Ron James Episode

[DaveM]

I have to say I disagree with plenty of what he had to say, especially about the Citizens Disclosure. He was willing to give people like Dr. Greer a big pass. I don't think most people feel the same as James does. Whenever I hear the phrase, "You have to" and then proceed to give people a pass like I previously mentioned, I have to cringe. No Ron, we don't have to do any such thing. I will agree that complaining about Hollywood producing crap that people want to watch is futile. Humans have been dumbed down, it pains me to say. A program on spirituality will always come in second to something about the Kardashians.

 

[Pararescueman]

Wow. just wow. I thought the paracast was the gold standard in paranormal radio, more like fools gold. You guys gave this guy a pass on multiple areas. Roger Leir talking to President Obama, Louis Farrakhan... Wow. And Steve Greer will not even give that a waste of breath. You basically handled him with kid gloves. At least with C2C you could expect something like this, not you guys. I agree with DaveM on this one, most people do not feel or think the same as James.
This is problem you run into when you are too buddy buddy with guest. You lose your objectivity and fail to ask the hard questions. Just speechless.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Other than saying, no, you didn't hear that, what do you suppose we should do other than let him say his piece about something he heard?

Clearly we did question his reasoning on some key issues, however. And I admonished him when he talked about Leslie Kean's relationship with the late Budd Hopkins.

For the rest, well, maybe he drank a little too much Kool-Aid.

 

[DaveM]

I thought some more about what Ron James said about the Citizens Disclosure. I suppose if he had been negative about the proceedings there, he might be jeopardizing any more gigs that somebody might be considering him for. However, he did make light of such people as Paul Hellyer. You remember, the man who said that four different extraterrestrial species have been visiting the Earth for thousands of years. I guess Stephen Bassett forgot to vet him or tell him to shut his mouth about such talk.

Ron James also mentioned that the news groups were giving this get-together the seriousness it deserved. Go and check the Huffington Post headline. It screams 'We Are Not Alone.' If you look right above the headline it shows the following: 'It's Too Big.' That is referring to the man with the world's largest penis. I guess we know where Alien Disclosure stands in the big picture.

 

[Randall]

• Ancient Aliens Debunked if you want something credible.
• I loved the Victoria's Secret Paranormal Investigations concept ... sign me up !
• Where can I get me some of that Trickster Spray Gene? Wait ... found some ...

@Gene Steinberg

 

[OBEY]

Other than saying, no, you didn't hear that, what do you suppose we should do other than let him say his piece about something he heard?

Clearly we did question his reasoning on some key issues, however. And I admonished him when he talked about Leslie Kean's relationship with the late Budd Hopkins.

For the rest, well, maybe he drank a little too much Kool-Aid.

Maybe I am too soft but I actually enjoyed the interview. I understand the points made by everyone, however the feeling I got was more along the lines of Ron just trying to extend professional courtesy to people he has worked with. The Paracast is a popular show and it's likely what he said will make it back to those mentioned. As an actor I can understand that though I may not agree with someone, trashing someone on air usually is all downside and unfortunately the film industry is all about networking and exposure.

I do not think Gene was too soft on him either, I think he read the conversation well. He called Ron on a few things that didn't sit well with him but appeared to get the sense after a few comments that it was clear he wasn't going to get Ron to say anything negative about said people so he respectfully let the guest say his piece and move on. Honestly as a guy who listens to a lot of talk radio and podcasting I appreciate the host not getting overly emotional and shouting over the guest, there is plenty of that.

But hey I could totally be wrong about all of this. Just felt like dropping my opinion.

(Yes I am very new to the forum, but I am impressed by the amount of intelligent conversations here. Even when there is disagreement. I look forward to participating in many future discussions

 

[wwkirk]

Good show. I wonder how Ivolve TV will fare up against free resources like You Tube. I wish him well.

I commend Gene and Chris for confronting Ron on the viability of declare that UFOs are extra-terrestrial, though he didn't budge from his position.

 

[Randall]

There's already a thread for this here: Ron James Episode | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And so they are merged.

 

[wwkirk]

So few comments.

 

[SPX]

I have to say I disagree with plenty of what he had to say, especially about the Citizens Disclosure. He was willing to give people like Dr. Greer a big pass. I don't think most people feel the same as James does. Whenever I hear the phrase, "You have to" and then proceed to give people a pass like I previously mentioned, I have to cringe.

I think one point he was trying to make is that nothing is perfect, especially in something like the UFO field. Just be glad the event was as solid and high-quality as it was and don't get too worked up about a few cracks in the foundation here and there.

 

[SPX]

And I admonished him when he talked about Leslie Kean's relationship with the late Budd Hopkins.

While I understand why you did that, I thought his point was a good one. I love Leslie Kean and think she's just about the best in the business right now but her refusal to take a position publicly is annoying.

 

[SPX]

Good show. I wonder how Ivolve TV will fare up against free resources like You Tube.

Not well, more than likely. And that's a shame.

I think at this point we're way too used to getting things for free. And as we all know, if you pay nothing for something then you don't value it like you would if you have to part with some cash to get it.

As a film student and freelance magazine writer, I also am in total agreement with him that content creators should be compensated for their work. I really do get sick of people who apparently feel like they're entitled to something for free, despite the fact that it took time and money to create.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's up to Leslie to defend her position, but she clearly prefers to serve as an advocate for scientific investigation of UFOs. Taking a position in advance of that investigation isn't scientific. She doesn't want to influence the direction such investigations take. Compare that to those who say the mystery is solved. It's ET, the government knows it, so tell us the truth. Which approach do you think has a better chance of succeeding?

