September 23, 2007 Episode

[RedClover]

Excellent episode guys! I always enjoy when you do roundtable-type discussions.
Also, I have to say I’m super excited to hear about the upcoming Ritzmann book! Go Jeff!!!

I have a question for the Forum here. While obviously not abandoning the pioneering work done in UFO picture analysis and contactee interviews, in what other directions should one look for the answer to these questions?

There seems to be traces of it everywhere. As for myself, lately I’ve been looking into Robert Bruce’s views on astral projection and contact with those entities to see if there are any parallels. There are even people on his forum (www.astraldynamics.com) who claim to be astral abductees.

So how about you guys? If investigations into these areas are to expand beyond nuts and bolts theories, where are some places we could be looking?

Cheers-
RedClover

 

[neuph]

hmm. just heard the show... first off, gotta say that the least interesting shows are when it's talk talk talk about other people in the UFO field w/o any new information presented... it's like a gossip show. (fine to hear a opinion about another 'researcher', and why, but briefly is better.)
[/u]
interesting too is that Greer (by Jeff, i think) was criticized for 'suddenly' now talking about his early UFO/paranormal experiences and not before, and yet Biedny did the same, revealing some of the more esoteric stuff in later episodes... (and it's clearly understandable why that this is done, because otherwise you'd be dismissed from the beginning...)

also on the Greer note, it seems reasonable that he doesn't reveal say, which govt or officials in another country he's talking too, w/o yet revealing it. maybe they have asked him not too yet. maybe it is better to present it in a certain, more impactful, or timely way (press release? even a book launch?). point is, in the past, he has revealed interviewees, and more over time. perhaps if you show your hand too soon, you lose potential other sources.

and it was mentioned a few times that Greer etc. would mention things that are factually not verifiable-- yet none of the show hosts or guests on this show have shown anything verifiable either, it seems, but ask that their stories are believed. (At least in that sense, greer has assembled his interviews & book.)

certainly, it's all about discernment, and great to hear perspectives on people, and why, as all pieces help make the mosaic.... but i'd rather hear, say, comments on the photos or recordings or documents or ideas that some of the presenters of the conference gave, not about, say, Greer's hand gestures and voice modulation skills or whether or not he has to pay for his daughter's education, or how that other guy mentioned lowered his voice when talking about himself to give an air of gravitas... that's all technique, or style critique...

 

[tommyball]

...
also on the Greer note, it seems reasonable that he doesn't reveal say, which govt or officials in another country he's talking too, w/o yet revealing it. maybe they have asked him not too yet. maybe it is better to present it in a certain, more impactful, or timely way (press release? even a book launch?). point is, in the past, he has revealed interviewees, and more over time. perhaps if you show your hand too soon, you lose potential other sources.

and it was mentioned a few times that Greer etc. would mention things that are factually not verifiable-- yet none of the show hosts or guests on this show have shown anything verifiable either, it seems, but ask that their stories are believed. (At least in that sense, greer has assembled his interviews & book.)
...

First off, great show guys. It was nice to hear more of what you thought about the show. And Jeff, I look forward to your book. Your experiences should be recorded. Best of luck with it.

Neuph, welcome to the forums. I was at the X-Conference and David, Jeremy and Jeff gave an accurate report on Greer. I don't know how familiar you are with him, but in the UFO Forums section here, there are more than a few threads pertaining to him which clearly show how controversial he is. While Greer did organize The Disclosure Project, his showmanship and efforts as a salesman and ambassador to the stars undermine both his own disclosure efforts and those of others.

