• 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!

Special Paracast Episode: ET Hypothesis Debate


Expanding on another idea we explored. That the the technology behind their propulsion may be very simple.
[snip]
So when i see alleged systems like this
UFO+Propulsion.jpg


I think about the steam train, it looks like a complex machine and it is, but the system that drives it is so simple its almost unbelievable that an oversized tea kettle could take you so far so quickly.
I think that the propulsion mechanism must be simpler than our best current theoretical model requires (huge positive and negative energy densities that are almost inconceivably beyond our current capabilities), however, it also appears to be a fundamental leap forward. So we're missing the solution to that paradox, and we may not be able to solve it until we have a quantum theory of gravity, or until we make some other fundamental theoretical breakthrough.

Because it's not a matter of simply achieving higher speeds, like the progression from a horse-drawn chariot to a modern train: these puppies are completely defying inertia and Newton's third law of motion - and that requires an altogether new physical principle that remains completely beyond our technological experience - presumably, metric engineering.

And btw - I really enjoy your consistently and relentlessly rational posts, mike.
 
Not always.

"Theatre" as derived from the Ancient Greek θέατρον (théatron, "a place for viewing"), itself from θεάομαι (theáomai, "to see", "to watch", "to observe").


Just walking into the national park and sitting on a rock and observing a beautiful sunset is Theater.
Observation doesn't always require construction and design.

The degree of Theater is related to the novelty of that which is being observed.
Watching a man walk past your table as you sit at an alfresco cafe is Theater, mundane but Theater none the less. If hes dressed in a clown costume that sense of Theater is heightened because its not mundane.

I posit that the idea that there is an overwhelming sense of theater associated with CE's is simply because its so far outside the usual day to day experience. Its created entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Excuse me but what you are observing is in fact construction and design twice over. There is the true design of external reality and the construction of it that your brain builds in collaboration with your senses and a myriad other variables to produce the virtual reality we call seeing that exists in your mind. These facts should not be bypassed. Seeing is not believing but suggestion.
 
And btw - I really enjoy your consistently and relentlessly rational posts, mike
You mean like how Grey's evolved from dolphins? Don't get be wrong as i think Mike has got one of the most dynamic minds going here but I don't always see rational at work so much as highly creative and irrational at moments, but then strong intelligence can look like madness to some, or at least to me, because I read some of his extrapolative posts and I just sit there and go wtf?
 
You mean like how Grey's evolved from dolphins? Don't get be wrong as i think Mike has got one of the most dynamic minds going here but I don't always see rational at work so much as highly creative and irrational at moments, but then strong intelligence can look like madness to some, or at least to me, because I read some of his extrapolative posts and I just sit there and go wtf?
Haha - I forgot about that dolphin/aliens post. But wait a minnit - aren't you always saying that we need to look at every conceivable solution to the mystery even if it completely defies all conventional notions of reality and reason? In any case, about 99+% of mike's posts are an earnest expression of rational abductive thinking, and frankly even the idea that the greys are evolutionary descendants from a common dolphin ancestor seems more plausible than the notion that some invisible psychic entity is making us see whatever form of god that we expect to see in the sky, and somehow producing radar returns and trace evidence in the process. But maybe I'm just a stickler for insisting on concepts that are at least obliquely connected to established scientific precepts like biological evolution and physical causality.
 
Last edited:
Haha - I forgot about that dolphin/aliens post. But wait a minnit - aren't you always saying that we need to look at every conceivable solution to the mystery even if it completely defies all conventional notions of reality and reason? In any case, about 99+% of mike's posts are an earnest expression of rational deductive thinking, and frankly even the idea that the greys are evolutionary descendants from a common dolphin ancestor seems more plausible than than the notion that some invisible psychic entity is making us see whatever form of god that we expect to see in the sky, and somehow producing radar returns and trace evidence in the process. But maybe I'm just a stickler for insisting on concepts that are at least obliquely connected to established scientific precepts like biological evolution and physical causality.
Obliqueness appears to be a distinct part of the phenomenon and it should then be approached from an equally oblique angle (Greg Bishop theoretics 101) But to qualify - yes invisible & often not visible to us because of biological capacities that do not require us to interact on a level of knowledge with another system outside of us. Not another dimension but something more analogous to bacteria's relationship to our own host body. We are both present but we may be unaware of our host. I would identify that as only one possibility to go along with the other tenant in the building theory, or to quote Bruce Duensing, "We are temporary tenants in someone else's house."

And again you are converging different phenomena under a single umbrella that needs categorization. If we lump it all together and then look for parsimony then much of the data imho has to get shaved or discarded in order to meet the ETH. I'd rather separate distinct phenomena and the patterns of data that come with them before we link lights in the sky to radar or to CE cases or to abduction experiences. It is a complex phenomenon and I find trying to lump it all together into the same basket both confuses and erodes the potential discussion. Limits are created and I find the single answer to be highly insufficient. Discussion ends and the nuances and complexities are ignored in favour of speculative discussion on propulsion systems.

