The Paracast Newsletter
June 19, 2022
www.theparacast.com
Rich Hoffman, of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) Explores the State of Scientific UFO/UAP Research on The Paracast!
The Paracast is heard Sundays from 3:00 AM until 6:00 AM Central Time on the GCN Radio Network and affiliates around the USA, the Boost Radio Network, the IRN Internet Radio Network, and online across the globe via download and on-demand streaming.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! YOU CAN SUPPORT THE PARACAST AND ENJOY THE ULTIMATE PARACAST EXPERIENCE AT A SPECIAL LOW PRICE! We have another radio show and we’d love for you listen to it. So for a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an exclusive podcast, After The Paracast, plus an enhanced version of The Paracast with the network ads removed, when you join The Paracast+. We also offer a special RSS feed for easy updates of the latest episodes on your device. 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. And if you don't want to use PayPal, we now also offer a second payment option, from Stripe, that accepts major credit or debit cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay. For "qualified users," you can now take advantage of Pay Later options, so act now! For the easiest signup ever, please visit: https://www.theparacast.plus
This Week's Episode: Gene and guest cohost Curt Collins present a UFO research update from Rich Hoffman, an Executive Board Officer for the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). SCU is composed of 150+ scientists, engineers, former military, academia, and business professionals who work to solve the phenomena using scientific methodologies and leverage current technologies to investigate them. Hoffman is also a member of a team of scientists and engineers working in UFOData, a project within CUFOS and a member of the UAPx effort to do instrumented studies of strange phenomena along the Pacific coastline and other hotspot areas. These efforts seek to utilize technologies such as radar, multi-spectral cameras, and electromagnetic detectors and other technologies in order to study the UAP. Professionally, Rich is an Army Information Technology (IT) defense contractor with Chugach Government Solutions.
After The Paracast — Available exclusively for Paracast+ subscribers on June 19: We feature Rich Hoffman, from the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), as he continues to discuss evidence for the phenomenon with Gene and guest cohost Curt Collins. What about people who mistake conventional objects or phenomena for UFOs? And what about the so-called "hitchhiker effect," where someone who spots a UFO brings home other possible paranormal encounters? The impact of cultural memes through the ages on descriptions of strange objects is also discussed. Hoffman grew up in Dayton, Ohio, not far from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and started his investigations into UFOs in 1964 and was in touch with Project Blue Book, Dr. J. Allen Hynek and other thought leaders within the UFO field. In late 1969, he joined the Midwest UFO Network, later known as MUFON. Hoffman a B.A. degree from Wright State University in Organizational Communication and an extensive career in leadership positions in numerous business sectors.
Reminder: Please don't forget to visit our famous Paracast Community Forums for the latest news/views/debates on all things paranormal: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/. Visit our new online shop for great branded merchandise at: https://www.theparacast.shop/, and check out our new YouTube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheOfficialParacastChannel
Faulty Memories and UFOs and Such
By Gene Steinberg
I’m sure most of you can tell some stories about this. You argue with a friend or a relative about something you just know is true. It may be something you’ve experienced, perhaps the both of you, and thus you are absolutely certain what happened.
But when the other person tells you their version, you just have to wonder if they exist on the same planet, in the same universe. It differs so much, you have to pause and wonder if they’ve lost their senses.
Or maybe it’s you?
I occasionally tell this story, about a childhood friend, Larry, who insisted he saw a UFO while we were scrolling around the old neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY back in the 1960s. I sort of recalled an unusual cloud formation, but I wasn’t paying much attention to it.
So for a couple of years, I went along with his claims, that we had seen a genuine UFO, until I didn’t.
One day I had to tell him I didn’t believe we saw anything unusual. It was just some clouds, that’s all. If there are alien visitors amongst us, they weren’t visible to us on that day.
Larry thought about it and had to agree. It wasn’t a UFO after all. He seemed visibly disappointed, because his big sighting was nothing special. It was the last time I saw him. Perhaps he was embarrassed over being shown the error of his ways, or sought out friends who’d steer closer to what he believed.
Then again, if you only wanted to associate with people who agreed with you 100%, you’d have a very lonely existence.
Another story I tell occurred in early 1966. I was hanging out at Jim Moseley’s apartment talking about nothing in particular. Now as you know, in those days Ufology’s court jester would occasionally perpetrate a hoax, to keep things going in the field he said.
