Redfern Out, Kimball In - 8 October 2017

[Creepy Green Light]

I think I dropped more F-bombs than any Paracast guest in history.

I know this will sound stupid, but what episode are we talking about here? Thank you

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The one that'll be posted on the morning of October 8, 2017.

 

[Randall]

Meanwhile, for all the soliloquizing, we still have not the answer.

The answers depend on the questions being asked. Which is why it's important to ask the right questions. If the question being asked is nonsense, e.g. "How come my dear departed grandmother isn't talking to me from the afterlife?" Then there is no objective answer because the question is based on magical wish fulfillment. Perhaps a psychologist might be able to explain it. But afterlife researchers will not find what they assume to be there because it can't happen the way people typically look at the question of afterlives ( as some continuity of personhood based largely on lself-serving notions of consciousness ).

So if one uses their brain, yes there are some answers. The question is whether or not one chooses to believe their biases or what makes sense. I say afterlives are impossible and what happens. Nobody says, "Why do you say that?" as would be anticipated in a civil discussion. Instead people cry, "Heresy!" and start with judgmental personality jibes.

 

[Jimi]

Randall, why do you think afterlives are impossible?

 

[Walter Bosley]

I came to the realization that all this stuff is overly discussed. With all the bloviating most people do on these subjects, the phenomena have no room for demonstration. I am of the mind that UFOs, ghosts, and other strange things are best experienced without the clutter of external noise. I daresay they are designed to be a primarily solitary experience and can be ruined through all the incessant need so many people have to 'explain' or 'understand' or (more honestly) to be the 'one who defines it' -- or the worst, all the 'relating' people obsess over.

As regards the 'afterlife'. There's a reason it's a mystery to us and that's because we're supposed to focus on the 'life' first. That focus can be intensified and aimed accordingly if one finds it easier to dismiss anything beyond one's death. Though I disagree with those who say there isn't such an existence (for reasons of my own that I feel no need to discuss or explain), I actually think they've come to the right idea about life as a result of this conclusion of theirs. If it helps them keep their head in this game, their life will be better. If we were all aware that we have an afterlife and never really die, we'd all be killing ourselves the first time things turn to shit -- instead of working through it and evolving as a person. It's simple, really.

But that's just what I think and I'm not really interested in dissecting it. I've already done my own dissection long ago. Anyone else's dissection is meaningless where my conclusions are concerned. Likewise my conclusions for anyone else. It implies a solitude that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but solitude is the canvas upon which these phenomena do their most revealing work.

 

[Han]

@Thomas R Morrison

a UFO in the hand is worth two in the bush.

All I want is some irrefutable evidence.

I am not saying it (the evidence) does not exist, just that I am not aware of it.

If a Bear came into my house, I wouldn't really care where it came from, I would be more bothered about it's present location.

 

[Han]

I came to the realization that all this stuff is overly discussed. With all the bloviating most people do on these subjects, the phenomena have no room for demonstration. I am of the mind that UFOs, ghosts, and other strange things are best experienced without the clutter of external noise. I daresay they are designed to be a primarily solitary experience and can be ruined through all the incessant need so many people have to 'explain' or 'understand' or (more honestly) to be the 'one who defines it' -- or the worst, all the 'relating' people obsess over.

As regards the 'afterlife'. There's a reason it's a mystery to us and that's because we're supposed to focus on the 'life' first. That focus can be intensified and aimed accordingly if one finds it easier to dismiss anything beyond one's death. Though I disagree with those who say there isn't such an existence (for reasons of my own that I feel no need to discuss or explain), I actually think they've come to the right idea about life as a result of this conclusion of theirs. If it helps them keep their head in this game, their life will be better. If we were all aware that we have an afterlife and never really die, we'd all be killing ourselves the first time things turn to shit -- instead of working through it and evolving as a person. It's simple, really.

But that's just what I think and I'm not really interested in dissecting it. I've already done my own dissection long ago. Anyone else's dissection is meaningless where my conclusions are concerned. Likewise my conclusions for anyone else. It implies a solitude that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but solitude is the canvas upon which these phenomena do their most revealing work.

