-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cahill case revisited
- Thread starter mike
- Start date
Free episodes:
Thanks for posting this article. It is very hard to believe that some German magazine owned the copyright to the second car witnesses but never published the article. There is no way to enforce that copyright, when it was never published. You claim copyright when you publish, but there is no right to copyright a magazine article never published in advance for years on end.
Also, the other highly suspect issue is Cahill's husband was so in conflict with her story vs his ideas that their marriage ended over this encounter according to Kelly. And, he never wanted their names to go public with the report about what happened. We don't know his story at all.
I heard Kelly also mention in an interview that she was told by the investigator that the 3rd car witness had been identified and their report would come out within the year. Of course, that was years and years ago. It never happened.
This case clearly seems to be riddled with fraud and/or cover-ups of some kind, since it was promised over the last two decades to have a full report with the other witnesses accounts revealed. It never happened.
I still think she would be a good interview to do on the Paracast, because we can probably learn more than we know now with the right questions.
Also, the other highly suspect issue is Cahill's husband was so in conflict with her story vs his ideas that their marriage ended over this encounter according to Kelly. And, he never wanted their names to go public with the report about what happened. We don't know his story at all.
I heard Kelly also mention in an interview that she was told by the investigator that the 3rd car witness had been identified and their report would come out within the year. Of course, that was years and years ago. It never happened.
This case clearly seems to be riddled with fraud and/or cover-ups of some kind, since it was promised over the last two decades to have a full report with the other witnesses accounts revealed. It never happened.
I still think she would be a good interview to do on the Paracast, because we can probably learn more than we know now with the right questions.
Are there court records? For what? There are three separate issues to consider fraud and/or cover-up. Based on what Cahill said in another interview -and- this article, I now believe that was her husband wanting their names kept anonymous under threat of a lawsuit. If true, then why wasn't the report issued with them being anonymous? Really weird. Smoke and mirrors.I cant see a single element that says "fraud" the PRA guy was taken to court and ordered not to release the report.
That he wound up in court speaks more to a real event than fraud
Nothing is revealed about the German magazine and copyright. Nothing was ever published. Clearly something appears to be fraudulent and/or a cover-up here.
The third car witness's report never came out. Why did Kelly Cahill say she was told by the investigator that this report would come-out within a year or so? Could be fraud and/or a cover-up by someone toying with Cahill. She doesn't seem to be lying herself about this aspect, but she was at least used three times "to front" promised reports that never appeared. That seems abusive to Cahill to leave her hanging. It also destroys any confidence in the public's eye knowing something stinks... "I smell a rat". This reminds me of the Roswell Slides... promises, promises, withheld evidence, no way to verify anything, "vaporware ufo's", broken trust, broken promises, and so it goes... back to: I want to believe?
Last edited:
All we know is the report did not see the light of day. there is no element of fraud in this. the explanations given make perfect sense.
But lets take another example
Back when the internet was nothing more that dial up BB's i had an experience of my own. it has classic elements of abduction or sleep paralysis.
No one myself has proof either way as to what happened, but it did happen and it was a profound experience.
I contacted a field investigator for a local mufon style group.
He took my story over the phone and opened a case file/report. He urged me to undergo hypnotic regression. i declined
He begged me to do it, said they would pay for the session and come to me, all i had to give up was my time.
But the event i did recall was bad enough, i did not want to know anymore.
Years went by and i tried to track him down to get the dates etc. the internet was by now netscape browsers and basic email.
I found various groups and eventually got a name i recognised, and an email address, despite repeated trys i got no reply.
Decades later i found him on facebook and got a reply.He remembered my case but the file/report had been destroyed long ago.
His interest in UFO's its cost in terms of time and money on his family had put a strain on it, and he wisely chose them over his hobby and walked away.
So let me ask you........ Does the fact thay MY report was never released, was in fact destroyed make me a fraud ?
Does the fact that the investigative report into my experience is lost, mean my experience never took place ?
