lancemoody
Skeptic
---
Last edited:
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!
Mr. Phillips promised to put up a daylight photo of a white bigfoot-like creature on his new site in "a couple of weeks"!
Clear daylight photos of these kinds of creatures are rare but Ted seemed to think this was a great one.
I can't wait!
I am going to start the countdown, if that's okay? But I don't know when this interview was recorded.
Ted's current site appears to have been designed in about 1996, where he humbly describes himself as a modern-day Indiana Jones so I am sure that the new site is not ready just yet.
Hopefully the photo won't be pulled into one of the portals also discussed on the show (of course if it does, I think I have learned is to say that this is a tricksterish event which is even better than any old proof, if I am following this stuff in my woefully limited way).
Lance
Web sites are seldom done on time. I'd cut him a little slack, since someone is doing it for him. But the episode was recorded a little over a week in advance.
Great show Gene, Chris and Mr Ted Phillips ,
Mr Ted Phillips has given a excellent interview and looking forward to him returing again and Gene maybe a move into Video feed of paracast radio show for youtube?
After 12 years of investigating a place that we don't even know the real name of (Marley Woods) I was sure hoping for a little more information from Mr. Phillips. I admire the man a lot and appreciate his efforts, but geez! Give us some information, Ted. Also, the 'artifact' in the Tatra Mountains of Slovakia.......I heard nothing what so ever about it........did I miss it some how? Gene, you really tried to get him to open up and I appreciate that.
The analysis neither proves not rules out a UFO source of the release. The above natural products have many useful properties. Specifically, humates are known for their chelation/bonding to metals and organics. "Earthside" we use them in fertilizer and for removal of toxic metals and organic pollutants. It is natural to assume intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would also use them. One speculation if they are perhaps waste products of a biological process.
If I resided in an area such as "Marley Woods", I would not want the location to be publicized. Additionally, the almost guaranteed appearance of The Ghosthunters, The UFO Hunters and other freelance researchers is likely to impede Ted's efforts to do bona fide research. This is a very reasonable and logical position. Besides, I think most people find Ted to be highly credible, and few if any seriously believe he is manufacturing this information. The release of photos and videos will further enhance this credibility.
I always enjoy listening to Ted -- a credible frontline researcher who is able to directly relay the results ("the data") of his investigation. This was a good, informative show.
A good summary:I would say that after reading the report there is nothing in this "classic" UFO case that points to an ET spacecraft, except for the witness who claims to have seen it - which means that what we really have is primarily a single witness case (although the original witness' family claims to have seen the object after his initial encounter). Even if Johnston et al did encounter a strange object, there is nothing to suggest an extraterrestrial origin as the most likely explanation from the physical traces, which is the conclusion ET proponents consistently offer.
Are you refering to this?I am unlikely to disagree with the "waste products" conclusion.
Lance
7) The analysis neither proves nor rules out a UFO source of the release. The above natural products have many useful properties. Specifically, humates are known for their chelation/bonding to metals and organics. “Earthside” we use them in fertilizer and for removal of toxic metals and organic pollutants. It is natural to assume intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would also use them. One speculation is they are perhaps waste products of a biological process.
9.) Finally, others have countered that the release represents the products of “well seasoned barnyard soil”. If this were the case there should be much higher concentrations of elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium present. Also there should be evidence of significant amounts of other components such as urea, uric acid, and ammonium components, which are typical of animal waste and its decomposition products. These are not detected. Only the fulvic acid predominates.
8.) A speculation is offered by a colleague (Dr. J. Robert Mooney). It is based on the presence of the high concentration (5%) of oxalic acid. (The following may sound bizarre, yet isn’t the whole UFO phenomena bizarre? It is worth contemplating.) Oxalic acid is a natural product in the soil. However, such a high concentration would not be expected from the usual plant source. Exhaust from a low temperature ionization or combustion engine (whose fuel source was elemental carbon) could leave a high concentration of the acid along with other lower molecular weight acids. Of course the major components from such an engine would be expected to the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. These would be lost as gases. The acids would concentrate in the soil beneath the exhaust. Use of elemental carbon, as a fuel, seems very reasonable as it is safely transportable and contains a high energy density. It is recommended that future ring sites be carefully assayed for oxalic acid and other low molecular weight acetic components4.