"Soliloquizing" ( ty for that one) is what Hermits do best (well they would go mad otherwise), but who are they actually talking to? you raise a very good point!

Maybe they are not alone in the cave?

Maybe the best performances are in an empty theater**?

*

*Amphitheater at Delphi (Hellas/Greece)


**Imagination/mind


P.S In my experience I have learned the techniques of dissecting ideas from others, even when I have not shared the same conclusion.
It is always beneficial to hear from people who have really thought about things. Whetstones and all that.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

@Thomas R Morrison

a UFO in the hand is worth two in the bush.

All I want is some irrefutable evidence.

I am not saying it (the evidence) does not exist, just that I am not aware of it.

If a Bear came into my house, I wouldn't really care where it came from, I would be more bothered about it's present location.

Like I said before; at this point - I give up on ever seeing a photo as clear as Meier's photo's, but of a real flying saucer. So I will settle for this; UFO's have the long standing association with being able to fly at incredible speeds and make sharp, right angle turns. So on all those 100's of video's on YouTube (whether daylight, night or night vision) - can't just one of these balls/blurs of light do a right angle turn? That would be a great first step. So we forgo getting able to see detail & structure on the craft, but just how about the ball of light do a right angle turn? But instead, all these points of light travel straight & level (airplane, helo, satellite etc.).

 

[Creepy Green Light]

The one that'll be posted on the morning of October 8, 2017.

Thank you. That's what I thought but with the different convo's going I got confused

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I came to the realization that all this stuff is overly discussed. With all the bloviating most people do on these subjects, the phenomena have no room for demonstration

I get into the “silence is golden” thing sometimes…but not when I’m on The Paracast forums.

I think it’s bizarre to berate people for chatting, at a chat forum. At least we're bloviating about the subject at hand, rather than bloviating about bloviating.

@Thomas R Morrison

a UFO in the hand is worth two in the bush.

All I want is some irrefutable evidence.

I am not saying it (the evidence) does not exist, just that I am not aware of it.

If a Bear came into my house, I wouldn't really care where it came from, I would be more bothered about it's present location.

I wholeheartedly empathize with you about that Han – it would be great to have incontrovertible proof that these things exist, and are typically solid objects that employ a highly advanced field propulsion mechanism far beyond contemporary human technology. (But I should also mention that there are probably quite a few unrelated exotic visual phenomena that occur in the sky - I feel confident that most are simple failures to recognize mundane objects, and that some small number are extraterrestrial devices - but even more rare events may involve unknown life forms, or human time-traveling devices, or things that are so exotic that we haven't even hypothesized them yet)

Now, I haven’t looked into the Channel Islands case to verify that pilot Ray Bowyer does in fact possess all of the evidence that he says he has, including radar and independence witness confirmation, but I heard this interview last night and I thought that it was very powerful (I hope it’s alright to post a link to another show):
Edition 297 – Channel Islands UFO « The Unexplained Paranormal Podcast with Howard Hughes

Like I said before; at this point - I give up on ever seeing a photo as clear as Meier's photo's, but of a real flying saucer. So I will settle for this; UFO's have the long standing association with being able to fly at incredible speeds and make sharp, right angle turns. So on all those 100's of video's on YouTube (whether daylight, night or night vision) - can't just one of these balls/blurs of light do a right angle turn? That would be a great first step. So we forgo getting able to see detail & structure on the craft, but just how about the ball of light do a right angle turn? But instead, all these points of light travel straight & level (airplane, helo, satellite etc.).

Here’s why this is a Catch-22, imo.

When you witness something zigzagging in the sky or performing otherwise mind-boggling maneuvers that defy inertia and gravity, you’re frozen on the spot with your eyes glued to it. Partly out of sheer amazement, and partly because it’s like trying to follow the flight of a fruit fly – you’re afraid to look away and miss something. Your mind kicks in at a thousand mph; you’re thinking “what the hell is that?” and “how is that possible?” and “am I in danger?” That’s why I didn’t run to get my camera until after I lost sight of the illuminated objects that I saw. I suppose it’s vaguely similar to a car crash – nobody takes pictures or film footage of the car crash they’re involved in; they’re too consumed with watching the accident unfold to think about taking pictures of it.

