• 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!

July 17th on Dark Matters Radio ...

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I'm sticking with my original answer, if it was Moseley, I think Gene would have gotten it, that is, if he's seen this thread today.
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
I must be an original cool kid. For almost 20 years I have been promoting the approach of exhausting all potential closed-system explanations for UFOs before we jump off planet and embrace the ETH hypothesis. Too many different types of craft have and are being reported. Too many different types of "aliens" are seen doing the same exact things decade after decade like they've never done them before, i.e., picking up rocks and flowers scooping up soil samples, allegedly using low-tech medical procedures on abductees, etc. This doesn't add up IMO. Sure, there is a possibility that these beings are from off-planet, I would never rule this out, but I personally don't think so. I agree w/ Vallee, Keel and McKenna: "there may be another tenant in the building."
Click to expand...

Great post and very diplomatically stated. However, I think it really does not go to my point. Recently many UFO researches (some of which I named) are repeatedly knocking the ETH as this terrible and incoherent hypothesis and acting as if anyone who entertains it is off their rocker. In reality these very same people, for over twenty years, did just that.....entertain the ETH. Now it may be a case of, after long research, they came to the conclusion that the theory is far too limited to explain everything (yada yada yada). Great, I am with you there, but then don't turn around and go on the radio and and ridicule the hypnosis as something only a dunce would believe in, mock Stanton Friedman as that whacko who holds up blacked out papers, or laugh at legitimate attempts to investigate that side of the phenomina. For example, Norio was on DMR saying conclusively 100 percent there is no evidence that any craft has ever visited this planet. He said it so matter of fact. This make me wonder what the hell was so compelling about Lazar, Area 51, and the thousands of UFO conferences etc he attended. What the hell was he investigating then? Demons? Why did he feel the need to look into the claims of back engineering a structured craft if he knew there was no evidence of such a thing. Why move to Dulce? Why if he held the "Ultra-Dimensional" theory since 1970! would he even go down that road.

It just bothers me when the same people who were compelled enough to research, write about, and defend something for a great part of their life can turn around and dismiss all of it, ridicule those who do, and act as if they themselves didn't waste half their life doing the very same thing they are getting their panties all bunched up over.
 
withoutlimits09 said:
Great post and very diplomatically stated. However, I think it really does not go to my point. Recently many UFO researches (some of which I named) are repeatedly knocking the ETH as this terrible and incoherent hypothesis and acting as if anyone who entertains it is off their rocker. In reality these very same people, for over twenty years, did just that.....entertain the ETH. Now it may be a case of, after long research, they came to the conclusion that the theory is far too limited to explain everything (yada yada yada). Great, I am with you there, but then don't turn around and go on the radio and and ridicule the hypnosis as something only a dunce would believe in, mock Stanton Friedman as that whacko who holds up blacked out papers, or laugh at legitimate attempts to investigate that side of the phenomina. For example, Norio was on DMR saying conclusively 100 percent there is no evidence that any craft has ever visited this planet. He said it so matter of fact. This make me wonder what the hell was so compelling about Lazar, Area 51, and the thousands of UFO conferences etc he attended. What the hell was he investigating then? Demons? Why did he feel the need to look into the claims of back engineering a structured craft if he knew there was no evidence of such a thing. Why move to Dulce? Why if he held the "Ultra-Dimensional" theory since 1970! would he even go down that road.

It just bothers me when the same people who were compelled enough to research, write about, and defend something for a great part of their life can turn around and dismiss all of it, ridicule those who do, and act as if they themselves didn't waste half their life doing the very same thing they are getting their panties all bunched up over.
Click to expand...

My daughter loved boy bands and Brittany when she was twelve. By age fifteen she couldn't stand either one, and rolled her eyes whenever they were brought up. It wasn't enough to like her new music, she had to distance herself from her 'old' self that liked the other music. Funny, yesterday she was telling me what a kick she gets out of the old music now, so I guess she has found a place where she embraces her younger self as a loved part of her now older self (19). You can't 'unwalk' the journey, but sometimes we talk and act as if we could. Stuff I wore in the early seventies makes me wonder how I ever embraced that look. Sound familiar to anyone out there? I, like Chris and others may have started with an ETH assumption, but our walk took us to new vistas to consider and incorporate into our speculating. One need not reject the ETH hypothesis, it's just that at the moment, it seems less likely than it used to. Either way it's speculation at this point-and could be both, plus some. I have learned a lot more about myself than the phenomena on this walk, and in the end, that may be all that I get from the walk, who knows?
 