Like my investigator John Auchettl, was just a volunteer investigator, like my guy his interests ended up having a negative impact on his family, it was specifically mentioned that he felt the family home was at risk if a lawsuit were to take place.
The lack of report is a small part of this story. what about the fact that they all drew the same craft and beings.
A range of apparently related physical traces, including ground traces, a magnetic anomaly, and effects on some of the witnesses.
Kelly experienced menstrual bleeding and became quite ill. She had had her period only the week before. Eventually she entered the hospital with a womb infection. The doctors there said she must have been pregnant; either that, or she had had some kind of gynaecological operation. In fact, she had had neither in recent times. A strange triangular mark was also found on her abdomen along with a scar.
Kelly elaborated on these matters: But when I got home that night, that's when I found the triangular mark below my navel, with what I thought was a little laparoscopy cut, and I also started bleeding that night. Three and a half weeks later I ended up in hospital... . . [The hospital] actually did a laparoscopy, another laparoscopy. This was not when I first went in. I went back in later, another six weeks after that, because I had a lot of pains in my stomach and just wanted to have it checked to see what it was. And I still had the triangular mark there. . .
The report that relates to my own experience was never released and is now lost, but go ahead call me a hoaxer and a fraud because of that
Is it any wonder people dont want to have their names put to these experiences, when they will be called hoaxers and frauds by the denialists on such flimsy pretexts as "oh well the report was never released"
Is it any wonder the field investigators give up interest in pushing shit up hill, when all their hard work and travel time can be disparaged by armchair experts like you who attempt to trump their research and hard work with opinion dressed up as facts.
But lets take another example
Back when the internet was nothing more that dial up BB's i had an experience of my own. it has classic elements of abduction or sleep paralysis.
No one myself has proof either way as to what happened, but it did happen and it was a profound experience.
I contacted a field investigator for a local mufon style group.
He took my story over the phone and opened a case file/report. He urged me to undergo hypnotic regression. i declined
He begged me to do it, said they would pay for the session and come to me, all i had to give up was my time.
But the event i did recall was bad enough, i did not want to know anymore.
Years went by and i tried to track him down to get the dates etc. the internet was by now netscape browsers and basic email.
I found various groups and eventually got a name i recognised, and an email address, despite repeated trys i got no reply.
Decades later i found him on facebook and got a reply.He remembered my case but the file/report had been destroyed long ago.
His interest in UFO's its cost in terms of time and money on his family had put a strain on it, and he wisely chose them over his hobby and walked away.
So let me ask you........ Does the fact thay MY report was never released, was in fact destroyed make me a fraud ?
Does the fact that the investigative report into my experience is lost, mean my experience never took place ?
Like my investigator John Auchettl, was just a volunteer investigator, like my guy his interests ended up having a negative impact on his family, it was specifically mentioned that he felt the family home was at risk if a lawsuit were to take place.
The lack of report is a small part of this story. what about the fact that they all drew the same craft and beings.
A range of apparently related physical traces, including ground traces, a magnetic anomaly, and effects on some of the witnesses.
Kelly experienced menstrual bleeding and became quite ill. She had had her period only the week before. Eventually she entered the hospital with a womb infection. The doctors there said she must have been pregnant; either that, or she had had some kind of gynaecological operation. In fact, she had had neither in recent times. A strange triangular mark was also found on her abdomen along with a scar.
Kelly elaborated on these matters: But when I got home that night, that's when I found the triangular mark below my navel, with what I thought was a little laparoscopy cut, and I also started bleeding that night. Three and a half weeks later I ended up in hospital... . . [The hospital] actually did a laparoscopy, another laparoscopy. This was not when I first went in. I went back in later, another six weeks after that, because I had a lot of pains in my stomach and just wanted to have it checked to see what it was. And I still had the triangular mark there. . .