 

[Randall]

It's up to Leslie to defend her position, but she clearly prefers to serve as an advocate for scientific investigation of UFOs. Taking a position in advance of that investigation isn't scientific. She doesn't want to influence the direction such investigations take. Compare that to those who say the mystery is solved. It's ET, the government knows it, so tell us the truth. Which approach do you think has a better chance of succeeding?

Succeeding at what? We've been through this. Kean's approach looks good, but on closer inspection her anti-ufology allegiance is divisive and self-serving. Although Kean might still get lucky, it's a faulty premise to assume that marginalizing ufology will get anyone any closer to gaining governmental cooperation. I submit that if anything, gaining respect for ufology would have a far better chance. The giggle factor, which is at the root of problem, was started by the government in the first place. Does anyone really think that by switching UFO for UAP that the government can't see right through what she's doing? They know full well that if she succeeded in getting disclosure that the ufology community would be all over like white on rice. The media is the only place where she stands to gain anything from fewer giggles, and that means more book and ticket sales to keep her run as a UFO celebrity rolling, and all the while she's marginalizing the rest of the field. She could be doing just the opposite, but all celebrities have fans and in the eyes of her fans she can obviously do no wrong.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, the non-politically correct angle hasn't worked. We've been there, done that. If her more cautious approach fails, you might have a point. Let's see.

 

[Randall]

Well, the non-politically correct angle hasn't worked. We've been there, done that. If her more cautious approach fails, you might have a point. Let's see.

Maybe she'll get lucky, and if that happens it will have less to do with her "angle" and more to do with pure coincidence. In the meantime she's going around using her "angle" to prop herself up at the expense of the rest of us. There's also nothing politically incorrect about using the word UFO. It's an officially recognized word created by the an agency of the government ( the USAF ), that has been in use for over 60 years and used in thousands of official government documents, many of which are formerly top secret. It's also an accepted word in the English dictionary. On the other hand UAP has no such standing. So if she gets any disclosure it's going to be about UFOs, not UAPs. UAP is an expression that we in ufology have adopted for our purposes to differentiate between vague phenomena and what we're really interested in finding the truth out about.

Most poignantly, the government doesn't use NARCAP's terminology, and therefore it makes no sense to think it's going to help in getting disclosure. If you actually do a search of formerly secret government records on the Bluebook Archive using the initials UAP you get 4 results which are irrelevant because of OCR recognition. On the other hand if you use the word UFO, you get 1397 results. Remember we're talking about official government documents, with official governmental terminology. So you tell me Gene, which makes more sense to use with the government UFO or UAP? You're buying into a strategy that has little to do with actually getting results from the government, and more to do with maintaining Kean's public image.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

When it comes to using UFO, we did that in the 1950s and 1960s with Major Donald Keyhoe, NICAP and their attempts to get disclosure and ad admission that UFOs were likely extraterrestrial. That, and sightings in Michigan, encouraged then-Congressman Gerald Ford to hold such hearings. We ended up with the Condon Report. Why assume that things are going to be different now? That approach simply failed, and every effort since then has failed. Isn't it time to try something new?

 

[SPX]

It's up to Leslie to defend her position, but she clearly prefers to serve as an advocate for scientific investigation of UFOs. Taking a position in advance of that investigation isn't scientific. She doesn't want to influence the direction such investigations take. Compare that to those who say the mystery is solved. It's ET, the government knows it, so tell us the truth. Which approach do you think has a better chance of succeeding?

Well I think she can advocate a certain approach to the subject while also being more free with her own opinions on it. For instance, she can say, "We really don't know what's going on in our skies and it's important to remain unbiased and not jump to conclusions. But if you're asking my personal opinion, well, based on the evidence that we do have so far, I lean toward UFOs being [insert personal position here]."

That wouldn't have to mean that she is pushing others to reach that same conclusion, only that it is the conclusion she personally suspects to be the correct one based upon the information she has thus far received.

 

[SPX]

Maybe she'll get lucky, and if that happens it will have less to do with her "angle" and more to do with pure coincidence. In the meantime she's going around using her "angle" to prop herself up at the expense of the rest of us.

All she's saying is, "Let's just stick to the facts." Right now, what we CAN prove is that something strange is going on overhead. What we CAN'T prove is what that something is. And I don't really see a problem with taking a conservative approach and not making claims or assertions that we can't really back up. The most important thing right now is just to get people outside of the UFO community to recognize that SOMETHING is happening. Once that has happened, the rest will take care of itself.

So from that perspective, I really don't see a problem with her approach and I'm not sure why you seem to be so emotional about it.

There's also nothing politically incorrect about using the word UFO. It's an officially recognized word created by the an agency of the government ( the USAF ), that has been in use for over 60 years and used in thousands of official government documents, many of which are formerly top secret. It's also an accepted word in the English dictionary. On the other hand UAP has no such standing. So if she gets any disclosure it's going to be about UFOs, not UAPs. UAP is an expression that we in ufology have adopted for our purposes to differentiate between vague phenomena and what we're really interested in finding the truth out about.

Agreed. The whole UAP thing is ridiculous. I've never once even used the term and I'm not likely to ever start. I just don't think there's any point. Even if people in the mainstream started adopting it I really don't think it would change anything.