• 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!

Marley Woods -- Amber Lights

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

As with anything it is important to consider the source. Ted has been researching longer than I have been alive and he has more credibility than most in a field that attracts nut-jobs and wackos like a magnet. I am not saying everyone in this field is one, but there are a lot of them. Greer or Basiago, anyone?

I tend to think that most photos can be explained because they are taken with crappy equipment that cause reflections or artifacts, or because the picture-taker is an oblivious idiot who thinks every light in the sky is a "UFO".

Someone indicated that these photos don't help to prove a thing. I am not saying that Ted deserves a free pass, and the pictures may not prove a thing in themselves; but they do provide a visual record and additional context in an investigation where there is witness corroboration and physical evidence.

just my 2 cents...
 
Now if you were standing on ground at that location that sighting would probably be a lot cooler. Both of Photographs are just showing an out of the norm light source which should not be there realistically. I was looking for hoax, checking the photos for any other visible beam or light source coming from the wooded area or anywhere else. I see nothing, but it still could be Earth based Phenomenon. I wouldn't rule it out entirely. I love, if he recorded this on video. We seen then if the light source was moving or just stationary in the sky. If it was moving across the sky, then it was mostly likely under some intelligent control.
 
I agree with Trained Observer in that they also remind me of the Hessdalen phenomena. I even emailed Ted a couple years ago now I think and he responded that they were somehow different. I'll have to see if I still have the email. Anyway he didn't personally investigate the Hessdalen stuff, but Hynek did several times. Hessdalen is pretty well documented as a phenomenon but what we are left with is blurry amorphous globs of light. They do strange things, but...

The Hessdalen lights come in a pretty wide variety of different configurations, colors, sizes, durations, etc. It's never been concluded what they really are. These seem similar IMO but there also seems to be some other things going on at Marley Woods (although we don't really have any definitive hallmark data that gives enough information to conclude anything) I'm still waiting to see the clear photograph of the animal standing that everyone has been talking about. Maybe the mixture of events will provide clues.

While things like this are often attributed to things such as ball lightning, let me say that no one even knows what the hell ball lightning is AND if it really even exists at all. We don't have really any reliable good data or even a working hypothesis of how such a thing could even occur. But we hear it all the time, ... "probably ball lightning". So I'm kinda reluctant to dismiss one unknown phenomena for another one in the guise of "ball lightning".

The other thing to keep in mind is the perception of the lights. Someone sees lights moving strangely and they are immediately put through a cultural filter. Are they aliens, angels, spectors or what?? Or might they be a genuine unknown phenomenon that we haven't nailed down. There's a lot of talk about Earth lights and the possibility of seismic activity relating to such light anomalies. Yet there still isn't any good explanation of how or why it would work either. Just saying that even though they are moving, morphing, and so on it doesn't neccessarily mean some kind of other intelligence.

I'm pretty certain that strange phenomonena exists. What it may actually be in reality is another question. Unfortunately there seems to be a rush to put a label on things like this, ... it was following us, it saw us, it was aware of us.... There isn't any evidence at least in Hessdalen that the lights are in any way conscious or aware. Yet they are seen splitting, morphing, meandering down the valley, and so on. Our cultural filter kind of helps our brain make sense of it.

So, what are we left with?? Unfortunately it seems we are left with the usual, lights acting strangely. What do we do with that?? Well, all I can hope for is there is some objective continued research in unravelling it. On the unfortunate side, it usually goes through a human brain, which means a subjective filter. But we need to hope for the best. And in the least, it is another piece of data albeit a blobby one. Thanks for posting. Interesting.
 
Red said:
As with anything it is important to consider the source. Ted has been researching longer than I have been alive and he has more credibility than most in a field that attracts nut-jobs and wackos like a magnet. I am not saying everyone in this field is one, but there are a lot of them. Greer or Basiago, anyone?