Ted is one of the most credible UFO researchers out there. I wish he would devote or allow others to devote time to digitizing all of his files, which are vast and extensive. But, if he says he has something, then I immediately take notice. My all time favorite case is the Delphos Kansas case so it is no surprise that I hold him in high regard.
I was never really interested in the skinwalker ranch stuff. No proof or documentation was offered in the book and i just chalked it up as B.S. but many of the things or situations Ted describes about the Marley Woods sound similar. I await the video, stills, and other evidence with great anticipation.
If I resided in an area such as "Marley Woods", I would not want the location to be publicized. Additionally, the almost guaranteed appearance of The Ghosthunters, The UFO Hunters and other freelance researchers (one massive clown troupe) is likely to impede Ted's efforts to do bona fide research. This is a very reasonable and logical position. Besides, I think most people find Ted to be highly credible, and few if any seriously believe he is manufacturing this information. The release of photos and videos will further enhance this credibility.
I always enjoy listening to Ted -- a credible frontline researcher who is able to directly relay the results ("the data") of his investigation. This was a good, informative show.
Sorry Gene, but no. I do respect you and what you are trying to do and I appreciate it.Web sites are seldom done on time. I'd cut him a little slack, since someone is doing it for him. But the episode was recorded a little over a week in advance.
Sorry Gene, but no. I do respect you and what you are trying to do and I appreciated it.
However, when I hear a guest make claims on your show about photographs or video footage that are not available to be viewed or will be put up on a website "in a few weeks" I just stop listening.
This is a pattern I "get." This is a fallacy trap I refuse to fall into.
Gene, it is not my intention to be argumentative with you but I do know that you can make a direct link to a picture or video on a server somewhere in mere minutes. All you have to do is upload the file and post a link to it. You don't need a fancy website. This is not hard.I heard from him today and he still insists he'll have the site up and running soon — probably in a week, which is in keeping with what he said on the show. Having done Web development myself at a fairly modest level, I can tell you it always takes longer than you expect. Always. Ted has someone supposedly expert at this doing the hard lifting, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it arrive later.
I know when we updated this forum with a major software upgrade, it took several weeks to clear out the problems. And we had an existing forum with a very stable structure.
Ron, I agree. There is no substitute for 'on-the-job' experience, and Phillips has plenty of it. Short of Phillips being a fraud or an idiot (an there is no evidence of either), then you have to take careful note of his work, which is done in conjunction / consultation with qualified specialists such as chemists, geologist, veterinarians, etc.
Personally I would feel uncomfortable attempting to debunk a case without ever having gone out to the field and talked to the witnesses, preferably contemporaneously with the events in question. Individuals like Phillips are best positioned to assess witness accuracy and credibility.
I disagree completely. This is symptomatic of the cult of the field investigator, as I've begun to call it
You might have a valid point.
On the other hand, where does it leave anyone? Oberg is quick to dismiss pilot reports as unreliable based on a Hynek study. He suggests that pilots are less reliable as witnesses than the average Joe. By extension, his argument dictates that nobody is credible or reliable and therefore any witness testimony is flawed and dismissable.
You appear to write off researchers for having experience 'in the field' without offering an alternative. Should we give more attention to people without experience 'in the field?' Maybe there's a middle ground?
Who do you suggest should be the 'Crown Prosecutors?' Who should represent a jury with an acceptable criteria of 'credibility?'
Take the information they gather, and then assess it for yourself. We're all the jury, because that's the best that you can get for something like this, which is simply not going to attract the attention of mainstream science. But don't accord the "field researcher" some sort of special status - his or her opinion / interpretation is no more valid than anyone else... and I say that having done a fair bit of "field work."