February 22, 2015 — Dr. John Brandenburg

[LatentCauses]

I admit the giggling was a little bit weird, and the speculation was well...speculative, but I think that all the ad hominem attacks I have read so far in this thread are unfair.

Listen to the science parts. He has some great bits of real evidence, capable of objective scrutiny by any open minded scientist, concerning anomalies as to radiation levels on the surface of the planet contrasted with radiation levels in ejected matter.

According to him, the best his critics can do is label it all coincidence.

I concede he is not doing his cause much good with all the speculation, but he brings considerably more evidence to his hypothesis than most of the guests doing the rounds of the paranormal podcasts.

 

[Burnt State]

This interview started off with some very intriguing speculations that began to evolve into something probable. He made some unique claims and appeared to have the science and experience behind him. He was really starting to make sense, but then as the interview progressed another side of this plasma scientist began to emerge. The hearty guffaws really put me off especially at the moment when he started to claim that other lucky devils were going to run the models on nuclear blasts happening on mars. I started to wonder if such modeling was actually going on at all.

When the discussion on fiction novels as probable realities started to unfold I started thinking about the Philadelphia Experiment. When he urgently needed to make a point regarding wet dreams in his own books that included the proverbial Asian female and Blond as sexual assets I completely relegated him to another basket altogether.

During his response to what challenges his theories face I thought he provided some strong insights, that perhaps what's more likely than a moderate civilization evolving and then getting nuked for no reason is that he's connecting a string of discontinuous items and making an impossible narrative out of it all. If reputable scientists can argue as truthers for 9-11 then even ex-plasma physicists can construct their own conspiracy theories farther afield. That doesn't mean everything he's done and discovered is bogus, but the likelihood of another civilization existing on mars is one thing, and speculating on their nuclear elimination is not just fear-mongering about an empire of evil intelligence but just not very likely at all.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Yeah, what Robert said!

 

[Burnt State]

Constructing Martian Narratives has a rich history:

 

[LatentCauses]

. If reputable scientists can argue as truthers for 9-11 then even ex-plasma physicists can construct their own conspiracy theories farther afield. .

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you imply that all reputable scientists who have put their name behind the "truth" movement, based on their assessment of the evidence, then become conspiracists and not scientists?

 

[Burnt State]

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you imply that all reputable scientists who have put their name behind the "truth" movement, based on their assessment of the evidence, then become conspiracists and not scientists?

There is conspiracist thinking that confabulate evidence, or arranges discontinuous points of evidence in order to create a narrative of their own that has little to do with what might actually have taken place. In many ways ufology can be seen as a conspiracist movement unless you hold a position of not knowing what's taking place. You may have strong suspicions and the evidence may point towards certain concepts but can we establish beliefs, or truth from decades of research - hardly.

Mars is a distant planet that we know very little about and claiming that there were two humanoid races and outposts called Cydonia and Utopia that established city structures and monuments that were later exploded from above with hydrogen bombs I would call conspiracist thinking. There is no proof for these statements though there are suggestions of a nuclear war - so should we backfill a narrative we have no proof for and does that change how you see my status if I am a scientist studying it - probably.

Those who support 9-11 as a conspiracy of gov't agents from United States are also backfilling a storyline that they feel they have proof of but again, it's a selection of evidence used to fit a theory. They are all still scientists in their field, but they are now supporting a conspiracy when they claim that they know the truth of agents killing their own citizens (not unheard of). Does this alter their repupation as scientists? That's for individuals to decide based on their evaluation of the evidence. Society will use the best truth to move forward, others will cry injustice; and others will see these scientists in a new light, for better or for worse. I'm open to paradox as a latent possibility until one side can get better evidence to support its narrative.

 

[flipper]

This interview started off with some very intriguing speculations that began to evolve into something probable. He made some unique claims and appeared to have the science and experience behind him. He was really starting to make sense, but then as the interview progressed another side of this plasma scientist began to emerge. The hearty guffaws really put me off especially at the moment when he started to claim that other lucky devils were going to run the models on nuclear blasts happening on mars. I started to wonder if such modeling was actually going on at all.

When the discussion on fiction novels as probable realities started to unfold I started thinking about the Philadelphia Experiment. When he urgently needed to make a point regarding wet dreams in his own books that included the proverbial Asian female and Blond as sexual assets I completely relegated him to another basket altogether.

During his response to what challenges his theories face I thought he provided some strong insights, that perhaps what's more likely than a moderate civilization evolving and then getting nuked for no reason is that he's connecting a string of discontinuous items and making an impossible narrative out of it all. If reputable scientists can argue as truthers for 9-11 then even ex-plasma physicists can construct their own conspiracy theories farther afield. That doesn't mean everything he's done and discovered is bogus, but the likelihood of another civilization existing on mars is one thing, and speculating on their nuclear elimination is not just fear-mongering about an empire of evil intelligence but just not very likely at all.

