• 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!

Your Paracast Newsletter -- June 9, 2013

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
THE PARACAST NEWSLETTER
June 9, 2013

UFO Encounters by Police Officers Explored on The Paracast

The Paracast is heard Sundays from 2:00 AM until 5:00 AM Central Time on the GCN Radio Network and affiliates around the USA, and online across the globe via download and on-demand streaming.

Why It's Important for You to Donate to The Paracast: Although ads help cover a small part of our expenses, the income they produce is never enough to pay your humble hosts decent wages. Also, we do not receive any revenue from the ads placed on the show by our network or local stations. So we hope you're able to help fill the gap, if you can, to help us cover increasing server costs and other expenses -- or perhaps provide a little extra cash for lunch and utility bills. No contribution is too small (or too large :). It’s easy to send a donation. We have aDonate link on our home page, below the logo and audio player. There's also a Donate link on our forums, at the bottom of the sidebar on the right. Or just send your PayPal donation direct to sales (at) theparacast (dot) com.And if you’ve had a problem getting to our Donate screen, please try again. We just fixed a serious PayPal access problem, and it should wor k properly now.

Attention U.S. Listeners: Help Us Bring The Paracast to Your City! In the summer of 2010, The Paracast joined the GCN radio network. This represented a huge step in bringing our show to a larger, mainstream audience. But we need your help to add additional affiliates to our growing network. Please ask one of your local talk stations if they are interested in carrying The Paracast. Feel free to contact us directly with the names of programming people we might be able to contact on your behalf. We can't do this alone, and if you succeed in convincing your local station to carry the show, we'll reward you with one of our special T-shirts, and other goodies. With your help, The Paracast can grow into one of the most popular paranormal shows on the planet!

Please Visit Our Online Store: You asked, and we answered. We are now taking orders for The Official Paracast T-Shirt and an expanded collection of other specially customized merchandise. To get your T-Shirt now featuring our brand new logo, just pay a visit to our online store at The Official Paracast Store to select your size and place your order. We also offer a complete lineup of other premium merchandise for your family, your friends and your business contacts.

About The Paracast: The Paracast covers a world beyond science, where UFOs, poltergeists and strange phenomena of all kinds have been reported by millions across the planet.

Set Up: The Paracast is a paranormal radio show that takes you on a journey to a world beyond science, where UFOs, poltergeists and strange phenomena of all kinds have been reported by millions. The Paracast seeks to shed light on the mysteries and complexities of our Universe and the secrets that surround us in our everyday lives.

Join long-time paranormal researcher Gene Steinberg, co-host and acclaimed field investigator Christopher O'Brien, and a panel of special guest experts and experiencers, as they explore the realms of the known and unknown. Listen each week to the great stories of the history of the paranormal field in the 20th and 21st centuries.

This Week's Episode: Gene and Chris present Gary Heseltine, a retired constable in the UK who, in 1975, encountered a bright, white light that triggered a series of power grid failures. This sparked a lifelong interest in UFOs that spanned through his career as a police detective. Heseltine has established the Police Report UFO Sightings (PRUFOS), a database containing hundreds of sightings from law enforcement officers. He is also editor of a UFO magazine: UFO Truth.

Chris O'Brien's Site: http://www.ourstrangeplanet.com

Police Report UFO Sightings (PRUFOS): HOME - The PRUFOS Police Database

Reminder: Please don't forget to visit our famous Paracast Community Forums for the latest news/views/debates on all things paranormal: The Paracast Community Forums. We recently completed a major update that makes our community easier to navigate, and social network friendly.

All in a Name
By Gene Steinberg

In response to an editorial in a recent issue, one of the regular visitors to The Paracast Community Forum mounted a spirited defense for his definition of the acronym UFO. To many, seeing a UFO is akin to saying you’ve seen an alien spacecraft, even though that’s not technically what the term means.

So let’s start at the beginning. The term UFO was first coined when the late Captain Edward J. Ruppelt was head of the Air Force’s Project Blue book in 1953, intended as a more respectable way to identify possible flying saucers. The actual definition was “any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.”

Notice that the words “spaceship,” “alien” or “extraterrestrial” aren’t used, but the common definition, found in some dictionaries, assumes the term UFO is meant to describe possible visitors from another planet. However, that might just be taking things a little too far.

So it is a fact that more than 90% of possible UFOs are later identified as something conventional, whether a planet, an aircraft (test or otherwise), a balloon or some sort of natural phenomenon. The skeptics will claim that, if we had enough information, the remaining 10% would also be identified as well, meaning that we are not being visited by ET.

While most people who believe in UFOs accept the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) in various ways, that doesn’t mean that we have actually identified them. Sure, UFOs appear to engage in feats of maneuverability beyond what Earthly aircraft can do. They seem to be intelligently controlled and solid. So why can’t we conclude the unknowns come from outer space?

