• 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!

April 12, 2015 — Shop Talk 2015 with Burnt State

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

About 3/4 thru the show, just wanted to pop in about the illusory 'anecdotal vs. hard data' dichotomy.

Evaluation of anecdotal data is crucial in driving hard data research. As one example, how does one find 'hot spots' to monitor in order to have the best opportunity of producing hard data? Through gathering and evaluating anecdotal reports. Mining anecdotal data is also key to developing better questions/approaches for further 'hard data' experiments. The two types of approach will feed each other in any real life experimental situation, Mr. O'Brien is setting up a false dichotomy.

This field has no funding or structure. Research comes from people who are passionate, working on their own time and their own dime. I believe we will be better served by figuring out how to use people's passions to more productive ends, rather than hectoring people to follow 'the one true way'. To have a hope in hell of understanding anything about this extraordinarily complex phenomenon we will have to address it from every angle, there is plenty of room to study anecdotes as well as hard data as long as it is done honestly and thoughtfully.

I am very interested in how the ongoing Hessdalen project has influenced Mr. O'Brien's approach to his own SLV monitoring project - any information somewhere on this aspect of the project you can point me towards? Thanks!
 
mrs. eccentric said:
About 3/4 thru the show, just wanted to pop in about the illusory 'anecdotal vs. hard data' dichotomy.

Evaluation of anecdotal data is crucial in driving hard data research. As one example, how does one find 'hot spots' to monitor in order to have the best opportunity of producing hard data? Through gathering and evaluating anecdotal reports. Mining anecdotal data is also key to developing better questions/approaches for further 'hard data' experiments. The two types of approach will feed each other in any real life experimental situation, Mr. O'Brien is setting up a false dichotomy.

This field has no funding or structure. Research comes from people who are passionate, working on their own time and their own dime. I believe we will be better served by figuring out how to use people's passions to more productive ends, rather than hectoring people to follow 'the one true way'. To have a hope in hell of understanding anything about this extraordinarily complex phenomenon we will have to address it from every angle, there is plenty of room to study anecdotes as well as hard data as long as it is done honestly and thoughtfully.

I am very interested in how the ongoing Hessdalen project has influenced Mr. O'Brien's approach to his own SLV monitoring project - any information somewhere on this aspect of the project you can point me towards? Thanks!
Click to expand...

I have to go along with this Chris, although i can appreciate your project, it is sorely needed, i also agree with your sentiment that the personal experience, the effect on the percipient, their perception of the experience and what this does to his or her on an emotional level is something that hasn't been considered as much as it could be. If this aspect is ever to be explored more in depth then the anecdotal data is VERY important just as much as logging in any sightings with hard cold facts and data. All the best to your slv project and hopefully i will be able to contribute again when you get your crowd sourcing set up, but one can furthur persue the emotional impact on individuals with a lot less overhead, they need only the will to do so.
 
I found Mrs. Eccentric's point that anecdotal evidence in finding "hot spots", and possibly other, more esoteric avenues of investigation, to be very valid. I think Chris's SLV project is critical, too. However, forgive me if I'm not up to speed on the SLV project, but aside from photographic records in the normal and possibly infrared spectrum, what other hard data will be collected? I'm just concerned as photographic evidence has been frequently dismissed by "mainstream" science, given the abundance of photo-shopped hoaxes.
I'm thinking that hard and "soft" sciences will be dovetailed in the SLV project in light of a point that Chris made in the Shop Talk Paracast episode. Chris pointed out that the Trickster Imperative was nearly sentient in changing direction when he began to perceive a pattern. A combination of anecdotal evidence and the hard data of the SLV project my help define the validity of this assumption to a greater extent. If a verifiable sighting pattern takes place, then switches suddenly, in directionality, time signatures, or some other pertinent factor, it would be telling.
 
Thanks for expanding the answer to my question into "after the paracast".

I was afraid that it wouldn't find much resonance but, boy, am I glad I asked now. I had no idea that Chris has made his own BOL observations and the account of Brendon's encounter in the 70s was just amazing. I would probably scare myself witless, but somehow I am envious because I've never seen anything like it.