The other factor is simple: you can’t catch instantaneous accelerations with a still camera; that takes film/video, and until very recently, most people didn’t have video cameras in their pockets. But even now, I really doubt that an iPhone would be able to focus on a dot in the sky, so it may not be technically feasible to film something like this with a smartphone...even if you could make the Herculean leap from being mystified by what you’re seeing, to actually thinking “I need to get footage of this right now.” Has anyone tried to capture video of a jet airliner or fighter jets passing overhead, with a smartphone in broad daylight? I think it would be significant to understanding this issue, to evaluate the technical capability of untrained photographers to use smartphones to capture fast aerial objects.

On the other hand, boring aerial maneuvers don’t produce this kind of transfixing/paralytic response. So lots of people get blurry footage of lights moving in a straight line, or hovering motionless in place. It's a completely different experience to see something that *might* be a conventional object in the sky, and to see something that's immediately evident as a completely new and startling visual experience.

I know that none of this abates the frustration of not having some good footage of something in the sky performing rapid hairpin maneuvers. I can’t tell you how much I’ve wanted to see that kind of action caught on film/video ever since my sighting decades ago. But once it’s happened to you, proving it to others eventually becomes a secondary concern. Understanding it – that’s what consumes your mind.

And here’s a really fascinating fact: independent eyewitnesses of these incidents tend to follow a very specific cognitive trajectory after their sighting. First they study other cases (and the broader range of "paranormal" phenomena that they may have discounted before), then they study physics to figure out the principle that makes hairpin maneuvers at thousands of miles per hour possible, and then with surprising regularity they conclude that they’ve witnessed an aerial demonstration of a gravitational field propulsion mechanism (which just so happens to be the one theoretically compelling method of traversing the huge distances between the stars in arbitrarily short time frames).

Given this very clear post-event pattern among myriad ufo witnesses, it strikes me that it’s very possible, if not probable, that this is the pattern that these visitors want us to undergo. It would appear that “they” want us to figure out gravitational field propulsion, but a "nudge in the right direction" appears to be as far as they want to push it (if they simply handed us the blueprints for such a device, then they'd be directly responsible for drastically changing the course of our technological evolution). And I think that if you consider for awhile *why* they would want us to figure out how to replicate their technological capabilities, the answers to that question are very interesting and exciting.

Granted, decoding motives is merely speculative. But the creators of these devices are clearly highly intelligent, because they’ve figured out and built something that we haven’t yet. So I think it’s reasonable to conclude that they understand perfectly well how these sightings will affect the witnesses, and these highly correlated effects are a deliberate strategy, and a very successful one.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I get into the “silence is golden” thing sometimes…but not when I’m on The Paracast forums.

I think it’s bizarre to berate people for chatting, at a chat forum. At least we're bloviating about the subject at hand, rather than bloviating about bloviating.


I wholeheartedly empathize with you about that Han – it would be great to have incontrovertible proof that these things exist, and are typically solid objects that employ a highly advanced field propulsion mechanism far beyond contemporary human technology. (But I should also mention that there are probably quite a few unrelated exotic visual phenomena that occur in the sky - I feel confident that most are simple failures to recognize mundane objects, and that some small number are extraterrestrial devices - but even more rare events may involve unknown life forms, or human time-traveling devices, or things that are so exotic that we haven't even hypothesized them yet)

Now, I haven’t looked into the Channel Islands case to verify that pilot Ray Bowyer does in fact possess all of the evidence that he says he has, including radar and independence witness confirmation, but I heard this interview last night and I thought that it was very powerful (I hope it’s alright to post a link to another show):
Edition 297 – Channel Islands UFO « The Unexplained Paranormal Podcast with Howard Hughes


Here’s why this is a Catch-22, imo.

When you witness something zigzagging in the sky or performing otherwise mind-boggling maneuvers that defy inertia and gravity, you’re frozen on the spot with your eyes glued to it. Partly out of sheer amazement, and partly because it’s like trying to follow the flight of a fruit fly – you’re afraid to look away and miss something. Your mind kicks in at a thousand mph; you’re thinking “what the hell is that?” and “how is that possible?” and “am I in danger?” That’s why I didn’t run to get my camera until after I lost sight of the illuminated objects that I saw. I suppose it’s vaguely similar to a car crash – nobody takes pictures or film footage of the car crash they’re involved in; they’re too consumed with watching the accident unfold to think about taking pictures of it.