I tend to think that most photos can be explained because they are taken with crappy equipment that cause reflections or artifacts, or because the picture-taker is an oblivious idiot who thinks every light in the sky is a "UFO".

Someone indicated that these photos don't help to prove a thing. I am not saying that Ted deserves a free pass, and the pictures may not prove a thing in themselves; but they do provide a visual record and additional context in an investigation where there is witness corroboration and physical evidence.

just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. And again. "considering the source" is a great fallacy. You should not do that. It's all about the evidence. Full stop. Once you place importance on the source equal to or above the actual evidence you end up running yourself off the deep end right quick.

Suppose just for a second someone like Greer by some miracle actually came up with a real honest to goodness piece of physical evidence. If you zero in on that evidence and criticallly examine it you have the opprotunity for serious expansion of knowledge. If you place more importance on the fact that it is Greer presenting it you lose big time.

The reverse is just as true. If critical examination shows the evidence wanting but you give it undeserved credence due to the fact that you respect the person presenting it where does that get you? Nowhere. Or worse.

Evaluating people, their personalities and motives will always be tricky, subjective and riddled with doubt. Evidence, whether useful or junk, true or false can much more easily be held to objective standards.
 
stphrz said:
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. And again. "considering the source" is a great fallacy. You should not do that. It's all about the evidence. Full stop. Once you place importance on the source equal to or above the actual evidence you end up running yourself off the deep end right quick.

Suppose just for a second someone like Greer by some miracle actually came up with a real honest to goodness piece of physical evidence. If you zero in on that evidence and criticallly examine it you have the opprotunity for serious expansion of knowledge. If you place more importance on the fact that it is Greer presenting it you lose big time.

The reverse is just as true. If critical examination shows the evidence wanting but you give it undeserved credence due to the fact that you respect the person presenting it where does that get you? Nowhere. Or worse.

Evaluating people, their personalities and motives will always be tricky, subjective and riddled with doubt. Evidence, whether useful or junk, true or false can much more easily be held to objective standards.
Click to expand...

You have a point, and it's a version of an appeal to authority. The opposite is an ad hominem attack. So in this forum, lets say Ted Phillips has presented evidence, some people think that it should be accepted without question. If say, James Randi or Oberg were to present counter evidence (as Oberg did with Kean's book) that should be ignored because he's a "debunker." The opposite would be true on the JREF forums. Both approaches are completely wrong.

No one will get anywhere like that. Evidence should be considered or disregarded based on it's own merit. If a child was playing with a video camera but while they were doing so captured a double rainbow, that rainbow would still appear in the video. We wouldn't be able to discount it because a child was holding the camera.
 
tyder001 said:
Is that if you invite a person to be on your show and they are trashed and called names. Well, then why would they even "consider" walking into something like that? Now, challenged? Yeah. But, if I were called a "fraud" everytime I stated my feelings then I would never, ever go back to such a show.
Click to expand...

Back in the day (about 1.5 years ago), during a period where Biedny & Gene were trashing hosts on a bi-monthly basis, I asked the same question. Whilst i liked the fact that they were weeding out the charlatans, I wondered how long they could keep it up before people stopped appearing as guests on the show. Gene replied by saying something to the effect of 'people in this field are so focussed on getting their 15 minutes of fame that they will always come back'.... I will try to find the exact quote when i have time.

Personally I think that a show like the paracast can't survive just on the really down to earth guests like Haines or Kean, but at the same time, i think its losing the appeal it had to so many members by not at least asking some basic questions about what the hosts are saying
 
Hoffmeister said:
Personally I think that a show like the paracast can't survive just on the really down to earth guests like Haines or Kean, but at the same time, i think its losing the appeal it had to so many members by not at least asking some basic questions about what the hosts are saying
Click to expand...
I'll be interested to hear what those who think the show has gone "softball" think after Sunday's show w/ Stanford. Granted, Ray is mercurial and has a hair trigger, but I'm proud of how Gene (and myself) asked some tough, probing questions.
 
stphrz said:
I have said it before, and I'll say it again. And again. "considering the source" is a great fallacy. You should not do that. It's all about the evidence. Full stop. Once you place importance on the source equal to or above the actual evidence you end up running yourself off the deep end right quick.

