Aaron Kaplan show

[0xDEADBEEF]

They also have to fill two hours. Might as well let the guy detail his paranoid delusions.

 

[pong]

You can criticize Mr. Kaplan for believing everything Sitchin wrote, and for making some amazingly broad assumptions. He obviously subscribes to many conspiracy theories that populate dozens of websites and he doesn't hesitate to weave these into his book. It's all very entertaining. However, people like Kaplan have a couple of things exactly right: governments lie, our government lies and much of the history you think you know . . . is incomplete or totally fabricated.

On at least two points I agree with Kaplan:

1) Geologist Gene Shoemaker may have been murdered in the 1997 incident (in Australia) that was said to be an unfortunate "car accident." Isn't it suspicious how George S. Patton, John Mack, Princess Diana, Danny Jowenko and other prominent people die in car accidents? (Jowenko was a demolition expert who disagreed with the 9/11 official story. See Demolition Expert.) I think the hard-headed Paracast alumnus Paul Bannister would remind everyone that not all deadly car accidents are accidents. And what would be the motive to murder Shoemaker? (He knew too much.) And what would be the motive to murder James Forrestal? (He knew too much. Forrestal was Secretary of the Navy during Highjump. Keep reading.) Kaplan is right: these unusual incidents need to be investigated further. The official explanations are probably untrue.

2) The 1946-47 Antarctic expedition "Operation Highjump" may not have been what it was purported to be. The well-equipped naval expedition was expected to be in the polar region for 6-8 months, yet it returned to the U.S. after only two months. The Chilean press reported that the mission had "run into trouble" and that there had been "many fatalities." (See The Antarctica Enigma) Aaron Kaplan is right to suspect that the stated goals of Highjump were a cover story. Why are some records regarding Highjump still classified after all these years? In this time period, what was happening inside the Nazi enclaves in Chile, Argentina and Paraguay? Did the Nazis have a base in Antarctica? Lots of questions here and very few answers.

Yes, we can categorize much of what Kaplan says as conjecture, but it is fascinating conjecture, much of which deserves further exploration. The trouble with conspiracy theories is that some of them are true.

Gene and Chris, I suggest you take up the challenge of finding someone who's done serious research on Operation Highjump and the Nazi presence in South America during the first decade after the war. People like Peter Levenda and Joseph Farrell come to mind.


James Forrestal




George S. Patton

What really happened to one of the great heroes of World War II? An unfortunate accident victim or the victim of an assassination?

Link: George S. Patton was assassinated

 

[Infolad1]

If possible, get Farrell. The man is doing some amazing research.

Levenda's also good. An episode on his "Sinister Forces" trilogy would be great.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Wow SF, that was a bit harsh, don't you think? It would seem it doesn't matter what we do or how we do it: "the show has gone soft since the other dude left" or "Chris is too nice and only asks softball questions..." "you don't go after people anymore," blaa-blah-blah etc. Going in, we thought, hey, the guy is an aerospace engineer, he's got scientific credentials and an interesting take on the subject. We had suspicions that his "theories" were questionable, but I'm sure many listeners picked up on the analytical method to his madness and I applauded his "creative thinking" a couple of times. Of course, we didn't know going in that he was floating his thinking on the flimsiest of evidence, etc, but we figured, hey let's get him on the show and find out if he is on to something. I assure you: this wasn't a case of "guest-bullying for the sake of ego," and I'm surprised that you think we'd stoop to such depths...

Honestly I think that you, and Gene both, are indeed getting a little more hard core with some of your more difficult questions. Before the Kaplan show I'd started to get the feeling you weren't taking as much of the unreasonable, questionable claims and research at face value, that you were asking more of the in-your-face questions, and your tolerance for BS was lowering dramatically. It's refreshing to see that since this "field" of study is rife with BS, speculation, outlandish claims, and unverified "research." Chris, you guys are getting better and more stringent in your questioning and I just felt that having Kaplan on there was unnecessary. If you had him on the program to show that there are wack-o's with unverifiable claims in the UFO field, well that was unnecessary. If you brought him on the program to show that you're able to ask "the hard questions" that was unnecessary, too.