For those regular listeners of the Piratecast who have not heard this show, it would be better to skip the interview and listen to the commercials.

 

[flipper]

 

[Drake_the_Gilliland]

I thought it was an interesting show. However, I would catch myself constantly being reminded of Richard Hoagland especially after Cydonia was brought up. Was the giggling just away to divert from answering in detail perhaps?

 

[Psychedelic_Alchemist]

I had to turn off midway through the show. It was painful to listen to. I just can't believe that there was a nuclear attack on Mars, and whatever evidence he offered up didn't convince me to change my mind. The pirate jokes were also about as funny as a kick in the teeth.

 

[LatentCauses]

. In many ways ufology can be seen as a conspiracist movement unless you hold a position of not knowing what's taking place. You may have strong suspicions and the evidence may point towards certain concepts but can we establish beliefs, or truth from decades of research - hardly

Those who support 9-11 as a conspiracy of gov't agents from United States are also backfilling a storyline that they feel they have proof of but again, it's a selection of evidence used to fit a theory. They are all still scientists in their field, but they are now supporting a conspiracy when they claim that they know the truth of agents killing their own citizens (not unheard of). Does this alter their repupation as scientists? That's for individuals to decide based on their evaluation of the evidence. Society will use the best truth to move forward, others will cry injustice; and others will see these scientists in a new light, for better or for worse. I'm open to paradox as a latent possibility until one side can get better evidence to support its narrative.

I think there is a double standard applied in these areas. Pod casters invite speculation from guests. Why? Because it is more fun that way. Guests who don't go beyond what they publish in journals don't get invites. We want to be entertained. Gene and Chris provide.

Brandenburg has published in Science journals. The one I looked at was 40 pages long and dry like a cracker. He could have turned up a read it out like a conference paper. I'm exaggerating but you get my point no doubt.

If listeners want just the facts then the Science journals are full of niche explorations of areas around the fringes of the paranormal. Investigation of effects in nature that the paranormal fans tend to lump together as connected, in some way, with intelligent guidance. What you won't get from them is any form of unifying theory, which if we are honest with ourselves, many of us are looking for.

Brandenburg has done the work - it's in his papers, and his book. That puts him streets ahead of most in these areas, who to be frank, will turn up and pronounce the first thing that comes into their head.

Brandenburg was speculating - wildy -but we all knew it when he was.

 

[LatentCauses]

Those who support 9-11 as a conspiracy of gov't agents from United States are also backfilling a storyline that they feel they have proof of but again, it's a selection of evidence used to fit a theory. They are all still scientists in their field, but they are now supporting a conspiracy when they claim that they know the truth of agents killing their own citizens (not unheard of). Does this alter their repupation as scientists? That's for individuals to decide based on their evaluation of the evidence. Society will use the best truth to move forward, others will cry injustice; and others will see these scientists in a new light, for better or for worse. I'm open to paradox as a latent possibility until one side can get better evidence to support its narrative.

Sure - but certainly the best of the "truth" movement, certainly in the early days, stayed well away from speculation as to alternative method and motive for 9/11. They focussed on the glaring, and they remain highly problematic IMHO, evidentiary anomalies that NIST just chose to ignore.

Whether that happened through incompetence, inadvertence or design - well, I'd be speculating

 

[Jeremiah Dugger]

His approach to life beyond Earth amounts to 'open carry'. Tad pessimistic?

 

[flipper]

I think there is a double standard applied in these areas. Pod casters invite speculation from guests. Why? Because it is more fun that way. Guests who don't go beyond what they publish in journals don't get invites. We want to be entertained. Gene and Chris provide.

Brandenburg has published in Science journals. The one I looked at was 40 pages long and dry like a cracker. He could have turned up a read it out like a conference paper. I'm exaggerating but you get my point no doubt.

If listeners want just the facts then the Science journals are full of niche explorations of areas around the fringes of the paranormal. Investigation of effects in nature that the paranormal fans tend to lump together as connected, in some way, with intelligent guidance. What you won't get from them is any form of unifying theory, which if we are honest with ourselves, many of us are looking for.

Brandenburg has done the work - it's in his papers, and his book. That puts him streets ahead of most in these areas, who to be frank, will turn up and pronounce the first thing that comes into their head.

Brandenburg was speculating - wildy -but we all knew it when he was.

Do I understand you to say that he gave us what we wanted, which is entertainment and not science? Can science be stated in entertaining way? I think Gene did try to get answers to his questions and would have appreciated some science sited and explained.