Suppose just for a second someone like Greer by some miracle actually came up with a real honest to goodness piece of physical evidence. If you zero in on that evidence and criticallly examine it you have the opprotunity for serious expansion of knowledge. If you place more importance on the fact that it is Greer presenting it you lose big time.

The reverse is just as true. If critical examination shows the evidence wanting but you give it undeserved credence due to the fact that you respect the person presenting it where does that get you? Nowhere. Or worse.

Evaluating people, their personalities and motives will always be tricky, subjective and riddled with doubt. Evidence, whether useful or junk, true or false can much more easily be held to objective standards.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but if a legitimate piece of evidence fell out of the sky and hit Greer on the head with it, would any one believe him? More importantly, would he be able to convince real scientists to conduct tests on his object especially with his reputation for stupid antics and even more outrageous claims? He could come across the best piece of evidence ever and he would never ever be able to prove it. Of course, there is the very real possibility that he wouldn't know real proof if came up and bit him.

I am not saying Ted is credible because I think he is a nice guy. He has spent decades trying to gather and evaluate physical evidence. Whereas Greer has been claiming for years that he has the plans for free energy and yet he has been unwilling to disclose them for public review and debate.

There will always be personalities and characters in this field, but I am not willing to examine to new claims or "evidence" from certain researchers based on shoddiness of their past work. I just don't have that kind of time. Credibility is more than just a personality contest.
 
I think the photos are interesting.

Ive never seen anything like this myself, but I imagine that if people actually see these things and were to photograph them those photos would probably turn out something like what we see here.

The most interesting 'orb' type images Ive ever seen are still from that video that Biedny often talked about. That shit was weird.
 
tyder001 said:
I think the point that Ron and Chris are seeing ( not the lights. I agree that could be anything.) Is that if you invite a person to be on your show and they are trashed and called names. Well, then why would they even "consider" walking into something like that? Now, challenged? Yeah. But, if I were called a "fraud" everytime I stated my feelings then I would never, ever go back to such a show. there are to many of em out there to be treated like shit by one of em. So, just "think" about it. You may not agree with somebody and it's fine to state why you don't. But, Gene and Chris have a show to do. They don't have the "luxury" of taking pot shots everytime a "forum member" gets their panties in a wad. Ron, your doing a great job of moderating even when I don't agree with you there is still a professional and polite spirit (If I can use that word around certain people here) about you.
Click to expand...

Well said Tyder! Couldn't have said it better myself:)

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------
Hoffmeister said:
Back in the day (about 1.5 years ago), during a period where Biedny & Gene were trashing hosts on a bi-monthly basis, I asked the same question. Whilst i liked the fact that they were weeding out the charlatans, I wondered how long they could keep it up before people stopped appearing as guests on the show. Gene replied by saying something to the effect of 'people in this field are so focussed on getting their 15 minutes of fame that they will always come back'.... I will try to find the exact quote when i have time.

Personally I think that a show like the paracast can't survive just on the really down to earth guests like Haines or Kean, but at the same time, i think its losing the appeal it had to so many members by not at least asking some basic questions about what the hosts are saying
Click to expand...

I don't actually think that there were a great many shows where the guest was trashed, at least in the interview anyway. There was some post interview stuff. I don't know about the download figures but when guests like Jarvis, Phillips etc appear on the show the traffic on the forums goes ballistic. So love 'em or hate 'em guests like that evoke controversy, comment and emotion. All the ingredients necessary in a successful show.:)
 
Hoffmeister said:
In that case lets get Stephen Greer back on then! :)
Click to expand...

