• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive free Amazon gift cards. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Skeptical Discussion & Resources

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
The Walton case is interesting like a ghost story. I think that's an excellent way of thinking about it. Like the majority of ufo cases it proves nothing; it is just a really good story. It has suspicious elements attached to it especially regarding the very early moments of his return i.e. the guarded brother who appears to be controlling the entire situation. It's a suspicious case to say the least and offers no real credible evidence for proof of alien abduction or visitation. What's fascinating about it is that the story has never shifted, nor has Walton gone down the contactee route, as many often do. It is an anomalous tale in the history of 'Ufology'. And perhaps that's why it endures.
 

Creepy Green Light

Paranormal Adept
Regarding a life long interest in UFOs: That shouldn't disqualify anyone. For example, I've had a lifelong interest with UFOs, but had no sightings, abductions, etc. If I were to report something now, should that disqualify me? Does that mean that everyone on this forum who hasn't had an experience should be disqualified? Of course we should be skeptical of everyone's story and look at the facts, but I don't see how a life long interest in a subject predisposes you to make a hoax. I would argue that a person who is genuinely interested in this subject would be the last person to commit a hoax.
No. That in itself wouldn't disqualify you (life long interest in UFO's). But it would add a high level of suspicion if all those other factors were involved in addition to a life long obsession with UFO's.
 

Creepy Green Light

Paranormal Adept
The Walton case is interesting like a ghost story. I think that's an excellent way of thinking about it. Like the majority of ufo cases it proves nothing; it is just a really good story. It has suspicious elements attached to it especially regarding the very early moments of his return i.e. the guarded brother who appears to be controlling the entire situation. It's a suspicious case to say the least and offers no real credible evidence for proof of alien abduction or visitation. What's fascinating about it is that the story has never shifted, nor has Walton gone down the contactee route, as many often do. It is an anomalous tale in the history of 'Ufology'. And perhaps that's why it endures.
Agreed. It's funny because just last night my daughter watched the bit about Walton (from the 1979 documentary "UFO's Are Real"). My daughter is pretty intelligent and she's only 11. Multiple times she would say "Dad, wait....pause it." And after I would pause it she'd bring up good points. Such as;

What are the chances that life evolved somewhere else where the aliens would still have 2 arms, 2 legs, fingers, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, ears? and...

So wait....there's another alien that would "pass as human in a crowd here on Earth" - and Travis & the other aliens can breathe the air, but this human looking alien needs a fish bowl over his head? and...

The timing was just perfect to where as Travis was coming conscious again that he saw the UFO fly up & away & vanish? I mean, if the story were true - what are the odds? Seems more probably the aliens drop Travis off unconscious on the road and then just fly away. But I guess in his case they dropped him off, then just hovered around (for who knows how long? Minutes? Hours?) and then once they saw him moving around they were like "Whew! He's ok! Now we can fly away back to our planet."

I figured if these questions were coming from an 11 year old then....
 

diny

Paranormally Abled
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." William Cowper, Carl Sagan and many others. Phil Alderson, Associate Director of the UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, U.K. wrote a scientific journal article, published by the U.S. National Institute of Health, entitled "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" while other people argue that this reasoning is sometimes called the argument from ignorance and is "considered a fallacy in informal logic".

Edzard Ernst, formerly Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K. also wrote an article entitled "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in the BMJ. BMJ started out as the publisher of a single medical journal in 1840. BMJ states "Now, as a global brand with a worldwide audience, we help medical organisations and clinicians tackle today’s most critical healthcare challenges." Back to Professor Ernst's article. He states in the article that although "it is succinct and elegant. In fact, it is also entirely logical", "the fallacy arises not from the argument itself, but from the way it is often used in the promotion of quackery." That is the point. Not having evidence does not prove that something is not true. However, some things that are not true are evident as falsehoods. I have heard the phrase be open-minded but do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

There is a happy medium there somewhere. To me, the absence of evidence is often evidence that is not accepted by mainstream scientists. There is evidence for many things that are simply not accepted. One of my best examples is the Seti I temple in Abydos, Egypt. It has images of modern vehicles that are stated by archaeologists to be accidental renderings by the people who created the images. They slipped with their chisels. If so, this is extremely coincidental. They accidentally created four vehicles (most people say three), a helicopter, a boat or submarine, an airplane, blimp or UFO, and a different type of airplane at the bottom right. All of these slips which are identical to modern vehicles are together in one location on the walls of Seti I. What is the statistical probability that this could happen? One in a million? One in a billion? Even higher? To anyone who is not entirely skeptical, it is obvious that this was not a chisel slip but actual depictions of modern vehicles. This is physical evidence.

