THE PARACAST NEWSLETTER
October 16, 2016
www.theparacast.com
Joshua Cutchin Discusses Pungent Odors and Paranormal Encounters 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! 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 After The Paracast, plus a higher-quality version of The Paracast free of network ads, and chat rooms when you sign up for The Paracast+. We also offer a special RSS feed for easy updates of the latest episodes, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, episode transcripts, Special Features and Classic Episodes. Check out our new “Lifetime” membership and special free eBook offers! For more information about our premium package, please visit: http://plus.theparacast.com/.
This Week's Episode: Fortean researcher Joshua Cutchin returns to The Paracast to discuss his latest book, "The Brimestone Deceit." In Greg Bishop's review of the book, he says, "The Brimstone Deceit can rightly be called an instant classic because it articulates a refreshingly original approach to the paranormal and more importantly, how witnesses interpret their experiences. Joshua Cutchin carefully builds his case with fascinating, startling, and entertaining accounts from throughout history to show us that when it comes to UFOs, Bigfoot, and other High Strangeness, the nose may really know what has been knocking at our doors for millennia.”
Chris O’Brien’s Site: Our Strange Planet
Joshua Cutchin’s Blog: Joshua Cutchin: Weird Words & Brass Beats
After The Paracast -- Available exclusively to Paracast+ subscribers on October 16: Joshua Cutchin, author of “The Brimstone Deceit” returns to talk Forteana. He begins with his account of the 1897 Aurora, Texas UFO crash, part of the legend of the airships at the end of the 19th century. Joshua explains why he believes that you shouldn’t dismiss all these reports as the result of schemes by newspaper editors to add circulation with fanciful stories. Why is it that UFOs seem, in terms of technology, to be just one step ahead of us, regardless of the era? Would an 1897-style airship be able to travel across the stars? And what about some of the controversial UFO contact claims over the years? Did George Adamski have a genuine paranormal experience that he embellished in order to spread his message and attract followers? And just how do we separate the UFO event from our own perceptions of it? What about a consensus reality?
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.
Admitting When You’re Wrong
By Gene Steinberg
One criticism I’ve made from time to time is the apparent inability of some UFO researchers to admit when they’re wrong. But I’m not just referring to people caught in a lie who strongly insist they were right all along, and won’t back down.
I’m quite concerned about the proven hoaxer or someone who has falsified his or her credentials. If the blowback is really severe, they might hide for a while, but soon return as if nothing ever happened. They will never confess their sins.
Consider one of the early flying saucer contactees, George Adamski, who never admitted he made it all up even after his claims were easily disassembled by critics. Instructions for duplicating the objects from his photos have also been posted online.
But years after Adamski died, there are still people and organizations out there that believe him and continue to promote his work, such as it was. In saying that, I suppose it is possible he had a genuine paranormal encounter early on that he embellished and transformed into a flying saucer contact in order to attract followers.
Then there’s the honest broker who touts a UFO sighting or evidence as genuine. But what if that material is shown to be false or misleading? Consider the infamous MJ-12 documents that turned up on film in the mailbox of a documentary filmmaker in the 1980s? The so-called Eisenhower Briefing Document seemed a dream come true. In the wake of the Roswell crash, the government allegedly set up a group of prominent individuals to keep tabs on the mystery.
Perhaps the telltale indication that something screwy was afoot is the fact that one of the members of MJ-12 was supposed to be that notorious UFO debunker Dr. Donald Menzel. The famous Harvard astronomer reacted with extreme emotion when it came to sighting reports, and his attempts to debunk those reports was, to be charitable, very much about reaching too far for simple solutions.
Now with the disclosure that Menzel was also connected to government intelligence may, to some, only confirm he really was an MJ-12 member who discredited the saucers as part of his work. Or perhaps it was someone’s sly joke, demonstrating that the documents were not to be taken seriously.
There are actually a number of MJ-12 documents. Even such researchers as Stanton T. Friedman, who believes the original documents are real, will admit others are fake. To him, it’s all about government disinformation, the attempt to obscure the truth about the group’s existence.
Or maybe it’s all about fakery, and there are no real documents.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if Friedman is prepared to accept the possibility that he is promoting evidence that doesn’t pass the smell test. He may still be right, but when I read skeptical articles from such dedicated researchers as Kevin D. Randle, I can’t dismiss the obvious warning signs, particularly in the way the document was formatted.
Remember, too, that one of the people who originally promoted MJ-12, former researcher William Moore, who co-write the first Roswell book with Charles Berlitz, admitted to being engaged in government disinformation. It’s not hard to take that admission and extend it to MJ-12. While others researched Roswell, and have a decent handle on the evidence that ought to be taken seriously, Moore has to be viewed with suspicion.
Remember, too, that my old friend Berlitz, who always had a twinkle in his eye when you talked to him, also wrote a best-seller entitled, “The Philadelphia Experiment,” and it was soon demonstrated that it was all a tall tale invented by a wacky guy known as Carlos Allende, or Carl Allen.
