• 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!

"It's faked!" Something that burns my tail - a discussion about skepticism.

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Ron Collins said:
I find it extremely unlikely that either was the source light that could have drawn these men out into the woods in the first place. To me that explanation is a serious stretch
Click to expand...

Ludicrous is more like it. It's not as if these highly trained men, on duty guarding nukes, had just been parachuted into the area. The lighthouse promo is typical of an explanation almost as outlandish as flying alien craft.

Maybe someone with military experience can help me out here. But I'm assuming these guys had been screened for psych stability and trained to react to unusual situations with steady nerves. I'm going to give them every benefit of the doubt and assume they were straight, sober, and in a serious state of mind. We're not talking High School teenagers in the woods with flashlights and herbs. Gimme a break.
 
boomerang said:
Ufo incidents have a way of becoming all about the people who experience them. Rendlesham is prime example.
...

It's another "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" hall of mirrors. Both strange and compelling.
Click to expand...

UFO events, especially the cases with longevity, fame or the power to capture the imagination, seem to have three phases: the actual event (which will remain hidden), the recounting of the narrative over time by the personalities, both witnesses and researchers involved (these shift and weave in out of each other's extrapolations) and then the final aftermath (where a more refined reality is revealed).

Rendlesham, like Roswell, Betty and Barney and Travis are all perplexing events yet to be distilled into their final aftermath. One consistency of some of the other known stories, photos, and tales of abduction are that they eventually seem to dissolve into the realm of hoax, confabulation and/or misinterpretation.

Perhaps the hall of mirrors is because there is a writer like Jose Chung involved, maybe not at the centre of it all but because so many personalities have a hand in interpreting the original event? Can there ever be clarity in the broth with so many cooks in the kitchen?

Perhaps, like in Jose Chung's return engagement on Millennium, we need to "shoot the messenger" so to speak and just stick to the primary source; let that be enough.
 
Whatever you guys were saying about Neil Degrass Tyson, ask yourself this for a moment. My area of expertise is in astrophysics should I be giving lectures and professional opinions on Flying Saucers?
Or I'm a meteorologist by profession, should I give my professional opinion on aviation aerodynamics and jet craft?
You decide. The fact that this was entertained just means no one is taking it seriously. Period.

On that note.

The Reality is that this phenomenon cannot be subjected to the "Scientific Method" on our terms because we don't have control over the objects that are actually craft. This is not a Lab experiment for Chemists. This is a social experiment and we have to learn how to communicate with these things on their terms. Until we figure it out nothing will change, this back and forth will never end. And stupid lights in the sky could be filmed on every camera on earth and still the official community would just shrug and the new age community would get excited for nothing. I don't know what else to say.
 
I posted that clip somewhere - Jacobs comes of looking like a total dick. He doesn't like what Bill Nye has to say because it's different from what he thinks UFOs are, so he resorts to making fun of Bill. Classy!
 
I Agree with the General Angelo in that Bill Nye brings up the subject of spaceships and aliens when none of the guests had. It's an underhand tactic employed by debunkers. If there is truly nothing to the UFO mystery, there is absolutely no reason for scientists to employ underhand tactics in a public arena.
 
I heard it as he implies we (humans) don't have it, but as you know, there are multiple theories and the point is, he clearly does not say anything about ET coming from another planet in a spaceship, it's Bill Nye who goes there, and conveniently doesn't offer an explanation himself. How this interview is read is just gonna come down to where anyone stands on the whole UFO topic.
 
Goggs Mackay said:
I heard it as he implies we (humans) don't have it, but as you know, there are multiple theories and the point is, he clearly does not say anything about ET coming from another planet in a spaceship, it's Bill Nye who goes there, and conveniently doesn't offer an explanation himself. How this interview is read is just gonna come down to where anyone stands on the whole UFO topic.
Click to expand...

Human's don't have it, that's what he says. So regardless of whether he means aliens or not, he's saying it's not human technology. Bill Nye does not offer an explanation because there isn't one, which is correct. And if he would have, I am quite certain that most people like Jacobs would have decried, "DEBUNKER!!!!" because that's the game.

I'll stick to the "I don't know" because if I attempt to use a mundane explanation I'll be labeled an evil debunker, and I can't say that it's non-human because there really is no evidence for that. Remember, no matter how unlikely a mundane explanation is, it is more likely than something that there is no proof for ever happening. People have mis-identified aerial objects, we know that for a fact. We do no know for a fact that non-human technology is flying through the air.
 
General Misconception said:
"Are you going to do this with baking soda and vinegar Bill?" ~ 7:22
LOVE IT. Lol
Click to expand...

Funny enough, right before that at 7:18 is where he says, "tell me who had that...Not us and not the Russians, and nobody I know of." So you obviously heard it. And then to top it all off, Jacobs is a disrespectful jerk - where was Bill Nye ever rude in that clip. Even if you agree with Jacobs, you have to see that he was being a dick.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Funny enough, right before that at 7:18 is where he says, "tell me who had that...Not us and not the Russians, and nobody I know of." So you obviously heard it.

