June 14 Show

[Gene Steinberg]

I think it's simple Gene - those APRO files aren't going anywhere, and there isn't much that anyone can do about it.

Paul

No, but maybe we can persuade those who own those file cabinets to allow independent researchers, under their inspection of course, to examine the contents. There's loads of good stuff there, based on the well-known reports from APRO in the 1960s and 1970s.

Then again maybe nobody feels there's any reason to be curious about that material. As you say, they aren't going anywhere — I hope.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Well, like a few others mentioned here, I stopped listening around the half-way mark if that. I just couldn't stomach the stuff, myself. My BS-ometer was off the scale. I've heard the "Every story must be told" line a few times since starting into the paranormal a few years back, and somewhat agree, but the line of demarcation needs to be a lot more solid. People need to solidly state that "this is entertainment" and "that is genuine research with merit and credibility." We should be able to "show" but still clearly "separate."

As far as APRO, it looks like I'll need to skip to the end of the episode to hone up on this organization and it's files. I'm assuming it was a private endeavor, not federal? If so, do we know where the files are and who holds the keys?

 

[Will Penguin]

Well, like a few others mentioned here, I stopped listening around the half-way mark if that. I just couldn't stomach the stuff, myself. My BS-ometer was off the scale. I've heard the "Every story must be told" line a few times since starting into the paranormal a few years back, and somewhat agree, but the line of demarcation needs to be a lot more solid. People need to solidly state that "this is entertainment" and "that is genuine research with merit and credibility." We should be able to "show" but still clearly "separate."

I don't really get your this. I mean, just because something doesn't have ten eye-witnesses and hi-def video doesn't mean it just "entertainment". Some events are very well documented, some only somewhat so, others are just anecdotal, and still others are probable hoaxes. Even if something is just anecdotal it might be both interesting and useful.

I didn't have any trouble taking away from the interview that the guest's approach was to cast a wide net and collect a lot of cases. The Paracast has a smart audience; I really don't feel like Rosales needs to make a caveat every two minutes about how some of the cases he collects might be strong and some might not be so.

I consider myself a skeptical thinker and I'm as much for careful, critical analysis of these cases as anyone, but I feel like some folks here are so fixated on "demanding proof"that it borders on the myopic. Yes, we need to be sensible about how much stock we hold in cases with little documentation, but there's a place for just collecting accounts too.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Part of the problem with many UFO cases is that people won't accept them without photos that pass the "Photoshop" test, multiple witnesses and perhaps radar confirmation. Unfortunately, a large portion of these cases involve one or two eyewitnesses, which makes them no less authentic. But, without intense investigation — which isn't always possible, particularly with older cases — they have to be regarded as anecdotal. Perhaps they are part of the whole picture, but not necessarily proof of anything.

Dismissing them out of hand, however, is not always a good idea.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't really get your this. I mean, just because something doesn't have ten eye-witnesses and hi-def video doesn't mean it just "entertainment". Some events are very well documented, some only somewhat so, others are just anecdotal, and still others are probable hoaxes. Even if something is just anecdotal it might be both interesting and useful.

I didn't have any trouble taking away from the interview that the guest's approach was to cast a wide net and collect a lot of cases. The Paracast has a smart audience; I really don't feel like Rosales needs to make a caveat every two minutes about how some of the cases he collects might be strong and some might not be so.

I consider myself a skeptical thinker and I'm as much for careful, critical analysis of these cases as anyone, but I feel like some folks here are so fixated on "demanding proof"that it borders on the myopic. Yes, we need to be sensible about how much stock we hold in cases with little documentation, but there's a place for just collecting accounts too.

I have to disagree - you can't just say stuff, which is basically what he was doing. That isn't really useful. I have trouble considering stories that are second and third hand. I also have trouble when the investigator only considers paranormal explanations and ignores more likely causes. The one that stood out to me was the woman that said she saw the devil in her back yard. Chances are high that it was not the devil. It could have been bigfoot or a yeti!