So not to knock you or Paul Hill but I don't find that particular thread of the UFO discussion takes us any closer to understanding the core questions of who, what, where and why? The how part interests me less than those others. I feel that a natural trajectory of the phenomenon is an invitation to explore transit in the sky and to ask more questions of what is possible in physics. I feel this is something we are being led to. It's also something of a distraction to me in thinking through the mystery. I get its appeal as a point of discovery, but then what we talk about is now off topic for me. We can wax on about propulsion systems forever, both to learn new things about transit in the skies and to confirm it's all possible, but it does nothing to help parse out the core questions of the conundrum. I see it as a departure from talking about bigger issues. And I also feel it starts from a position of making specific assumptions of what kind of technology we are seeing in the skies. But that's me.

So you bring up biological evolution and causality. Much of my discussion regarding the focus on witness studies is concerned primarily with our biology and the limits of our sensory capacities which serve us for evolutionary purposes. Perhaps being able to see or hear everything that is in external reality would defeat us tremendously as a species, or so says Hoffman's computer simulations. Too much sensory capacity and the species dies off. We have limits to what we see and experience and perhaps with great reason. However, this evolutionary reality then makes allowances for a paranormal reality, to be alongside or para to us. Might not make sense to you in favour of talk of magnetic fields but it helps me to see an actual scientific basis for the potential of paranormality to be real. When you include the fact that we are collaborators in interpreting external reality the room for the alien other, and how it has been seen in so many ways, to grow into a distinct possibility. As Bigelow said recently on TV, It's like they're everywhere. Perhaps this is true and we need the proper set and setting to have these kinds of experiences.

As for physical causality, again we may be running into a limiting paradigm of biology. Time is not sequential. Einstein reminds us it's all connected and it's all happening at once and yet us mere mortals insist on linearity. We may be connected to these different phenomena in very different ways that we struggle with imagining.

But the conversation about lights in the sky and radar returns is a very different one from CE cases. I think it's a grave misstep to combine what is a highly complex and distinct set of phenomena. And I don't see how talking propulsion teases out any new info about the phenomenon. It serves us, yes, and then again I ask are we being directed to do this while ignoring the actual core of the phenomenon?
 
I just listened to this episode - what a fun conversation. One point that didn’t come up on the main show that I wish we had mentioned is that none of us are suggesting that the ETH explains all other kinds of reported anomalies – just the highly exotic aerial devices that are so widely reported.

And again you are converging different phenomena under a single umbrella that needs categorization. If we lump it all together and then look for parsimony then much of the data imho has to get shaved or discarded in order to meet the ETH. I'd rather separate distinct phenomena and the patterns of data that come with them before we link lights in the sky to radar or to CE cases or to abduction experiences. It is a complex phenomenon and I find trying to lump it all together into the same basket both confuses and erodes the potential discussion.
What are you talking about: when have I ever “lumped it all together?” Honestly I feel like I’ve clearly stated until I’m blue in the face that the ETH cannot possibly explain the entire range of anomalous experiences reported - when we venture beyond sightings of physical craft and their occupants, into the realm of dog men and black-eyed children and ghosts and other bizarre forms of paranormal experience, then we’re probably (but not certainly) dealing with a wide variety of exotic and distinct phenomena totally unrelated to the ETH.

I feel that a natural trajectory of the phenomenon is an invitation to explore transit in the sky and to ask more questions of what is possible in physics. I feel this is something we are being led to.
I agree, but I think we’re being led by the facts, not by some kind of paranormal agent as a deliberate ploy to spur us onward.

A paranormal entity didn’t lead us to believe that organic molecules permeate space – they’re actually there. A paranormal agent didn’t lead us to believe that ~22% of all stars in the universe are orbited by a warm Earth-like planet – that’s been proven by empirical astronomical research. And some inscrutable paranormal entity didn’t prove that warp field propulsion is consistent with the general theory of relativity – that was established mathematically. So frankly I think it’s crazy to think that what appear to be advanced metallic devices hovering in our skies and performing extreme aerobatic maneuvers, are not exactly what they seem to be – actual physical devices. Because it all fits together like the pieces of a puzzle, and the image that puzzle illustrates indicates that advanced technology from exosolar civilizations can, and probably does, enter our airspace from time to time. It bewilders me that this isn’t obvious to everyone who thinks about it for five minutes.