Unfortunately, we don’t have a “smoking gun” that demonstrates the origin and purpose of UFOs. Sure, some people claim to have met up with strange beings that, they claim, come from out there. An unfortunate number experience so-called UFO abductions, where they are apparently kidnapped by powerful alien beings who sometimes transport them through walls on the way to some unknown operating room presumably located onboard a spaceship.

Now abductions appear to be a separate phenomenon that has, in various ways, existed for centuries. Only before our culture became immersed in sci-fi and sci-fi images, we identified these beings in other ways. Maybe they were gods, or “little people,” or other entities that reflected the times in which the experiencers lived.

Today, we believe outer space is inhabited, and the discoveries of possible Earth-like planets in other solar systems appears to buttress that belief. Given that life may have arisen on so many worlds, it is possible some are advanced enough to have perfected star drive. In other words, they can and do come here, so maybe they kidnap humans to take genetic samples, mess with us, whatever.

So I suppose it’s possible that at least some of those contact claims, abductions or otherwise, might represent genuine encounters with the force or forces behind the UFOs. But as I’ve argued previously, what reason is there to believe that the experience is being interpreted correctly, or that the information sometimes conveyed by the supposed aliens is correct?

This is the sort of argument that will flummox some of the people I’ve talked to who have claimed abduction experiences. Why, they wonder, should ET deceive them? Some go on spreading the gospel of ETH, feeling that advanced beings must have our best interests at heart. If they say we have to give up the machinery of war, so be it. A worthy goal, but what if evil aliens simply wanted us to disarm before they take over? Even “primitive” nuclear weapons might impress them, or present the danger of making Earth uninhabitable by anyone, including ET.

Now a recent sci-fi film, “Dark Skies” (not related to the 1996 TV series of the same name) depicted a race of so-called gray aliens as utterly evil. Character actor J.K. Simmons, known to many of you from the Farmers Insurance spots, and his role in the three Spiderman movies, this time portrayed a troubled and eccentric UFO investigator. He told the parents of children victimized by the aliens that the invasion has already begun, and “they” have taken over. They can kidnap us, temporarily or permanently, willy-nilly. But for what purpose?

That question isn’t really answered in the movie. The purpose doesn’t matter; the events are horrific enough.

Returning to the UFO enigma at large, assuming UFOs mean spaceships, while a popular assumption, doesn’t follow the original Air Force definition. “Unidentified” should mean what it says. When and if we solve the UFO mystery, as I’ve said previously, they’d be classified as “Identified,” and we can speculate as to what the answer might be. But interpreting UFOs based on assumptions, rather than reality, isn’t the answer. That’s been going on since the 1950s, and it hasn’t taken us anywhere.

What has happened is that the term UFOs has become the supposed answer in and of itself, so the next step for some is to spread the word of ET reality. Make our governments tell us what they know. They must have guilty knowledge. How could it be otherwise?

The problem is, of course, that they can’t prove a word of it. Sure, some alleged whistleblowers have written about seeing alien ships and possibly alien bodies at secret military bases. But where is their evidence? Are there photographs of either? What about those purported secret documents that confirm the reality? But MJ-12, for example, remains too controversial for many to believe.

What if those alleged whistleblowers are just making it all up, or acting as agents of the government to stir up the pot? How can we know?

To me, UFOs are, as the term implies, still not identified as anything but unknown aircraft. Claiming they can’t be anything else is just an assumption, and assumptions aren’t going to convince scientists to take it seriously and seek solutions.

Copyright 1999-2013 Making The Impossible, Inc. 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!
 
... To many, seeing a UFO is akin to saying you’ve seen an alien spacecraft, even though that’s not technically what the term means.
I couldn't agree more. However drop the prefix "space" from the above so we have "alien craft" and then we have the primary meaning for the word UFO. The secondary context is, "The object or phenomenon that is the focus of a UFO report or investigation." There is also every reason to consider this technically correct in modern ufology. However let's have a closer look at your next point.
So let’s start at the beginning. The term UFO was first coined when the late Captain Edward J. Ruppelt was head of the Air Force’s Project Blue book in 1953, intended as a more respectable way to identify possible flying saucers. The actual definition was “any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.”
Although your quote above is part of the history of the word, it's also incomplete and leaves out some important factors. The first is that it doesn't go quite all the way back to the beginning. To do that we need to acknowledge that while Ruppelt created the term UFO, prior to that, they were called "flying saucers" which were popularly believed to have been alien craft, usually but not always extraterrestrial. When Ruppelt brought the term UFO into use, it was to investigate exactly the same phenomena, so the words have been synonymous since the very beginning. However the word UFO was more flexible when dealing with the various configurations of craft other than flying disks.