I remember how often Berlitz would look at me and assure me that, he was “honest as the day is long.” Well, at least he had a good time, and his books were all well-written even if they weren’t to be taken seriously.
Returning to Kevin Randle: To his credit he’s also spent a fair amount of time tracing UFO reports back to their original sources in an effort to see if they still past muster. Sometimes they don’t, sometimes they remain unsolved, but it’s important to revisit the classic UFO sightings and reevaluate their merit.
What Randle has shown is that some researchers are lazy. They will quote material from other books, which are, in turn, quoted from other sources. Once a report passes through a few generations of quoting and summarizing and rewriting, it’s very easy to see where some critical facts might get distorted.
Sometimes it takes a second look to show where a report, or even someone’s theory, is lacking evidence.
Take a series of articles written in the 1950s by one of my friends, the late Yonah Fortner. Labeling his theory “Extraterrestrial,” he contended that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, was in fact a being from another planet.
Although Fortner’s take on the ancient astronaut theory wasn’t unique to him, he still got there years ahead of others. In a sense, such authors as Brinsley Le Poer Trench and Erich von Däniken were latecomers, although the later became world famous for his books on the subject.
But what about poor Yonah, who lived most of his life in virtual poverty? Why is he not recognized as a pioneer?
I wondered about the sad fate of this potential unsung hero for years until I consulted with some old friends, including UFO historian Jerome Clark, who says that Fortner was not just a sloppy researcher. According to Clark, he often made up his references out of whole cloth, and based his unproven theories on those nonexistent references.
The late UFO court jester, Jim Moseley, was close to Fortner. I also knew him slightly, but well enough, it seems, for him to send me some of his large UFO and sci-fi library a few years before he died. Jim seemed both impressed and skeptical of Fortner, saying that he never quite knew when the fellow was just making things up.
So Fortner claimed to be an expert linguist, fluent in over two dozen languages, including Hebrew and Sanskrit. On occasion when I’d visit him at his New York City apartment, he’d sometimes speak in one of these languages, I suppose to show off. Or at least that’s what it seemed. He also might have been speaking gibberish. My abilities with Hebrew were modest, and I could have been easily fooled.
I regret the realization that Fortner was just faking it. But he was still lots of fun, and I prefer to think of him that way rather than as someone who just plain lied about what was supposed to be his most important work.
Copyright 1999-2016 The Paracast LLC. 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!
October 16, 2016
www.theparacast.com
Joshua Cutchin Discusses Pungent Odors and Paranormal Encounters 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! 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 After The Paracast, plus a higher-quality version of The Paracast free of network ads, and chat rooms when you sign up for The Paracast+. We also offer a special RSS feed for easy updates of the latest episodes, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, episode transcripts, Special Features and Classic Episodes. Check out our new “Lifetime” membership and special free eBook offers! For more information about our premium package, please visit: http://plus.theparacast.com/.
This Week's Episode: Fortean researcher Joshua Cutchin returns to The Paracast to discuss his latest book, "The Brimestone Deceit." In Greg Bishop's review of the book, he says, "The Brimstone Deceit can rightly be called an instant classic because it articulates a refreshingly original approach to the paranormal and more importantly, how witnesses interpret their experiences. Joshua Cutchin carefully builds his case with fascinating, startling, and entertaining accounts from throughout history to show us that when it comes to UFOs, Bigfoot, and other High Strangeness, the nose may really know what has been knocking at our doors for millennia.”
Chris O’Brien’s Site: Our Strange Planet
Joshua Cutchin’s Blog: Joshua Cutchin: Weird Words & Brass Beats
After The Paracast -- Available exclusively to Paracast+ subscribers on October 16: Joshua Cutchin, author of “The Brimstone Deceit” returns to talk Forteana. He begins with his account of the 1897 Aurora, Texas UFO crash, part of the legend of the airships at the end of the 19th century. Joshua explains why he believes that you shouldn’t dismiss all these reports as the result of schemes by newspaper editors to add circulation with fanciful stories. Why is it that UFOs seem, in terms of technology, to be just one step ahead of us, regardless of the era? Would an 1897-style airship be able to travel across the stars? And what about some of the controversial UFO contact claims over the years? Did George Adamski have a genuine paranormal experience that he embellished in order to spread his message and attract followers? And just how do we separate the UFO event from our own perceptions of it? What about a consensus reality?
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.
Admitting When You’re Wrong
By Gene Steinberg
One criticism I’ve made from time to time is the apparent inability of some UFO researchers to admit when they’re wrong. But I’m not just referring to people caught in a lie who strongly insist they were right all along, and won’t back down.
I’m quite concerned about the proven hoaxer or someone who has falsified his or her credentials. If the blowback is really severe, they might hide for a while, but soon return as if nothing ever happened. They will never confess their sins.