The difference between Greer and respectable researchers as far as verifiable evidence goes is that Greer pushes for disclosure on one hand yet on the other sells books, CDs, and $800 excursions to learn how to communicate with extra-terrestrials during which encounters have been filmed, yet this film is never seen nor presented; real researchers offer evidence when they can. Greer pushes for openness regarding the phenomena, but makes outrageous claims about evidence he has and then withholds it or fails to produce it. This is not about respecting the wishes of any informants. At the X-Conference, one can reasonably assume that Greer was in a company of like-minded individuals, paying like-minded individuals, who would have warmly welcomed any good evidence or reliable report (as we did for lecturers such as Dolan, Pope, or Salas) but he just dangled his little carrots such as working with a European nation to organize a large contact event or seeing photos of an alien baby and directed the audience to purchase his books and media that were conveniently located at a table just outside the conference room.

It's people like Greer that derail the efforts of people like Bassett and distract others (like me) from trying to figure this phenomena out.

As far as the other presenters, I heard that the plan was to post the videos online. I put a thread in the UFO forums section here outlining what I saw on that Saturday.

-todd.

 

[David Biedny]

neuph,

Welcome to our forums.

I have indeed been hesitant to talk about my experiences, and am gradually getting more and more comfortable with being more forthcoming, but The Paracast is not explicitly about me, it's about the realm of paranormal phenomenon, and the people that are visible in that realm. I would cite that, unlike Greer, I do not claim to be an ambassador for the human race, I am not selling seminars and field trips to vector in UFOs, I do not claim to have extensive video and photographic evidence of personal encounters with UFOs, I try to bring on co-witnesses to my paranormal experiences (if possible), and I do not claim to have definite answers to any of this stuff. Please take this into consideration when making comparisons between my motivations and those of Greer.

I did want to spend more time talking about some of the video material that Jaime Maussan was showing, sorry that didn't happen, but we'll be talking with him on an upcoming episode. The roundtables are what they are, and we felt that it would be useful to have a first-hand account of what we saw and heard. There's only so much that can be covered in a couple of hours, and we all had some major steam to blow off, so that's what came out. Ultimately, the study of UFOs and related topics is severely lacking an abundance of hard evidence, so often, all we have to go on is witness testimony. That's the nature of this particular beast, and I would agree that it's frustrating.

 

[DBTrek]

Let us not overlook the monumental event of DB implying that Greer is a disinfo agent. That's how you know that the conversation has officially moved into the realm of the playground . . . when accusations of 'disinfo agent' start flying.

The government is spending a lot of tax money trying to discredit those with no credibility!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

It's people like Greer that derail the efforts of people like Bassett and distract others (like me) from trying to figure this phenomena out.

If Greer is as bad as they say he is and i think that he may be, then just ignore him as i suspect most intelligent persons will.
As far as Bassett is concerned, so far he's all talk.He can be believed when he produces the goods, like anyone else.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The other thing is that there is not much else left for persons within the UFO field or other interested parties, for that matter, left to do but criticise each other because they are like a hungry pack of carnivores, when the food runs out they will turn on themselves.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The other thing is that there is not much else left for persons within the UFO field or other interested parties, for that matter, left to do but criticise each other because they are like a hungry pack of carnivores, when the food runs out they will turn on themselves.

As UFO researchers argue among themselves, UFO sightings continue all around the world. That's the real food in this field. The other stuff is a distraction. It's one we can't avoid, but you still have to focus on the real target and it's not going away.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Thanks Gene, i understand what you are saying.
The problem is, as you say, that there is still too much focus on old cases that have reached some point of stagnation i.e Roswell etc. and the majority of news on the subject whether it be in mainstream media or alternative seems to revolve around them.

It would be nice not to hear anymore sniping about research and researchers on those tired old cases and hear stuff about current new cases and maybe promote them more and invite more serious research into them.

I understand, also, that it is easier said than done and many thanks to yourself and David in attempting to bring the new stuff to the fore.

 

[DBTrek]

Now that I've heard the full episode (I listen to and from work) I find it to be one of the better roundtables. The Paracast is what it is, and part of that is a lot of 'dishing' about the UFO community and the players that comprise it. This particular episode had some interesting dialogues that moved beyond mocking the obvious charlatans in the field. Issues were tackled; like how to separate the serious researchers from the lunatics and what makes a good basis for UFO discussions (evidence vs. speculation). Given time to foment such musing might result in something tangible for the serious UFO community . . . like a non-crackpot sponsored convention.

