• 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!

Where did all the skeptics go?

Free versions of recent episodes:

It took me less than 2 mins to find this............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucers


Although disc-shaped flying objects have been interpreted as recorded occasionally since the Middle Ages, the first highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947

A manuscript illustration of the 10th-century Japanese narrative, The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, depicts a round flying machine similar to a flying saucer.<SUP id=cite_ref-Richardson_2-0 class=reference>[3]</SUP>
Perhaps the oldest recording of a saucer-shaped object is from 1290, when a silver disc was reported flying over a village in Yorkshire.<SUP id=cite_ref-elsewhere_3-0 class=reference>[4]</SUP> Disc-like flying objects were occasionally reported throughout the millennium. For example, in a mass sighting over Nuremberg in 1561, discs and spheres were reported emerging from large cylinders. (woodcut at left) They also frequently show up in religious artwork,<SUP id=cite_ref-4 class=reference>[5]</SUP> though it is usually ambiguous as to whether the artists were trying to depict something that had been seen or whether there was obscure religious symbolism involved. In particular, artwork of the Annunciation of Mary frequently shows a narrow beam of light descending from a saucer-like object. (examples at right and lower left)

Surprisingly, long before the Kenneth Arnold sighting of 1947 and the adoption of the term "flying saucer" by the press, spacecraft of human or alien origin were often illustrated as classic flying saucers in the popular press, dating back to at least 1911





  • Shen Kuo (1031–1095), a Song Chinese government scholar-official and prolific polymath inventor and scholar, wrote a vivid passage in his Dream Pool Essays (1088 - about an unidentified flying object. He recorded the testimony of eyewitnesses in 11th-century Anhui and Jiangsu (especially in the city of Yangzhou), who stated that a flying object with opening doors would shine a blinding light from its interior (from an object shaped like a pearl) that would cast shadows from trees for ten miles in radius, and was able to take off at tremendous speeds.<SUP id=cite_ref-15 class=reference>[16]</SUP>
  • On January 25, 1878, The Denison Daily News wrote that local farmer John Martin had reported seeing a large, dark, circular flying object resembling a balloon flying "at wonderful speed." Martin also said it appeared to be about the size of a saucer, the first known use of the word "saucer" in association with a UFO.<SUP id=cite_ref-16 class=reference>[17]</SUP>
  • On February 28, 1904, there was a sighting by three crew members on the USS Supply 300 miles west of San Francisco, reported by Lt. Frank Schofield, later to become Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Battle Fleet. Schofield wrote of three bright red egg-shaped and circular objects flying in echelon formation that approached beneath the cloud layer, then changed course and "soared" above the clouds, departing directly away from the earth after two to three minutes. The largest had an apparent size of about six suns.<SUP id=cite_ref-17 class=reference>[18]</SUP>
  • 1916 and 1926: The three oldest known pilot UFO sightings, of 1305 cataloged by NARCAP. On January 31, 1916, a UK pilot near Rochford reported a row of lights, like lighted windows on a railway carriage, that rose and disappeared. In January 1926, a pilot reported six "flying manhole covers" between Wichita, Kansas and Colorado Springs, Colorado. In late September 1926, an airmail pilot over Nevada was forced to land by a huge, wingless cylindrical object.<SUP id=cite_ref-18 class=reference>[19]</SUP>
  • On August 5, 1926, while traveling in the Humboldt Mountains of Tibet's Kokonor region, Nicholas Roerich reported that members of his expedition saw "something big and shiny reflecting the sun, like a huge oval moving at great speed. Crossing our camp the thing changed in its direction from south to southwest. And we saw how it disappeared in the intense blue sky. We even had time to take our field glasses and saw quite distinctly an oval form with shiny surface, one side of which was brilliant from the sun.” <SUP id=cite_ref-19 class=reference>[20]</SUP> Another description by Roerich was, "...A shiny body flying from north to south. Field glasses are at hand. It is a huge body. One side glows in the sun. It is oval in shape. Then it somehow turns in another direction and disappears in the southwest." <SUP id=cite_ref-20 class=reference>[21]</SUP>
  • In the Pacific and European theatres during World War II, "Foo-fighters" (metallic spheres, balls of light and other shapes that followed aircraft) were reported and on occasion photographed by Allied and Axis pilots. Some proposed Allied explanations at the time included St. Elmo's Fire, the planet Venus, hallucinations from oxygen deprivation, or German secret weapon.<SUP id=cite_ref-21 class=reference>[22]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-22 class=reference>[23]</SUP>
  • On February 25, 1942, U.S. Army observers reported unidentified aircraft both visually and on radar over the Los Angeles, California region. Antiaircraft artillery was fired at what was presumed to be Japanese planes. No readily apparent explanation was offered, though some officials dismissed the reports of aircraft as being triggered by anxieties over expected Japanese air attacks on California. However, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall and Secretary of War Henry Stimson insisted real aircraft were involved. The incident later became known as the Battle of Los Angeles, or the West coast air raid.
  • In 1946, there were over 2000 reports, collected primarily by the Swedish military, of unidentified aerial objects in the Scandinavian nations, along with isolated reports from France, Portugal, Italy and Greece, then referred to as "Russian hail", and later as "ghost rockets", because it was thought that these mysterious objects were possibly Russian tests of captured German V1 or V2 rockets. Although most were thought to be natural phenomena like meteors, over 200 were tracked on radar and deemed to be "real physical objects" by the Swedish military. In a 1948 top secret document, the Swedish military told the USAF Europe in 1948 that some of their investigators believed them to be extraterrestrial in origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Reading all this crap one must understand the truth, so here it is:

