George Knapp - March 15

[Tommy Allison]

That has no bearing on Jesse's memory, which WAS your original point. If someone lies to me and I remember it then it's still an accurate memory even though the information was false. You've moved the goal post from junior to senior now.



See, this is what's wrong with the paranormal field. If you're going to just keep it to yourself, why even bring it up?

First off, If Jesse Marcel's Dad told him a lie, and Jesse Jr.'s perspective was tainted, and then he kept parroting a lie his father told him, it makes that memory FALSE. Oh sure, it's a real memory, but it's utter bullshit. Especially when Jesse Marcel Sr. might have been used without his knowing it, to spread a lie around. Kind of like that whole print a story, then retract it thing.

You tell me that I'm what's wrong with the paranormal field. Uh Huh... Right. There's enough people out there who don't think for themselves. Then there's the other side of the coin.

Because if I explain it all away, then I look like a Debunker, and of course we see how that turns out. What is wrong with this field, is that ANY changes in thought is met with such avarice, that no truth is even possible. My view is significantly different about Roswell, because I have looked at it from a NON-ET perspective. Just like I don't believe the Kenneth Arnold Story was Extra-Terrestrial.

Humans are great roadblocks to truth. Especially when there's a profit motive.

 

[CapnG]

Oh sure, it's a real memory, but it's utter bullshit.

Then the question needs to be not "Does he remember it accurately?" but "Is what he remembers the truth?" Those are two totally seperate questions with vastly different implications.

You tell me that I'm what's wrong with the paranormal field. Uh Huh... Right. There's enough people out there who don't think for themselves.

Not you personally Tommy but the "I know something you don't know" attitude. That shit belongs on the playground with the other fifth graders. If you've got a theory and you keep it to yourself, then what good is it? Keeping your cards to your chest means all we have is whatever already exists, which in the case of Roswell is practically NOTHING of value.

Because if I explain it all away, then I look like a Debunker, and of course we see how that turns out. What is wrong with this field, is that ANY changes in thought is met with such avarice, that no truth is even possible. My view is significantly different about Roswell, because I have looked at it from a NON-ET perspective.

Fair enough. But you could still be wrong. Your certainty in your own conclusion bears no correlation to it's actual likelyhood. I would suggest however that you're being a bit closed-minded, after all this isn't the C2C forum, it's the PARACAST forum. Those of us who come here listen to Gene and David for a reason. If your argument is strong enough you may even win a few converts.

 

[Stillborn]

Dr. Paul Hill, a NASA engineer, wrote what is considered one of the best books in the field called Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis. It was suppressed by NASA and published after he died. It's about trying to reverse-engineer, if you will, the UFO's propulsion system based partially his own UFO sightings.

That's the first book that came to my mind when making a previous reply of mine. Paul Hill's name slipped my mind at the time though, for some reason James McDonald kept popping up, but that wasn't who I was trying to think of. Thanks for chiming in with the details that escaped me.

 

[Stillborn]

Oh sure, something happened, but it wasn't ET's.

If the American People were to find out that after World War II, we were flying around in captured Nazi airplanes, like the ME-262, which is nearly identical to what Kenneth Arnold saw, there would have been some explaining to do.

There were no flying saucers at Roswell, nor were there any alien bodies.

It's all a joke.

I don't know what happened at Roswell. Er, near it. I've tried. No theories to my knowledge have been proven to my satisfaction. The day you care about money, write a book on your theory, then stop caring about money again, then send the money you make off it to me Thanks.

 

[Schuyler]

To even equate me to Kal Korff goes far beyond the pale.

I'm sorry. You're right. I was trying to be gentle and not point out the differences in such an obvious manner. Kal Korff actually did some research, came to conclusions, cited his references, wrote a book, and published it. There is no question you're not in the same category. Korff, for the record, also did some fine research exposing Billy Meier.

You, on the other hand, after a strange meeting with a disappearing character, have come to some sort of an epiphany regarding Roswell and loudly proclaimed your opinion that it is fraudulent, dismissing all evidence from whatever source without any proof whatsoever, and actually, amazingly, mind-bogglingly, called the 1897 Aurora, Texas a superior case.

To those of us who have known and even admired your many posts over the last two years or so, this sounds like a sudden religious conversion. The Disinformation Agents made a convert. Don't misunderstand my point I think there is a case to be made in what you are saying, but you're not making it. By any objective measurement, Korff did a better job. I know full well that Korff stepped off the insanity cliff a few years ago, but not before doing some good work. Who knows what happened to him. Maybe he was neuralized.

You can run around, scream and shout with your hands waving in the air saying "This is all bull shit! This is all bull shit!" all you want, of course. But how does that contribute substantively to the discussion? It;s been said before. It reminds me of Phil Klass: "It's all plasma! It's all plasma!" I have a lot more faith in the well-reasoned, calm, and even phlegmatic words of Marcel, Jr. describing what he personally saw and examined than I do strident, but empty denials.