The other factor is simple: you can’t catch instantaneous accelerations with a still camera; that takes film/video, and until very recently, most people didn’t have video cameras in their pockets. But even now, I really doubt that an iPhone would be able to focus on a dot in the sky, so it may not be technically feasible to film something like this with a smartphone...even if you could make the Herculean leap from being mystified by what you’re seeing, to actually thinking “I need to get footage of this right now.” Has anyone tried to capture video of a jet airliner or fighter jets passing overhead, with a smartphone in broad daylight? I think it would be significant to understanding this issue, to evaluate the technical capability of untrained photographers to use smartphones to capture fast aerial objects.

On the other hand, boring aerial maneuvers don’t produce this kind of transfixing/paralytic response. So lots of people get blurry footage of lights moving in a straight line, or hovering motionless in place. It's a completely different experience to see something that *might* be a conventional object in the sky, and to see something that's immediately evident as a completely new and startling visual experience.

I know that none of this abates the frustration of not having some good footage of something in the sky performing rapid hairpin maneuvers. I can’t tell you how much I’ve wanted to see that kind of action caught on film/video ever since my sighting decades ago. But once it’s happened to you, proving it to others eventually becomes a secondary concern. Understanding it – that’s what consumes your mind.

And here’s a really fascinating fact: independent eyewitnesses of these incidents tend to follow a very specific cognitive trajectory after their sighting. First they study other cases (and the broader range of "paranormal" phenomena that they may have discounted before), then they study physics to figure out the principle that makes hairpin maneuvers at thousands of miles per hour possible, and then with surprising regularity they conclude that they’ve witnessed an aerial demonstration of a gravitational field propulsion mechanism (which just so happens to be the one theoretically compelling method of traversing the huge distances between the stars in arbitrarily short time frames).

Given this very clear post-event pattern among myriad ufo witnesses, it strikes me that it’s very possible, if not probable, that this is the pattern that these visitors want us to undergo. It would appear that “they” want us to figure out gravitational field propulsion, but a "nudge in the right direction" appears to be as far as they want to push it (if they simply handed us the blueprints for such a device, then they'd be directly responsible for drastically changing the course of our technological evolution). And I think that if you consider for awhile *why* they would want us to figure out how to replicate their technological capabilities, the answers to that question are very interesting and exciting.

Granted, decoding motives is merely speculative. But the creators of these devices are clearly highly intelligent, because they’ve figured out and built something that we haven’t yet. So I think it’s reasonable to conclude that they understand perfectly well how these sightings will affect the witnesses, and these highly correlated effects are a deliberate strategy, and a very successful one.

nobody takes pictures or film footage of the car crash they’re involved in; they’re too consumed with watching the accident unfold to think about taking pictures of it.

But on the other hand - yes they do - even if it's inadvertently. I can spend days & days on YouTube watching car crashes unfold from dashcams, street cams, surv. cams, iPhone cams etc etc. And I get the difference between those cameras and ones aimed at the sky. But still, if 1000's & 1000's of flying discs are observed - you figure AT LEAST ONE GUY or ONE CAMERA SOMEWHERE on planet Earth would capture it. Just one. I'm not greedy. And I don't think the rest of the UFO community is either. If multiple dashcams can capture a flaming meteorite coming into our atmosphere then surely they can capture a disc or two.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Interesting tidbit of information I just looked at;

# of Worldwide meteorite events so far in 2017; 3550 (according to amsmeteors.org)
# of Worldwide UFO reports so far in 2017; 3547 (according to NUFORC)

I'm not saying there is a 100% correlation - but what are the odds that the difference would be 3?