I'm pretty convinced that BOLs are truely anomalous and not "just some lights" or even misinterpretations (although there are probably quite a few stories about "mysterious lights" were it is only headlights or airplanes). And the "intelligent behavior" which is sometimes reported at least in some cases is probably not just misinterpretation of erratic movements IMO.

Chris's description of lights moving between the trees which he'd seen in Colorado sounded just like an account I'd heard from an austrian witness, with the BOL lighting up the tree trunks, and avoiding them while seemingly meandering aimlessly around for approximately an hour. Ball lightning, piezoelectricity etc. would probably just hit the stems, maybe run along them for a second and then dissipate into the ground.

I guess they could still be called natural phenomena, but we'd probably have to redefine the boundaries of what we call "nature" first.

EDIT: for anyone who's interested, this is Gerhard Gröschel's youtube channel. with some of his recorded material. As I said, they mostly seem to be BOLs (one seems to be an elongated or disc-like light form, changing color). I had posted the Wylatowo video before somewhere on this forum, where one light object seems to split into two and it got promptly dismissed as probably being wetness on the lense (must have been a strong wind to have the water run horizontally without any inclination of being bothered by gravity). Some of the videos have english explanations, but I'm afraid not all do. And the quality, as is normal with Youtube, is not the greatest.

Gröschel is not not one for "airy-fairy" paranormal explanations, (it's obvious that would prefer the ETH if anything), and I guess he's himself not too pleased that he doesn't get more nuts&bolts-like evidence, but in a true scientific spirit, he documents everything and checks for sources of misinterpretation and technical malfunctions before announcing anything as probably anomalous.

EDIT 2: @Burnt State Did your chinese lantern / possible BOL flicker? The first time I saw a chinese lantern (we didn't even know about those back then), it took me about 30 seconds before I decided that the unsteady orangish-yellow light probably stemmed from a flame flickering in the wind. There were no sudden changes of direction, though, just a swift straight movement rather high up in the sky and no "zipping away", which made it easier to say it was something mundane.
For some reason, in your first retelling, I got the feeling that the light seemed to "streak away" into the distance (as seen from the side), whereas I'd say the flame just going out would just mean that the light would fade. Or was it headed exactly in the direction you were watching? I guess I didn't get that part.
All in all, don't you think we should sometimes get sceptical about our own "sceptic narrative"? Because I think the "narrative" here (and in other cases) could just as well be caused by a sort of "explaining-things-away-reflex".
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of the "explaining-things-away-reflex". I think you're onto something there.

When my wife & I lived in a different part of Florida we witnessed balls of light on several occasions. I addressed these sightings in one of my first posts on this forum hoping someone would provide insight or explanation for what we were seeing. True to form several forum members suggested ball lightning and then provided a wealth of information much of which matched what we'd witnessed. Prior to joining the Paracast forums I'd reported each sighting to NUFORC but quickly realized I was strictly documenting the event. At some point I contacted our local Mufon chapter who conducted a phone interview, cross referenced the dates & times with weather patterns, celestial calendar & ultimately told me it was likely chinese lanterns. I can't blame them for coming to that conclusion even though I didn't feel our description matched up with their answer. Forum member Marduk provided the characteristics listed below (from wikipedia) for ball lightning which if accurate offered my wife & I a likely explanation for what we'd witnessed.
  • They frequently appear almost simultaneously with cloud-to-ground lightning discharge
  • They are generally spherical or pear-shaped with fuzzy edges
  • Their diameters range from 1–100 cm, most commonly 10–20 cm
  • Their brightness corresponds to roughly that of a domestic lamp, so they can be seen clearly in daylight
  • A wide range of colours has been observed, red, orange, and yellow being the most common.
  • The lifetime of each event is from 1 second to over a minute with the brightness remaining fairly constant during that time
  • They tend to move, most often in a horizontal direction at a few metres per second, but may also move vertically, remain stationary or wander erratically.
  • Many are described as having rotational motion
  • It is rare that observers report the sensation of heat, although in some cases the disappearance of the ball is accompanied by the liberation of heat
  • Some display an affinity for metal objects and may move along conductors such as wires or metal fences
  • Some appear within buildings passing through closed doors and windows
  • Some have appeared within metal aircraft and have entered and left without causing damage
  • The disappearance of a ball is generally rapid and may be either silent or explosive
  • Odors resembling ozone, burning sulfur, or nitrogen oxides are often reported
 
Wow, that's a lot of description for a phenomenon that wasn't accepted by science up until a decade or two ago (and is still controversial, AFAIK). I wonder how much of that has really been documented, though.