 

[Will Penguin]

I have to disagree - you can't just say stuff, which is basically what he was doing. That isn't really useful. I have trouble considering stories that are second and third hand. I also have trouble when the investigator only considers paranormal explanations and ignores more likely causes. The one that stood out to me was the woman that said she saw the devil in her back yard. Chances are high that it was not the devil. It could have been bigfoot or a yeti!

I think it is useful to collect accounts like Rosales is. I don't thing everybody has to work the "proving/disproving stuff" angle. What Rosales is doing is useful because a) it gives investigators who want to look into fewer cases more deeply some depths to plumb b) the accounts might corroborate or otherwise shed light on other, more substantiated cases c) patterns or trends in these cases has anthropological value.

Also, I don't see where Rosales is "only considering paranormal explanations"- it seems like he's just letting the cases stand on their own merict and the witnesses words speak for themselves. He seems more an archivist than an investigator, and that's just fine with me. It takes all kinds.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think it is useful to collect accounts like Rosales is. I don't thing everybody has to work the "proving/disproving stuff" angle. What Rosales is doing is useful because a) it gives investigators who want to look into fewer cases more deeply some depths to plumb b) the accounts might corroborate or otherwise shed light on other, more substantiated cases c) patterns or trends in these cases has anthropological value.

Also, I don't see where Rosales is "only considering paranormal explanations"- it seems like he's just letting the cases stand on their own merict and the witnesses words speak for themselves. He seems more an archivist than an investigator, and that's just fine with me. It takes all kinds.

Maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying, but he comes off sounding like that's his angle. Especially since he had experiences during his childhood that he classifies as paranormal.

 

[Will Penguin]

Dismissing them out of hand, however, is not always a good idea.

Yep, if we dismissed everything in the UFO/paranormal field that didn't have extremely strong evidence, we wouldn't have that much to talk about.

If my friend came to me and started telling me he saw a giant black triangle hover over his house yesterday, I'm not going to cut him off and tell him it's "not interesting" unless he has video and radar data. I'm going to want to hear about it.

Some stuff just can't be proven or dis-proven, but its still interesting.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Yep, if we dismissed everything in the UFO/paranormal field that didn't have extremely strong evidence, we wouldn't have that much to talk about.

If my friend came to me and started telling me he saw a giant black triangle hover over his house yesterday, I'm not going to cut him off and tell him it's "not interesting" unless he has video and radar data. I'm going to want to hear about it.

Some stuff just can't be proven or dis-proven, but its still interesting.

I would hope, though, as this database is enhanced, the obvious hoaxes will be deleted. Those cases don't deserve any further attention.

 

[humanoid79]

Well I think I should defend myself a bit. In reference to Angel of Ioren first comments, the witness was struck by a beam of light from the UFO as he fired on the humanoids, I did not say he died two days later, but he had been completely healthy and became ill, to died later from a fulminating form of leukemia. In reference to the "Devil" in the lady's backyard, I personally spoke to the witness, I described the creature more like a Mothman trype humanoid, never a devil, she attributed as a sort of demonic manifestation. She was genuinely afraid. Here is a more compelling case and illustrates what might happen when you are struck by a beam of light from a "UFO" :

Location. Aracariguama, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

Sao Paolo</st1:City>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Brazil</st1:country-region>

Date: <st1:date w:st="on" Year="1946" Day="5" Month="3">March 5 1946</st1:date> Time: late night

Having just returned from a fishing expedition in the jungle, Joao Prestes Filho panicked as an unexplained yellow beam of light entered his home through the window and seemed to come straight for his head, he felt a burning sensation on his body and short beard. He ran straight to his sister’s house nearby. Although at first he showed no signs of being burnt, events soon took a horrifying turn. Soon, Preste’s flesh began to come away from his bones, falling in lumps from his jaw, his chest, his arms, his hands, his fingers, from the lower part of his legs, and from his feet and toes. Some scraps of flesh remained hanging to the tendons. Soon every part of Prestes had reached a stage of deterioration beyond imagination. His teeth and his bones stood revealed, utterly bare of flesh. Although his body was quite literally, falling apart, Prestes did not seem to feel any pain. After his nose and ears fell to the ground, he was dispatched to a hospital but died before he got there. Adding to the horror, it was claimed that, right up to the end, he made desperate guttural sounds. Strange lights had been seen in the area before, but there seemed to be no direct link between aliens or UFOs and the disintegrating beam of light. Ball lighting was also considered as an explanation, but the death certificate simply states that he died from “generalized burns”.
<O</O
Source: Nigel Watson, Fortean Times, UFOs The Satanic
Hypothesis, Mystery Files & Conspiracy Theory Guide. there are also other sources to numerous to name.



