Your Paracast Newsletter — May 17, 2020

[Gene Steinberg]

The Paracast Newsletter
May 17, 2020
www.theparacast.com

Nick Redfern Says the Rendlesham Forest UFO and Other Classic Cases Were Government Experiments 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.

SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM 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! For a limited time you can save up to 40% on your subscription. So act now! For the easiest signup ever, please visit: Choose Your Membership Upgrade

This Week's Episode: Gene and Randall present prolific author and original thinker on all things paranormal, Nick Redfern, to discuss his recent provocative book, “The Rendlesham Forest UFO Conspiracy: A Close Encounter Exposed as a Top Secret Government Experiment.” Nick’s book presents the case to demonstrate that such classic cases as the 1980 Rendlesham episode, the 1980 Cash-Landrum sighting, the 1961 Betty and Barney Hill abduction, the 1973 Pascagoula, MS abduction and other events were all the result of government experimentation that included mind control. Nick Redfern is the author of more than 60 books. He has appeared on many TV shows, including the National Geographic Channel’s “Paranatural”; the SyFy Channel’s “Proof Positive”; and the Travel Channel’s “In Search of Monsters.”

J. Randall Murphy's Ufology Society International: Ufology Society International (USI) - Explore the UFO Phenomenon

Nick Redfern's Blog: Nick Redfern's World of Whatever...

After The Paracast -- Author and original thinker Nick Redfern returns to continue the discussion about new explanations for some of the UFO field’s sacred cows. As author of “The Rendlesham Forest UFO Conspiracy: A Close Encounter Exposed as a Top Secret Government Experiment,” Nick provides more details about how he came that conclusion about this classic case, and how other cases, including the 1952 Flatwoods Monster, might have involved government experiments, although Nick does believe there is a genuine UFO phenomenon that remains unexplained. There’s also a brief discussion about the latest Star Trek TV series, along with Nick’s unexpected reaction to sci-fi.

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/. Check out our new YouTube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheOfficialParacastChannel

Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained
By J. Randall Murphy

In our last Newsletter, Gene expanded on the way time travel has been used as a plot device in science fiction. This was in response to our recent interview with Diane Tessman who believes it is very likely that some UFOs and aliens are time travelers from our own future. After that interview, Diane canceled her return appearance on After The Paracast. She was perturbed over questions we raised that had to do with the logical consequences of time travel. She was dismissive of our questions, on grounds that they were fictional or philosophical as opposed to being what she called "accepted physics.”

Her objections brought to my attention a recurring misunderstanding of the roles that science and philosophy play with respect to the unexplained. The most common form this misunderstanding takes is the assumption that science is the final authority, and therefore supersedes all other methods of investigation, including philosophy. Therefore if someone can succeed in convincing themselves or others that their viewpoint is based on science, then they can claim supreme authority on the question at hand. Unfortunately it's not that simple.

The most common problem I run into with scientific arguments for the unexplained is that those who invoke it don't have a clear understanding of what science actually is. They just know it sounds authoritative, which makes them sound authoritative. So if a physicist comes up with a theory or principle that supports their viewpoint, they might say their viewpoint is backed by "accepted physics,” when in fact no such acceptance actually exists. This tends to get those interested in the unexplained into trouble with skeptics who accuse them of pseudoscience.

Explorers into the unexplained may object all they want to being called pseudoscientific, but the fact remains that sorting out what is and isn't accepted science isn't simply a matter of quoting a scientist. The most obvious truth of this with respect to the unexplained is that if the subject in question were in fact accepted science, it would already have been explained by accepted science. Therefore concepts like afterlives and time-travelers from our future would be considered established facts from a scientific perspective. The reality however, is that they're not. At best, they're only theories.

To be very precise, the "accepted physics" Diane invoked is called the Novikov self-consistency principle, also known as the Novikov self-consistency conjecture. According to the Wikipedia definition: “The principle asserts that if an event exists that would cause a paradox or any ‘change’ to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero.” For this to work, the timeline must preexist and be insulated from change, which means everything must be predetermined, and consequently there can be no free will.

Novikov is a theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologist. Therefore his theories are framed in that context. However theories require scientifically valid testing in the real world, as well as conformance to accepted standards of reasoning. These standards of reasoning have a philosophical foundation, without which, the science would amount to sheer nonsense. For example, because a scientific experiment yields results that fit a theory doesn't necessarily mean that the theory is true.

For example, let's suppose we have a scientist who theorizes that there is a demon who will confound scientists with an experiment where individual light particles are sent into a device on one end, but on the other end it looks like more than one at a time must be coming out. Upon doing such an experiment it turns out that it actually does look like more than one particle at a time has been coming out, so the scientist shouts, "Success! I've proven that demons exist!" Without sound philosophical reasoning to oppose that claim, we are left to conclude that Demons are now "accepted science.” See the problem?

Science needs sound reasoning along with real world experimentation in order to claim validity, and sound reasoning is the domain of philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It gives us solid reasons for believing that a given theory is true or more or less likely to be true depending on the variables and premises made. In some cases it can also give us reasons not to believe that a given theory can be true at all. In a past newsletter I outlined why afterlives as we typically think of them cannot be true.