1. The word "similar" means just what it means...before 47' there were sightings "similar" to saucer shaped crafts....Not one actually defined as thus with words translated in the English language as exactly defined.

2. Lance is right about the fad taking off after Arnold. What he stated about the shows before this and Roswell and the Hills have no direct reference to "saucer" oriented craft whatsoever. There were crafts that had cylindrical shapes and round ones and other strange looking shapes, but nothing directly seen as "saucer"....

3. Wheels and clouds do not a saucer make....sorry wannabes.

4. Lastly, even if there was a slight trickle of anything even remotely looking like or comparing to a "saucer" like craft, this is no way sets the unbelievable fad which began shortly after Arnold and Roswell. To even pretend it did is unfathomable even for radicals in the Ufology field.

Sorry, thank Hollywood and those creative enough to do the government's job for them and be happy with all the discombobulated melodramatic BS out there now instead of real and honest investigatory work!
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

I do believe that saucer shaped craft were part of popular culture prior to this. I want to say it in Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon, can't remember.

Rogers and Gordon flew in large metal torpedoes. Flying saucer looking things did appear on the covers of magazines and whatnot as early as 1911 though.

It looks like "Flying Saucer" came from the misinterpretation of Kenneth Arnold's description of the motion of the object vs their appearance that was printed in an Associated Press article on June 24th, 1947. Ruppert didn't coin the term U.F.O. to describe such phenomena until the early 50s.

PENDELTON, Ore., June 25 (AP) -- Nine bright saucer-like objects flying at "incredible speed" at 10,000 feet altitude were reported here today by Kenneth Arnold, a Boise, Idaho, pilot who said he could not hazard a guess as to what they were.
Arnold, a United States Forest Service employee engaged in searching for a missing plane, said he sighted the mysterious objects yesterday at 3 P.M. They were flying between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams, in Washington state, he said, and appeared to weave in and out of formation. Arnold said he clocked and estimated their speed at 1,200 miles an hour.
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Reading all this crap one must understand the truth, so here it is:

1. The word "similar" means just what it means...before 47' there were sightings "similar" to saucer shaped crafts....Not one actually defined as thus with words translated in the English language as exactly defined.

2. Lance is right about the fad taking off after Arnold. What he stated about the shows before this and Roswell and the Hills have no direct reference to "saucer" oriented craft whatsoever. There were crafts that had cylindrical shapes and round ones and other strange looking shapes, but nothing directly seen as "saucer"....

3. Wheels and clouds do not a saucer make....sorry wannabes.

4. Lastly, even if there was a slight trickle of anything even remotely looking like or comparing to a "saucer" like craft, this is no way sets the unbelievable fad which began shortly after Arnold and Roswell. To even pretend it did is unfathomable even for radicals in the Ufology field.

Sorry, thank Hollywood and those creative enough to do the government's job for them and be happy with all the discombobulated melodramatic BS out there now instead of real and honest investigatory work!