I see it as a departure from talking about bigger issues.
I don’t see how anyone can see the tangible prospect of other very sophisticated forms of intelligent life exploring our planet as anything less than an enormous and deeply compelling issue. How would they see the cosmos through their lens of a true interstellar civilization? How would they see us in relation to themselves and to other sentient beings? What are their perspectives on consciousness and paranormal phenomena of all kinds? What questions are they asking, and how many of our questions have they already answered? These are all enormous issues, and the prospect of actually plumbing them one day by communicating with such entities is a thrilling notion that touches on the nature of self and the meaning of life.

And I also feel it starts from a position of making specific assumptions of what kind of technology we are seeing in the skies.
I disagree. It all starts with the sightings of unexplained craft in our skies. The nature of the technology is an entirely secondary consideration, but one which I find to be of unique import to the human future.

Time is not sequential. Einstein reminds us it's all connected and it's all happening at once and yet us mere mortals insist on linearity.
You’ve misunderstood Einstein – causality is preserved in both of his theories: time is sequential. The only reference frame where everything happens at once is the photon reference frame, which matter is explicitly prohibited from experiencing because doing so would require infinite energy.

But the conversation about lights in the sky and radar returns is a very different one from CE cases. I think it's a grave misstep to combine what is a highly complex and distinct set of phenomena.
On the show you defined “close encounter cases” as “sightings within 500ft.” I don’t see why that class of sighting should be any different than sightings at 1000ft or 10,000ft – it’s an arbitrary demarcation point. And at 5,000ft+ a relatively small reflective or illuminated craft would only appear as a light in the sky, so it’s perfectly rational to conclude that a light in the sky that moves like a technological device, is probably a technological device. In contrast the Hessdalen lights, which you mentioned in the ETH thread, appear to meander slowly and in an organic manner, and they’re almost certainly a natural plasma phenomenon (probably related to the Marfa lights); so they’re the exception that proves the rule.

And I don't see how talking propulsion teases out any new info about the phenomenon.
Our best model for explaining the radical performance characteristics of the anomalous aerial devices that are reported, is a metric propulsion principle – which also just so happens to make the ETH vastly more likely because it reduces interstellar transit times to arbitrarily brief intervals. Apparently that’s why you hate talking about it so much – it opposes your favorite pet theories like the co-creation hypothesis and other New Agey mumbo jumbo.
 
I must say that it was a great idea having the panel discussion. Everyone acquitted themselves quite well.
As for the conclusion, I found myself more persuaded that the ETH is still viable and is the most plausible explanation for some observations.
I was also impressed by the suggestion that there could be a secret space program. Maybe Richard Dolan is right.
 
Loved this wide-scoped, open-minded, intelligent discussion. I’m not always a fan of the roundtable shows, but this was well worth a listen. Wonderful points made by each and every one of you. Been sifting through the ETH forum thread as well. Good stuff there too, but a little muddier than the show; unavoidable with so many extra voices and a certain amount trolling.
I’ll try not to muddy the waters too much here myself but there are a couple of things, listening to the show that I wanted to touch on.
The idea of the potential of other pre-historical societies developing being unlikely was brought up as there is no trace of industrial activity in the geological record, that is making the assumption that a technological race would have to develop in the same manner that we did. Keep in mind that much of our development and the traces we’ve left (and are leaving) behind have been the result of conflict among ourselves, and greed. The choices of another species on this planet may have been more biologically harmonious and based on simple curiosity, rather than one-upping the neighboring tribe, or even just the guy next door. But that Cobra-La-esque speculation aside, the assumption that our society’s way is the only, or likeliest way, just because its the only example we have, seems like a circular self-serving logic error.
Gene brought up the point of why haven’t we heard the E.T.’s? The follow up to that was all on point. The likelihood of us picking up any sort of signal, intentional or otherwise indicating another society seems unlikely, and that is just assuming that those potential societies would communicate in a similar method. I’ve made this point before, but it bears restating, that it is exactly this argument that makes the chances of an alien race stumbling upon us terribly unlikely. Yes, like us, they could scan for potentially habitable planets, and hop over to go “wow look at that” (and that is where the ETH has the strongest argument for me), but when I weigh the probability of that, against, the likelihood of another species having developed right here, maybe even millions of years before us, right here just seems more of a probable than the possibility of what might be out there. ‘Cause there are a heck of a lot of giant brains on this little world constantly observing the great out there and picking up wondrously near imperceptible things like gravity waves, and yet nothing that has made us go “hey that looks like the traces of a civilization” (okay maybe the potential Dyson-sphere, which seems like a misinterpretation to me, but that’s it).
Who knows, maybe we’re all right and E.T.’s have been maintaining Earth as a civilization generating factory for millions and millions of years. “Yes, I was just looking through your catalogue and was wondering how long it would take to have an advanced race made based on those wonderful ape creatures on page 42.”
 
But that Cobra-La-esque speculation aside, the assumption that our society’s way is the only, or likeliest way, just because its the only example we have, seems like a circular self-serving logic error.

Loved this reference.