Consider one of the early flying saucer contactees, George Adamski, who never admitted he made it all up even after his claims were easily disassembled by critics. Instructions for duplicating the objects from his photos have also been posted online.
But years after Adamski died, there are still people and organizations out there that believe him and continue to promote his work, such as it was. In saying that, I suppose it is possible he had a genuine paranormal encounter early on that he embellished and transformed into a flying saucer contact in order to attract followers.
Then there’s the honest broker who touts a UFO sighting or evidence as genuine. But what if that material is shown to be false or misleading? Consider the infamous MJ-12 documents that turned up on film in the mailbox of a documentary filmmaker in the 1980s? The so-called Eisenhower Briefing Document seemed a dream come true. In the wake of the Roswell crash, the government allegedly set up a group of prominent individuals to keep tabs on the mystery.
Perhaps the telltale indication that something screwy was afoot is the fact that one of the members of MJ-12 was supposed to be that notorious UFO debunker Dr. Donald Menzel. The famous Harvard astronomer reacted with extreme emotion when it came to sighting reports, and his attempts to debunk those reports was, to be charitable, very much about reaching too far for simple solutions.
Now with the disclosure that Menzel was also connected to government intelligence may, to some, only confirm he really was an MJ-12 member who discredited the saucers as part of his work. Or perhaps it was someone’s sly joke, demonstrating that the documents were not to be taken seriously.
There are actually a number of MJ-12 documents. Even such researchers as Stanton T. Friedman, who believes the original documents are real, will admit others are fake. To him, it’s all about government disinformation, the attempt to obscure the truth about the group’s existence.
Or maybe it’s all about fakery, and there are no real documents.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if Friedman is prepared to accept the possibility that he is promoting evidence that doesn’t pass the smell test. He may still be right, but when I read skeptical articles from such dedicated researchers as Kevin D. Randle, I can’t dismiss the obvious warning signs, particularly in the way the document was formatted.
Remember, too, that one of the people who originally promoted MJ-12, former researcher William Moore, who co-write the first Roswell book with Charles Berlitz, admitted to being engaged in government disinformation. It’s not hard to take that admission and extend it to MJ-12. While others researched Roswell, and have a decent handle on the evidence that ought to be taken seriously, Moore has to be viewed with suspicion.
Remember, too, that my old friend Berlitz, who always had a twinkle in his eye when you talked to him, also wrote a best-seller entitled, “The Philadelphia Experiment,” and it was soon demonstrated that it was all a tall tale invented by a wacky guy known as Carlos Allende, or Carl Allen.
I remember how often Berlitz would look at me and assure me that, he was “honest as the day is long.” Well, at least he had a good time, and his books were all well-written even if they weren’t to be taken seriously.
Returning to Kevin Randle: To his credit he’s also spent a fair amount of time tracing UFO reports back to their original sources in an effort to see if they still past muster. Sometimes they don’t, sometimes they remain unsolved, but it’s important to revisit the classic UFO sightings and reevaluate their merit.
What Randle has shown is that some researchers are lazy. They will quote material from other books, which are, in turn, quoted from other sources. Once a report passes through a few generations of quoting and summarizing and rewriting, it’s very easy to see where some critical facts might get distorted.
Sometimes it takes a second look to show where a report, or even someone’s theory, is lacking evidence.
Take a series of articles written in the 1950s by one of my friends, the late Yonah Fortner. Labeling his theory “Extraterrestrial,” he contended that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, was in fact a being from another planet.
Although Fortner’s take on the ancient astronaut theory wasn’t unique to him, he still got there years ahead of others. In a sense, such authors as Brinsley Le Poer Trench and Erich von Däniken were latecomers, although the later became world famous for his books on the subject.
But what about poor Yonah, who lived most of his life in virtual poverty? Why is he not recognized as a pioneer?
I wondered about the sad fate of this potential unsung hero for years until I consulted with some old friends, including UFO historian Jerome Clark, who says that Fortner was not just a sloppy researcher. According to Clark, he often made up his references out of whole cloth, and based his unproven theories on those nonexistent references.
The late UFO court jester, Jim Moseley, was close to Fortner. I also knew him slightly, but well enough, it seems, for him to send me some of his large UFO and sci-fi library a few years before he died. Jim seemed both impressed and skeptical of Fortner, saying that he never quite knew when the fellow was just making things up.
So Fortner claimed to be an expert linguist, fluent in over two dozen languages, including Hebrew and Sanskrit. On occasion when I’d visit him at his New York City apartment, he’d sometimes speak in one of these languages, I suppose to show off. Or at least that’s what it seemed. He also might have been speaking gibberish. My abilities with Hebrew were modest, and I could have been easily fooled.
I regret the realization that Fortner was just faking it. But he was still lots of fun, and I prefer to think of him that way rather than as someone who just plain lied about what was supposed to be his most important work.
Copyright 1999-2016 The Paracast LLC. 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!