What I have noticed (and this goes beyond today's discussion) is that naysayers for Roswell and other incidents, when they cannot dismiss the evidence, however anecdotal, that is provided, will go after the person instead of the incident. We have ample testimony from experiencers here what has happened to them. They are the subject of character assassination. Anything they ever said that was the least bit wrong is brought forth as 'evidence' that they are lying. Marcel, Sr., for example, exaggerated his war record, THEREFORE, we say, he lied about Roswell. Glen Dennis, in a misguided attempt to protect someone he cared for, didn't give her real name, THEREFORE everything else he said about Roswell is completely dismissed.

I guarantee you if Marcel, Jr. had yelled at his neighbor to get off the lawn in 1962, we'd all know about it. We'd have the tearful neighbor's testimony that it ruined her life and it would be corraborated by the neigborhood's golden retriever, as stalwart a witness as there ever was. And THEREFORE we'd know, without a doubt, that Marcell, Jr.'s testimony was suspicious, at best, and he probably lied.

 

[dhatz]

A smooth show with a media-savvy guest.

IMHO the fault of GK is that he did not dennounce and reject the Lazar story long ago. It comes second only to Ray Santilli's infamous "Alien Autopsy" video, in terms of muddying the Ufological waters... (I can speak from personal experience that in previous years I gave up trying to learn more about UFOs because of it)

WRT Bigelow fin. support of MUFON is a positive development. However it's just a 6-mo pilot and tthat this might lead to insights on the technology behind UFOs, I'd agree with DB that the possibility is close to zero. I think they'd learn more with an instrumental monitoring program of alleged hotspots like CPTR's "Marley Woods" (with a setup like Hessdalen).

As for DB's interpretion of the lack of sonic boom as the UFO "not being fully material" / "solid" when it's moving at high speed ... citing the O'Hare case and his own experience, as I've said many times in the past, have a look at the ideas offered by Paul Hill

 

[Stillborn]

A smooth show with a media-savvy guest.

IMHO the fault of GK is that he did not dennounce and reject the Lazar story long ago. It comes second only to Ray Santilli's infamous "Alien Autopsy" video, in terms of muddying the Ufological waters... (I can speak from personal experience that in previous years I gave up trying to learn more about UFOs because of it)

WRT Bigelow fin. support of MUFON is a positive development. However it's just a 6-mo pilot and tthat this might lead to insights on the technology behind UFOs, I'd agree with DB that the possibility is close to zero. I think they'd learn more with an instrumental monitoring program of alleged hotspots like CPTR's "Marley Woods" (with a setup like Hessdalen).

As for DB's interpretion of the lack of sonic boom as the UFO "not being fully material" / "solid" when it's moving at high speed ... citing the O'Hare case and his own experience, as I've said many times in the past, have a look at the ideas offered by Paul Hill

Stanton Friedman also deals with lack of sonic booms in at least a couple of his vids. Flying Saucers are Real 1 and 2. I think you can youtube parts of these great vids, or the whole thing. Assuming they haven't been pulled recently. I bought them from Stan years ago, but saw them at Youtube before.

I tried finishing up the Knapp interview today, but my browser locked up and the pc I was working on takes forever to restart. So, only listened to around half the show so far. Liked what I've heard. George is one of my favorite investigators.

 

[dhatz]

The problem is that Stanton Friedman's idea about UFO propulsion are based on "Magneto[Aero/Hydro]Dynamics" which doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

Have a look at UFO technical overview section #7 on propulsion.

 

[Stillborn]

The problem is that Stanton Friedman's idea about UFO propulsion are based on "Magneto[Aero/Hydro]Dynamics" which doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

Have a look at UFO technical overview section #7 on propulsion.

I'm no expert on those matters, but it seemed to fit to me. Haven't checked out the link yet but thanks for posting it.

I want to also mention a possible correction. I think Stan might only go into the possible propulsion system in one of the Flying Saucers are Real vids, not both. I think it's the first one.

 

[Gen]

Okay, we've gone 11 or 12 pages and no one has mentioned "our" alien's supposed resemblance to Ross Perot. And apparently he's no good at telepathy, either.

Do you guys have any thoughts about this revelation or did you repress the memory?

 

[Stillborn]

Okay, we've gone 11 or 12 pages and no one has mentioned "our" alien's supposed resemblance to Ross Perot. And apparently he's no good at telepathy, either.

Do you guys have any thoughts about this revelation or did you repress the memory?

I was troubled by the big ear comment. I only know of one or two cases where beings have big ears. I don't recall the telepathy comment.

 

[Gen]

I was troubled by the big ear comment. I only know of one or two cases where beings have big ears. I don't recall the telepathy comment.

The big ears thing sounded to me like someone was pulling his leg. The odds of an alien being happening to resemble a then-popular politician with eccentric, frequently caricatured features -- those odds seem like they'd be low. That sounds more like a joke to me.

I don't think he mentioned telepathy directly, but he said that it took a long time before we were able to communicate with the creature.

 

[Gen]

 

[David Biedny]

Gen,
That is sick, sick, sick.



dB

 

[Schuyler]

Gen,
That is sick, sick, sick.



dB

No shit. I had a physical reaction when that picture popped up.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Hey Schyster.

I didn't have an epiphany. I have maintained that Roswell was not about aliens, a LONG time before my chance encounter at the coffee shop.

