• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, seven 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 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! Use the coupon code ufo20 to receive a 20% discount on five-year or lifetime subscriptions. And PayPal now accepts cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, in payment. We also offer a second payment method for major credit or debit cards (which also includes Apple Pay and Google Pay), so act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Thomas Fusco



DaveM

Paranormal Adept
When Mr. Fusco was asked the question I posed, 'Christianity provides the guiding light to the way he sees how the universe operates. What about other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam etc', he made light of other religions. He said something to the effect that other religions had numerous gods that ended up mating with one another. In effect, making light of other religions stories. I wanted to hear Mr. Fusco address the virgin birth of Jesus. Didn't he find this story as preposterous as these other religions stories?
 

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
Since Mr. Fusco wouldn't divulge his background, I have to assume he's an amateur. And with that in mind, since I don't know much about physics, I don't know how much of his theorizing is reliable.
 

Artyom

Paranormal Maven
Wow, I wasn't expected that I would want to pause the episode and post at the first couple minutes of the interview. Fusko statements about dark matter and multiverse theory are absolutely not accurate. Please google for Brian Green interviews and listen to Michio Kaku again more carefully, they never state definitively about those things as facts. Those are theories. Now about TV personality thing - how else you think it would be possible to bring science to the masses? Please suggest...

Michio has a radio program called Exploration, where he on weekly basis has interviews with various scientists to talk about pressing questions, like for instance the latest episode features the guest from NIR (nuclear information research) organization to talk about Fukushima disaster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

stonehart

Paranormal Adept
sorry guys I turned this episode off.. it is one of only a very very few I have not been able to bring myself to listen to the whole thing at once.
I will listen to the rest but damn ..... this image comes to mind.

Rihanna-Calls-Chris-Brown-A-Stupid-Liar-2.jpg


That is not directed at Gene or Chris but damn I wanted to break my I-pod less than halfway in.
 

Myself

Skilled Investigator
This episode was excellent and one of the most fascinating that I've tuned in for since listening to the Paracast. The guys asked some great questions and Mr. Fusco made some great assertions. I'd like to hear more about the new research he is working on.
 

Jimi H.

Paranormal Adept
Has anyone seen my red stapler?
Sorry, I'm afraid not. :)

I can't wait to see his buddy's barometer and electro-magnetic measurement tool, the EMF quadrolator (around minute 140), with which he can detect the bubble of another sphere, so smart! Let me guess, when the pointer moves, Stephen Greer sees a UFO and batteries die within a 10 mile radius :D
 
Last edited:

Jimi H.

Paranormal Adept
His buddy, Rountree, is booked for The Paracast his week, so feel free to post your questions.
Thanks.

Gene, good question about Fusco making up stuff versus science making up stuff.
It seems to me, that in one corner we have established science making up that dark matter/energy must be there, because there's a huge matrix of information that supports the theory that it must be there. In the other corner we have Fusco who says that what he makes up is as easily justified, based on a history of (supposed) para-normal events.

He seems to cherry-pick the bites he like, and call the rest establishment bias. (edit: Higgs doesn't prove the existence of gravitons, as pointed out by Elmo, sorry)

He seems to misrepresent, or misinterpret, the expansion of space. The expansion doesn't create more matter, or longer arms and legs and so forth, but the vacuum of space expands. Gravity makes stuff like galaxies stick together, so gravity indeed seems to be local. A surrounding vaccum could be pulling in our universe, so it might not be an internal force doing that.

I don't really get why a bend in the curvature of space would show the same apparition of an old lady walking the same stairs every night? It seems a bit too convenient that space would bend exactly enough to show that image, and nothing else, night after night (if such stories are real)..

Also, why and how does 'information' bleed into the physical sphere, from the 'Other' sphere? I didn't hear him explain that.
 
Last edited:

trainedobserver

Paranormally Disenchanted
I enjoyed the show and agree with Fusco about the whole superset business. However, I tend to think an attempt by something within a subset to describe the superset would be a practical impossibility. "...through a glass darkly" and all that.

The next time you have him on you should leap frog over the preliminaries and go straight to experiments that have been conducted and ones that are in the plans.
 
E

ElmoFUD

Guest
Thomas Fusco presents very dense material in an understandable way. I really appreciate the difficulty with terminology, vocabulary, lingo, lexicon, parlance, vocabulary, wording, nomenclature, usage, idiom, jargon or vernacular, and the skill required to keep things as simple and telegraphic as possible. Certainly, language is key; read Wittgenstein who famously said, "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."

With this in mind, I heard a term that came up on the show last weekend again and again and I cannot find any reference to the term. Specifically, I cannot find the word "languaging." I don't think Mr. Fusco brought this word up; it sounds like a kind of insider-speak/coinage--a made up word, much as words such as "project" used traditionally ala, "I am working on a project," can become weird verbs in various would-be high falutin quasi-official settings ala, "I am projecting." The first time I actually heard that, I asked if I should stand back and to the side. The word, "languaging" does not appear in dictionaries or even in the online Scrabble resource. What is its definition?
 
E

ElmoFUD

Guest
Thanks.

