• 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!

New Huff Post article by Leslie Kean - Chilean UAP with video

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Thanks. I'm talking to Leslie Kean about this (she sent me the link about an hour ago), and we have a show in the makings in the near future, where we'd also talk about a new book she's working on covering a totally different subject.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Thanks. I'm talking to Leslie Kean about this (she sent me the link about an hour ago), and we have a show in the makings in the near future, where we'd also talk about a new book she's working on covering a totally different subject.
Click to expand...

Good, looking forward to the show. Regarding the book - is it on something mundane or in the realm of UFO/paranormal/high-strangeness?
 
Wow, that video is weird. Am I interpreting correctly that during the expulsion video they flick back and forth from IR to visible light? And the object is only there in IR?
 
I'd say the object is there in both modes, but the article states this:
Also noteworthy is the fact that when in HD mode, the large plume looked like part of the cloud and would never be noticed as anything unusual by an observer. Without the IR camera, it would have been difficult to see the white object against the sky and impossible to capture this remarkable footage. It makes one wonder what kind of actiivites may take place within clouds that are unknown to us.
 
Elendil said:
I'd say the object is there in both modes, but the article states this:
Also noteworthy is the fact that when in HD mode, the large plume looked like part of the cloud and would never be noticed as anything unusual by an observer. Without the IR camera, it would have been difficult to see the white object against the sky and impossible to capture this remarkable footage. It makes one wonder what kind of actiivites may take place within clouds that are unknown to us.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. I meant to say 'visible' in visible light, I didn't mean 'non existent.'

Maybe they had a Wal-Mart cloaking device that only worked in visible light.
 
A.I Drones very plausible and looking forward to Mrs Kean interview on the Paracast . No doubt large library of this stuff from many years held under lock and key. Aerodynamic industries would be first to be notified within the black budget sector which late Mr Ben Rich discussed and late Col Corso which like to see a book by Lt Col rtd Kevin Randle to review both historical backgrounds.
 
Vague objects off in the distance that don't exhibit any performance or design characteristics beyond our capability do not fit the definition of UFO. So calling it a UFO is once again being used as an attention getter. On what the object is: Having viewed the full 9 minute video, I strongly suspect that what the video shows is a conventional aircraft. It is filmed via infrared sensors which pickup heat signatures, and there are two hot sources that would be about the right distance apart for a conventional jet aircraft. The dark trail is probably nothing more than water vapor in the thin clouds heated by the jet engines. When the camera switches views, this seems fairly obvious to me. But even if that's not the case, it's nothing that cannot be explained by existing technology and therefore, from a ufological perspective, this isn't a UFO.
 
mike said:
Interesting, Streiber thinks the "Visitors" as he calls them have something to do with the dead.
Click to expand...

Well, there's also the more horror based UFO lore of the Greys being sort of harvesters of human souls, along with their Reptilian and Insectoid handlers ;).

Usual Suspect said:
Vague objects off in the distance that don't exhibit any performance or design characteristics beyond our capability do not fit the definition of UFO. So calling it a UFO is once again being used as an attention getter. On what the object is: Having viewed the full 9 minute video, I strongly suspect that what the video shows is a conventional aircraft. It is filmed via infrared sensors which pickup heat signatures, and there are two hot sources that would be about the right distance apart for a conventional jet aircraft. The dark trail is probably nothing more than water vapor in the thin clouds heated by the jet engines. When the camera switches views, this seems fairly obvious to me. But even if that's not the case, it's nothing that cannot be explained by existing technology and therefore, from a ufological perspective, this isn't a UFO.
Click to expand...

I think you have a point here. If the object exhibited something really extraordinary, like suddenly disappeared straight upwards into space at an impossible speed for man-made craft, that would really be something. But on the other hand, the object in HD mode seems to be totally white and no twin jet exhaust ports resembling those of the e.g. F, MiG or Su fighters seem to be visible, other than the heat trace in IR. The article also states that the object was not seen on neither of the radars plus that there were no known aircraft there.
But I definitely see your point regarding the distance apart for the heat sources akin to conventional aircraft and I'd suggest you repeat all of that in the Question Bank when the show gets announced. I'd love to hear Leslie address that.

The case is now in the open and it yet remains to be seen how will it withstand the barrage of the more skeptical sort. Interesting stuff nevertheless...
 
Tannhauser Gate said:
Wait doesn't UFO simply mean just that? unidentified flying object?
Click to expand...
A great question. Vallée once commented, "I cannot think of anything more treacherous than this label 'unidentified' ". I'll attempt to briefly clarify:

When it comes to definitions, a word's origin and a word's interpretation are two separate components, and the two are often confused when talking about ufos. Within ufology, the phrase "unidentified flying object" is part of the word origin and the literal interpretation of the words in the phrase is not an accurate interpretation of what the phrase itself or word ufo means. This is similar to the word RADAR, now usually spelled simply as "radar", which has its origin in the phrase "radio detection and ranging". In ufology, the word "ufo" ( or UFO ) doesn't literally mean a flying object that is unidentified any more than in electronics or aviation, the word "radar" means the detection and ranging of radios.