You're just mad because I don't agree with your bullshit, and you're twisting my words so you can look better.

You're intellectually dishonest, and you're angry that I won't give you all the answers, which makes you a fucking lazy hack.

 

[Gen]

Found this online. It might help?

Children With Oppositional Defiant Disorder

All children are oppositional from time to time, particularly when tired, hungry, stressed or upset. They may argue, talk back, disobey, and defy parents, teachers, and other adults. Oppositional behavior is often a normal part of development for two to three year olds and early adolescents. However, openly uncooperative and hostile behavior becomes a serious concern when it is so frequent and consistent that it stands out when compared with other children of the same age and developmental level and when it affects the child's social, family, and academic life.


In children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), there is an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with the youngster's day to day functioning. Symptoms of ODD may include:

• frequent temper tantrums
• excessive arguing with adults
• active defiance and refusal to comply with adult requests and rules
• deliberate attempts to annoy or upset people
• blaming others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
• often being touchy or easily annoyed by others
• frequent anger and resentment
• mean and hateful talking when upset
• seeking revenge

 

[David Biedny]

Hey Schyster.

I didn't have an epiphany. I have maintained that Roswell was not about aliens, a LONG time before my chance encounter at the coffee shop.

You're just mad because I don't agree with your bullshit, and you're twisting my words so you can look better.

You're intellectually dishonest, and you're angry that I won't give you all the answers, which makes you a fucking lazy hack.

Tommy, I gotta tell you, if Schuyler is a "lazy hack" and "intellectually dishonest", I'm a Fundamentalist Born-Again Chicken with metallic wings. Schuyler is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, insightful and fairest people I've ever encountered, and I'm sad that you've taken such offense from his words. You would do well to listen to what he's saying/typing, he's all about clarity and integrity, IMO.

dB

 

[Schuyler]

I love it when you call me names, Tommy! It displays a certain level of intellectual achievement and integrity for all to see. Kind of reminds me of Bassett going ape shit on the Paracast. If you don't get your way, scream and shout, and in the absence of evidence or the law favoring your position, pound on the table. I'm not convinced you have any idea what you are talking about when you throw around terms such as 'intellectual dishonesty.' I don't think you understand what the term means.

It may be, as Gene and David have expressed on the show, that Roswell is so far away and clouded in mythology and disinformation that there may be no way we CAN know what really happened. I think that is a supportable position. (That's the exact same conclusion that Dr. Albert Schweitzer said about Jesus, btw. He was a well-regarded theologian before he took to the jungle to fight army ants.) It may also be that Roswell WAS a Mogul balloon. The Air Force says it was, and so does the pre-insanity Korff. In each case, you can read the material and follow the references. They both have arguments supported by references which can be scrutinized and assessed for accuracy. I don't happen to agree with their conclusions, but it still a supportable position. It's logically possible.

Just calling it all bullshit, however, is not so much a supportable position, but simply an opinion. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it puts you in the 'it's all bullshit' camp where you have staked a position. We all know that now. Thanks for sharing. But we've heard it all before. The 'it's all bullshit' camp existed before you got there. You didn't create it; you joined it. It might have been interesting to see how you got there with the 'MIB-like' conversation you related, but it's not a great loss that we don't have more data there, particularly now that you're jumping up and down and screaming obscenities.

The thing is, when you join a camp, whether it's the 'it's all bullshit' camp or the "I know it's space aliens from Zeta Reticulli" camp, you take yourself out of the running for contributing to the discussion. You're 'convinced,' and at that point data no longer matters to you nor are you contributing any. You become part of the noise instead of part of the signal.

What I am really interested in with regards to Roswell, but also other incidents, is the methods by which we admit or exclude evidence. What does it take for a piece of evidence to be accepted? What does it take to impugn the testimony of a witness? What is the level of contamination we will accept before a given piece of evidence is unusable? We can use the rules of logic in this analysis, and perhaps the rules of legality, and we can argue over how to apply them. This is not of interest to people who have already staked a position and are now running solely on opinion, nor are these opinions of interest to the discussion. They do not advance it forward. I am interested in how people feel we should do this, but perhaps this is fodder for another thread.

Children do not come with an instruction manual, and unless you have some special parenting gene, it can be a trial and error struggle to know what to do until you've gained some experience. The best advice I have ever heard, however, both from a veternarian with regards to a neurotic cat chewing its own tail to a pediatrician and child psychologist with regards to children throwing a temper tantrum, is to just walk away and leave the room.

 

[Apocalypto]

Great show. Thank you. I've always liked George Knapp. He's a level-headed, intelligent fellow and he does the UFO reporting field justice. He's a good guest for you fellows.

As always, very good discussions. My brain likes your show.

Oh, I'm definitely up for one of those t-shirts (1 for me and one for my beautiful wife, even though she has no idea why I'm so interested in UFOs and such.) The design is very good, and I like the fact that you kept the shirt white. It's great for the hot summer sun. Will there be a mass sighting this June? Who knows? Who knows? :

Take care Mr. Steinberg and Mr. Biedny. Looking forward to spinning tonight's show.

Yours not in Bones, but in Life,
Apocalypto