• 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!

Kathleen Marden and Denise Stoner

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

ufology said:
What science? So far as I've been able to tell, there's nothing unscientific about interstellar travel, we're constantly evolving our catalog of extrasolar planets ( 890 at last count ), we've got one space probe on the edge of interstellar space now, and there are plenty of concepts for future spacecraft based on real science. Therefore from a scientific perspective, given what we know, the ETH appears to not only be the most reasonable explanation, but it's gaining steam. On the other hand, your assertion is based on mere proclamation. You'll need to do better than that.
Click to expand...

Indeed

Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say


"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light."

With this concept, the spacecraft would be able to achieve an effective speed of about 10 times the speed of light, all without breaking the cosmic speed limit.
The only problem is, previous studies estimated the warp drive would require a minimum amount of energy about equal to the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.

But recently White calculated what would happen if the shape of the ring encircling the spacecraft was adjusted into more of a rounded donut, as opposed to a flat ring. He found in that case, the warp drive could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1 probe NASA launched in 1977.

Furthermore, if the intensity of the space warps can be oscillated over time, the energy required is reduced even more, White found.
"The findings I presented today change it from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation,"
Click to expand...

Warp Drive More Possible Than Thought, Scientists Say | Space.com
 
ufology said:
What science? So far as I've been able to tell, there's nothing unscientific about interstellar travel, we're constantly evolving our catalog of extrasolar planets ( 890 at last count ), we've got one space probe on the edge of interstellar space now, and there are plenty of concepts for future spacecraft based on real science. Therefore from a scientific perspective, given what we know, the ETH appears to not only be the most reasonable explanation, but it's gaining steam. On the other hand, your assertion is based on mere proclamation. You'll need to do better than that.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have yet to find a high profile speculative astro, material, or quantum Physicist that agrees with you. Say, Michio Kaku for instance, do NOT consider the matter even possible, let alone likely. These guys don't believe that ET has ever visited us and they are some of the most imaginative and far out accredited theoretical physicists that exist. I really don't have a clue where you are coming from other than to tout some speculative discussion. The point is, NOT likely at all. That's precisely why I am confident that the old model of Ufology (not our/my friend here Ufology) is busted like a nickle watch currently. Science simply does not support the notion in the least apart from armchair theoretical idealist that discuss that matter hypothetically.

You do realize that space itself comprises an infinitesimal amount of our Universe as compared to black matter, correct? Again, a plethora of interstellar aliens coming by for a visit or whatever, VERY unlikely according to the best and most accredited scientific minds out there.
 
Jeff Davis said:
Actually, I have yet to find a high profile speculative astro, material, or quantum Physicist that agrees with you. Say, Michio Kaku for instance, do NOT consider the matter even possible, let alone likely. ...
Click to expand...
Hmm, Michio does not concur with that statement! It seems he read Leslie Kean's book and believes she is dealing with ET aliens :)

NBCNews.com Video Player

It seems it did not go down well with 'organized' sceptics btw:
Dr. Michio Kaku thinks we are being visited by UFOs
 
In his book Parallel Worlds, Kaku clearly states that he does not believe they ever have been able to visit us, and that interstellar travel is not possible. In the two videos you provided he does NOT state he thinks interstellar travel is possible outside of the entertaining notion that *if* this, or *if* that were to be the case. He is asked plainly if he believes that UFOs are piloted by aliens from other planets and clearly states that he wouldn't go that far.

Read this carefully and please take note of the extreme abundance of the purely hypothetical. This is very recent (I believe Feb. 2013) and again Kaku makes no claim whatsoever that he believes interstellar travel is possible or that UFOs are of ET origin. That wouldn't be science if he did. It would be speculation. That's my only point.

The Physics of Interstellar Travel : Welcome to Explorations in Science with Dr. Michio Kaku
 
Alright, well, it sounds to me like he's supporting the ETH in that video. Indeed, if you accept ETH youalso by definition accept technology far more advanced than ours, and not least faster than ours. But then, Kaku is involved in string theory, so he's not exactly unused to speculation. :)

I culled from the sceptics thread that Kaku is now considered to have gone to the woo side of things, and that he accepted evidence on false premises:
----------------
- "Isn't he supposed to be a skeptic? it seems his main point is an argument .. [of] ignorance (we don't know therefore aliens) and then an argument from authority (pilots, government officials)."
- "He must have a gambling problem or something." [They think he's 'whoring']
-" Even in the interview on SGU he really only smacked down some of the quantum woosters in the most circuitous possible way by saying we can't interact with other universes."
----------------

So, he doesn't seem to think that dimensional 'leaks' are possible.

Of course, regardless, the evidence is undeniably crucial to reach general 'acceptance' of the ETH, or any other 'para'-normal phenomenon.
 
The opening dialogue on Leslie Kean and the terminology used in the field:

Below are links to the other side of the issue that was completely left out of the one sided editorializing by our esteemed hosts :

- Damage Control - Ufology in Flames
- What Is A UFO?