It's also a well known fact in ufology that although their own analysts had determined that UFOs were probably extraterrestrial, the Air Force took on a policy of distancing themselves from the ETH, and the word UFO was a more neutral descriptor. What most people don't know is that behind the scenes, they were filtering out everything they could from reports that indicated the subject of a UFO report could be explained by natural or manmade objects or phenomena. Your definition above is one of several attempts to refine that filtering process, which culminated in AFR 200-2 Feb 5, 1958, which is more substantial.
To me, UFOs are, as the term implies, still not identified as anything but unknown aircraft. Claiming they can’t be anything else is just an assumption, and assumptions aren’t going to convince scientists to take it seriously and seek solutions.
Actually, you're not quite right there. Under AFR 200-2, Feb 05, 1958, Paragraph 2. (2), Unknown aircraft do not fall under the definition of UFO. Furthermore the idea that anything else is an assumption is also not accurate. UFOs have never been simply "unidentified". To emphasize this consider the USAF quote below

"A sighting is considered unidentified when a report apparently contains all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the cause or explanation of the report but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomena."

Obviously, the above rules out unknown aircraft because if the report contained "all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis" then it would contain sufficient information to identify the object as an aircraft, and it would not be classed as a UFO under the regulations. If we are to continue our studies in ufology, we should be getting these facts straight. These aren't merely my personal opinions. They're backed by historical evidence from official and public sources, and together they add up to the definition USI has adopted today. So in the future may I suggest a tip for better handling your view regarding the ETH. There is little doubt that UFOs are alien craft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are ET. On this issue, we're definitely on the same page.
 
Assumptions, assumptions. I tried to take you on a bit of a journey, but you got off at the first station. Consider: What if things aren't quite what they seem? Let's start with that.
 
Assumptions, assumptions. I tried to take you on a bit of a journey, but you got off at the first station. Consider: What if things aren't quite what they seem? Let's start with that.
I took the journey, and liked the newsletter ( I always do ), and I'm an advocate of your position regarding the certainty of the ETH. If I were challenged on it by someone you'd find me standing squarely in your corner. It would be nice to know you'd do the same. But this issue tends to breed discontent. Call it the trickster principle or whatever. It's as if there is an invisible lens that translates what people are actually saying into something else by the time it reaches the other person's brain, and whenever we start to get closer to the truth, it acts in a divisive manner to keep that truth hidden. It's one of the most curious and often frustrating aspects of ufology. I think Chris alluded to it as well. It's as if what had just been ironed out several posts back never happened and everything suddenly resets back to square one. I still think we should present this on the show sometime.

To quickly respond to your question, "What if things aren't quite what they seem?" I think you make a really good point by asking that question, especially with respect to the abduction phenomenon. I've been saying the same thing as Chris for years about how there seems to be an induced blind faith that experiencers have regarding what they're being told. However in some other cases, I think things are exactly as they seem, for example when a UFO is tracked on radar and pursued by jet interceptors. And I also think that in both cases, we're dealing with a topic that conveys the idea of something alien. I think that you and Chris' and I, and many others know this is true. We know it's not as simple as the skeptics would have us believe, and that's why it's so important for us not to lose sight of it out of fear of something as ridiculous as the "giggle factor".
 
They aren't always tracked on radar, right?

It's a safe bet that UFOs are tracked on radar and pursued by military aircraft more than we ( the public at large ) are aware. But even if we leave radar/visual reports out of the mix, there are still accounts of craft that are seen well enough to know they're something alien ( sometimes called "genuine" UFOs ) and not simply some vague "unidentified" whatever off in the distance.

But why call these objects "genuine UFOs". That's like calling a car a "genuine automobile". It's redundant. Like cars, planes, boats, trains etc. UFOs are what Vallée calls a separate class of objects, and he's perfectly correct. Therefore UFOs aren't really as unidentified as some folks assume. Because of this confusion, Vallée also calls the word "unidentified" treacherous, and history has proven him correct on that observation as well. It's been exploited by skeptics and misinterpreted by the public and ufo buffs alike.

So why don't we simply discard the word UFO? Because as Kean points out, it's the term everybody today is familiar with when talking about alien visitation. It has a 60 plus year history behind it and it's ingrained into our culture. It's no longer a neologism and is an accepted word in the English language. So what if it has some baggage? What contentious topic doesn't? Not only is starting over impractical, it would also erode all the work done by those in the past, and it would only be a short time before we're back to square one anyway. We'd have to be complete idiots to think that by simply changing the name that the skeptics wouldn't catch on in about 2.5 seconds.

For all these reasons it makes more sense to embrace the word UFO and bring it out of the closet rather than to trying to marginalize or replace it. Let's face it, this genie is out of the bottle and it aint going back in. We can either let it keep causing confusion, or we can work with it and refine it. The latter is what I submit that ufologists should be working toward.
 
Back
Top