Seti I is only one example of how skeptical, closed-minded scientists refuse to accept evidence. They say that there is no evidence but, in doing so, they are being dishonest. They are misleading others by denying the evidence presented to them. The evidence is there. They just refuse to admit it.
 

Attachments

  • Seti Heiroglyphics.jpg
    Seti Heiroglyphics.jpg
    423.7 KB · Views: 3

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
I'm not sure the Egyptian carvings are of technology that Ancient Astronaut theorists might believe they are, but I 100% agree that there is a scientific bias when it comes to the issue of evidence, particularly the accounts of firsthand witnesses or experiencers. Is that bias justified? In some cases it probably is. Even as a general rule of caution, it might be wise to be skeptical of extraordinary claims, but let's not for a second think it isn't bias.
 

Peacekeeper

Skilled Investigator
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." William Cowper, Carl Sagan and many others. Phil Alderson, Associate Director of the UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, U.K. wrote a scientific journal article, published by the U.S. National Institute of Health, entitled "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" while other people argue that this reasoning is sometimes called the argument from ignorance and is "considered a fallacy in informal logic".

Edzard Ernst, formerly Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K. also wrote an article entitled "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in the BMJ. BMJ started out as the publisher of a single medical journal in 1840. BMJ states "Now, as a global brand with a worldwide audience, we help medical organisations and clinicians tackle today’s most critical healthcare challenges." Back to Professor Ernst's article. He states in the article that although "it is succinct and elegant. In fact, it is also entirely logical", "the fallacy arises not from the argument itself, but from the way it is often used in the promotion of quackery." That is the point. Not having evidence does not prove that something is not true. However, some things that are not true are evident as falsehoods. I have heard the phrase be open-minded but do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

There is a happy medium there somewhere. To me, the absence of evidence is often evidence that is not accepted by mainstream scientists. There is evidence for many things that are simply not accepted. One of my best examples is the Seti I temple in Abydos, Egypt. It has images of modern vehicles that are stated by archaeologists to be accidental renderings by the people who created the images. They slipped with their chisels. If so, this is extremely coincidental. They accidentally created four vehicles (most people say three), a helicopter, a boat or submarine, an airplane, blimp or UFO, and a different type of airplane at the bottom right. All of these slips which are identical to modern vehicles are together in one location on the walls of Seti I. What is the statistical probability that this could happen? One in a million? One in a billion? Even higher? To anyone who is not entirely skeptical, it is obvious that this was not a chisel slip but actual depictions of modern vehicles. This is physical evidence.

Seti I is only one example of how skeptical, closed-minded scientists refuse to accept evidence. They say that there is no evidence but, in doing so, they are being dishonest. They are misleading others by denying the evidence presented to them. The evidence is there. They just refuse to admit it.
Proof is used in math or theoretical science. Like 1+1=2 and 1 1 would be undefined without sufficient rules.

The abidos helicoper and 13000 year old black knight satellite proves nothing. I have explained in 2 threads what "knowledge" is.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Proof is used in math or theoretical science.
A mathematical proof is one type of proof. Another type of proof is evidence that is sufficient to justify belief in a claim. However that sort of proof is subjective. Some people require more evidence than others.
The abidos helicoper and 13000 year old black knight satellite proves nothing.
It proves somebody did some low-relief rock carving, but that's about all.
I have explained in 2 threads what "knowledge" is.
You may find that multiple threads or posts that promote your own ideas will be merged into fewer threads, or perhaps a single or preexisting thread. This is to prevent haphazard forum content, as well as improve the readership of your content. None of the content itself will be removed unless it is inappropriate. Before starting a new thread, please do a search to see if your topic already exists. We prefer to avoid multiple threads with identical topics.

If you would like to refer a reader to one of your posts, you can use a link to that post. Your personal thread is here: Axel Shark's Thread
Here is the link to your post about what you think knowledge is to you: Axel Shark On Knowledge

To create a link to a specific post, right-click the post's number at the top right hand side of the post and select "Copy link address", then paste it into the post you want to link to it from. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:

diny

Paranormally Abled
Proof is used in math or theoretical science. Like 1+1=2 and 1 1 would be undefined without sufficient rules.