Historical accounts of UFOs are "crap"? And the almighty pararealitysaint has the "truth"? Maybe Gene and Chris should have you on the show!
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Historical accounts of UFOs are "crap"? And the almighty pararealitysaint has the "truth"? Maybe Gene and Chris should have you on the show!

Historically crap pertaining to any authenticity or comparative evidential proof whatsoever that "E.T." or "E.T.H" as a real entity exists in both the form and behavior all the wannabes on this site and the minority faction in this world wishes them to be.

Please read my entire replies in the context by which their intent mandates.

The very fact that anyone argues little gray aliens have any history past the 1940's is ridiculous to say the least. This was all man made and quite fictional.

Now Unidentified Flying Objects aren't "crap" when they are properly reported and placed in their proper context....That being logged and presented as their true identity prevails.

I have spoken. :)
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Once again, facts trump semantic games.

Yes words and terms have meanings. Sometimes more than one. The usage and even spelling evolve. Sometimes new phrases or words are invented to describe long existing memes. Ask any linguist.

If you really think people only started reporting seeing flying saucers in the 1940's you are just wrong. The roots of the mytholgy extends back to ancient times. How anyone can dispute this is incomprehensible.

Mythology serves to alter our concepts. As our concepts change so does the mythology. Anyone claiming it's a one way process is wrong. Ask anyone who studies mythology. Or really, just go look for yourself.
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

Once again for those of you who just don't get it,

The term "FLYING SAUCER" and all that it meant wasn't used a predominant title for an unidentified flying object until the late 40's and 50's and beyond.

The point was my alluding to the sheer amount of mania which developed not soon after Roswell, the Hills and Kenneth Arnold for the term and it's usage.....Clear enough Lance?

Whatever the other Martian wannabes want to state, and however many pictures and "close to" the word "saucer"/names/titles you want to show, the clear and factually accurate historical proof lies in the word "saucer" itself, how the airships were explained, and how they became a "unified" item known as "Flying Saucer and Disc" only after the events I specified.

To say any differently is to play on words for the simple sake of argument.
 
Skepticism Is Pseudoscience

This site has some great photographs of UFO'S, of all shapes and sizes, it might help along this discussion?

The Best UFO Pictures Ever Taken, Page 1, 1927-1959

Thanks for this. And yet not one of them had the dubbed term, "Flying Saucer" imprinted on it. This term and many of the so called "E.T." descriptions and drawings came after the events I mentioned earlier.

This was the entire point I was making.
 
Saucers & Mythology

Hey Stphrz, I completely agree. The reason that I take the time to respond to the proclaimations of the skeptics is because mostly they mean well and have seen cases of UFO hoaxes, and looked into contactees and UFO cults, and mistakenly think that "ufology proper" is in the same bag of beans. More often than not, when presented with the correct information, skeptics will begin to realize that bad ufology doesn't apply to all ufologists any more than bad medicine applies to all doctors. Sure there are quacks in ufology and sure there are quacks in medicine, and on both sides it's not uncommon for some of them to even have genuine credentials. Fortunately though, bad ufology is a lot less harmful than bad medicine.

www.ufopages.com
Actually, in terms of opinions on the topic you and I are even farther apart than some of the folks you regard as skeptics or even debunkers.

I don't recall if I ever outlined my true opinions but here they are in a nutshell:

I believe the phenomenon is real. I don't know it's nature or it's source. I consider those things to be unknowable.

I believe it's real not so much due to any particular cases or so called evidence. I believe it's real because of the measurable and documented effects it has had and is having on the concepts of mankind.

If you doubt this, look around. Look at the archetypes that have infiltrated every single aspect of human existence. The image of the little grey alien is essentially an icon.

For these reasons, among others I don't contend that actual physical ufos exist or do not exist. I contend whether they exist or not is irrelevant.

I think we have a chance to achieve a better (not complete) understanding by focusing on the mythological, sociological and symbolic elements of of the phenomenon. What is it doing? How are we responding? Where are we headed?

While I still value truth and facts very highly I'm not so concerned by the "signal vs noise" debate. It could be all signal.

Pretty wacky huh? :)
 
Saucers & Mythology

I believe the phenomenon is real. I don't know it's nature or it's source. I consider those things to be unknowable.

Smacks of religion.