I generally dont do radio shows, since I am always busy in updating my cases and correcting and editing, translating them etc. I have talked in person to hundreds of witnesses and know when the story is BS or not (most to time) I am not perfect, but I try to work in a field which is still considered fringe and is roundly lambasted even by those who follow it closely.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'm glad that you decided to join the forum so that you can add your thoughts to the conversation. My main issue is that there seems to be a lack of general skepticism on your part, and I'll have to understand that not everyone is as critical as i am when I hear these types of stories. Without actual proof, they remain stories in my mind - entertaining stories none the less though.

Thanks for posting.

 

[trainedobserver]

I also have trouble when the investigator only considers paranormal explanations and ignores more likely causes.

Well there you go. You would think that looking for more probable prosaic explanations (applying Occum's Razor as it were) would be the natural inclination with anyone with any amount of experience, training, or background in investigation of ...well anything. You certainly don't troubleshoot electronics by pursuing the most complex, unverifiable, or least likely causes first, you eliminate the most simple and least complicated answers and work your way up. (Is the thing plugged in? If yes, is it turned on? ...and so forth) The same principle applies to any other type of investigation. And you would certainly think that anyone trained in any kind of police, FBI, counterintelligence, or similar work, would do such a thing as a matter of course yet there those making the rounds who allegedly have these backgrounds who seem to be unfamiliar with the principle. Of course ...if you're on a show discussing the 'paranormal' then 'paranormal' explanations may be thought to be expected. I don't know and don't pretend to.

 

[humanoid79]

Yes, maybe my skepticism is mostly directly to the ETH theory, but I do not discard it, not at all. I have been involved in some strange episodes personally, and I have written some of them down, but not all. I have discarded hundreds of obvious hoaxes and other anecdotal tales which I have across, and that I have been told personally by others. I think I am more skeptical than what is perceived.
When I began my humanoid/entities/etc listing I copied the HUMCAT format and Vallee's format from Passport to Magonia, which tended to include hoaxes, etc. I am thinking of extracting some of the known or obvious hoaxes into a separate file.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

What my concern is here are the folks that make claims simply for attention or, worse yet, for profit. Essentially anybody can make up a story and get a flurry of people in our interest around them, some of them validating the anecdote, others slightly questioning it. When you tell me a story about little men that spring up out of the ground, or rays of light streaming from UFO's and melting the flesh off of people's bones, your basically asking me to modify my paradigm in a major way (substitute 'me' for 'anybody'). You're asking me to believe a very fantastical story, strictly under the premise of the words coming out of your mouth.

That's a major stretch for any critical thinking, rational human being to do, and it begs the question, "Why should I believe you?" Now we can go into depth regarding your creditability and all that, but credibility does not rule out hallucinations or mis-identifications of particular phenomena. You can be very credible as an individual and honestly believe you had X experience but it may turn out you were suffering from sleep deprivation or a bad reaction to a medication or the like. These are the reasons why anecdotal evidence is by far the weakest.

To quote Carl Sagan (about the 1,000th time on this forum I'm sure), "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Many people in the UFO field hate Sagan for other things but this quote hits the point spot-on. For instance, the story above about the guy getting hit by the beam of light and his flesh falling off over the course of the next few hours? There would be medical records of that, other witnesses such as his neighbors and the medical staff that could be interviewed. There may be additional trace evidence such as burn markings on the environment in and around his home where the event took place. Typically when someone points things like this out, the 'backers' of the story come up with excuses such as, "Well, it's an impoverished area of the world and they don't keep medical records," or "The witnesses were so scared they refuse to talk about it," or any of a million other excuses as to why there's zero evidence outside the story.