Here's the link to the same meteorite in Canada from this year. THREE SEPARATE cameras caught this and none of them were aiming at the sky. This is EXACTLY the thing I'm talking about. So this exact scenario cant capture a flying disc or a ball of light doing a right angle turn?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

But on the other hand - yes they do - even if it's inadvertently. I can spend days & days on YouTube watching car crashes unfold from dashcams, street cams, surv. cams, iPhone cams etc etc. And I get the difference between those cameras and ones aimed at the sky. But still, if 1000's & 1000's of flying discs are observed - you figure AT LEAST ONE GUY or ONE CAMERA SOMEWHERE on planet Earth would capture it. Just one. I'm not greedy. And I don't think the rest of the UFO community is either. If multiple dashcams can capture a flaming meteorite coming into our atmosphere then surely they can capture a disc or two.

Ufos have probably been caught on dashcams many times, but people probably never bothered to review the footage to look for them, since people don’t tend to look up and they’d pass unnoticed by the people with access to the camera footage.

We have an array of security cameras in my building (they all point down btw), but I never look through the footage unless somebody reports a crime to me after the fact.

I remember seeing the spectacular meteor footage from Russian dashcams. That was an incredibly spectacular event that passed right over a fairly highly populated area and blew out windows with the shock waves. The objects that I saw, by comparison, were only visible as bright points of light, high in the daytime sky. I don’t know of any cameras that point up at the sky – they all point down, or in the case of dashcams, they point forward along the road. I wonder how clearly something like, say, a jet fighter would appear in that kind of camera footage. I’d guess that it would be barely discernible, unless it was very close.

It was a minor miracle that we even noticed the objects that we saw high in the sky that day. If the people in my area had lots of dashcams at the time, some cameras *might* have caught those points of light in the sky, but the driver would’ve never noticed them, because drivers don’t typically look up at the sky (thank god).

Interesting tidbit of information I just looked at;

# of Worldwide meteorite events so far in 2017; 3550 (according to amsmeteors.org)
# of Worldwide UFO reports so far in 2017; 3547 (according to NUFORC)

I'm not saying there is a 100% correlation - but what are the odds that the difference would be 3?

I think that’s a meaningless correlation. To my knowledge I’ve never met anyone who would mistake a meteor for a ufo. And I highly doubt that NUFORC has an accurate record of the number of sightings. For one thing, most people never report their sighting. And those who do, can report them to any number of unconnected groups (MUFON, The UFO Reporting Center, + others).

I’m in the camp that assumes that genuine extraterrestrial craft intrusions into our atmosphere are fairly rare, perhaps only a few events per year (and that may be a high estimate). And of those, even fewer execute maneuvers that completely defy conventional aircraft capabilities. So let’s say that perhaps once per year, somewhere around the globe, an extraterrestrial device is seen zigzagging through the sky for less than one minute by some random person or persons. What are the odds that the witness(es) will have a video camera in hand that’s capable of focusing on the device, and that the witness will have the incredible sense of forethought and emotional detachment to actually take their eyes off of what they’re seeing to fiddle with a video camera to get clear footage of the event? Virtually nil, I figure.

It took a century before we caught ball lighting on camera. It could take several more decades before some lucky bugger captures one of these things performing mind-blowing maneuvers in the sky. In the meantime, we have radar confirmation cases and multiple witness reports (some cases have both), and the people with the access to most of the hard data and high-rez wing camera footage aren’t sharing it. I'm confident that Gordon Cooper's team at Edward's AFB caught a disc on film landing right in front of them - tripod legs extending, the whole nine yards. Cooper saw the negatives and confirmed their report. But the military took it and buried it. And that's only one of many cases I know of where military personnel have reported the gathering of clear and powerful ufo footage. So I think that the evidence definitely exists.

It’s frustrating that wee folk out here in the public sector don’t have the footage we’d like to have, but it doesn’t surprise me.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I think that’s a meaningless correlation. To my knowledge I’ve never met anyone who would mistake a meteor for a ufo. And I highly doubt that NUFORC has an accurate record of the number of sightings. For one thing, most people never report their sighting. And those who do, can report them to any number of unconnected groups (MUFON, The UFO Reporting Center, + others).

I agree there's no correlation. I just find it extremely odd that the # (regardless how accurate) difference is 3.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Listening to ATP right now. I feel sooo much validation in hearing "James Fox is a douche bag." I could NEVER stand that guy. That stupid smirk he has on his face never fades - no matter what he's talking about. He just comes across as a dbag. But hearing that he REALLY is a dbag - was great.

