• 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!

Richard Dolan Interview


exo_doc

Foolish Earthling
That was a pretty intense interview, at the other end of the spectrum compared to last weeks fun "slapstick" kind of episode (Reincarnation of Christ!!!!!).
When discussions about back engineering alien technology come up, I can posit a theory as to why there has been no apparent super advanced tech showing up, such as a battle field super-weapon or such.
If we gave Leonardo Da Vinci, one of histories greatest inventive minds, something like a B2 bomber, and gave him unlimited money to back-engineer it and build another one, it would be impossible.
He would have no knowledge of the metallurgy(aluminum wasn't even discovered until centuries after Da Vinci) not to mention the plastics and polymers. He would have no knowledge of electricity, circuit boards, or even electronic components. Even fueling the thing was beyond 15th century knowledge.
And that's what? 500 years of seperation in technical abilities?
An alien civilization could have 1000's of years more advanced tech than we do, and apparently do.
My question is, how could we even hope to begin to understand anything about recovered alien tech? There would be control systems, guidence systems, communications, life support, and especially power and propulsion systems that would use tech we probably don't even have theories for yet.
What hope would we have to back engineer that stuff? So that is why I think no super tech has shown up. We just don't have the knowledge to do it.
What does everyone else think?
 
I have not listened to the whole show yet, I'm 58 mins in and have only heard part of the discussion about John Alexander, but I'd like to comment on what I though about his talk at the conference which I attended.

Firstly, I really enjoyed his talk and thought a lot of what he said made sense, although like David I don't neccessarily agree with him about there not being a covert UFO group. I do believe John said it was just his 'opinion' that there is no secret compartmentalized group that deals with UFO's, so he did seem to leave the door open for him to be wrong. Now while I don't agree with this, John made some good points. Firstly he said this was just his opinion and his opinion is at odds with many of his distinquished colleagues so it might be wrong. Whenever John personally looked into such claims about a covert UFO group these are always from 2nd or 3rd hand sources which seem to prove unreliable under further scrutiny. So in essense, he seems to be argueing some of the same points, that indeed some of his very credible colleaqes are sometimes mixed in with people/sources that when researched never seem to pan out. He also said how he directly spoke with Ben Rich and some other people who would know if it was true, but in his personal interactions with these people, there was no testimony to support a covert UFO group.

So until John discovers otherwise first hand, there is no a secret UFO group as far as 'he' knows. He did mention that he did enocounter some strange defensive behavior in regards to the UFO issue from someone higher up. I don't remember who the person was since I didn't take notes but essentially I remember John saying that the UFO issue was brought up to someone who could possibly be in the know and they freaked out and said don't ever talk about this, which to him seemed inconclusive which it is, but could be some hint that there is a UFO working group.

It is possible John was being dishonest since he is a real insider, but I thought the arguments he made when stated as opinion made a lot of sense, doesn't mean I agree with it but I thought his talk was good and the picture he painted where the bureaucractic government can barely keep its head above water without putting tons of resources into UFO's seems like it could be accurate if it weren't for all the other evidence that does in fact support covert UFO projects.

IMO it is entirely possible that some higher up people that we think would know about this stuff, don't know about it and because of their ego or just the way they operate, unless they see or hear about it first hand, they are not gonna buy any amount of evidence no matter how compelling because if it was true "they would be in the know" when they really aren't.

John did also go over several UFO incidents which in his opinion were highly credible and he provided the testimony and documentation and radar information to back up these sightings, so he was saying there is no doubt UFO's are real but with a war in Iraq and many other crucial issues going on in light of a phenomena that doesn't seem to impose imminent danger, it is not of a high priority.

Not saying I agree with John, but he makes some interesting points and it made the conference more interesting IMO. I think it's gotta be pretty hard to get 100% credible speakers with insiders status to speak anywhere. For example, when I saw Nick Pope speak last year at the X conference, I kept thinking to myself that maybe Nick knows a lot more than he reveals despite his super friendly quirky english vibe. Still, I'd rather hear these seemingly credible people with government ties speak even if they are ultimately dishonest than hear the Steve Greers of the world discuss alien babies. When the intelligence community is out to discredit something to such an extent over such a long period of time, I think it makes it nearly impossible to clear the muddy waters so I just expect it's par for the course.

I'd like to hear what others think about John, very interesting topic. Wish I could listen to the next hour and half now, but I got's to work!
 
I am so pissed!

On a past show David said he was going to ask Dolan why he believes Bob Lazar's story. It is clearly posted in the Question Bank... and yet no dice.

Why not just close down the Question Bank altgoether since you guys don't bother to look there when the guest is interviewed anyway. Besides, we don't even get told who you will be interviewing next to use it anyhow.

FUCK!
 
Miah said:
I am so pissed!

On a past show David said he was going to ask Dolan why he believes Bob Lazar's story. It is clearly posted in the Question Bank... and yet no dice.

Why not just close down the Question Bank altgoether since you guys don't bother to look there when the guest is interviewed anyway. Besides, we don't even get told who you will be interviewing next to use it anyhow.