I'm not against having someone with fringe beliefs on the program but Kaplan was an extreme. Regarding Kaplan's aerospace education....ya know I questioned that, too. I mean I'm currently taking several scientific college courses, and documenting and siting your resources, and learning the difference between good data and bad data is emphasized in every class. I'm not sure how Kaplan got through college without understanding these basic concepts, unless the college was just crap (I've not had the time to take a look at it.) But I digress.

The bottom line is this; you and Gene are getting better at grilling guests when they need grilled and leading them when they need led. You don't need sub-par guests like Kaplan to prove any point. In that regard, The ParaCast is better quality than CcC for the simple fact that you two don't deal with the BS....as much.

And everybody knows that I rather enjoyed listening to the previous cohost, at least in the early days of the ParaCast, but that's beside the point. It's a different show and that's-that.

---------- Post added at 08:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 AM ----------

That was just the door opener. I was frankly curious how someone with his technical credentials would arrive at this stuff. I got my answer, which is that he just collected a sow's ear and failed to find the silk purse.

Gene,

I read some of his "book" and it was laughable. I agree that it's probably not a work I'll be able to read all the way through. He has his beliefs and has drawn his conclusions before going out and finding his "evidence" for that conclusion in various sources. I would say don't have Kaplan, or anybody like him, back on the show, please.

 

[Fcseven]

I find shows like this one helpful. I have a passing interest in the paranormal and this particular show gives a service by exposing the charletons and cons. I have actually purchased a couple books thanks to this show. I have to find their interviews credible and pass my BS meter. For example I found the interview with Jesse Marcel credible so bought his book. I sometimes wish I had listened to the Carey/Schmitt interview before I bought "Witness to Rosewell" because (surprise!)they wrote the deathbed affidavit for Haut. What other show would have gotten that little detail out of them?

The show separates signal from noise and deserves more respect imo.

 

[tyder001]

Here's my thing:
I enjoy knowing about the credible stuff. For instance since I'm older I don't know alot about video games. However, I sometime will peruse a gamer mag for a current review of a sports game for myself or a game for my child. Often, the magazine will review crappy game after crappy game after crappy game. OK, that's a good service buuuut. At the end of the day I still don't know where the good games are. So, I would also be better served by the magazines concentrating on telling me where I could find the credible games that are really worth my time. Both, are services that I need but credible entertainment or knowledge is worth more to me than wasting my time with junk,junk and more junk. I hope this analogy hasn't been to clunky.

 

[Jabbermocky]

... but I'm hoping this type of guest-bullying for the sake of ego is over and we can go back to the quality guests....

As much as the guest's incoherent mumblings -- interspersed with misused terms such as "...here's the Catch 22..." -- were annoying as hell, I started to get worn-down by the entire show; I found myself praying for a commercial to get a rest. Every (abject) sentence the guest spouted was met with a hail of questions from all directions (which would sound like bullying to some). It got to the point where, in my opinion, the whole show, both questions and answers, became a disjointed and rambling chore to listen to.

I couldn't tell if the guest was unable to answer questions because he was just an eccentric cook or because, as he began to make his stab at answer, it would cause another question to be fired at him; and I'm not necessarily saying without good cause. An example (and Chris, with respect) would be this multinational naval mission to the Antarctic to engage a German base there. To jump on the year 1947, that he quoted, because it was after WW2 had ended (in 1945) was unnecessary. Many wars end and the fighting continues. The Battle for New Orleans took place a couple of months after the peace was agreed upon in Ghent--sometimes it takes that long (I'm still finding stranded Japanese soldiers in my wife's rhododendron bush who don't realize the war's over -- very embarrassing). Before he could answer a question he would say something (I was going to say stupid--but withdraw it figuratively) off-the-wall and be roasted over the coals for that instead. I've never heard Stanton being grilled that hard over MJ12 or the "Crystal Skull" guy being put in his place with quite this same level of assiduity as Mr. Kaplan was.

That said; it was a one-off for me, the show continues to be both informative and entertaining -- my choice for driving back and forth to work a couple of days every week. And this Forum rocks by the way.

 

[PararealitySaint]

and I'm surprised that you think we'd stoop to such depths...