And we're just-expected-to-believe-it.

Wrong.

Sorry.

If it's a good story, it's nothing more than a good story and should be delegated to the entertainment side of this field of interest. In short, if there's something coming out of your mouth but nothing in your hand, expect to be questioned. To question the story with no evidence is the rational thing to do, and as researchers it's the responsible thing to do.

 

[humanoid79]

I understand your concern and skepticism, but the bottom line is one believes whatever one wants, no matter what evidence or lack of there might be. It would be a perfect world if every case could be backed up with a piece of the 'UFO' a perfect photo, etc, but is not just the case in this field. As for the Brazilian case, there is much more info than what I provided, I can give the name of Brazilian investigators that I believe saw the medical records, etc. But whatever evidence some people might see, it will never change their minds anyway. Here is some more information about the case, and remember I am not trying to change anybody's mind. Albert

http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.com/2007/08/road-to-aracariguama.html

 

[Will Penguin]

I would hope, though, as this database is enhanced, the obvious hoaxes will be deleted. .

Or better still, left in and identified as such...

 

[alzo]

Here is a more compelling case and illustrates what might happen when you are struck by a beam of light from a "UFO" :

Location. Aracariguama, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:City>Sao Paolo, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Brazil</st1:country-region>

Date: <st1:date w:st="on" Month="3" Day="5" Year="1946">March 5 1946</st1:date> Time: late night

Joao Prestes Filho panicked as an unexplained yellow beam of light entered his home through the window and seemed to come straight for his head, he felt a burning sensation on his body and short beard. He ran straight to his sister’s house nearby. Although at first he showed no signs of being burnt, events soon took a horrifying turn. Soon, Preste’s flesh began to come away from his bones, falling in lumps from his jaw, his chest, his arms, his hands, his fingers, from the lower part of his legs, and from his feet and toes. Some scraps of flesh remained hanging to the tendons. Soon every part of Prestes had reached a stage of deterioration beyond imagination. His teeth and his bones stood revealed, utterly bare of flesh. Although his body was quite literally, falling apart, Prestes did not seem to feel any pain. After his nose and ears fell to the ground,

From here... http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.com/2007/08/joao-prestes.html

.. Luis Prestes would explain as we looked on attentively....

"A number of books published in English, Japanese and even Russian have said that Joao Prestes died in a hideous manner, with pieces of his body, such as his ears or parts of his face, melting off. Is this true?," I asked.

"No. His appearance, according to my father, who escorted him to the hospital, was truly ruinous, but it wasn't that extreme. He had serious burns all over his body. His flesh was dark and he presented no bodily injuries,"

From here... http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.com/2007/08/joao-prestes_14.html

"Did you see Joao's flesh falling off in pieces at any time?", I inquired.

"No, no. His skin was burned, but it wasn't falling off......"

.. but the death certificate simply states that he died from “generalized burns”.

.... Because that is what happened, Body parts didnt just fall off. This is "chinese whispers" in action, the story gets exaggerated as it is retold over and over and turns into an urban myth! . Don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

 

[humanoid79]

Very true and sometimes it depends which database or which source you are reading, (when it comes to a very well known case). I have translated some of the Brazilian sources and they all state that the flesh fell off from the face and some of the limbs.....I guess we would have had to be there to really know the truth....

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I understand your concern and skepticism, but the bottom line is one believes whatever one wants, no matter what evidence or lack of there might be. It would be a perfect world if every case could be backed up with a piece of the 'UFO' a perfect photo, etc, but is not just the case in this field. As for the Brazilian case, there is much more info than what I provided, I can give the name of Brazilian investigators that I believe saw the medical records, etc. But whatever evidence some people might see, it will never change their minds anyway. Here is some more information about the case, and remember I am not trying to change anybody's mind. Albert

http://ufoexperiences.blogspot.com/2007/08/road-to-aracariguama.html

If good evidence is provided, I would have no choice but to believe something, regardless of how fantastic. If someone were to win the JREF's million dollars by proving they could remote view an object, i would have no choice but to believe it because it would have been proven under proper testing. That's how science works.
Skepticism is not dogmatic.