The abidos helicoper and 13000 year old black knight satellite proves nothing. I have explained in 2 threads what "knowledge" is.
Proof is used in math or theoretical science. Like 1+1=2 and 1 1 would be undefined without sufficient rules.

The abidos helicoper and 13000 year old black knight satellite proves nothing. I have explained in 2 threads what "knowledge" is.

The sun does not go around the earth. Driving over 30 miles an hour will not stop our hearts. There is no missing link, just an evolution of human beings. There are three or four fertile crescents. Above all else, Stephen Hawking may not have had all of the answers. Google "Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning". You will see that physicists now dispute his belief in this.

I liked your post "Science can only be as good as the people allow it as I once said. Science means seeker for knowledge/truth. So yeah, it is the only way I can tell.

But I also said that you only know if you tested it yourself, only your trust in science doesn't make you smarter! And it also doesn't support science!"

Am I misunderstanding your reply to my post?

Math is exacting. Science is not. There is bias. There is limited knowledge which is passed off as absolute knowledge. Math is infinite. Science changes.
 

bdoon

Paranormal Novice
The sun does not go around the earth. Driving over 30 miles an hour will not stop our hearts. There is no missing link, just an evolution of human beings. There are three or four fertile crescents. Above all else, Stephen Hawking may not have had all of the answers. Google "Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning". You will see that physicists now dispute his belief in this.

I liked your post "Science can only be as good as the people allow it as I once said. Science means seeker for knowledge/truth. So yeah, it is the only way I can tell.

But I also said that you only know if you tested it yourself, only your trust in science doesn't make you smarter! And it also doesn't support science!"

Am I misunderstanding your reply to my post?

Math is exacting. Science is not. There is bias. There is limited knowledge which is passed off as absolute knowledge. Math is infinite. Science changes.
Xlent Post .
The recent official release of USN UFO videos already is impacting long held rigid notions. Science does indeed constantly change which is okay except for the rigidity of the minds of too many scientists. "This is the box you must fit into today " Yet the box is constantly changing.

What is the arrogance of man that he believes this little lump of matter in his skull is capable of comprehending the vast unknown.?..yes the attempt is admirable but those who think we can explain all ? Actually kind of funny that the DOD UFO vids brought out all the so-called "experts". There are no experts....not on earth , at least.
 

diny

Paranormally Abled
Xlent Post .
The recent official release of USN UFO videos already is impacting long held rigid notions. Science does indeed constantly change which is okay except for the rigidity of the minds of too many scientists. "This is the box you must fit into today " Yet the box is constantly changing.

What is the arrogance of man that he believes this little lump of matter in his skull is capable of comprehending the vast unknown.?..yes the attempt is admirable but those who think we can explain all ? Actually kind of funny that the DOD UFO vids brought out all the so-called "experts". There are no experts....not on earth , at least.

My problem is not that "experts" do not exist. My problem is that people claim to be experts then impart their "knowledge" on other people. This particularly bothers me when the other people believe them.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
My problem is not that "experts" do not exist. My problem is that people claim to be experts then impart their "knowledge" on other people. This particularly bothers me when the other people believe them.
There are experts, and then there are "experts" :p
 

henris42

Skilled Investigator
Well I wasn't, so thanks for that. Its bit dense packed, but interesting. It clearly agrees the percentage on cases that are actually in the unidentified category.

[edit] I read it further, and I see very strange conclusions - I cannot see how anyone could think the star Arcturus is UFO. Its not _that bright, and its not same color as Venus (its orange). Hmm. I guess I have to investigate.

I guess my 2c is that my issue is that this UFO field is often seen as all or nothing. If you say that you've seen an UFO, you're expected to believe to the beings from Zeta Reticula etc..

I've myself seen UFO:s twice now, and have photographs. But to me they are what they are - strange phenomena. Considering we're talking about night lights, they could potentially be some piezoelectric natural phenomena as well (there is a small mountain involved). I just don't know. Anycase its a quite a big leap from some lights to abductions... :)

I do believe that there are strange things going on, and I do wish it's the ET. That would be coolest thing ever. Hopefully, there will be a case that has some conclusive evidence - something technological I could put under electron or STM microscope. But I'm not holding my breath.

Agreed, keep open mind and hope for something extraordinary!
 
Last edited:

Top