Trust me, he doesn't write for the majority of Paracast listeners Chris....

 

[RobDel]

Ha! Yes, but did you notice he did include the barrier that Galactus put in place to keep the Surfer imprisoned on Earth?

I was thinking the same exact thing. Might as well have Stan Lee on the program.

 

[Infolad1]

Ha! Yes, but did you notice he did include the barrier that Galactus put in place to keep the Surfer imprisoned on Earth?

The minute he said it, that's what popped into my mind.

"If I could just see my beloved Shalla Bal one last time".

Ah, Buscema, Kirby, & Lee Silver Surfer. Iconic stuff.

 

[trainedobserver]

The minute he said it, that's what popped into my mind.

"If I could just see my beloved Shalla Bal one last time".

Ah, Buscema, Kirby, & Lee Silver Surfer. Iconic stuff.

Ha! My man! I still have most of my original Surfer collection. I replaced the lost/sold ones several years ago so I have a reading copy of all 18. I read the covers off those books as a teenager. You know he is back in the Marvel universe with a new limited series that just completed and in an Odin/Galactus throw down in the new Mighty Thor series. He is back on Earth, this time tethered not bound.

 

[Infolad1]

Ha! My man! I still have most of my original Surfer collection. I replaced the lost/sold ones several years ago so I have a reading copy of all 18. I read the covers off those books as a teenager. You know he is back in the Marvel universe with a new limited series that just completed and in an Odin/Galactus throw down in the new Mighty Thor series. He is back on Earth, this time tethered not bound.

Cool. I actually seriously cut down on the amount of current comics I read. I'm starting to buy the trade paperbacks. And I'm picking up the omnibus editions Marvel comes out with starting in December. Top of the list is Silver Surfer omnibus, then Claremont , Cockrum, Byrne X-Men, Kirby / Lee Fantastic Four run, & Buscema, Byrne, & Perez's Avengers runs. Great stuff!

Glad to know another comics connoisseur is around. Later.

 

[tyder001]

I'm still loyal to the Caped Crusader. Last series I read was the Bruce Wayne Fugitive arc and I collected all of them. Also, the Dark Knight series had some beautiful art on a Scare Crow series that I bought in the early 2000's or late 90's. I devoured Thor and Flash and Batman and Superman when I was a kid. Sorry, I got carried away there.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Trust me, he doesn't write for the majority of Paracast listeners Chris....

Yes, clearly some Paracast Forum posters found a high amount of credibility in Kaplan's claims.

 

[Infolad1]

I'm still loyal to the Caped Crusader. Last series I read was the Bruce Wayne Fugitive arc and I collected all of them. Also, the Dark Knight series had some beautiful art on a Scare Crow series that I bought in the early 2000's or late 90's. I devoured Thor and Flash and Batman and Superman when I was a kid. Sorry, I got carried away there.

It's ok. Mr. Kaplan's story was like an old 50's comic book (and not one of the good ones) so you're still on thread.

 

[dr.abbadon]

I listened to the first five minutes...then Gene set the trap..and bam he walked right into it with his BS! I can't remember because I was 17 years old...so you could remember the roswell 8mm movie frame by frame but not anything else remotely resembling the group you were hanging around with?

I had to check the length of the podcast to see if it was the usual 2 hours or so...I was shocked to see that it was!

It was about 58:17 when he started jibbering about a publication from world war 2. He is asked what the document was called...so he says..wait for it.."One document was ah ah ah...now don't confuse what I'm going to tell you here!" WTF?

 

[PararealitySaint]

Yes, clearly some Paracast Forum posters found a high amount of credibility in Kaplan's claims.

No, most Paracast Members actually listen weekly to the broadcast and present an educated critique for the reasons why Gene and Chris do what they do. They realize that not every show can be a perfect one and that sometimes situations present themselves which are indeed wanting of a more specialized approach.

Neither Chris or Gene purposely look to berate a guest, but they do find it extremely important to correct any guest who attempts to convey nonsensical information, or a lack of proof therein. There reasons for having them as a guest on the show should be their own, and if you find it not to your liking, there is always another paranormal broadcast out there you might find better for your needs.