I guess the duration of up to one minute is probably a best case scenario. These guys seem to be very short-lived (only split seconds in the lab), so they probably can't be the cause of things like the Hessdalen phenomena and other BOLs which are observed over long periods of time.

At least there has to be a force that keeps them going (or keeps them from dissipating) for several minutes, up to an hour (even longer observations of a single BOL have been reported). How long did your sighting(s) last?

And btw. have you checked out the descriptions in my "nocturnal lights" thread? I think I remember your post about possible BOLs you and your wife had seen, but maybe you'd consider posting a description of the sightings there? I thought it could be interesting to compare the more modern descriptions with historical ones, because I'm pretty sure these things have been around (and officially ignored) basically for all of known (and probably unknown) history.
 
Last edited:
beyondthestargate said:
People are still paying any attention to the Roswell slides? I've been gone for weeks, and was shocked when I perused the forum comments and see that people still are chasing this boondoggle.
Click to expand...


Are you surprised? I'm amazed people still listen to Steven Greer and there are numerous cases that 'have been put to bed' yet still are talked about every now and then. Roswell is the ultimate. Judging by the books and conferences and references continually in UFO literature and radio, Roswell as a topic is here to stay and by extension I expect these slides -now that they are in the UFO lexicon- will unfortunately NEVER go away!

Groan!
 
I will check out your thread for sure.. Our sightings usually lasted for 4 to 5 seconds based on recollection. I recall that the first time we witnessed one of these balls of light I believed it was a meteor because I had nothing else to compare it to but I realized it was moving to slowly. I'll provide more detail in your nocturnal lights thread.

We lived in a valley (like hessdalen) at the bottom of which was a lake (Lake Whales). We had several other unusual occurrences inside our home while living there. We always looked for a prosaic explanation but at times doing so proved difficult.
 
Pigsinzen said:
I will check out your thread for sure.. Our sightings usually lasted for 4 to 5 seconds based on recollection. I recall that the first time we witnessed one of these balls of light I believed it was a meteor because I had nothing else to compare it to but I realized it was moving to slowly. I'll provide more detail in your nocturnal lights thread.

We lived in a valley (like hessdalen) at the bottom of which was a lake (Lake Whales). We had several other unusual occurrences inside our home while living there. We always looked for a prosaic explanation but at times doing so proved difficult.
Click to expand...

Inside your home? Now that should be interesting. Looking forward to your post on the other thread!
 
I am listening to shoptalk for the first time on Tuesday just for background. Chris and and Jean are talking about the interpretation of these "UFO" objects. The thing that makes me a believer about the 1947 incidents is this. People in 1947 would not have envisioned disc shaped vehicles this was not a concept for spacecraft or aircraft to those people. Idea of lifting bodies and the type of craft that were described would been a foreign idea to them. Many people and 1947 had never even seen a military jet flyover. Most of them were used to seeing things like P 51s witch still dominated the Air Force inventory in those days. People in those days would envision something more like buck Rogers or rockets or even something more V2 shaped. I don't think they were interpreting these objects based on a science-fiction prejudice. Also remember that nobody at that time was thinking of these things as beings from some other planet in general. People just wondered what they were. And another thing I think that we have to be very careful of is interpreting what aliens would do based on our own sensibilities and our own ideas of science. Having said that, I do agree that most of these abduction stories seem not very believable. I Think I am on board with the Barney and Betty Hill case and maybe Travis Walton. Because the hill case wasn't polluted by many many other abduction stories Like the ones that have come more recently. But I do understand the jaded frustration you both feel about the field and that's one of the reasons I listen to the show. The field needs to move away from Roswell obsession and government conspiracy obsession and start looking more into the private sector knowledge aspect of this phenomenon. And I personally believe that a more simplistic approach to this is also necessary. Nothing will be accomplished by going off the deep end with more bizarre theories.
 