His most infamous hoax was the one he perpetrated with his close drinking buddy, Gray Barker, back in 1957. Using official U.S. State Department stationery, they wrote a series of letters to people in the UFO field, including contactee George Adamski.
That letter was signed by one R.E. Straith, of a non-existent Cultural Exchange Committee, claiming that while his people could not officially support Adamski, he was encouraged to continue his work. Adamski quickly touted it as proof of his silly contact claims, but it was soon revealed to be a fake.
Only after Barker died in 1984 did Moseley admit to that and other hoaxes the duo perpetrated.
Back to 1966: This attempted prank was perhaps the strangest of all. He telephoned a small police department in Pompton Lakes, NJ, in suburban Passaic County. I listened, and I laughed at the proceedings; I was a little too young to know that this wasn’t such a good thing to do. After all, I was working for Moseley at a supposedly serious flying saucer magazine.
Strange days indeed!
While I cannot say for sure that the dates and times were identical, it sure seemed close in retrospect. On the evening of January 11, witnesses reported seeing a glowing light flying above nearby Wanaque Reservoir.
Coincidence? No doubt. No doubt there were sightings reported just about every night, but that Moseley honed in on a certain suburban community on New Jersey on that evening, when something strange was really seen there, was certainly curious.
Curious also was the fact that, when I mentioned this to Moseley some years later, he denied making such a call. Or maybe he forgot, but I didn’t. Of all the stunts he pulled over the years, this one seemed closest to reality.
My memory and that of another also diverged about a curious incident that apparently occurred in the early 1970s. My first wife, Geneva, and I were steeping on a mattress located on the ground floor of our two-story row house in Coatesville, PA. Around 3:00 AM or so (and I’ll use that time because it just seems right), she awakened me to say she saw a water elemental in the far corner of the room, near the entrance to the kitchen.
I did look up, and maybe I did see a shadow there for a moment. But I didn’t bother to get up to put on my glasses, so I couldn’t pick out any details. Geneva was going through a strange period of enlightenment in those days, to generalize her demeanor. So I didn’t bring it up again, and such an episode did not repeat itself.
Some years later, long after we had divorced, I asked her about it. But she had no memory of such an episode, none whatsoever.
So where does that leave me? Was I just dreaming, or was this episode so inconsequential to her that she gave it no further thought?
I wouldn’t pretend to know, but I have no problem admitting that I might have gotten it wrong after all. Not so with Moseley’s UFO sighting hoax back in 1966. I was there, I heard it, and I recall the cold night a few days later where, joined by a crew of fellow travelers, we journeyed out to Wanaque for some first-hand analysis.
I don’t think we discovered much of anything, but I cannot forget shivering through my bones as we walked across the reservoir bridge. While I can’t say my compatriots paid any attention to my discomfort, the inspection tour soon ended, and we returned to the warmth of Moseley’s big Pontiac.
Regardless of what really happened, it’s clear that human memories are fragile things. Consider, say, half a dozen witnesses to a major accident or other notable event, for example, and they will often have widely differing recollections of what they saw.
Cases involving multiple witnesses to a UFO or other paranormal event are more compelling, because there may be enough versions of the episode to get a fairly accurate composite picture of what went on.
When it comes to a crime, people have been convicted after eyewitnesses have identified them, only to be freed perhaps years later after DNA evidence proves they are innocent.
Single witnesses?
Now imagine if those memories are removed by, say, over three decades. Consider one’s life experience, cultural memes and so on and so forth. That surely explains, in part, the widely varying tales of what went on after a possible UFO crashed near Roswell, NM in 1947. Researchers have spent years trying to sort out the imperfect and changing stories. So we probably don’t have a full picture of what went on, although some accounts are readily dismissed as lacking credibility or consistency.
It’s too bad we aren’t all outfitted with digital memory chips with which we can accurately recall our experiences, all of them or just the ones where we say “computer, record this.”
Until then, it’s a good idea to take anecdotal reports with a grain of salt, maybe half a grain. And even if you're totally sure something unusual has occurred, others around you might just have other ideas.
Copyright 1999-2022 The Paracast Company. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy: Your personal information is safe with us. We will positively never give out your name and/or e-mail address to anybody else, and that's a promise!