The report that relates to my own experience was never released and is now lost, but go ahead call me a hoaxer and a fraud because of that
Is it any wonder people dont want to have their names put to these experiences, when they will be called hoaxers and frauds by the denialists on such flimsy pretexts as "oh well the report was never released"
Is it any wonder the field investigators give up interest in pushing shit up hill, when all their hard work and travel time can be disparaged by armchair experts like you who attempt to trump their research and hard work with opinion dressed up as facts.
Not sure why you're turning to personal attacks to resolve the problems with this case. Your personal examples have absolutely nothing to do with the Cahill case. Her problems were with the investigators telling her things about the witnesses and reports being released that were "promised" and then never happened. Also, in addition, apparently her husband threatened legal action if they did not keep their names anonymous. Obviously, being anonymous never happened with Kelly Cahill, but I think we still don't know her husband's story or his name either. Right?Is it any wonder the field investigators give up interest in pushing shit up hill, when all their hard work and travel time can be disparaged by armchair experts like you who attempt to trump their research and hard work with opinion dressed up as facts.
That still leaves open what happened to the promised separate reports, according to Cahill herself, for car number 2 and car number 3. I specifically addressed these inconsistencies with these "promised reports" in my post before this one. As I said, despite your protest with mismatched examples above, Cahill doesn't seem to be lying herself about this aspect, but she was at least used three times "to front" promised reports that never appeared. That seems abusive to Cahill to leave her hanging. It also destroys any confidence in the public's eye knowing something stinks... "I smell a rat". This reminds me of the Roswell Slides... promises, promises, withheld evidence, no way to verify anything, "vaporware ufo's", broken trust, broken promises, and so it goes... back to: I want to believe?
Btw, plenty of armchair researchers thought the Roswell Slides were a hoax for a number of valid reasons. They smelled the rats. Unlike the Roswell Slides, I believe something "high strange" happened to Cahill and the other witnesses present, but I doubt it was ET. Without more information that is still missing and unreported it will remain a mystery.
As I said before, I still think Cahill would be an excellent interview to do on the Paracast, because we can probably learn more than we know now with the right questions.
Last edited:
The triangle mark is quite interesting, because Whitley Strieber claimed such markings on his arm in Communion. Strieber talks a lot about triangles, and its relationships to other ideas in that book too. I'm certain he does in Transformation too.A strange triangular mark was also found on her abdomen along with a scar.
Kelly elaborated on these matters: But when I got home that night, that's when I found the triangular mark below my navel, [...]
As I pointed out elsewhere, someone posted in a Kelly Cahill book review at Amazon that she mentions having read Strieber's book Transformation which was published before Cahill's encounter. Very interesting. Isn't it?
. Your personal examples have absolutely nothing to do with the Cahill case.
That you cant see that in both examples a lack of report does not a hoax or fraud make, marks you an imbecile, dont address me anymore cretin you are on my ignore list
But your examples don't "match" or apply to what happened to Cahill. My first post to this thread topic never focused on only fraud or hoax. You need to read and comprehend fully what I wrote below.That you cant see that in both examples a lack of report does not a hoax or fraud make, marks you an imbecile, dont address me anymore cretin you are on my ignore list
I never even used the word "hoax", nor did I exclusively use only the word "fraud" about what happened. But you focused exclusively on fraud and hoax, as if that was my only allegation. I still maintain this case clearly seems to be riddled with fraud and/or cover-ups of some kind, since it was promised over the last two decades to have separate reports with the other witnesses accounts revealed for both car 2 and car 3. It never happened.This case clearly seems to be riddled with fraud and/or cover-ups of some kind, since it was promised over the last two decades to have a full report with the other witnesses accounts revealed. It never happened.
The possibility of fraud in the following context is real, imo, but that was not my only contention or consideration...
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it...
Cahill did interviews based on promises she was given that the reports were soon forthcoming at least 3 different times. Two of those had nothing to do with any court order of which I'm not even aware there was actually any court order. Wasn't there only "the threat" of legal action?
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud.
[Above info came from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud]
Last edited: