Mac Tonnies outlines his Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis for UFOs

[Paul Kimball]

Video clip of an interview I conducted with Mac in May, 2006, wherein he outlines his cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, subject of a book that he's working on.

The Other Side of Truth: Mac Tonnies explains the Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

Paul

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I enjoyed this video, and last night I downloaded the 12/3 episode of "Paracast," which had Tonnies as a guest.

Excellent, excellent show. I break out in hives whenever Dick Hoagland hypes the topic, but I've always been impressed with Tonnies' ability to reasonably discuss the photographic evidence. I don't know whether the "face" on Mars is really an artificially-constructed "face" or not, but I do think it's worthy of further examination. If such an object appeared on Earth, in an area of similar topography, academics would be falling all over themselves to examine it.

I've never seen any photos from the Moon that appear to be anything more than natural formations or indistinct mishmashes of light and shadow. Some of the photos from Mars - particularly the five-sided "pyramids" (an inaccurate term) - are really interesting.

I also buy Tonnies' point about competing interests within NASA, DoD and JPL. Anyone who's done any work for the government at all, at any level, is probably familiar with the almost mind-boggling tendency for organizational rivalries to stand in the way of progress.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I enjoyed this video, and last night I downloaded the 12/3 episode of "Paracast," which had Tonnies as a guest.

Excellent, excellent show. I break out in hives whenever Dick Hoagland hypes the topic, but I've always been impressed with Tonnies' ability to reasonably discuss the photographic evidence. I don't know whether the "face" on Mars is really an artificially-constructed "face" or not, but I do think it's worthy of further examination. If such an object appeared on Earth, in an area of similar topography, academics would be falling all over themselves to examine it.

I've never seen any photos from the Moon that appear to be anything more than natural formations or indistinct mishmashes of light and shadow. Some of the photos from Mars - particularly the five-sided "pyramids" (an inaccurate term) - are really interesting.

I also buy Tonnies' point about competing interests within NASA, DoD and JPL. Anyone who's done any work for the government at all, at any level, is probably familiar with the almost mind-boggling tendency for organizational rivalries to stand in the way of progress.

Mac's a bright guy, who, even when I don't agree with him, is always worth listening to.

As for competing interests, absolutely. Within NASA, for example, there are the more scientific elements, and then the elements that work on secret, military-related stuff.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

More cryptoterrestrial musings by Mac:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/12/cth-in-practice.html

 

[TerraX]

It shows that he's a friend of yours. Others doing similar theoretical work, like exopolitics, would have been severely criticized by now. No surprise really.

 

[David Biedny]

Paul, I just listened to that clip of Mac talking about his cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, and I think he's onto something, especially after just spending a couple of days with Jeff Ritzmann. His statements about the stealth approach and interest in human DNA resonate with me, and I think we're going to have to speak with him again, sooner than later, about this idea. Is there a longer clip we could watch? Thanks so much for posting it!

dB

 

[Paul Kimball]

It shows that he's a friend of yours. Others doing similar theoretical work, like exopolitics, would have been severely criticized by now. No surprise really.

As usual with me, you miss the point, or mischaracterize it. No surprise really.

I began to criticize the exopols AFTER I had familiarized myself with their work, which is out there for all to see. But even now I don't do so out of hand - if Michael Salla brings forward a "whistleblower", I'll look at the person objectively, regardless of my disdain for Salla's personal methodology. Ditto the DP witnesses, despite Greer's involvement.

I have yet to criticize Mac's work because he isn't finished yet, and I'll wait to read the book, and see what evidence he can present, before I do so (or, conversely, before I accept it). That's exactly what I did with Nick Redfern's Roswell book, which I panned, even though Nick and I are good pals, but only AFTER I had read it, unlike more than a few others, who just jumped on him without having read the book, or truly familiarized themselves through other sources, like interviews, with what Nick was saying, and what he had, or did not have, to back it up.

In other words, your assertion that I won't critique my friends is a dog that just won't hunt.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Is there a longer clip we could watch?

David:

Not really. My conversation with Mac was relatively general, and conducted while he was still formulating his theory, so we didn't really get into too many specifics. It was also part of a larger interview about other things.

Best regards,
Paul

 

[hopeful skeptic]

It shows that he's a friend of yours. Others doing similar theoretical work, like exopolitics, would have been severely criticized by now. No surprise really.

Some of the others who've offered said theoretical "work" are folks with demonstrable credibility or competency issues. If a fellow wants to muse over the topic, so be it.

Ufology is a field with not a single shred of incontrovertible physical evidence. Not a shred. All we really have to offer each other is speculation and theory. Tonnies will presumably offer his take on the phenomenon, just as others have. What makes Tonnies different is that he has not yet embarrassed himself in front of the National Press Club, or dragged gullible people out into an open field with a flashlight. When he crosses that line, he'll be criticized and mocked just as Salla and Greer have.

 

[TerraX]

Lets be fair here. If you have a good working relationship with a fellow researcher a person is more inclined to take it easy with the critique on that person. It's just human nature. I'm no exception on that and so are you Paul. Hell, I have critique on some if not most people in ufology. However I do try to balance it and be fair with myself and the comments I give. Ultimately, taking up a position is "in the eye of the beholder". We (meaning everyone that researches UFOs and ETs) have their own personal methods on reaching conclusions. Everyone is different in that regard. What we do tend to do is make our own methods the 'benchmark' or the standard on how things should be handled, that can differ with the next person.
Et voila, that causes friction which we see in ufology in abundance. People have their own standard which eventually drives them to reach conclusions. Now Paul, perhaps you think I regard you as someone who's rigid or a 'toiletseat thinker'. Not at all actually. I do think you need a little more imagination and psychology on why people do things. Then you could be one of the finest researchers out there. Hope that was a pleasant surprise this time.

 

[TerraX]

Some of the others who've offered said What makes Tonnies different is that he has not yet embarrassed himself in front of the National Press Club, or dragged gullible people out into an open field with a flashlight. When he crosses that line, he'll be criticized and mocked just as Salla and Greer have.

Really? Look at the standards you yourself laid out here. Personally I have no problem with Mac Tonnies' research. I do regard it as theoretical for now but here's the irony 'Hopeful Skeptic', I am not about to figuretively chop his head off if Mac Tonnies makes a mistake. You are... Right?

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Really? Look at the standards you yourself laid out here. Personally I have no problem with Mac Tonnies' research. I do regard it as theoretical for now but here's the irony 'Hopeful Skeptic', I am not about to figuretively chop his head off if Mac Tonnies makes a mistake. You are... Right?

I guess I don't see the correlation here.

If Tonnies promises to produce "free energy" [sic] devices, and repeatedly fails to do so, he'll be like Greer. If he claims to regularly bend the ear of presidents and can't provide a shred of evidence, he'll be like Greer. If he charges gullible people $800 to walk through a field with a flashlight and call down UFOs, he'll be like Greer.

Again, I am never surprised at how poorly the word "research" is understood by the paranormal community. Tonnies' work is theoretical. He is offering an opinion about the origin and motivation behind the presumed occupants of UFOs. He isn't promising to produce a UFO, or call one down, or brief the head of the CIA about them. Tonnies is a theoretician. Greer is a demonstrable fraud.

If Tonnies stoops to Greer-like shenanigans, I'll be right there, polishing up the axe. And he'll richly deserve it.