. . . the only problem is you're all disinfo agents. Elvis told me so . . . we had a beer with some reptilians last night, and anyone who says otherwise is in the CIA.

 

[Verum]

I fully agree with DBTrek's statement,

Given time to foment such musing might result in something tangible for the serious UFO community . . . like a non-crackpot sponsored convention.

Having listened to this Paracast, I think this X Conference should be bookmarked as the end of "ufology". After decades of ridiculous conferences, UFO festivals, 'experts' who have soiled credentials or marginal ethics, after decades of being not one inch closer to truth, it's time to declare defeat. The current environment is toxic and can't be fixed.

What we need now is an entirely new format for study. We need scientists, or people at least trained in objective methodologies, and a few people committed to truth to ramrod the "business". With all due respect to David, Jeff and other experiencers, we need people who don't have a personal axe to grind--even if that personal axe is simply a natural urge to be believed--to lead the way. The field needs someone with deep pockets to get a legitimate, well-organized group together, to be rigorous in focusing simply on studying the issue regardless of where it leads. And dubbing housewives and TV repairmen "researchers" because they took a three hour training program doesn't exactly enhance the field's credibility. The ONLY person out there who seems credible and capable enough to take the reins is Dolan. What he needs is money, a tax exempt entity, paid scientists and investigators who actually manage the research...a 21st century NICAP with funding and a real staff. Now somebody needs to get that together. I volunteer Gene!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

What we need now is an entirely new format for study. We need scientists, or people at least trained in objective methodologies, and a few people committed to truth to ramrod the "business". With all due respect to David, Jeff and other experiencers, we need people who don't have a personal axe to grind--even if that personal axe is simply a natural urge to be believed--to lead the way. The field needs someone with deep pockets to get a legitimate, well-organized group together, to be rigorous in focusing simply on studying the issue regardless of where it leads. And dubbing housewives and TV repairmen "researchers" because they took a three hour training program doesn't exactly enhance the field's credibility. The ONLY person out there who seems credible and capable enough to take the reins is Dolan. What he needs is money, a tax exempt entity, paid scientists and investigators who actually manage the research...a 21st century NICAP with funding and a real staff. Now somebody needs to get that together. I volunteer Gene!

The UFO field is stuffed!!!
It doesn't matter who takes the reins or what their credentials. The thing is, main stream society looks upon the field and those in it as crackpots or eccentric at best. Hell, those within the field look down upon each other as dis-info agents or crackpots at best and there is no agreement between participants as to whom are the best people to re-organise the field.
Shows such as the Paracast and these forums are good places to bring up
new info to discuss as , in general, the debates and discussions are quite sane and reasonable (up to a point, lol). But as to intellectuals, scientists and experienced researchers saving the field, they've all been around for many decades and as of yet none of them have resulted in any kind of disclosure or have been the suppliers of any, real, solid, tangible, government backflipping, general public paradigm changing proof!!!!

 

[neuph]

thanks all for the welcomes...

the field is full of snake-oil salesmen hustling to sell something... but just because Greer is directing you to his books/vids/vectoring classes (and yes, i do think those last seem lame), doesn't make me completely discount or dismiss him, in the same way that, if the paracast started selling t-shirts, or ufo cologne, or whatever, it wouldn't cause me to stop listening to the show. i'm not a Greer acolyte, but i understand that anyone doing something full-time has to be a salesperson-- unless they have a large inheritance-- because if you don't make money, you can't do more work. and of course, the more public talks you do, the more professional (slick) you get.

'course, having said all that, the alien-baby thing does sound a little over the top...