I am just about to listen to the episode, but I predict that I'll enjoy it. I usually enjoy these round tables, and it'll be fun to hear from people I feel like I know.
 
The roundtable discussion was interesting inasmuch as participants sharing their alleged experiences, and placing their voices alongside of their musings when posting on various threads.

With that said, someone please post one unassailable image of any type of otherworldly craft, as to present knowledge, none exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The roundtable discussion was interesting inasmuch as participants sharing their alleged experiences, and placing their voices alongside of their musings when posting on various threads.

With that said, someone please post one unassailable image of any type of otherworldly craft, as to present knowledge, none exist.

A photo can never do what you ask, How could it ?
Its just an image.
An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence .

For example:

washingtonmain.jpg


1952 Washington D.C. Sightings, UFO Casebook Files

These blips were distinctly clear, reported as a very good return, solid and often traveled at unbelievable speeds."

The Washington D. C. sightings are a solid case of UFO activity. Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the objects, and photographed them. Many of these were Air Force personnel, considered as reliable.

Is that Photo of otherwordly crafts, it might be, it might not. The photo itself can never resolve the question.
 
A photo can never do what you ask, How could it ?
Its just an image.
An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence .

For example:

washingtonmain.jpg


1952 Washington D.C. Sightings, UFO Casebook Files

These blips were distinctly clear, reported as a very good return, solid and often traveled at unbelievable speeds."

The Washington D. C. sightings are a solid case of UFO activity. Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the objects, and photographed them. Many of these were Air Force personnel, considered as reliable.

Is that Photo of otherwordly crafts, it might be, it might not. The photo itself can never resolve the question.
I think the general issue Mike is to date there is no one single UFO photograph that a solid majority of experts in the field can agree upon as yup, definitely an alien craft. Yet we live in an age of self generated images....where are all the great pics? The majority of what was a great photo has turned out to be hoaxed which is very disappointing. Personally I wonder if it's even possible to get a pic of a UFO that is genuine.....the ones that impress me most are those classic blobs of light accompanied by witnesses and radar. Of course what was seen vs the blob of light in the photograph I find to be rather curious. The Portage County pic is also a little strange up against what was visibly seen.
ufo_po10.png
portage.gif
 
A photo can never do what you ask, How could it ?
Its just an image.
An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence .

For example:

washingtonmain.jpg


1952 Washington D.C. Sightings, UFO Casebook Files

These blips were distinctly clear, reported as a very good return, solid and often traveled at unbelievable speeds."

The Washington D. C. sightings are a solid case of UFO activity. Literally hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the objects, and photographed them. Many of these were Air Force personnel, considered as reliable.

Is that Photo of otherwordly crafts, it might be, it might not. The photo itself can never resolve the question.

Then what about foreign materials deposited from otherworldly craft that allegedly visit the planet often?

Are there any? If so, what are they?
 
But how could you ?
A photograph can never be proof of an interstellar craft.

On what data point could any "expert on alien craft" hang his/her hat ?.

Fully valid point. A photograph, or better still, collection of independent photos taken of the same object at the same moment from different angles with al least one reliable source (ie. news network, military, police) would only be verfication that some sort of odd craft had been present. It could never speak to the abilities of the vehicle, or who or what is inside (unless they’re standing in a window of the craft flipping off one of the photographers). And, as brought up on the show it wouldn’t tell us if we’re looking at a “cesna”, a “fighter jet” or a mothership. It would, however, become a great jumping off point for serious discussion, and less speculative speculation (?) about what is scooting about the skies. It would also turn some legit investigation by major players in the direction of aerial anomalies.

So again the question is, why in this age of cameras everywhere is there nothing but, maybe, blobs of light that we can agree are compelling images of something real? A giant crowd of critically thinking sceptics out there would say “because there isn’t anything” and they would be, and are, justified in taking that stance until something legit comes along.
 
Then what about foreign materials deposited from otherworldly craft that allegedly visit the planet often?

Are there any? If so, what are they?

How "foreign" would they be if they come from our universe ?

All those stars in the night sky they all burn Hydrogen and Helium, The larger chemical mix does change, but they all contain those two

https://www.quora.com/Are-all-stars-made-up-of-hydrogen-and-helium-only

And every single element you see about you was formed in a star...................

Got any gold in the house ?...... Its a foreign material deposited from an extra terrestrial source.
 
So again the question is, why in this age of cameras everywhere is there nothing but, maybe, blobs of light that we can agree are compelling images of something real? A giant crowd of critically thinking sceptics out there would say “because there isn’t anything” and they would be, and are, justified in taking that stance until something legit comes along.

This is a contradiction though.
If we agree the photo is of "something real" (but unidentified), then you cant simply transition to there isn't anything. Its one or the other it cant be both in that context.
 
Back
Top