Similarly, philosophy gives us reasons for thinking that theories like warped space and time travel aren't necessarily the case in the real world. However with the notion that science, backed by math, is the supreme authority on such things, people can easily fall victim to the tunnel vision of mathematicians and theoretical physicists who have convinced themselves that their concepts and symbols are the same as the real world. Or worse yet, lay people who don't understand the basic principles of such theories, will cherry pick terms to suit their beliefs, and then claim they are backed by science.

In our search for the truth of what lies behind unexplained phenomena this writer suggests that we all need to do better. Science is a powerful tool, but without a solid philosophical foundation, science runs the risk of being completely hollow. Then again it is also possible that what we perceive as reality is in and of itself hollow; nothing more than the construct of an evil demon bent on deceiving us into believing there is a "real world.” If that's the case, then all manner of paranormal phenomena are possible. How could we ever possibly prove otherwise?

Copyright 1999-2020 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!

 

[Randall]

Chalmers on The Evil Demon

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

If there is Demon's . There must be Angels as in nature science everything tends to kill and eat each other. As in our dimensions as science suggests. We have five senses and life after death theory is a personnel choice and meet numerous folks who have odd events after they have lost someone close. Could it be they are just open to seeing different parallel universe . As stated open to Aliens have made contact through whatever means at there disposal high tech to unknown capabilities. On Bentwaters Case keep an open mind while still think its more likely comibnation of many factors not just one conclusions and those who chosen to break those OSA brings a lot of heat.

 

[Farlig Gulstein]

I have not listened to the Diane Tessman interview and doubt if I will have time. IMHO, we all are time-traveling into the future, at our steady pace, second after second. It is purely speculation on my part, but it seems possible to me that every particle or wave that exists in this universe probably carries a kind of time-stamp in its relationship with all other things. So, all things are ‘in sync’ so to speak, time-wise. If so, then trying to take a person whose entire make-up is time-stamped and in sync with a particular area of the universe, and then trying to instantaneously rearrange that person into a reality in which all its constituents have a vastly different time-stamp, at minimum seems potentially dangerous. But maybe not.

In any case, this newsletter reads:

In a past newsletter I outlined why afterlives as we typically think of them cannot be true.​

I’ve reread that piece about afterlives now for the third or fourth time. As I said in a different place, I still do not find the reasoning sufficiently adequate. It was asserted in that article:

All the things that constitute personhood have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be attributable to some aspect of our biology.​

That might have been an acceptable statement if, indeed, it could be known that everything has been proven about the nature of physical reality and biology. But many people actually know that there are serious questions as to the nature of reality. After speaking about Dark Matter, Lisa Randall, for example, suggests:

One intriguing possibility raised by interacting dark matter models is the existence of dark atoms that might have given rise to dark life, neither of which would be easily detected, Randall says. Although she admits that the concept of dark life might be far-fetched, “life is complicated, and we have yet to understand life and what’s necessary for it.”​

If such a material could support life, then one probably ought not assume that human life could not also contain components made of material as elusive as Dark Matter. The ancients would have called that material spirit. It cannot be proved, but Dark Matter itself is, at the very least, evidence for such a possibility. Hence, in this day and age, anyone who confidently appeals to ‘proven beyond any reasonable doubt’ about biological life seems to be trusting a view that other experts might not hold.

In the following vid, Physics Girl points out that the problem of Dark Matter is still a thing. In other words, there is a vast amount of what ought to be substance in the universe that as yet has not been accounted for.

 

[Randall]

I’ve reread that piece about afterlives now for the third or fourth time. As I said in a different place, I still do not find the reasoning sufficiently adequate. It was asserted in that article:

All the things that constitute personhood have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be attributable to some aspect of our biology.​

That might have been an acceptable statement if, indeed, it could be known that everything has been proven about the nature of physical reality and biology. But many people actually know that there are serious questions as to the nature of reality. After speaking about Dark Matter, Lisa Randall, for example, suggests:

One intriguing possibility raised by interacting dark matter models is the existence of dark atoms that might have given rise to dark life, neither of which would be easily detected, Randall says. Although she admits that the concept of dark life might be far-fetched, “life is complicated, and we have yet to understand life and what’s necessary for it.”​

Very interesting. And you make valid points. I would however contend that those points go well beyond what we "normally think" when it comes to afterlives. Your thinking is deeper than that ( which is a compliment ).

Along the same lines, if reality itself is quantized: That is to say; if each slice of the timeline is a new construct that is slightly different than the one before, that gives a filmstrip type illusion of change over time, then the logical consequence is that we're all always copies all the time, in which case it really makes no difference whether or not our afterlife selves are also copies, that is; so long as those copies aren't substantially different than those preceding it.

That is the only sort of loophole I can come up with. It also speaks to what sort of construct this reality would need to be in order for it to be true. But these ideas are far beyond the idea of a "spirit realm" or a heaven ruled by God, or someplace where some sort of ethereal version of ourselves that is very different from ourselves living here and now.

BTW If I were a physics student, I'd have a major crush on Lisa Randall . Physics girl has a sparkle too - good video .