 

[nycjeff]

I guess I'll throw in my $0.02.
I haven't gotten through the entire episode yet, but I generally liked what I've heard.
I think David had a good idea about putting on a conference, although at some point I'm thinking that the whole idea of a conference is fairly limiting because you'll only get like 100 (or whatever #) people to see it for any number of reasons (location, cost, previously scheduled plans, etc.)
I think it might be interesting for you to get together with the people that you genuinely thought had something to say, i.e. Dolan on Political structures, Maccabee on Photographic analysis, Kimball on Ufology and the Media, and whoever else, and do something like "The Paracast Lecture Series." Have them put together their powerpoint presentations or whatever and put it out for everyone to benefit from in some sort of podcast/vidcast format. Obviously you wouldn't invite just anyone to present, just the ones who you feel can make reasonable statements and back it up with reasonable evidence and analysis.
Well, just an idea. Its easy for me to throw it out there and not have to do any of the work to make it happen, but I think it could be a valuable resource.

 

[Verum]

From Pair of Cats

intellectuals, scientists and experienced researchers saving the field, they've all been around for many decades and as of yet none of them have resulted in any kind of disclosure or have been the suppliers of any, real, solid, tangible, government backflipping, general public paradigm changing proof

I haven't seen that. There's a very small handful of true scientists. I can only think offhand of Vallee, who's disassociated from "ufology", and Friedman, who holds just a masters degree. Most of the "researchers" in ufology are self-annointed or ran through MUFON's buy-my-manual training. That's hardly the standards of a FBI or State Police investigator. And, God knows, I can't think of any "intellectuals" in the field. There are some bright and articulate people but nobody that I've ever heard characterized as an intellectual, except by themselves.

The quality and character of "ufology" has been unchanged for decades. It is a smattering of science with enormous doses of charlatanry, cultism and mysticism. It is well-meaning but misguided, and it is a completely rudderless ship, and has been since NICAP's heyday. Unless and until there is a fundamental change to a well-resourced, professional and scientific cadre of dedicated experts "ufology" will continue to be a self-immolating circus. It is the only field I can think of that has progressed and grown not an inch in over 5 or 6 decades. It uses more bells-and-whistles but it is the same fundamentally-schizophrenic pseudo-science as it was in 1965.

In short, I am presenting, as have others, a plea for someone to step up and shake the tree; better yet, cut down the tree. It needs to be built all over again. New players, new objectives, new funding, new directions.

 

[BrandonD]

I guess I'll throw in my $0.02.
I haven't gotten through the entire episode yet, but I generally liked what I've heard.
I think David had a good idea about putting on a conference, although at some point I'm thinking that the whole idea of a conference is fairly limiting because you'll only get like 100 (or whatever #) people to see it for any number of reasons (location, cost, previously scheduled plans, etc.)

I really like Roger Leir's idea of the music event. He suggested a joint event featuring well-known bands/musicians who take ufology seriously and respected lecturers in the field. The music event attracts a greater audience, and those who purchase a ticket get access to both events (the music show and the lectures). If the lecture is in the same venue, there's a good chance people will stay for both events. I think it's really possible that these lecturers could get the word out to a greater number of people than the usual "choir".

I'm not yet sure how such an event might best be organized (ie, lecturers during the early evening and shows later in the evening), but I think it's a good idea because artists and musicians are generally nonconventional thinkers, and I think it would be relatively easy to find musicians who'd support an idea like this. In fact I know several established bands here in Houston who'd support such an event, and I've been throwing around the idea to have a smaller version right here in TX. Ideally I'd like to have someone like Richard Dolan or perhaps Peter Davenport involved.

I don't know how successful such an event would be in reality, but I'm actually serious about wanting to organize it. If anyone here has conceptual suggestions or ideas I'm all ears.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I guess I'll throw in my $0.02.
I haven't gotten through the entire episode yet, but I generally liked what I've heard.
I think David had a good idea about putting on a conference, although at some point I'm thinking that the whole idea of a conference is fairly limiting because you'll only get like 100 (or whatever #) people to see it for any number of reasons (location, cost, previously scheduled plans, etc.)