NOTE: At least I'm able to acknowledge the other side of this issue and present a balanced viewpoint based on evidence.

On the segment with Kathleen Marden and Denise Stoner:

STATISTICS:

The statistics are questionable. Here's a brief analysis. When they say "consciously recalled" does that mean they're consciously recalling and event they had while they were they were dreaming? Or does it mean they were also conscious during the event itself? This isn't made clear, and we also don't seem to have statistics on any conscious and shared experiences. Even if we assume that the 88% represents both a conscious experience and conscious recall, we still have to wonder exactly what part was consciously experienced. Was it seeing some strange light of in the distance that is loosely and incorrectly deemed to be a UFO? There also seems to be a problem with the numbers:

- 56% dream state
- 38% hypnosis
- 16% through other means such as flashbacks

The above totals 110%. I'm not sure how we reconcile the extra 10%. Even if we assume that the extra numbers are the result of some overlap in the various types, where do these figures leave room for any conscious recall? At best, what this seems to boil down to is that out of 50 samples, 44 had at least one conscious remembrance of something that may or may not be directly related to an abduction experience, for which the remainder of the information was obtained by one of the three methods above. This means that even under the most generous terms, out of all the memories used to describe what's going on here, only a tiny fraction represent actual consciously experienced and recalled events. This hardly seems sufficient to conclude that "most of the population has a conscious recollection".

BTW: The survey questionnaire here doesn't even ask if the event was experienced while fully awake and conscious. Therefore I take it that it wasn't the survey that was used to obtain the statistics. Nevertheless, why leave that question out of any survey? IMO it's pivotal to the integrity of the evidence.

IMPLANTS:

Dis we hear what happened to the implant Marden had? Seems like it was never removed. So why not get it looked at now? Obviously she's not concerned about exposing her own identity and if she can pull of getting a book written, then there's no excuse not to get some doctors to take a closer look.

MRI INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS OF ALIENS:

So the MRI machine induced hallucinations of aliens?
GENERAL IMPRESSIONS:
  • Gene ... excellent questions and great job differentiating between dimensions and universes. It's nice to see a little more clarity being brought into that issue.
  • Chris ... also excellent questions. I too have been trying to get the idea across for years that even if the experiences are real, we can't necessarily trust that the information provided isn't some sort of disinformation. We have yet to retrieve any information that can be substantiated K-Pax style.
  • Chris, I'd like to hear more about your experience as a young person with the creatures you mentioned.
Despite my skepticism, I found this to be a much more interesting and enjoyable show than I had expected. I think children deserve more credit for their strange experiences, and I believe something unexplained is going on that involves more than mere imagination or hallucination. This is a much harder story to sell than UFOs alone. I hope that someday the work of these researchers will yield something more substantial. Perhaps they should consider doing some work with Don Donderi, the expert on perception and memory who just published his book. We need people who can pick up where Hopkins and Mack left off.
 
Jimi,
Speculatively, Kaku is supporting the notion *if* certain fantastic (unimaginable energy production, containment, and management) resources were to be in place, along with the precise unimaginable technology, then yes, IT would be possible. Then immediately after that the interviewer asks him if he believes ET or aliens are in the UFOs and he states basically "no" without saying as much by stating "I wouldn't go that far".

There is something else incredibly important in what Kaku states. He states, if they are a million years ahead of us, then new laws of physics will have opened up. Right there my friend is where my head is at. You see, IMO humanity is still considering UFOs in the ET sense from the sole vantage point of it's (humanity's) own immediate technological periphery. Just like they did when they called them "flaming chariots" or "flying shields".

What happens Jimi when and if distance and speed are both eliminated, or are made unnecessary or obsolete by these new laws of physics? Would such monstrous energy containment be at all even remotely required when the notions of speed/distance & friction are no longer relevant?

The key to the UFO conundrum is consciousness, not space my friend. Old school Ufology is trapped in front of a self important mirror, but no matter, real science marches on and someday the Unidentified will become familiar. Until then, I do not know what UFOs are, what they are not, or what someday they will be revealed as being. I think this a critically important speculative and observational aptitude. One that will serve to open the eyes rather than force them to squint as they ponder what they believe they already know.
 
Jeff Davis said:
I really don't have a clue where you are coming from other than to tout some speculative discussion.
Click to expand...

Nothing in my post was speculative. Here are the four main points again:
The only thing that remains speculative is whether or not some UFOs are part of an interstellar mission by an extraterrestrial intelligence, and I've made it clear that we don't have the answer to that question yet.
 
I've always got the 'sense' that Michio Kaku does indeed believe there are non-human craft in our skies, I think he is just very wisely erring on the side of waiting for definitive proof. Just my opinion though.
 
If we have not accomplished IT, it's all speculative.

