• 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!

Ridiculous theories that the author know's is bogus but perpetuates

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

The only ridiculous theory that belongs here (in relation to September 11) is the government's conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers armed with box cutters outwitted the multitude of heavily funded intelligence agencies and magically ordered a stand-down of Norad and crashed planes in such a way to weaken steel structures to cause buildings (even the one they didn't even hit) to fall exactly like they would in a controlled demolition.
 
technomage said:
The only ridiculous theory that belongs here (in relation to September 11) is the government's conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers armed with box cutters outwitted the multitude of heavily funded intelligence agencies and magically ordered a stand-down of Norad and crashed planes in such a way to weaken steel structures to cause buildings (even the one they didn't even hit) to fall exactly like they would in a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
LOL. At least you prefaced it with "The only ridiculous theory that belongs here is...."
 
beyondthestargate said:
Every so often someone states the desire for some sort of Board of Inquiry that evaluates ufology related claims, separating the wheat from the chaff. But when this is voiced publicly, it is buried under an avalanche of outrage, with cries of censorship and corruption scaring away anyone from trying to implement such an idea. To me, ufology is a herd of cats. They may hang out together at conferences (as cats would do during feeding time), but otherwise everyone is pretty much a solo entity, each with their own motives and intentions. Who would be qualified to be on such a Board of Inquiry? I am sure anyone mentioned would immediately invoke a fire storm of protest. What possible power would such a board have, since there are no legal penalties available for anyone who writes a fictional account of their contact with Venusian Space Babes with Beehive Hairdos and Go Go Boots! Would such a Board, if given any respect whatsoever in a field full of non-conformist individuals, use as their sign of approval, something like the old Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval? Would this become a much wanted approval to be stamped on the cover of new ufo related books?

In a field where everyone is equal (at least on a legal basis), how do you police the rabble? It just seems to me that there is no one with authority to evaluate anyone else in ufology. We may obviously have our personal favorites, people we deem credible. Yet you would never reach a consensus on this. In the same manner that Christianity has morphed into 40,000 distinct sects over time, won't ufology just continue to do the same thing?

The idea of separating the entertainment industry from the serious research industry in ufology is laudable. Of course, in reality they overlap and the waters are muddied. With the popularity of TV shows about UFOs, we are finding that organizations, like MUFON, which was once a respected serious research industry, has become part of the former entertainment industry.

Forgive this rambling on my part. Perhaps you just witnessed a mini-therapy session with myself, as I tried to come up with a feasible way to give some organization to ufology, to consider how a Board of Inquiry could be established. But with everyone disagreeing over who would have the authority to be on such a Board, much less what possible authority such a Board could have, I just don't see how it could ever materialize.

Perhaps we must just admit that perhaps 95% of ufology is deeply entrenched in the entertainment industry. Perhaps those few individuals who still care enough to actually evaluate the current cases simply need to be OUTSIDE ufology and do their painstaking work quietly and without media coverage.
Click to expand...
Some really good points there. It's one of the reasons I started USI. My hope was to attract like minded serious individuals in ufology who agreed with the principles of critical thinking and the idea that ufology, though not suited to becoming a science unto itself, could still be treated as an academic field of study. I've received a lot of support in principle for the effort, and we have about 2200 members in some 22 countries, and I think it's safe to say I'm not the only member here who agrees that "separating the signal from the noise", is a worthy undertaking. If we had an X-Files level budget and the resources to put a few people on staff, I'd have all available reports standardized and rated using our Confidence Rating system and then digitized and made available online for free. But with free membership and no tax deductibility in order to protect member privacy, our only means of support is gifts and volunteers, and that's come largely out of my time and increasingly shallow pockets.
 
William Strathman said:
Not speaking for Dr. Michael Heiser, but he is not an advocate of the Annunaki. Instead, he has expertise in Semitic languages and has written about the mistranslations of ancient texts by Zecharia Sitchin who is (was) an advocate of the Annunaki.
Click to expand...
So speaking of Sitchen and the Annunaki....is Sitchin out to lunch with his translations or are they valid? One thing that stumps me is just the map of the solar system that the Sumerian's drew. How could someone especially back then know that the sun is the center of our solar system, the correct amount of planets, and the direction that they revolve around the sun?
 
b"h

CGL, here's a link to Heiser's website:

Anunnaki

Personally, I don't think that bronze age knowledge of the solar system depends on Sitchin being correct, though I am not saying he is or isn't. My original post was meant to correct an error by someone else about Heiser and the Anunnaki. In any case, Aristarchus evidently had a fair idea of what was going on:

Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also think many moderns wrongly look down on ancient humanity's mental acuity.

Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
William Strathman said:
b"h

CGL, here's a link to Heiser's website:

Anunnaki

Personally, I don't think that bronze age knowledge of the solar system depends on Sitchin being correct, though I am not saying he is or isn't. My original post was meant to correct an error by someone else about Heiser and the Anunnaki. In any case, Aristarchus evidently had a fair idea of what was going on:

Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also think many moderns wrongly look down on ancient humanity's mental acuity.

Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Got it and thank you.
 
William Strathman said:
b"h

CGL, here's a link to Heiser's website:

Anunnaki

Personally, I don't think that bronze age knowledge of the solar system depends on Sitchin being correct, though I am not saying he is or isn't. My original post was meant to correct an error by someone else about Heiser and the Anunnaki. In any case, Aristarchus evidently had a fair idea of what was going on:

Aristarchus of Samos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also think many moderns wrongly look down on ancient humanity's mental acuity.

Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
Keep it mind, wacko conspiracy theorists will say that Heiser is a misinformation agent planted purposely by the government to purposely discredit Sitchin blah blah yada yada yawn yawn :)
 
So I am fairly new here and a bit shy, but I just checked out the latest Timothy Good book from my Library and I am... stunned. I'd always thought he had a pretty good head, but this latest pile of papers has me very upset with Mr. Good. It's not my first rodeo, by any means, but Mr. Good pretends we have never encountered this stuff. When he talks up Adamski and shows photos of OBVIOUS fakery (those snow photos of the little plastic astronaut by the 12" disc) is just a load of BS. Who fails to possess enough of the optical experience of seeing things all their lives to determine this is fakery?

That is not the worst of Tim Good's "illustrations".

I am getting fairly angry just considering this, and I am usually attempting to Not Get Angry. So I consider this latest effort by Tim Good to be a Loss. Not sure what that means for Mr. Good, except that he lacks some basic optical awareness and the essential BS meter most of us have.

Please note I take no pleasure in finding that one of my "trusted sources" is somehow now an idiot. I Don't Like It.

-Greg
 
Vimana said:
So I am fairly new here and a bit shy, but I just checked out the latest Timothy Good book from my Library and I am... stunned. I'd always thought he had a pretty good head, but this latest pile of papers has me very upset with Mr. Good. It's not my first rodeo, by any means, but Mr. Good pretends we have never encountered this stuff. When he talks up Adamski and shows photos of OBVIOUS fakery (those snow photos of the little plastic astronaut by the 12" disc) is just a load of BS. Who fails to possess enough of the optical experience of seeing things all their lives to determine this is fakery?

That is not the worst of Tim Good's "illustrations".

I am getting fairly angry just considering this, and I am usually attempting to Not Get Angry. So I consider this latest effort by Tim Good to be a Loss. Not sure what that means for Mr. Good, except that he lacks some basic optical awareness and the essential BS meter most of us have.

Please note I take no pleasure in finding that one of my "trusted sources" is somehow now an idiot. I Don't Like It.

-Greg
Click to expand...
 
Vimana said:
So I am fairly new here and a bit shy, but I just checked out the latest Timothy Good book from my Library and I am... stunned. I'd always thought he had a pretty good head, but this latest pile of papers has me very upset with Mr. Good. It's not my first rodeo, by any means, but Mr. Good pretends we have never encountered this stuff. When he talks up Adamski and shows photos of OBVIOUS fakery (those snow photos of the little plastic astronaut by the 12" disc) is just a load of BS. Who fails to possess enough of the optical experience of seeing things all their lives to determine this is fakery?

That is not the worst of Tim Good's "illustrations".

I am getting fairly angry just considering this, and I am usually attempting to Not Get Angry. So I consider this latest effort by Tim Good to be a Loss. Not sure what that means for Mr. Good, except that he lacks some basic optical awareness and the essential BS meter most of us have.

Please note I take no pleasure in finding that one of my "trusted sources" is somehow now an idiot. I Don't Like It.

-Greg
Click to expand...
I don't know how to explain the huge difference in quality between his excellent book Beyond Top Secret and some of his other stuff. Perhaps he had a research assistant for ATS. I don't know. It's almost like he's not even the same author. Makes you wonder if they got to him somehow ... LOL. I hope it's not early onset Alzheimer's or something awful like that.
 
ufology said:
I don't know how to explain the huge difference in quality between his excellent book Beyond Top Secret and some of his other stuff. Perhaps he had a research assistant for ATS. I don't know. It's almost like he's not even the same author. Makes you wonder if they got to him somehow ... LOL. I hope it's not early onset Alzheimer's or something awful like that.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I thought when I compared his new works to the latter.He also seemed markedly different when interviewed.All rather strange.
 
DaveM said:
And what about those who were behind the hijackers? It wasn't just a dozen or so terrorists operating on their own. Someone had to support them with money. I haven't heard any stories about those individuals being brought to justice.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Did you just hatch from an egg? Do you need to catch up on the news? Al Qaida supported them, we declared war on Al Qaida, we invaded Afghanistan to bring them to justice and get Al Qaida's leader, Osama Bin Laden (in case you haven't heard of him). Bush bungled that but we later killed Bin Laden in Pakistan.
 
Mohawk said:
Are you serious? Did you just hatch from an egg? Do you need to catch up on the news? Al Qaida supported them, we declared war on Al Qaida, we invaded Afghanistan to bring them to justice and get Al Qaida's leader, Osama Bin Laden (in case you haven't heard of him). Bush bungled that but we later killed Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Click to expand...
You may wish to revise your flawed history, Mr. Chicken Egg. Al Qaida is an invention of the CIA. Our government in their infinite wisdom decided to train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan. Once they were trained, supplied with weapons, they were ready to terrorize. You are right about one thing. Bush bungled more than a few things.
 
Maybe once we figure out this 9/11 thing we can get to more important things, like the secret hidden alien base on the darkside of the moon. People always argue if the base is that of the Gray's or the Reptilians. These people are so stupid. The Gray's are the "enlisted men" and the Reptilians are the "officers".

Just wish they'd finally get it right.
 
Back
Top