June 19, 2022
www.theparacast.com
Rich Hoffman, of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) Explores the State of Scientific UFO/UAP Research on The Paracast!
The Paracast is heard Sundays from 3:00 AM until 6:00 AM Central Time on the GCN Radio Network and affiliates around the USA, the Boost Radio Network, the IRN Internet Radio Network, and online across the globe via download and on-demand streaming.
THIS IS IMPORTANT! YOU CAN SUPPORT THE PARACAST AND ENJOY THE ULTIMATE PARACAST EXPERIENCE AT A SPECIAL LOW PRICE! We have another radio show and we’d love for you listen to it. So for a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an exclusive podcast, After The Paracast, plus an enhanced version of The Paracast with the network ads removed, when you join The Paracast+. We also offer a special RSS feed for easy updates of the latest episodes on your device. 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. And if you don't want to use PayPal, we now also offer a second payment option, from Stripe, that accepts major credit or debit cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay. For "qualified users," you can now take advantage of Pay Later options, so act now! For the easiest signup ever, please visit: https://www.theparacast.plus
This Week's Episode: Gene and guest cohost Curt Collins present a UFO research update from Rich Hoffman, an Executive Board Officer for the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). SCU is composed of 150+ scientists, engineers, former military, academia, and business professionals who work to solve the phenomena using scientific methodologies and leverage current technologies to investigate them. Hoffman is also a member of a team of scientists and engineers working in UFOData, a project within CUFOS and a member of the UAPx effort to do instrumented studies of strange phenomena along the Pacific coastline and other hotspot areas. These efforts seek to utilize technologies such as radar, multi-spectral cameras, and electromagnetic detectors and other technologies in order to study the UAP. Professionally, Rich is an Army Information Technology (IT) defense contractor with Chugach Government Solutions.
After The Paracast — Available exclusively for Paracast+ subscribers on June 19: We feature Rich Hoffman, from the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), as he continues to discuss evidence for the phenomenon with Gene and guest cohost Curt Collins. What about people who mistake conventional objects or phenomena for UFOs? And what about the so-called "hitchhiker effect," where someone who spots a UFO brings home other possible paranormal encounters? The impact of cultural memes through the ages on descriptions of strange objects is also discussed. Hoffman grew up in Dayton, Ohio, not far from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and started his investigations into UFOs in 1964 and was in touch with Project Blue Book, Dr. J. Allen Hynek and other thought leaders within the UFO field. In late 1969, he joined the Midwest UFO Network, later known as MUFON. Hoffman a B.A. degree from Wright State University in Organizational Communication and an extensive career in leadership positions in numerous business sectors.
Reminder: Please don't forget to visit our famous Paracast Community Forums for the latest news/views/debates on all things paranormal: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/. Visit our new online shop for great branded merchandise at: https://www.theparacast.shop/, and check out our new YouTube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheOfficialParacastChannel
Faulty Memories and UFOs and Such
By Gene Steinberg
I’m sure most of you can tell some stories about this. You argue with a friend or a relative about something you just know is true. It may be something you’ve experienced, perhaps the both of you, and thus you are absolutely certain what happened.
But when the other person tells you their version, you just have to wonder if they exist on the same planet, in the same universe. It differs so much, you have to pause and wonder if they’ve lost their senses.
Or maybe it’s you?
I occasionally tell this story, about a childhood friend, Larry, who insisted he saw a UFO while we were scrolling around the old neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY back in the 1960s. I sort of recalled an unusual cloud formation, but I wasn’t paying much attention to it.
So for a couple of years, I went along with his claims, that we had seen a genuine UFO, until I didn’t.
One day I had to tell him I didn’t believe we saw anything unusual. It was just some clouds, that’s all. If there are alien visitors amongst us, they weren’t visible to us on that day.
Larry thought about it and had to agree. It wasn’t a UFO after all. He seemed visibly disappointed, because his big sighting was nothing special. It was the last time I saw him. Perhaps he was embarrassed over being shown the error of his ways, or sought out friends who’d steer closer to what he believed.
Then again, if you only wanted to associate with people who agreed with you 100%, you’d have a very lonely existence.
Another story I tell occurred in early 1966. I was hanging out at Jim Moseley’s apartment talking about nothing in particular. Now as you know, in those days Ufology’s court jester would occasionally perpetrate a hoax, to keep things going in the field he said.