The first paper discusses the hypothetical benefits of IT. That's not science, nor does it support an IT means.
Our catalog of planets outside our own solar system does nothing to support IT.
Our one space probe does not have any life on board that I am aware of. How does this support interstellar travel by aliens?
There are plenty of concepts for future spacecraft as well as everything else one can imagine. Problem is, they're all fiction and are modified projections of today's technology.
 
Jeff Davis said:
If we have not accomplished IT, it's all speculative. The first paper discusses the hypothetical benefits of IT. That's not science, nor does it support an IT means.
Click to expand...
Plenty of space science is hypothetical. So what? That still doesn't make it unscientific.
Our catalog of planets outside our own solar system does nothing to support IT.
Click to expand...
It does so. Proving other planets exist around other stars is a major step in determining the plausibility of life on planets beyond our solar system. After all, if it had turned out that there were no other planets, that would pretty much have ended the whole debate right then and there.
Our one space probe does not have any life on board that I am aware of. How does this support interstellar travel by aliens?
Click to expand...
Nobody said anything about biological life needing to be a part of supporting the statement I made. Don't move the goalposts.
There are plenty of concepts for future spacecraft as well as everything else one can imagine. Problem is, they're all fiction and are modified projections of today's technology.
Click to expand...
The plans for the Moon Missions and the Space Shuttle were all just fiction to in your mind too I suppose. When Kennedy first gathered his scientists they said that it would be impossible to accomplish a Moon mission for the same reasons we hear the skeptics saying we can't go to other stars ( fuel and weight calculations for distance ). But it happened anyway. There was nothing unscientific about that idea then and it's exactly the same principle now. It's just a lot farther to go.

Although you still haven't shown me any science to support your initial statement, I will grant that there's also nothing unscientific about the enormous challenges in engineering and propulsion that still need to be overcome in order to make interstellar travel a reality ( for us anyway ). I'll also concede that we have insufficient scientific evidence to reasonably conclude that abduction by extraterrestrials is taking place. All that's reasonable to believe is that something strange is going on, and that it isn't always limited to hallucinations or fabrications.
 
ufology said:
Plenty of space science is hypothetical. So what? That still doesn't make it unscientific.

It does so. Proving other planets exist around other stars and is a major step in determining the plausibility of life on planets beyond our solar system.

Nobody said anything about biological life needing to be a part of supporting the statement I made. Don't move the goalposts.

The plans for the Moon Missions and the Space Shuttle were all just fiction to in your mind too I suppose. When Kennedy first gathered his scientists they said that it would be impossible to accomplish a Moon mission for the same reasons we hear the skeptics saying we can't go to other stars. But it happened anyway. There was nothing unscientific about that idea then and it's exactly the same principle now. It's just a lot farther to go.

Although you still haven't shown me any science to support your initial statement, I will grant that there's also nothing unscientific about the enormous challenges in engineering and propulsion that still need to be overcome in order to make interstellar travel a reality ( for us anyway ).
Click to expand...


Ufology,
I can sense you're getting a bit vexed. I apologize, but you will find me adamant. That which is presently hypothetical is not science, although it may, and certainly is most often, subjected to scientific scrutiny. We are not talking science in the philosophical sense here, we are talking REAL HARD SCIENCE as it exists, not as it possibly may someday.

Proving other planets exist supports the notion for the development of IT, it does not in any way support the science of IT. There is no such thing presently as the "science of IT" because at this time IT does not exist. It may be considered via scientific principle, but that does not mean that one can make the ridiculously clumsy jump to considering it to be "science". It's merely a hypothesis based PARTLY on scientific principle.

The emboldened above I forgive you for even though it's just lame trolling.

What is my "initial statement"?
 
Jeff Davis said:
Ufology, I can sense you're getting a bit vexed. I apologize, but you will find me adamant. That which is presently hypothetical is not science
Click to expand...

Except that you're just plain wrong ( sorry Goggs ). Plenty of science is hypothetical, like theoretical physics, exobiology and cosmology ( to name only three ). I've now provided plenty of independent examples in support of my position, and you have yet to present one shred of the science you say supports yours. Be as adamant as you want. All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole. It would be better to acknowledge that interstellar travel is a scientifically valid concept, and then either move on to another topic, or allow ourselves to expand on this point by speculating. So long as we don't start maintaining we've discovered some absolute truth that isn't supportable, we'll be OK.
 
ufology said:
Except that you're just plain wrong ( sorry Goggs ). Plenty of science is hypothetical, like theoretical physics, exobiology and cosmology ( to name only three ). I've now provided plenty of independent examples in support of my position, and you have yet to present one shred of the science you say supports yours. Be as adamant as you want. All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole.
Click to expand...

I am not wrong to the best of my understanding. Theoretical and hypothetical are not the same thing. There is no such thing as theoretical IT. Only hypothetical. HUGE difference. I'm in no hole Ufology.Well above sea level minus any vantage point you might feel you have at this point. What was my initial statement as I asked prior?
 
Jeff is right - In science a theory is not the same as a hypothesis.

From Wikipedia (Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gatherevidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curingdisease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
 
Back
Top