I really like Roger Leir's idea of the music event. He suggested a joint event featuring well-known bands/musicians who take ufology seriously and respected lecturers in the field. The music event attracts a greater audience, and those who purchase a ticket get access to both events (the music show and the lectures). If the lecture is in the same venue, there's a good chance people will stay for both events. I think it's really possible that these lecturers could get the word out to a greater number of people than the usual "choir".

I'm not yet sure how such an event might best be organized (ie, lecturers during the early evening and shows later in the evening), but I think it's a good idea because artists and musicians are generally nonconventional thinkers, and I think it would be relatively easy to find musicians who'd support an idea like this. In fact I know several established bands here in Houston who'd support such an event, and I've been throwing around the idea to have a smaller version right here in TX. Ideally I'd like to have someone like Richard Dolan or perhaps Peter Davenport involved.

I don't know how successful such an event would be in reality, but I'm actually serious about wanting to organize it. If anyone here has conceptual suggestions or ideas I'm all ears.

Let me tell you folks right up front that i actually sponsored a UFO event -- way back in 1976. We lost about $105 then, when it was real money. In retrospect, we did a few foolish things that we could have fixed and drawn more traffic. But we did get adequate publicity.

I'll never, ever, do it again, but I'm happy to let others try. I might even attend some.

 

[BrandonD]

Let me tell you folks right up front that i actually sponsored a UFO event -- way back in 1976. We lost about $105 then, when it was real money. In retrospect, we did a few foolish things that we could have fixed and drawn more traffic. But we did get adequate publicity.

I'll never, ever, do it again, but I'm happy to let others try. I might even attend some.

Well don't leave me in suspense, what were the few foolish things you could've fixed?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Let me tell you folks right up front that i actually sponsored a UFO event -- way back in 1976. We lost about $105 then, when it was real money. In retrospect, we did a few foolish things that we could have fixed and drawn more traffic. But we did get adequate publicity.

I'll never, ever, do it again, but I'm happy to let others try. I might even attend some.

Well don't leave me in suspense, what were the few foolish things you could've fixed?

A matter of publicity strategy and location. We were in the Philadelphia area, but the convention was a little too far from "Center City," which meant up to a 45 minute drive for city residents. We might have paid a little more to stage this event at a suburban location closer to the city, but I think we would have attracted a far greater audience. That's just for starters.

Since it was over 30 years ago, forgive me if I don't have all the fine details at hand. But that's what stands out.

 

[BrandonD]

A matter of publicity strategy and location. We were in the Philadelphia area, but the convention was a little too far from "Center City," which meant up to a 45 minute drive for city residents. We might have paid a little more to stage this event at a suburban location closer to the city, but I think we would have attracted a far greater audience. That's just for starters.

Since it was over 30 years ago, forgive me if I don't have all the fine details at hand. But that's what stands out.

Ah I see, well luckily that's a particular situation I can take care of. I've fortunately established relationships with downtown venue people so finding a good central location shouldn't be a problem.

The main thing I haven't figured out is... a rock show and a lecture are such wildly different things with different moods - A lecture is generally a calm and rational affair while a rock show is a more loud & crazy situation. What is the best way to combine them?

Normally in public events the calmer show is scheduled first and the louder show is last, but ideally I'd like the lecture to be last so that everyone who comes to the show will stick around for the lecture. If the lecture is first, then people might not bother showing up until the bands are playing, and that ruins the whole purpose of the event.

But if the lecture is second, then with people all hyped-up from the show they probably wouldn't want to chill out and pay attention to a calm dude who's just up there talking. They'd probably be in a rowdy/intoxicated mood and I wouldn't want anyone to be loud and disrespect the lecturer.

So basically I'm still trying to figure out the best way to organize it so that the maximum number of people show up for the lecture.

Gene did your event involve music? If so, how did you arrange the music and the speakers?