I believe it's real not so much due to any particular cases or so called evidence. I believe it's real because of the measurable and documented effects it has had and is having on the concepts of mankind.

If you doubt this, look around. Look at the archetypes that have infiltrated every single aspect of human existence. The image of the little grey alien is essentially an icon.

UFOlogy may be gaining acceptance but it's a slow process. Considering the potential import of space visitors, and the number of reports, the subject is still remarkably marginalized. It is far from pervasive in our culture. You do see images of UFO aliens occasionally, but out and out sci fi is more common, as are conventional scientific views, which envisage contact via radio.

For these reasons, among others I don't contend that actual physical ufos exist or do not exist. I contend whether they exist or not is irrelevant.

Could be very relevant, even a matter of life and death someday.
 
Saucers & Mythology

Smacks of religion.

Ick.

Reasoning like that is the reason UFOlogy is still "remarkably marginalized." Incidentally, "free thinkers" who fall into this web of logical fallacies relish how outspoken they are for the cause. Smacks of martyrdom.
 
Saucers & Mythology

Reasoning like that is the reason UFOlogy is still "remarkably marginalized."

UFOlogy is not marginalized because some people think its nature or source is knowable. If it were really unknowable, it would be forever marginalized; there'd be no use studying it.
 
Saucers & Mythology

Ick.

Reasoning like that is the reason UFOlogy is still "remarkably marginalized." Incidentally, "free thinkers" who fall into this web of logical fallacies relish how outspoken they are for the cause. Smacks of martyrdom.
Now hold on a second.

He's right. It does smack of religion. After all I did state that view as belief. I admit that.

I also could be totally wrong. I admit that possibility too. It could be that sometime in the future whatever/whoever is behind it will step out from behind the curtain to reveal themselves and say:

"Yeah, that was just us. Sorry if we gave you a fright or caused any trouble. We were just trying to teach you a lesson."

I'm not gonna hold my breath for that though. Maybe I should have said undiscoverable.

UFOlogy may be gaining acceptance but it's a slow process. Considering the potential import of space visitors, and the number of reports, the subject is still remarkably marginalized. It is far from pervasive in our culture. You do see images of UFO aliens occasionally, but out and out sci fi is more common, as are conventional scientific views, which envisage contact via radio.
You're thinking too small and on too short a time scale. Where will humanity and it's concepts be 200 years from now?

If you don't think it's pervasive, all I can ask is: Do you get out much? Now I'm not saying that to be smarmy. It's a legit inquiry.

The alien face is used as a logo for consumer products. Ever hear of Alienware computers? It is used in advertising, it's on t-shirts, billboards, book covers, posters, tv shows, movies, on and on and on. In terms of overt acceptance, yes you are correct. In terms of a seed planted in our conciousness you are wrong.

Could be very relevant, even a matter of life and death someday.
Oh now, you don't really mean that. You aren't talking about some kind of scary scenario like an alien invasion are you? And surely you aren't hoping for great extraterrestrial beings to come down and save us by granting us advanced technology. That, would be truly religious. :)

I contend that mankind will, in the end, do fine in the universe. We will do so on our own. I'm very hopeful.
 
Saucers & Mythology

He's right. It does smack of religion. After all I did state that view as belief. I admit that.

Belief doesnt always equate to religion.
For example i have really good fences, with brick footings that go down to the bedrock, My dogs can neither jump over or dig under them.
I "believe" that they are in the back yard as of this moment, they are not here in the room i cant see them.

Its my personal belief that they remain contained in the yard, though i cant be 100 percent sure unless i look and see.

As far as my yard is concerned i believe in the existance of dog...... but its not my religion :)
 
Saucers & Mythology

Belief doesnt always equate to religion.
For example i have really good fences, with brick footings that go down to the bedrock, My dogs can neither jump over or dig under them.
I "believe" that they are in the back yard as of this moment, they are not here in the room i cant see them.

Its my personal belief that they remain contained in the yard, though i cant be 100 percent sure unless i look and see.

As far as my yard is concerned i believe in the existance of dog...... but its not my religion :)
You just nailed it . Regarding your fence and dogs, you can always go look and see. If ever your belief is wrong, you have a way to know it. That's why it's not religion. It's an actual honest to goodness falsifiable hypothesis.