Plus, Chasing UFO's was an embarrassing abortion of a show.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Oh Thomas, no one is berating anyone. It's a simple fact that some people go on and on and on without really saying much of value to the discussion. It happens.

 

[Randall]

I came to the realization that all this stuff is overly discussed.

Then you don't have to discuss it.

With all the bloviating most people do on these subjects, the phenomena have no room for demonstration. I am of the mind that UFOs, ghosts, and other strange things are best experienced without the clutter of external noise. I daresay they are designed to be a primarily solitary experience and can be ruined through all the incessant need so many people have to 'explain' or 'understand' or (more honestly) to be the 'one who defines it' --

Maybe from a certain viewpoint what you're saying is true because people don't like to have their bias bubbles burst, but that's a shallow reason for not trying to understand things.

-- or the worst, all the 'relating' people obsess over.

Relating to people is what people do and one of the primary ways we do that ( particularly here ) is via words, which means that in order to have a coherent conversation people need to have a common understanding about what people mean when they say the things they do. That's basic critical thinking, and quite frankly, if it bothers you then you're part of the problem instead of the solution.

As regards the 'afterlife'. There's a reason it's a mystery to us and that's because we're supposed to focus on the 'life' first. That focus can be intensified and aimed accordingly if one finds it easier to dismiss anything beyond one's death. Though I disagree with those who say there isn't such an existence (for reasons of my own that I feel no need to discuss or explain), I actually think they've come to the right idea about life as a result of this conclusion of theirs. If it helps them keep their head in this game, their life will be better. If we were all aware that we have an afterlife and never really die, we'd all be killing ourselves the first time things turn to shit -- instead of working through it and evolving as a person. It's simple, really.

Some people just aren't satisfied with deferring to nonsense for the sake of personal bias and what feels good. "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." - Hemmingway

But that's just what I think and I'm not really interested in dissecting it.

Then don't dissect your own beliefs. Be happy living in whatever bubble makes you happy.

I've already done my own dissection long ago. Anyone else's dissection is meaningless where my conclusions are concerned. Likewise my conclusions for anyone else. It implies a solitude that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but solitude is the canvas upon which these phenomena do their most revealing work.

Apart from the multiple witness sightings and ones supported by instrumented detection, I suppose you might have a valid point.

 

[Han]

Interesting. OK. So for example?

Just found this:

One of the winning balls in Saturday's Irish National Lottery appeared to change numbers due to a trick of the light, lottery chiefs have said.

Light trick 'caused lottery number change'

the 38 ball looks like its marked both 33 and 38:

Not saying that is what UFO's are just pointing out that even a camera can be 'fooled'.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Just found this:

One of the winning balls in Saturday's Irish National Lottery appeared to change numbers due to a trick of the light, lottery chiefs have said.

Light trick 'caused lottery number change'

the 38 ball looks like its marked both 33 and 38:

Not saying that is what UFO's are just pointing out that even a camera can be 'fooled'.

Did you ever see where someone takes a picture of a digital clock where you can clearly see the reflection of the digital clock on the surface of which it's placed? (say a digital clock on the surface of a granite countertop). But when the person takes a picture of the clock the readout on the clock & on the reflection are one minute off because of the slight delay of the speed of light?

 

[Randall]

Just found this: Light trick 'caused lottery number change' One of the winning balls in Saturday's Irish National Lottery appeared to change numbers due to a trick of the light, lottery chiefs have said. the 38 ball looks like its marked both 33 and 38: Not saying that is what UFO's are just pointing out that even a camera can be 'fooled'.

Interesting find. I've often made the point that scientific instrumentation isn't always better than human perception. Sometimes detectors fail, misread, have artifacts, and on top of that they generally lack intelligent real-time interpretation. But all other things being equal between two separate lone witnesses, one with no instrumented detection, and one with a picture ( even one as bad as the lottery ball where certain surface features aren't perfect ), I think we'd all ( except maybe Bosley ) agree that the witness with the picture has a more substantiated claim.