I love this type of show. I've said it before but I always learn more hearing somebody completely new describe personal experiences as opposed to the usual suspects rehashing decades old cases. I think I'm better able to absorb the outline of someone's story through a first person oral account whereas when somebody writes it out on a forum it is often dependent upon their written communication skills as to whether or not it is effectively conveyed.
I'd very much encourage Gene and David to make this type of show a regular feature and not even necessarily restrict it to the Paracast forums but just to try and collect anybody who isn't part of the ufo/paranormal media scene.
A few comments on points that raised on the show:
-Schuyler's "active disinterest" term describes it perfectly. I've run into this so often that I can recognize it immediately now which is good because I know when not to waste my time.
-I'm probably starting to sound tedious but if you haven't read Paul Hill's book, please please please do so before there is any more speculation on objects not being solid, turning into light, etc. This is core ufo curriculum. It sits beside Vallee, Clark, Ruppelt, Hastings etc and Hill easily has the most impressive CV of any of the aforementioned. If you are deep enough into this topic to be reading this post then if you haven't already read Unconventional Flying Objects it needs to be the next book you read.
It bothers me tremendously that in the three years of The Paracast to my knowledge his name has not been mentioned once by any guest or by the hosts.
I'm not without criticism of Hill as his presentation is clearly looking at the issue through the lens of rationalist engineer and I certainly don't think he has "solved" the mystery but many of his ideas and observations are the most carefully considered and best informed that have yet been presented in ufo research. During Skunkape's description of the orange triangle that became a light ball at high speed I was thinking to myself, "Well, that pretty much matches Hill's predictions exactly." Ok, I'm done. Last time I'm going to mention Hill.
-Secondly, while I'm not by any means a hardcore ETH proponent it does somewhat bother me that ETH is sort of viewed as invalid because of frequency of sightings/contacts and because of the general weirdness surrounding the phenomena. I can't say that either of these strike me as logical. There seems to be a great difficulty in shaking the notion that ETH=expensive travel by beings more or less like us. Anything too common or too weird that does not fit that preconception is pushed into the non-ETH box. This makes sense if it is enormously expensive to travel here from there. If it is not expensive then I don't see how we could put any upper boundary on number of visits. Since we have not yet had any contact with ET on our terms, ie discovering them and not vice versa, I think it's premature to put limits on ET abilities, motivations or general weirdness.
I say all this simply because I think the view is generally underrepresented on the show. Personally, I am every bit as intrigued by all the other theories and think there are very good arguments for them.
I'd very much encourage Gene and David to make this type of show a regular feature and not even necessarily restrict it to the Paracast forums but just to try and collect anybody who isn't part of the ufo/paranormal media scene.
A few comments on points that raised on the show:
-Schuyler's "active disinterest" term describes it perfectly. I've run into this so often that I can recognize it immediately now which is good because I know when not to waste my time.
-I'm probably starting to sound tedious but if you haven't read Paul Hill's book, please please please do so before there is any more speculation on objects not being solid, turning into light, etc. This is core ufo curriculum. It sits beside Vallee, Clark, Ruppelt, Hastings etc and Hill easily has the most impressive CV of any of the aforementioned. If you are deep enough into this topic to be reading this post then if you haven't already read Unconventional Flying Objects it needs to be the next book you read.
It bothers me tremendously that in the three years of The Paracast to my knowledge his name has not been mentioned once by any guest or by the hosts.
I'm not without criticism of Hill as his presentation is clearly looking at the issue through the lens of rationalist engineer and I certainly don't think he has "solved" the mystery but many of his ideas and observations are the most carefully considered and best informed that have yet been presented in ufo research. During Skunkape's description of the orange triangle that became a light ball at high speed I was thinking to myself, "Well, that pretty much matches Hill's predictions exactly." Ok, I'm done. Last time I'm going to mention Hill.
-Secondly, while I'm not by any means a hardcore ETH proponent it does somewhat bother me that ETH is sort of viewed as invalid because of frequency of sightings/contacts and because of the general weirdness surrounding the phenomena. I can't say that either of these strike me as logical. There seems to be a great difficulty in shaking the notion that ETH=expensive travel by beings more or less like us. Anything too common or too weird that does not fit that preconception is pushed into the non-ETH box. This makes sense if it is enormously expensive to travel here from there. If it is not expensive then I don't see how we could put any upper boundary on number of visits. Since we have not yet had any contact with ET on our terms, ie discovering them and not vice versa, I think it's premature to put limits on ET abilities, motivations or general weirdness.
I say all this simply because I think the view is generally underrepresented on the show. Personally, I am every bit as intrigued by all the other theories and think there are very good arguments for them.