bbridges said:
My daughter loved boy bands and Brittany when she was twelve. By age fifteen she couldn't stand either one, and rolled her eyes whenever they were brought up. It wasn't enough to like her new music, she had to distance herself from her 'old' self that liked the other music. Funny, yesterday she was telling me what a kick she gets out of the old music now, so I guess she has found a place where she embraces her younger self as a loved part of her now older self (19). You can't 'unwalk' the journey, but sometimes we talk and act as if we could. Stuff I wore in the early seventies makes me wonder how I ever embraced that look. Sound familiar to anyone out there? I, like Chris and others may have started with an ETH assumption, but our walk took us to new vistas to consider and incorporate into our speculating. One need not reject the ETH hypothesis, it's just that at the moment, it seems less likely than it used to. Either way it's speculation at this point-and could be both, plus some. I have learned a lot more about myself than the phenomena on this walk, and in the end, that may be all that I get from the walk, who knows?
Click to expand...

Well said Rich. For me, in this field, heck in life in general its mostly question, precious few answers, we change our theories at different times and we enjoy the journey along the way.
 
Again, I don't have a problem with people changing their theories or amending it over years of careful and studious research. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of doing something for a long time, then once it loses popularity, quickly jumping on a particular bandwagon and acting like the previous time in your life never happened. To use Bill Bridges example, it is one thing that his daughter out grew the music and simply moved on to something else, however it would be another thing if she maintained that, not only did she not like that music, but she never listened to in the first place and can't understand why anyone ever would! Moreover, it goes beyond that, many of these people are not just fans of the subject. Rather, many of them have actually shaped the landscape of this very subject. So a more reasonable example would be the producer or the manager of the boy band, who after 15 years, comes forward and disses the whole genre, dismisses those who listen to it, and then says anyone who works in the industry has to be crazy. To treat the subject matter like it is fashion or pop music is precisely the problem I have with the field!

Personally, I do not put a big emphasis on the whole ETH theory myself, so I am not some crying diehard who is offended by those who don't share my worldview. I have called in countless time to DMR and expressed my skepticism of "windows" and "port holes" on these supposed UFO crafts or the alien " water pipes" on that supposedly exist on the moon. To me this is just too primitive. A intelligence that can travel the star systems and defy gravity probably don't need cheesy little windows to look outside.
 
withoutlimits09 said:
Great post and very diplomatically stated. However, I think it really does not go to my point. Recently many UFO researches (some of which I named) are repeatedly knocking the ETH as this terrible and incoherent hypothesis and acting as if anyone who entertains it is off their rocker. In reality these very same people, for over twenty years, did just that.....entertain the ETH. Now it may be a case of, after long research, they came to the conclusion that the theory is far too limited to explain everything (yada yada yada). Great, I am with you there, but then don't turn around and go on the radio and and ridicule the hypnosis as something only a dunce would believe in, mock Stanton Friedman as that whacko who holds up blacked out papers, or laugh at legitimate attempts to investigate that side of the phenomina. For example, Norio was on DMR saying conclusively 100 percent there is no evidence that any craft has ever visited this planet. He said it so matter of fact. This make me wonder what the hell was so compelling about Lazar, Area 51, and the thousands of UFO conferences etc he attended. What the hell was he investigating then? Demons? Why did he feel the need to look into the claims of back engineering a structured craft if he knew there was no evidence of such a thing. Why move to Dulce? Why if he held the "Ultra-Dimensional" theory since 1970! would he even go down that road.

It just bothers me when the same people who were compelled enough to research, write about, and defend something for a great part of their life can turn around and dismiss all of it, ridicule those who do, and act as if they themselves didn't waste half their life doing the very same thing they are getting their panties all bunched up over.
Click to expand...


How many times has Jim Moseley changed his views too? There is something to be said for owning up to something you now don't believe in but at the same time there is something to be said for sticking to your guns!
Perhaps people who were previously ETH supporters are like ex-smokers - they feel the need to convince everyone else they should abandon the ETH.

I've always thought there could be several totally independent things going on, ETH plus secret military craft plus inter-dimensional plus trickster etc. As Chris said, it is hard to envisage one race of aliens being responsible for all the different reported types of craft and being.
Actually, a kind of trickster explanation could cover the whole lot, a la' Skinwalker Ranch?
 
Its no problem Don ,I listen to every episode anyways and its only the occasional show that I dont reconize the guest.Was just curious thanks for letting me know.
 
Back
Top