Britain were on strike. That caused a bit of a panic on your side of the pond. I can imagine certain individuals adding 2 + 2 and getting Soviet Union involvement. Needless to say that staff at GCHQ have now realised that striking can be a very bad thing indeed. They have now pledged to never strike and have automatic arbitration service involvement when employment issues occur.

As far as security departments all being 'on exercise', I would assume that this should be a normal occurrence. All of them have to interact seamlessly at times of war. That requires practice.

Woody

 

[Woody Sideman]

Some people promulgate the concept that governments - in particular the US and UK ones - are fundamentally benign, never lie, and act in the best interest of their citizens. Nick Pope is such a person, have a look at his web site to get a taste of his views. I don't know much about Paul Kimball, but he seems to be of a similar persuasion, given his recent posts here.

Governments, and officials of governments have to tell lies (in certain circumstances - mainly security issues) in order to act in the best interest of their citizens. When Stormin' Norman invaded Iraq he announced that the invasion would occur on land sea and air. This was a complete lie that enabled diversion of IRAQ defense forces to defend a, non-existent, sea landing.

As far as lies being issued by the UK Government is concerned, there is no oath of truth anywhere in the system. The only thing that should not happen is that a Government Minister should not 'knowingly' tell lies when he/she is speaking, or taking questions, at the dispatch box. There have been many instances where Government Departments have deliberately withheld information from the Minister so that an apparent falsehood can not be traced to the Minister who made the statement.

Woody

 

[Woody Sideman]

Perhaps you guys could try out a round table-type discussion between some of the people within the paranormal community who happen to disagree on a particular aspect of the phenomenon.

Guest selection would be limited to the sane and rational guys of course.

For example, Paul Kimball thinks there are no conspiracies. I suspect that Richard Dolan has a different point of view on the subject. They're both calm and intelligent guys, and perhaps they've even discussed the subject between each other... why not have them lay out their arguments side by side in an interview?

It would have to be a maximum of 4 people, Gene, David and two others. More than four voices on radio becomes too complicated for the listener. If there are more than 4 voices then it has to go to TV so that the audience can see who's babbling in the background. There is also the logistics of telephone lines, etc.

Another possibility: have 2 people on the show who have differing points of view on the whole MJ12 subject.

This is something that I would be very interested in. However, it is a complex issue and would require the audience to have a considerable amount of prior knowledge about the subject so that the audience has some bearing from which to make a judgment.

Another one: 2 people with differing points of view on the bigfoot mystery (undiscovered animal vs paranormal manifestation)

This would not be any interest whatsoever to me. However, there seems to be plenty of posts about this topic in the forum.

Woody