Lastly, since Chris O'Brien has been on the Paracast, there hasn't been a moment by which I can honestly state I didn't like either his approach to guest questioning, his demeanor or professionalism for that matter. I don't always agree with his point of view on the many paranormal subjects he covers, but you have to stretch pretty far out into space in order to somehow find am amateurish machination with regard to his involvement as a host on the Paracast. He sets an example for others to follow, and I am glad he's on permanently now with Gene.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Neither Chris or Gene purposely look to berate a guest,....

From post #8 in this very thread, and Gene's exact words...
"... we also wanted to use Aaron as an object lesson of people who present wacky viewpoints without evidence. "

An "object lesson," by nature, means they purposely meant to berate the guest. They had him on as a display of what kind of unreasonable, irrational people and claims are out there. Someone like yourself, Saint, who must be new to the field may have needed this type of show for that purpose...to understand that there is a high-level of unsupported, belief-inspired, unverified claims and "investigators" that propagate within the field of UFO research. For those of us a bit more skeptical, or at least critically minded, this type of guest is unnecessary and does not need to be critiqued on the program.

Regarding Chris; I would agree he's more comfortable in the spot. He started off seriously unbalanced but is getting better as the cohost, and as I stated earlier his demeanor and poise addressing the more radical or invalid claims in relation to UFOs and the paranormal in general is becoming more centered and critical. It's a welcome change in the program over-all.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

An "object lesson," by nature, means they purposely meant to berate the guest. They had him on as a display of what kind of unreasonable, irrational people and claims are out there. Someone like yourself, Saint, who must be new to the field may have needed this type of show for that purpose...to understand that there is a high-level of unsupported, belief-inspired, unverified claims and "investigators" that propagate within the field of UFO research. For those of us a bit more skeptical, or at least critically minded, this type of guest is unnecessary and does not need to be critiqued on the program.

You are aware, I presume, that a certain ex-cohost invited guests on the show for similar purposes. But I think it's important that we cover a wide range of viewpoints, and Aaron Kaplan is not atypical of people who believe crazy stuff without evidence. We need to show, from time to time, that such positions are counterproductive. I mean, if Kaplan was able to show us that his information met the logic and evidence tests, more power to him. And don't forget that one or more of the people posting messages here agreed with at least some of his views.

 

[PararealitySaint]

From post #8 in this very thread, and Gene's exact words...
"... we also wanted to use Aaron as an object lesson of people who present wacky viewpoints without evidence. "

An "object lesson," by nature, means they purposely meant to berate the guest. They had him on as a display of what kind of unreasonable, irrational people and claims are out there. Someone like yourself, Saint, who must be new to the field may have needed this type of show for that purpose...to understand that there is a high-level of unsupported, belief-inspired, unverified claims and "investigators" that propagate within the field of UFO research. For those of us a bit more skeptical, or at least critically minded, this type of guest is unnecessary and does not need to be critiqued on the program.

Regarding Chris; I would agree he's more comfortable in the spot. He started off seriously unbalanced but is getting better as the cohost, and as I stated earlier his demeanor and poise addressing the more radical or invalid claims in relation to UFOs and the paranormal in general is becoming more centered and critical. It's a welcome change in the program over-all.

The word used was "berate", a notion I still stand on when it comes to the point of this argument. To question and to correct, or to question and state the otherwise "truth" is something altogether different, and I still believe that it is in fact what Gene and Chris looked to do that day.

As far as the inference as to my being, "new" to the field, or for that matter, someone benefiting from the type of attack you point out you believe they used, I have been in the field for close to 35 years now and although I do not know how long you have been involved, I know the difference between a host looking for what I like to call berating for brownie points, and honest discussion to prove a point.

Sorry, but I didn't like your mode of critique and I still do not believe it holds any merit here. The entire show was done within the parameters of fair and honest investigation/respect, and Mr. Kaplan was given his fair share of respect and a justified platform to present his material. The flux of thus became ridiculous and the end result was Chris calling him out for the crap he attempted to put forth as evidence.....

NOTHING and I state it again here....NOTHING was wrong with what was done, and I am just glad the Paracast holds above the standard degree of this charade type allowance to represent honest paranormal investigation.