The origin of the word ufo dates back to the USAF which used it as an official term for what the public was calling "flying saucers", popularly believed to be alien craft. Over time, a series of official definitions evolved to the point where an alien craft was implicit without having to say it directly, and the reasons for that were more political than rational. You can read an in depth look at the this issue here: The word UFO ( full featured browser recommended ).

So knowing that the word ufo ( or UFO ) will be interpreted popularly and technically as an alien craft, the media finds it useful as an attention getter to gain exposure. At the same time, if the object isn't a ufo, they can plead innocence by ignorance. It goes on all the time, and as a ufologist I find it very irksome. I see it as sensationalist exploitation of the field in the guise of news reporting.
 
Last edited:
Elendil said:
Well, there's also the more horror based UFO lore of the Greys being sort of harvesters of human souls,
Click to expand...

Harvesting is the process of gathering a ripe crop from the fields, As long as this was done at the point where the biological platform could no longer maintain the consciousness/souls integrity that might be a good thing.
 
CuCullen said:
Not according to Hynek's definition, at least. I tend to think u/Usual Suspect has the right of it, in this instance.
Click to expand...
Right. Hynek played a key role in the evolution of the official USAF definitions, and went on to formulate the one used by CUFOS. Personally however, I think that although Hykek used the word "simply" in his definition, that the definition itself is anything but simple. In my analysis of the semantics problem the entire thing, along with the official USAF definitions can be distilled down to just two words, "alien craft". Provided we have an understanding that the word "alien" doesn't necessitate ET, it fits the bill as perfectly as seems to be possible.
 
Usual Suspect said:
A great question. Vallée once commented, "I cannot think of anything more treacherous than this label 'unidentified' ". I'll attempt to briefly clarify:

When it comes to definitions, a word's origin and a word's interpretation are two separate components, and the two are often confused when talking about ufos. Within ufology, the phrase "unidentified flying object" is part of the word origin and the literal interpretation of the words in the phrase is not an accurate interpretation of what the phrase itself or word ufo means. This is similar to the word RADAR, now usually spelled simply as "radar", which has its origin in the phrase "radio detection and ranging". In ufology, the word "ufo" ( or UFO ) doesn't literally mean a flying object that is unidentified any more than in electronics or aviation, the word "radar" means the detection and ranging of radios.

The origin of the word ufo dates back to the USAF which used it as an official term for what the public was calling "flying saucers", popularly believed to be alien craft. Over time, a series of official definitions evolved to the point where an alien craft was implicit without having to say it directly, and the reasons for that were more political than rational. You can read an in depth look at the this issue here: The word UFO ( full featured browser recommended ).

So knowing that the word ufo ( or UFO ) will be interpreted popularly and technically as an alien craft, the media finds it useful as an attention getter to gain exposure. At the same time, if the object isn't a ufo, they can plead innocence by ignorance. It goes on all the time, and as a ufologist I find it very irksome. I see it as sensationalist exploitation of the field in the guise of news reporting.
Click to expand...

Do you think then that, this is why the "UAP" term was coined? So as to say yes we have something anomalous but it doesn't mean "alien"?
 
Tannhauser Gate said:
Do you think then that, this is why the "UAP" term was coined? So as to say yes we have something anomalous but it doesn't mean "alien"?
Click to expand...
When I first looked into the term UAP, it was more of a catchall term for any sufficiently mysterious unidentified object seen in the sky, which could conceivably include natural life forms or other exotic things, but not necessarily alien craft. For NARCAP, UFOs do fall under the UAP umbrella, but the focus was shifted away from them as the core subject matter. USI adopted the term UAP to refer to strange phenomena in the sky other than UFOs. So in ufology, UFOs and UAPs are two separate classes of objects altogether.

Later the NARCAP definition of UAP became more rigid paralleling the definition of UFO created by Hynek, which to a degree, still leaves room for objects other than alien craft. Digging further I discovered that based on the opinion of certain people in the field like Nick Pope, it was decided by NARCAP that the term UAP should be used rather than UFO because of the stigmatization attached to the idea of alien visitation, and that by using the term UAP, distancing itself from ufology, and focusing on air traffic safety, NARCAP might be seen as more credible.

That led to anti ufology posturing by NARCAP and Leslie Kean, who was connected with NARCAP and doing high profile interviews. This high profile anti-ufology posturing IMO threw ufology under the bus when it could have been used to do exactly the opposite, and that led to a heated discussion here on the forum which resulted in me being unfairly banned under bogus allegations of making personal attacks against a NARCAP member, who coincidentally has come under fire again, this time for his role in the Koi debacle. It should be noted that even skeptics such as Lance Moody see through the NARCAP façade, calling the term UAP "eye rolling".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top