Pigsinzen said:
I will check out your thread for sure.. Our sightings usually lasted for 4 to 5 seconds based on recollection. I recall that the first time we witnessed one of these balls of light I believed it was a meteor because I had nothing else to compare it to but I realized it was moving to slowly. I'll provide more detail in your nocturnal lights thread.

We lived in a valley (like hessdalen) at the bottom of which was a lake (Lake Whales). We had several other unusual occurrences inside our home while living there. We always looked for a prosaic explanation but at times doing so proved difficult.
Click to expand...
Ok, you've definitely got my attention with the whole living in the valley thing. Some interpretations of Hessdalen have looked at the mineral content in different parts of the region to explore the idea of a gigantic natural battery at work releasing odd light energy as a result. A search of Hessdalen here in the forum will reveal the relevant documents. Can you please describe your valley on more detail - do you know anything about the specific geology of the region? Are there any unique weather conditions that you have noticed preceding your sightings? How high up in the air by your estiation are these BOLS? Do you notice them forming or disappearing and can you describe that process?
 
Polterwurst said:
Gröschel is not not one for "airy-fairy" paranormal explanations, (it's obvious that would prefer the ETH if anything), and I guess he's himself not too pleased that he doesn't get more nuts&bolts-like evidence, but in a true scientific spirit, he documents everything and checks for sources of misinterpretation and technical malfunctions before announcing anything as probably anomalous.
Click to expand...
I watched one of his presentations despite my utter lack of German comprehension but it was fascinating - highly detailed studies and some great imagery. I'll be honest, I have a lot of skepticism around anyone who can capture a lot of UFO evidence on their own, so rare is the event. But he appears to be working on the concept of light phenomenon and sees his imagery and region in the same context as Hessdalen. Wish I could understand the nuances of his talk though.

EDIT 2: @Burnt State Did your chinese lantern / possible BOL flicker? The first time I saw a chinese lantern (we didn't even know about those back then), it took me about 30 seconds before I decided that the unsteady orangish-yellow light probably stemmed from a flame flickering in the wind. There were no sudden changes of direction, though, just a swift straight movement rather high up in the sky and no "zipping away", which made it easier to say it was something mundane.
For some reason, in your first retelling, I got the feeling that the light seemed to "streak away" into the distance (as seen from the side), whereas I'd say the flame just going out would just mean that the light would fade. Or was it headed exactly in the direction you were watching? I guess I didn't get that part.
All in all, don't you think we should sometimes get sceptical about our own "sceptic narrative"? Because I think the "narrative" here (and in other cases) could just as well be caused by a sort of "explaining-things-away-reflex".
Click to expand...
As I said on the show, as someone used to seeing Chinese lanterns and having set them off myself, this appeared to change direction not once but twice. Then the sudden feeling of sentience, or control flickered in my mind & it did scare me, or at least make me feel very overprotective of my son. When it shifted the second time it followed a curving arc away from us and then my jaw dropped as it appeared to just zip right off into the distance. As I watched the light zap off into nothingness, i had the distinct feeling of rapid speed and a sudden reminder of my own UFO sighting as a child. The memory was reawakened in a substantial manner.

But by the next day I thought a little more about how the wick and the fuel works in these lantern systems. My intention was not to move into skeptic mode so much as doubtful mode. I wasn't looking to explain anything away so much as to think a little more critically about the sighting without emotions attached to it. Then it dawned on me, as the sudden bright glow of a wick dims rapidly it would easily give off the appearance in the night sky of a light rapidly shooting off in a straight line - which is what I thought I saw. Given it was fireworks night, I had to consider the greater likelihood of a lantern's light and some wind conspired together to give me a bit of a false momentary UFO sensation.
 