Human's don't have it, that's what he says. So regardless of whether he means aliens or not, he's saying it's not human technology. Bill Nye does not offer an explanation because there isn't one, which is correct. And if he would have, I am quite certain that most people like Jacobs would have decried, "DEBUNKER!!!!" because that's the game.

I'll stick to the "I don't know" because if I attempt to use a mundane explanation I'll be labeled an evil debunker
Click to expand...


I heard that, I also hear you assuming that alien means non human.
I think that he was trying to say the same thing you are, he is basically just trying to say "I just don't know".
In my opinion that is the most reasonable position to take.

For you to say "I just don't know", then feel that Jacobs is being a jerk by getting bothered about being challenged on this exact same stance to the point where he feels that he has to defend the position by pointing out blatently that what he saw was not a craft that he knows of that the US or Russia could produce with the technology of the time is not him being a jerk. He was going to get Trolled into that conversation from square one by Bill Nye (4:33 - 4:36 he said "that doesn't mean they were A... That's quite a leap" he almost said alien) already had the intent to drag the conversation down the "alien" path.

Then he tries to come up with an explanation that (8:24) that the technology to reproduce images like this on film in that year did exist (sure they absolutely did). As if the military had hoaxed it during a missile launch training exercise. Try and explain that line of thought with logic without making some leaps of your own. It may be mundane but you will have to fabricate a hell of an explanation to put that on the table as a legitimate possibility.

I agree with you too though. I am much more comfortable saying "I just don't know" because I am a skeptic too, I have to be. But the fact that these things exist cannot be unlearned once you see one, so we just have to respect each others perspective. We all get defensive when our world views are challenged but that's part of learning. If you called me a liar for seeing a flying saucer I would think you were kind of a jerk too then my reaction would be to defend my position. but without your own proof you have nothing to go on, but we might get there one day people like me are trying our best to get people like you the proof you need. we arent satisfied with just telling storys. It is so frustrating to have had an experience but not have anyone to share it with, and in some ways I envy you for not having had that occasion.

Being skeptical is good and having an open mind is good, but we need to balance them. Too much of one or the other and things get silly.
 
While it's clear he knows little about UFOs, Neil deGrasse Tyson has over the years voiced his "expert" opinion that there is little chance there is anything to UFOs. I can't say I've ever been overly impressed with deGrasse Tyson, particularly when compared to other science popularizers such as Brian Greene, Sean Carroll, Michio Kaku and Mattew O'Dowd. I've seen times when Neil clearly didn't have a deep understanding of what he was "authoritatively" talking about. When someone then questions him or points out his inaccuracies, I've seen him use the technique of talking over the person and not letting them get a word in.

Last week deGrasse Tyson was on the Bill Maher show Real Time. When Maher brought up the topic of Putin possibly using tactical nukes in Ukraine, Neil went off on a stunning rant claiming hydrogen bombs don't produce radioactive fallout. He claimed that while atomic bombs use fission resulting in radioactive fallout, hydrogen bombs make use of fusion so they produce no fallout. Maher was dumbfounded by the claim. And while I don't agree with a lot of what Maher says, I was also dumbfounded. Even I knew that a hydrogen bomb has a fission bomb built into it to act as a trigger and produces at least as much radioactive fallout, if not more, than a fission bomb. And then there is also Neil's wild conclusion that tactical nukes are thermonuclear hydrogen bombs. It seems deGrasse Tyson knows almost as little about nuclear weapons as he does about UFOs, but similarly has no problem speaking "authoritatively" about them.

Here is a clip of Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Maher show (It's interesting that the people leaving comments on this video clearly know more about nuclear weapons than Neil does.)



An article on nuclear weapons:
Comparing the Hydrogen Bomb and the Atomic Bomb
 
Last edited:
The material used in a hydrogen bomb is radioactive.
The yield of a hydrogen bomb is controlled by the amounts of lithium deuteride and of additional fissionable materials. Uranium 238 is usually the material used in various parts of the bomb's design to supply additional neutrons for the fusion process. This additional fissionable material also produces a very high level of radioactive fallout.
I am aware there has been research looking at reducing the half life of Nukes so generals can justify lobbing them so they do not have to wait decades to claim the territory they used them on. Disappointed in Neil as he can convey an opinion in a believable way.
That research did not produce anything I was aware of in the 90's. What I did see is that conventional weapons became so accurate that blasting with nukes in the hope you would knock out a target was deemed archaic. There was even talk of registering conventional weapons and limiting their deployment so as to not upset the defensive balance. Basically being made to feel that if your enemy continued to allow the deployment of certain accurate weapon systems you would be forced to launch everything before your own forces were made impotent.
All nukes are radioactive and there use on the battlefield will be a step to far, is anyone here old enough to remember MacArthur wanting to use battlefield nukes in the Korean War?.
 
Last edited:
Well we are here with the Ukraine situation. Russians are talking on nukes.

Now, this is a quality ground for testing some of the UFO hypothesis, that they are here because they are worried of nuclear war stuff.
If the russians launch, will "they" stop it?

I'm more worried on false flag, as they did in 1939 for my country: Shelling of Mainila - Wikipedia . They do that all the time.

I'm curious, any UFO, foo fighter stories from the war?
 
Back
Top