With regards to my belief in certain aspects of the phenomenon, I can't go look and see. You can't go look and see regarding your belief in the phenomenon either. Pararealitysaint can't go look and lance can't either.

You think it's aliens, Pararealitysaiint thinks it's flights of fancy, lance and Angel think it could be something mundane that has been misinterpreted, and I think it could be some kind of control system shaping man's concepts and guiding his spiritural evolution.

Thing is, with a belief in a control system there is at least the potential for falsification. In the end, my belief may be the most wrong out of all of us. But it's also the most checkable. I'm good with that.
 
True, belief does not equal religion. But when belief is taken towards a conclusion (e.g. that UFO's represent ETH or demons, or that the earth is 6000 years old because biblical chronology suggests that age) based upon scant evidence and in defiance of a more reasonable conclusion, then what is it?

You believe the dogs are in the yard because that is the most reasonable conclusion, given that you have seen and experienced that they are unable to jump over them or dig under them. It's an event that you and other people can see tangible proof of, so it's commonly reasonable. Unless there is experiential knowledge that UFO's represent ET's or demons and there is tangible proof to corroborate it, then how is it reasonable to conclude either? And with the diffusion of so many competing versions of the truth behind the phenomenon, how can we be sure of the validity of any given one when so many are mutually exclusive?

Is it more reasonable to suggest that ET is visiting and has for centuries, possibly abducting persons for bizarre experimentation, and that world governments or the illuminati are expertly hiding it ("as far as laymen know"), or is it more reasonable to suggest that the scant evidence of these extraordinary claims (such as the famed radar blips) is adapted to the hypothesis and that eyewitness testimonies are part of a developing mythos?

Unknown and unusual aerial phenomena have been reported for a long time, and there are surely many things we do not understand about the earth, the sky, or the cosmos. But at what point does the "unidentified" part morph into ETH being the most parsimonious explanation?

I will bite though: Why is ufology marginalized?
 
I disagree, i think biological entities are more "checkable" than control systems
Our planet is teeming with biological entitys, our galaxy is teeming with suns and planetary systems, our universe teeming with galaxys..........

Not being able to go and check, is not the same as being uncheckable.

In my example i might be a quadraplegic strapped into a chair in the house, i am therefore unable to go and check and see if the dogs have gotton out and are chasing the neighbours cat.
But im well aware of the parameters of the fence and its footings, i can be reasonably secure in the belief they are still in the yard.

Thats the bit you seem to be missing, the fact we cant go and check for ET life, does not mean its uncheckable.

Of all the possibilitys that are on the table, the ETH is the only one that is checkable, even though we cant check it. any more than our quadraplegic dog owner can check is checkable yard.
The yard is checkable, but he cant check it.................
 
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
OED's definition of religion specifies a belief in and worship of a higher power such as a deity. Religio-- "I bind"
Other definitions also stipulate that religion must also include associated behaviours, belief systems, and a mythical foundation.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief?view=uk
Belief is defined here as the acceptance that something is true, and not necessarily with a requirement of proof. There is connection to "religion", as for example in the Nicene Crede: credo-- "I believe" Credo in Unum Deum--"I believe in one god." And it's purpose, to demarcate and define what the Christian religion, at that point, would purport to be true.

Mike's analogy with the dogs is a good one for illustrating the difference between the two. But if I, for example, believed that UFOs were such-n-such a thing without proof, and even continued to believe so in the face of contrary proof (not saying that anyone is doing so) that would not be a religion, because it lacks the associated behaviour, mythography / mythology, and worship practices.

One fallacy that people tend to fall back on however is the notion that "Belief" necessarily equates to "Total Credulity"; and "Skepticism" to "Total Closed-Mindedness". Fuel for flame wars in so many forums!! The reality I see is far more of a continuum and there are many things to gain from different levels of believing the untrue. (As a writer of fiction and one time folklorist I am a total proponent for seeing truth, belief, and indeed skepticism as multifaceted layers.)

Absence of explanation is one thing that leads us towards believing without proof. This is valid. It defines our cultures, and shapes who we are, and aids us in the struggle to make sense of our world. And I think that if many people on either side could see the spectrum, they would realise that there is much to be gained from looking at the different views and that possibly they are not as much in opposition as they first believe.

(for want of a better word -- hehe.)

Often, our worst enemies and scariest threats are those in fact most similar to ourselves.
 
Back
Top