Gene and Chris I feel bad that you have become so cynical and jaded. Don't know what else to say but it's becoming hard to listen to. I hope something is able to refresh your view about all of these things. When NASA talks about finding life I think they're talking about something on the order of microbes are Brine shrimp or something simple. Any kind of life off of the earth would be an amazing discovery. And I wouldn't be so hard on SETI. I think that SETI's problem is that they need to put antennas off of the earth. They may not hear a signal from a planet but if there was something like "ET's" virsion of Voyager (but bigger?) out there maybe we will hear that some day.
 
Last edited:
Finally got the opportunity to listen to the accompanying ATP. thanks for bring my question up.the discussion took an interesting turn. it almost sounds like we may be transitioning into a new age. Goodbye Anthropocene. Hello Tricksterocene.

Also while I do agree with Chris about how we are getting more and more self-absorbed and narcissistic and the Internet enables that aspect I would point out that simply trying to do business with your contacts and obligations enforces it. We don't deal with tellers we deal with atms face to face time is taking a back seat to Skype. We are emailing faxing in resumes leaving messages working from home etc. The Internet and smart phones may turn out to be crucial to many just to conduct any normal transactions and affairs

We are being conditioned to rely on automation and artificial intelligence less so on our fellow humans, I wonder if our increasing self absorbtion could be a byproduct of this.
 
Last edited:
I feel sorry for Chris's loss and hope that his sour tone was colored by his emotions. Gang rape people? Really? Have we gone this low?

With that said, I had major issues with his episode. I always point out how the show is not complete unless the two hosts go on some left-wing political attack, indict FOX news, talk about evil corporations and make fun of various UFO groups and personalities. That is sort of par for the course, but to sit there and mock Jacque Vallee, in a bad French accent, and call his research "worthless" is cringe worthy. The fact Chris doesn't have a Ph.D (like Vallee does) in the type of software and data skills probably leads to his ignorance towards the topic. It would be like Chris trying to have an opinion on GMO's or crops while having no formal background on anything of the type.

However, I found it ironic that after bashing Vallee and calling his attempts to centralize and data mine information to be worthless, he later goes on to say that MUFON was brought into existence to vacuum up the "good cases" and keep them under wraps. He then says, he believes the government has an interest in "data mining" parts of the "good cases" and using that information for their own purposes. Chris argued, there are key parts of some cases that the government is aware of and they then scan all the known cases and look for these key parts so they can unearth something beneficial to them about this phenomena....

Wait what?

ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT VALLEE WANTS TO DO?!?

ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT CHRIS SAID WAS WORTHLESS AND A WASTE OF TIME??

If it bares fruit for the government, and Chris, you said you believe this, how is it a waste of time to do something similar along the lines of what Vallee is proposing? SMACK MY HEAD at the ignorance and hypocrisy here! Talk about philosophical inconsistency!

Also, Chris wants to by-pass looking at old data and just take photos of the sky. Again, he sees no value in trying to look at a large amount of data for actionable intelligence. Rather he want's "hard research."

Have you ever thought that perhaps through some advance filtering of data, and noting key events, time, dates, location, temperature, natural disasters, etc...you might be able to determine, with some degree of probability, WHERE or WHEN, an event is prone to take place...THEN use that information for the "hard research."

To fail to see what Vallee is suggesting, and to mock it, and call it worthless is everything that is wrong about the Paracast.

Finally, about abductions...I personally am not a firm believer in any one theory, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have always been skeptical about abductions. However, I am open-minded and can think outside the box, something again, Chris seems unable to do.

He asked to give "one reason why the aliens would need to abduct millions of people, rather than just a few" because "surely after a few cotton swabs they could figure everything out and never have to resort to fear and scoop marks"....

Have you ever thought that the missing component here is individual consciousness? If, somehow, the "aliens" are after consciousness, it would make TOTAL SENSE they would abduct millions of people, because consciousness is personal, mine would be different than yours. Additionally, perhaps the experiment is to see how fear and the dark nature of the abduction plays on consciousness. A cotton swab would be useless here, where as a murky vague terrifying experience complete with a mark, might be useful.

In terms of cattle mutilations, I have often thought if we are "property" of the aliens, i.e., their cattle...it might make sense for them to look at and study human cattle, i.e., our property...the cattle.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top