At this point, then, the show is no longer really about good information, or looking for answers, but rather about pure entertainment, in which case, absolutely, get Greer back on and let him run wild, because he is entertaining, if nothing else. Follow that up with Linda Moulton Howe, and let her talk for 2 hours about drone photos, and Serpo, and whatever other nonsense she's into these days. Then you can have Steven Bassett back - he's always entertaining.

As for photos, I think most serious UFO researchers now view night-time photos of lights in the sky as more or less worthless (unless there is independent corroborative evidence, like radar tracking, etc.).

I just happen to have a great daylight photo of an alien landing on Earth:


Holly and Paul trip 08 770.jpg

Of course, I have much more evidence here at home, but I'm not ready to release it yet. It needs proper peer review, and so forth. I figure another 25 years ought to do it. :rolleyes:

I would also add that it took me all of 30 seconds to locate this photo on my computer and upload it here on the forums. It's not that hard to make the evidence available if you really want to do so.
 
Maybe I'm just not "concrete" enough in my thinking. I've heard people who I disagree with on one topic make viable statements on another. So, when a guest is on I kind of have my b.s. and other filters on. I may go yeah your right when they say "there is more in heaven and earth" but I may go "wow, your an idiot" when they say the space brothers are going to airlift the good folks outta here while mother earth bakes the rest of em. It's kind of like politics. I see things on both sides that are right and wrong and I would hate for either side to be in complete control. Then there is faith. I have read the bible and came away thinking "man theres a lot of wisdom there" Also, with "Man, there's alot of b.s. there." But, that's kind of how life is for me. You have to be able to seperate signal from noise for yourself. If I seem mad at skeptics sometime it's not always because I think they are hard headed idiots or I'm afraid they will mess up my little world with "logic." Sometime it's because I'm frustrated that somewhere there is a brillaint scientist out there in the "soft" sciences. He/she might even be able to do a control goup study of somthing that interest me such as reincarnation. But, because of the so called woo woo factor it would be carreer death to even approach it, unless your gonna debunk it.

Finally, I gotta admit to a little "prejudice" here. No, no not the racist kind. I am 53 years old and I have been around all kinds of people in my life. I've been drunk and I've been sober. I've been high and I've been straight. I've been to college and I've dug diitches. In essessence I've lived life. So, when a twenty something or even a thirty something year old comes up to me and makes some "dogmatic" statement be it a "science fan" or a "religious" fan I cringe a little. I also get a liittle condesending. Right? No, it's not right because years don't always bring wisdom and youth is not always stupid. I was, but not everybody is. :-) But, I've lived a long time in this skin and I've got my own inner life so I don't really need to be "saved" or even "enlightened" by anybody else. Not that I can't learn from others. Just that I don't take myself that seriously in a dogmatic way so you can imagine how I take you. :-)

Just another tyder ramble. But, my "busy" season is almost here.

Roll Tide,
Go Braves,
IT's Packer weather! (well, not here but I'll be watching.)
 
tyder001 said:
MFinally, I gotta admit to a little "prejudice" here. No, no not the racist kind. I am 53 years old and I have been around all kinds of people in my life. I've been drunk and I've been sober. I've been high and I've been straight. I've been to college and I've dug diitches. In essessence I've lived life. So, when a twenty something or even a thirty something year old comes up to me and makes some "dogmatic" statement be it a "science fan" or a "religious" fan I cringe a little. I also get a liittle condesending. Right? No, it's not right because years don't always bring wisdom and youth is not always stupid. I was, but not everybody is. :-) But, I've lived a long time in this skin and I've got my own inner life so I don't really need to be "saved" or even "enlightened" by anybody else. Not that I can't learn from others. Just that I don't take myself that seriously in a dogmatic way so you can imagine how I take you. :-)

Just another tyder ramble. But, my "busy" season is almost here.

Roll Tide,
Go Braves,
IT's Packer weather! (well, not here but I'll be watching.)
Click to expand...

Well I can't take you seriously if you like the Braves. :mad: I'm a Brewers fan myself, heartache and all ;)
 
Back
Top