• 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!

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs etc.

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Don, the link you posted takes you right to this skeptic website. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to bring up the worst of ufology. Greer, Mouton-Howe and others have soured this field. When you pan down and see how hoaxers have created obviously faked photos, you know exactly where these people are coming from. What can you say? When you have BS artists flooding ufology, you could rightfully say we have it coming.
 
That is a sword that cuts two ways. I have been battling the lunatic fringe for well over 20 years, in print, on radio and on television. However on the other side of the coin I have been battling the skeptics for hypocrisy, subterfuge, and dishonest presentations on actual cases. Don't tell me that "we are are own worst enemies", I am very aware of that. However it pisses me off when the skeptical side of the coin get a free pass. And I knew Phil Klass, and if you knew him that should explain lots to you.

Decker
 
Hey Decker, sorry to hijack this thread but I recently heard about a debate between you and skpetic Michael Shermer that happened on your radio show back in 1994. My question is, is this available in the DMR archives or would you have to specially upload it? Thanks.
 
Don, could it be that the reason the skeptics and debunkers get that free pass is due to who controls the media? I imagine the corporations that own radio, tv and what is left of the newspapers would love nothing better than to make ufos and paranormal a fringe issue.
 
DaveM said:
Don, could it be that the reason the skeptics and debunkers get that free pass is due to who controls the media? I imagine the corporations that own radio, tv and what is left of the newspapers would love nothing better than to make ufos and paranormal a fringe issue.
Click to expand...

I believe the blueprint for media/UFO coverage was laid down back in January of 1953 with the CIA controlled Robertson Panel. From that point forward (and to totally understand it you must study this period) the media was conditioned to ridicule, laugh, and sneer at the subject. You can witness the govt./media attack on the topic no matter how good the cases/witnesses were. People like Keyhoe, Sanderson, and many others (like Frank Edwards) fought a valiant fight to
legitimize the subject ... but their efforts were doomed. The fix was in.

Look at some of the cases like Hillsdale, Mich. in 1966. Although some of these debunking excursions backfired on the Air Force, read the swamp gas explanation, most of media was on board with the Air Force's and U. S. Govts. efforts to explain away at all costs, the phenomena. Make no mistake, there were stellar cases out there ... some that would chill your spine, but investigative reporters, hell, all reporters and main stream media regard UFOs the kiss of death.

Back when I broke the STS 48 case I was downtown at CNN here in Los Angeles to do that story on Larry King Live. I met a very well known national reporter who then worked at CNN. We had an "off the record" chat and as he told me, he "believed" there was something to the UFO topic, then went on to tell me a couple of stories he was privy to. I then asked him why he wouldn't do any stories on the network? He looked at me and with a wry smile asked me why I wanted him to get fired? UFOs .. the Kiss of Death in mainstream media.

Decker
 
That this is happening i think is reasonably obvious

The next question is why ?

I think we can agree on whats happening, i'm interested in the why its happening angle.
 
People who seek out money and power find that controlling information leads to those goals. Keep the populace fat, happy and stupid.
 
Again that it is happening is pretty obvious

During the same time period in 1982, Hastings believes that his telephone calls to military veterans were tapped.
Two technicians who had private communications with Hastings by email or telephone were contacted by their superiors.
Click to expand...

U.S. UFO Intelligence Leaks? Tough Road for Government | Roger Marsh

There is of course the "power shared is power lost" angle

Its worth noting as we ponder the whys that the secrecy is being maintained by both sides of this enigma.

So perhaps we need to look to the motive in each case and see if they are different or have a common element
 
Decker said:
Our old Skeptic buddy, Robert Sheaffer, waxes and wanes ... I will be interested in any and all takes on this. Of course my old buddy Phil Klass is the poster boy in this essay.
Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe - by Robert Sheaffer: Guerilla Skepticism - Now We Have Klass' Wikipedia Back
Click to expand...
So it seems that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by self-serving skeptics ( not surprised ). Some time ago when I went in to edit a couple of things on the ufology entry, I suddenly found that the edits had been rejected on grounds that I was biased, even though the edits included citations of independent references, including the Oxford English Dictionary. Someone had obviously taken the time to research my background rather than the veracity of the content, and arbitrarily dismissed the edits based on my ufology background rather than the facts.

Not long afterward, someone took my exact edit, changed a couple of inconsequential words around, and inserted it back in without generating any complaints or giving me any credit. So if a ufologist is seen as biased when updating a ufology article, how is it that the skeptics aren't seen as biased when updating an article on skeptics? It seems to me that there's a distinct double standard going on there. It's so bad in fact that they can advertise that they're doing this as a "guerilla" campaign and get away with it. As a consequence of this hypocrisy, I've ceased to contribute to Wikipedia and won't send them any donations either. Instead, I've concentrated on my own ufology website which comes up fairly high in Google searches for the word "ufology". That's my contribution to "guerilla ufology" ;) .
 
Back
Top