 

[Burnt State]

Do I understand you to say that he gave us what we wanted, which is entertainment and not science? Can science be stated in entertaining way? I think Gene did try to get answers to his questions and would have appreciated some science sited and explained.

Sometimes, when you're alone in the woods late at night, listening to coast to coast speculations or stories about wrestling with Bigfoot can be like a crack cocaine kind of paranormal high. I think we also listen for different reasons, and I can see LatentCauses' point in terms of Brandenburgh's research, and how fringe perspectives can provide a range of effects from disbelief to possibility. Sometimes there's a science show but who knows the science vs. who knows how to mine the science to produce certain narratives is debatable.

When i first heard Leir on The Paracast years ago I thought he might actually have the goods, and then I spent time on his site, looked up his history and decided his narratve sounded like science but it was all flash and graphs with little reality behind the claims. The second time he was on was even more entertaining, but in a different way.

 

[LatentCauses]

Do I understand you to say that he gave us what we wanted, which is entertainment and not science? Can science be stated in entertaining way? I think Gene did try to get answers to his questions and would have appreciated some science sited and explained.

I take your point - the science was done and dusted in the first 20 minutes. We would have appreciated more. Whether it was the host or the guests fault that the interview got a bit loose doesn't really matter.

I also have some sympathy for researchers who spend their professional lives banging their heads against the walls of the establishment. Most of us don't have the patience or the will so we make our living in a more prosaic way. Brandenburg sounded like a guy to me on the edge. He has my respect for even going there. Couldn't be easy.

 

[LatentCauses]

Sometimes, when you're alone in the woods late at night, listening to coast to coast speculations or stories about wrestling with Bigfoot can be like a crack cocaine kind of paranormal high. I think we also listen for different reasons,

+ 1 couldn't agree more...

 

[flipper]

I take your point - the science was done and dusted in the first 20 minutes. We would have appreciated more. Whether it was the host or the guests fault that the interview got a bit loose doesn't really matter.

I also have some sympathy for researchers who spend their professional lives banging their heads against the walls of the establishment. Most of us don't have the patience or the will so we make our living in a more prosaic way. Brandenburg sounded like a guy to me on the edge. He has my respect for even going there. Couldn't be easy.

Well said, I agree with all that you have said here. I would add that it takes a lot of courage to speak truth to power and we should hold those who do, like Dr Brandenburg, dear and high. I do agree that it must have taken its toll. It was very frustrating for me because there was so much there to talk about both his personal life and scientific. I wish him well.

 

[flipper]

If reputable scientists can argue as truthers for 9-11 then even ex-plasma physicists can construct their own conspiracy theories farther afield. .

Only the science that we agree with is good science.

 

[frankie_d]

Dr. Brandenburg is a fun-loving guy and all, but did he really make a case that, ages ago, some evil alien race offed a Martian race with nukes?

Your thoughts are welcomed.

I enjoyed some of the information presented by Dr Brandenburg , and from things said by Gene and Chris it was clear he had made some interesting speculations regarding oceans on Mars that had been upheld later by other researchers.
However it disturbed me that Brandenburg, as a scientist, could suggest that orbiting Mars would be safer than orbiting earth as astronauts wouldn't have to contend with the danger of the van Allen belts.
To my understanding this is a serious misrepresentation of Earth's magnetic field, giving protection to astronauts in low earth orbit , above which exposure to coronal mass ejection and other radiations is a massive factor higher.
He casually discusses sending astronauts to Mars without mentioning the need for large amounts of heavy shielding from these deadly radiations also.

When it comes to the ET question we are asked to rely on second hand witness testimony that is unavailable due to national security oaths taken by the alleged whistle blowers that posits a scenario strangely similar to the Dulce underground bases stories.

Some of Dr Brandenburg's statements reminded me of Hoagland's dogmatic house of cards, where unsupported facts become the cornerstone of other proofs.

His identification with the original Star Trek TV show as a blueprint for human space endeavours seemed naïve and again misplaced.

I think it is good to have more speculative researchers on the Paracast but as always, extravagant claims require rigorous proofs. I felt that Gene and Chris guided the discussion as best they could without being overbearing , reigning in Dr Brandenburg's indulgent digressions compassionately.

It seemed strange also in Dr Brandenburg's narrative that a civilization capable of destroying a planet thousands of years ago would still only have that level of technology, and we would be able to defend our planet with existing weapons against this just more advanced foe.

Maybe the commanders of his Star Trek/Imperial Fleet would be buxom she barbarians with large sexual appetites too and they would take him as their prisoner...

Thanks for all your work guys ,
long time listener ,1st time writer.
Frankie_d


ps Chris, Your book 'Stalking the Herd' is amazingly thorough,thanks.