FUCK!

We do look there, and we often reference reader questions, but we cannot ask everything of a single guest. We try to concentrate on the relevant issues of the current discussion, which often veer into other directions.
 
Miah,

Sorry, I just forgot. Shit happens. My apologies.

Remember, it's just the two of us. No staff, no producer, we often track down a guest with little to no notice, don't always have the time to scan the question database and reference it.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
Miah,

Sorry, I just forgot. Shit happens. My apologies.

Remember, it's just the two of us. No staff, no producer, we often track down a guest with little to no notice, don't always have the time to scan the question database and reference it.

dB

Even then, as I said, a discussion may move elsewhere, and we don't have time to move it back into areas that were dealt with in this board. We try.
 
Fuck it, I'm not wasting any more time trying to participate.

So David, I am a huge T2 fan, one of my favorite movies of all time. Can you tell me what specifically you did for it yourself? At least be cool to say I know the guy that did THAT...
 
Dolan seems like a nice guy but is there a good reason to give any credibility to statements along the lines of "this is something I was told by someone I trust but whose identity I can't reveal"?

It seems to me that if you've been following this field for a long time any statements along those lines are essentially meaningless. Of course, they could be true, but experience tells us that the field is knee-deep in bullshit prefaced with the same words. If I was a researcher/author I'd be concerned at the effect on my credibility if I said something similar.

As for the Teletubbies thing, I was only half listening, but that was a joke - right?
 
Miah, if THIS "outrage" by David and Gene is the only thing in your life that invokes such anger, then count yourself lucky in your life.

There's an old saying "her complaints doth bespeak her privilege". In other words, if the only thing a person complains about is that their diamond tiara is dusty, then I guess they are doing rather well. If a web paracast show invokes outrage, then either you've been blessed in all other areas of your life, or you might want to ponder your priorities.

Unsolicited advice from Father Fastwalker, amateur counselor to the Venice Beach crowd.
 
David Biedny said:
Miah said:
Fuck it, I'm not wasting any more time trying to participate.

The customer is always right. Oh, wait, you haven't paid anything.

Take care!

dB

Besides, where is it written that we will take every single question posted here and pose it to a guest? We welcome suggestions. We are influenced heavily by your comments and questions, but in the end -- assuming we haven't simply forgotten -- we'll do our best to deliver a compelling, informative show, and that has first priority, right?
 
Miah,

I can say with absolute certainty that Misters Steinberg and Biedny, may God bless them, do reference the question bank. In fact, they asked Jacques Vallee a question I submitted and, moreover, interviewed Richard Sauder when I suggested that he would be an excellent interview (though I was a bit wrong on that score -- his X-Con presentation on youtube was, at least, good).

The interview with Mr. Dolan was, as usual, fascinating. I can sympathize with his comments about not liking it when people ask him why he hasn't finished his next book. I've been working on my masters degree and it has taken me 3 1/2 years instead of 2. I'm wrapping it up now but people keep asking me about it and I get to the point of wanting to yell at them and say to them just shut the hell up, I'll finish it when you see a goddamned piece of paper that says I've finished it. Hell, I work more than full time and it's therefore going to take me longer than the minimum 2 years! Get off my back!

Allen
 
macavity said:
As for the Teletubbies thing, I was only half listening, but that was a joke - right?

i remember seeing an episode of Gumby, many many years ago, and it had a classic "grey" "friend" in a ufo .

ive seen enough of that sort of thing to wonder if TV is being used to condition us towards a new reality.
 
John Alexander is a strange bird. My take on him is that he is certainly worth listening to but I would never take anything he said at face value. A quote attributed to J.P. Morgan comes to mind, "Every man has two reasons for the things he does: A good reason and the real reason."

I've read a fair amount about him but thus far I've only seen him on camera in a couple places that I can recall. From memory, in Nick Cook's documentary, UFO's: The Secret Evidence he basically states that the government did not have crashed ufos because if they did he would know about it. I can buy the first part of that statement but the second part rings rather hollow. He also appears in Jon Ronson's Crazy Rulers of the World which, while not really focused on ufos, does provide some candid footage of the Colonel with a PhD in Thanatology.

JOHN ALEXANDER

The entire non-lethal weapon concept opens up a new Pandora's Box of unknown consequences. The main personality behind it is retired Colonel John B. Alexander. Born in New York in 1937, he spent part of his career as a Commander of Green Berets Special Forces in Vietnam, led Cambodian mercenaries behind enemy lines, and took part in a number of clandestine programs, including Phoenix. He currently holds the post of Director of Non-lethal Programs in the Los Alamos National Laboratories.

Alexander obtained a BaS from the University of Nebraska and an MA from Pepperdine University. In 1980 he was awarded a PhD from Walden University (20) for his thesis "To determine whether or not significant changes in spirituality occur in persons who attended a Kubler-Ross life/death transition workshop during the period June through February 1979." His dissertation committee was chaired by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross.

He has long been interested in what used to be regarded as "fringe" areas. In 1971, while a Captain in the infantry at Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, he was diving in the Bemini Islands looking for the lost continent of Atlantis. He was an official representative for the Silva mind control organization and a lecturer on Precataclysmic Civilizations (21). Alexander is also a past President and a Board member of the International Association for Near Death Studies; and, with his former wife, Jan Northup, he helped Dr C.B. Scott Jones perform ESP experiments with dolphins (22).


Regarding the bit in the show about the Phoenix lights, I have a question. I distinctly remember the event and watching the media coverage of it in the days after it occurred. My memory is slightly fuzzy but I definitely remember a kid being interviewed(probably about 12-15 yrs old) on camera who said something to the effect that he was out with his telescope that night and says they were clearly multiple aircraft in formation with unusual arrays of lights attached under each wing. I am not clear on whether he was referring to the big triangle spotted earlier or to the lights over the city later that night.

I was wondering if anyone is familiar with this particular interview and if they have a pointer to where I can find it. I thought I had it on tape somewhere but I couldn't locate it when I last looked.
 
I was wondering if anyone is familiar with this particular interview and if they have a pointer to where I can find it.

Having just (re)watched the Discovery Channel program linked to by freemars2259 here I can tell you there's a young chap briefly shown speaking at a meeting who I think is probably the guy you're referring to (although perhaps you're referring to a different show where's he's interviewed in more depth?)
 
macavity said:
(although perhaps you're referring to a different show where's he's interviewed in more depth?)

What I recall seeing was more of a 15-30 second videotaped interview of this kid in his backyard or maybe his bedroom by the local news shortly after the event. I'll have to go through and review that doc you linked to see but thanks for the pointer.
 
What I recall seeing was more of a 15-30 second videotaped interview of this kid in his backyard or maybe his bedroom

If you do find it could you post a link (if applicable)? I'd be interested in hearing more of what he has to say. Thanks!
 
David,

I just wanted to point out an interesting comment you made during this interview. It came up when you were talking about the various sizes and forms of UFOs over the decades and how they've been changing/morphing over the years. You made a comparison with the NASA program.

Then you made the comment to which I am referring: That the larger ones - the "mother ships" - were particularly perplexing, and that their size boggles the mind in terms of their purpose. I thought that was a very cool insight, especially in light of the fact that the little guys are usually just that - very little. Taking that into account, it would make those massive ships even more bizarre.

I mean, what are they carrying in there, a whole ET town?? Built for human-sized occupants, these craft might have to be built to a scale 1.5 to 2 times as large! Unbelievable.

I wonder if any artists or engineers have come up with some concept work on what the inside of one of those giant 1-mile triangles might look like? Pure speculation, of course.

The other thing that I've often wondered: If we've had crashes of the smaller, saucer-type craft, imagine what the fallout would be if one of the "mother ships" goes down? Holy cow, look out below. I hope these llittle fellows don't drink and fly.

I am in the middle of Dolan's book right now, UFOs and the National Security State. It's absolutely packed with great information, and it's been brilliantly researched. Lots of great sighting information, names and dates, all kinds of great stuff. The word I would use for this book is "substance". It's got loads of substantial substance. Dolan's a great dude in the UFO field today. Highly recommended book for those of you who haven't already read it. I know you've read it, David. You da man.

Anyway, another great show. You guys are doing a great job. Take care
 
Apocalypto said:
David,

I just wanted to point out an interesting comment you made during this interview. It came up when you were talking about the various sizes and forms of UFOs over the decades and how they've been changing/morphing over the years. You made a comparison with the NASA program.

Then you made the comment to which I am referring: That the larger ones - the "mother ships" - were particularly perplexing, and that their size boggles the mind in terms of their purpose. I thought that was a very cool insight, especially in light of the fact that the little guys are usually just that - very little. Taking that into account, it would make those massive ships even more bizarre.

I mean, what are they carrying in there, a whole ET town?? Built for human-sized occupants, these craft might have to be built to a scale 1.5 to 2 times as large! Unbelievable.

One is forced to wonder if that is "really" what they look like. For many years now (going back into antiquity ala Vallee) there seems to be a pattern whereby the UFOs control human's perception of them. After many years, I've become convinced that these events (sightings, interactions. . .etc) are multi-fold. They involve the physical, yes, but they also encompass the physiology of perception. Lots of theorists have looked at the idea that there is something about manipulating electo pulse and/or light flashes that allows these things (whatever the hell they are) to manipulate human understanding. Just a thought.
For all I know, Stanton is right: these things need oil changes and rust when left out in the rain too long ;)
 
Apocalypto said:
I wonder if any artists or engineers have come up with some concept work on what the inside of one of those giant 1-mile triangles might look like? Pure speculation, of course.

Adamski had some rudimentary cross-section diagrams of the big cigars in one of his books for whatever that is worth.(probably not much.) I'm sure they are on the web somewhere.

Incidentally, there was some mention of 3 vs 4 landing struts on the craft. As I recall, Ray Stanford's excellent book Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry has some technical discussion of the possible engineering rationale behind 3 vs 4 as it related to the Lonnie Zamora case.
 
Back
Top