...He seems to cherry-pick the bites he like, and call the rest establishment bias. I'd say the force of gravity (a particle) appears to have been shown by the LHC. He should definitly have discussed why he thinks that is false, I'd like to hear him explain that!

He seems to misrepresent, or misinterpret, the expansion of space. The expansion doesn't create more matter, or longer arms and legs and so forth, but the vacuum of space expands. Gravity makes stuff like galaxies stick together, so gravity indeed seems to be local. A surrounding vaccum could be pulling in our universe, so it might not be an internal force doing that....

Gosh, I guess I don't interpret the data from the LHC this way. The last I heard gravity continues to elude theoretical, particle, and cosmological physicists. No gravitons have been found or inferred. Gravity is the kid in the back room ready with a spit wad to be delivered at any key moment of the lecture.

As for space, I think Mr. Fusco is positing the idea that, no, space-time is not expanding; instead more space-time is being created. This is crucial to his analysis and very interesting to me. I have always been confused by the notion of "information conservation," but Fusco's discussion helped me to bring it into better focus apart from a hypothesized paranormal connection.

Elmo

I refuse to be intimidated by reality anymore. After all, what is reality anyway? Nothin' but a collective hunch. -- Jane Wagner
 
E

ElmoFUD

Guest
Since Mr. Fusco wouldn't divulge his background, I have to assume he's an amateur. And with that in mind, since I don't know much about physics, I don't know how much of his theorizing is reliable.

Early on, Einstein was by profession a patent clerk, experienced an early failure at math, and could not get a job teaching Physics. Why focus one iota on the theorizer anyway? He states his case plainly and it is there to be critiqued, credentials or not.

Whether Thomas Fusco is onto something or not, I have long suspected that forward movement on paranormal/UFO issues would come from someone with a working knowledge of Physics and no academic axe to grind--someone who could formulate an experimental hypothesis, test it, replicate it if the results were positive, and then publish it. I really think this guy is saying, "Don't believe me. But if you care to pay attention, I believe I can prove my hypotheses and that proofs arising from them will lead to more encompassing theories." That's refreshing and his thinking is the first positive signal I have heard on these topics in years.
 

Jimi H.

Paranormal Adept
Gosh, I guess I don't interpret the data from the LHC this way. The last I heard gravity continues to elude theoretical, particle, and cosmological physicists. No gravitons have been found or inferred. ...
True, showing what gives some particles mass doesn't show gravity directly.
 
Last edited:

TheJCBand

Skilled Investigator
I have to say this was the most painful episode to listen to in a long time.

He spent 10+ minutes talking about how matter itself doesn't expand with the universe like the dots on a balloon. I was seriously unaware there was ever any confusion about this.

His claim that dark matter is something "just made up" is redundant and shows a real lack of understanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Dark matter is the word used to describe the fact that there is more gravity in the universe than there is mass to cause it. That is the only thing the words dark matter mean, and it is thus still an active research topic.

I really did not understand the word "supergeometry". What exactly does it have to do with geometry? Sounds like he just picked a word that sounded mathematical to woo people with.

His answer to DaveM's question was outright bigoted. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to bring Christianity into the argument whatsoever. I didn't hear anything that needed religion as an "explanation" (note that religion by definition cannot explain any observable phenomenon).

What really made me want to punch a wall was when he said that everyone who he's talked to with a scientific background thought his ideas were really interesting and then used the example of a woman at the Paradigm Symposium. I'm not saying real physicists would never attend such a conference, but I would be highly suspect of anyone's credentials there. As someone who DOES have a scientific background, I can say that his ideas sound like utter nonsense, and it's so frustrating to think there might be some listeners who are taken in by them.

I am interested in hearing from anyone who's actually read his book, is there any math in it whatsoever? I'm guessing not.
 

Pararescueman

Skilled Investigator
This guy's science is so bad, it was hard not to laugh. He really needs a formal education. To get on radio show and spout utter nosense as science speaks to his ignorance.

What is more dangerous is that their are individuals who believe his "science". I am not surprised at the lack of rebuttal offered by the hosts. Any high school kid with a basic science background could have blown up his science.
 

Myself

Skilled Investigator
This guy's science is so bad, it was hard not to laugh. He really needs a formal education. To get on radio show and spout utter nosense as science speaks to his ignorance.

What is more dangerous is that their are individuals who believe his "science". I am not surprised at the lack of rebuttal offered by the hosts. Any high school kid with a basic science background could have blown up his science.
would you mind explaining what you found wrong with his physics?
 

TrivialSublime

Skilled Investigator
Since Mr. Fusco wouldn't divulge his background, I have to assume he's an amateur. And with that in mind, since I don't know much about physics, I don't know how much of his theorizing is reliable.

Agreed, he lost credibility with me when he made a comparison to being as qualfied as Tesla to speak on matters he was discussing. Maybe based upon educational background but from a genious standpoint Mr. Fusco has no credentials.
 

TrivialSublime

Skilled Investigator
would you mind explaining what you found wrong with his physics?
One thing would be him claiming a lack of proof for dark matetr. Its existence or indicated existence through experiments as is understood in Physics today is not in question, he loses points there as well.
 
Top