His most infamous hoax was the one he perpetrated with his close drinking buddy, Gray Barker, back in 1957. Using official U.S. State Department stationery, they wrote a series of letters to people in the UFO field, including contactee George Adamski.
That letter was signed by one R.E. Straith, of a non-existent Cultural Exchange Committee, claiming that while his people could not officially support Adamski, he was encouraged to continue his work. Adamski quickly touted it as proof of his silly contact claims, but it was soon revealed to be a fake.
Only after Barker died in 1984 did Moseley admit to that and other hoaxes the duo perpetrated.
Back to 1966: This attempted prank was perhaps the strangest of all. He telephoned a small police department in Pompton Lakes, NJ, in suburban Passaic County. I listened, and I laughed at the proceedings; I was a little too young to know that this wasn’t such a good thing to do. After all, I was working for Moseley at a supposedly serious flying saucer magazine.
Strange days indeed!
While I cannot say for sure that the dates and times were identical, it sure seemed close in retrospect. On the evening of January 11, witnesses reported seeing a glowing light flying above nearby Wanaque Reservoir.
Coincidence? No doubt. No doubt there were sightings reported just about every night, but that Moseley honed in on a certain suburban community on New Jersey on that evening, when something strange was really seen there, was certainly curious.
Curious also was the fact that, when I mentioned this to Moseley some years later, he denied making such a call. Or maybe he forgot, but I didn’t. Of all the stunts he pulled over the years, this one seemed closest to reality.
My memory and that of another also diverged about a curious incident that apparently occurred in the early 1970s. My first wife, Geneva, and I were steeping on a mattress located on the ground floor of our two-story row house in Coatesville, PA. Around 3:00 AM or so (and I’ll use that time because it just seems right), she awakened me to say she saw a water elemental in the far corner of the room, near the entrance to the kitchen.
I did look up, and maybe I did see a shadow there for a moment. But I didn’t bother to get up to put on my glasses, so I couldn’t pick out any details. Geneva was going through a strange period of enlightenment in those days, to generalize her demeanor. So I didn’t bring it up again, and such an episode did not repeat itself.
Some years later, long after we had divorced, I asked her about it. But she had no memory of such an episode, none whatsoever.
So where does that leave me? Was I just dreaming, or was this episode so inconsequential to her that she gave it no further thought?
I wouldn’t pretend to know, but I have no problem admitting that I might have gotten it wrong after all. Not so with Moseley’s UFO sighting hoax back in 1966. I was there, I heard it, and I recall the cold night a few days later where, joined by a crew of fellow travelers, we journeyed out to Wanaque for some first-hand analysis.
I don’t think we discovered much of anything, but I cannot forget shivering through my bones as we walked across the reservoir bridge. While I can’t say my compatriots paid any attention to my discomfort, the inspection tour soon ended, and we returned to the warmth of Moseley’s big Pontiac.
Regardless of what really happened, it’s clear that human memories are fragile things. Consider, say, half a dozen witnesses to a major accident or other notable event, for example, and they will often have widely differing recollections of what they saw.
Cases involving multiple witnesses to a UFO or other paranormal event are more compelling, because there may be enough versions of the episode to get a fairly accurate composite picture of what went on.
When it comes to a crime, people have been convicted after eyewitnesses have identified them, only to be freed perhaps years later after DNA evidence proves they are innocent.
Single witnesses?
Now imagine if those memories are removed by, say, over three decades. Consider one’s life experience, cultural memes and so on and so forth. That surely explains, in part, the widely varying tales of what went on after a possible UFO crashed near Roswell, NM in 1947. Researchers have spent years trying to sort out the imperfect and changing stories. So we probably don’t have a full picture of what went on, although some accounts are readily dismissed as lacking credibility or consistency.
It’s too bad we aren’t all outfitted with digital memory chips with which we can accurately recall our experiences, all of them or just the ones where we say “computer, record this.”
Until then, it’s a good idea to take anecdotal reports with a grain of salt, maybe half a grain. And even if you're totally sure something unusual has occurred, others around you might just have other ideas.
Copyright 1999-2022 The Paracast Company. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy: Your personal information is safe with us. We will positively never give out your name and/or e-mail address to anybody else, and that's a promise!
