Roundtable (10 May)

[Paul Kimball]

There are much better cases than Roswell. Just watch Paul's documentary. You know, the one that you can't find here in the States.

I'm afraid that it's out of my hands. Those decisions are up to the distributor.

As for the "nothing new" comment, I agree - but that's the overall problem with UFO research... there's nothing really new, and hasn't been for years, perhaps even decades.

 

[marmer]

I meant to say earlier, though, that it's like Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Just because you've heard it before, and you're not likely to get anything new from it, it's still worth hearing. As to the new, well, the biggest "new" things I have heard are the South America flap and the recent Ted Phillips Morley Woods story.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

Great show!

One period stood out, when the discussion turned to crop circles. When one of the guests (sorry, many of the names are still not sticking in my long-term memory) said something to the effect that, even if crop circles are hoaxed, the hoaxers are still responding to paranormal influences while they are wrecking portions of farmers' yields, I thought David or somebody would have jumped all over him. Just came as a surprise. Anyway ...

Keep up the awesome work, Gene and David! And David, please just keep in touch with your listeners here. We're probably not the crowd you'd hoped for, but I guess that just comes with the territory: the genre of the show, and the nature of Internet discussion forums themselves. Thanks for being welcoming to me, even though we have widely divergent perspectives in some areas. Take care!

 

[BrandonD]

As for the "nothing new" comment, I agree - but that's the overall problem with UFO research... there's nothing really new, and hasn't been for years, perhaps even decades.

I agree to a certain extent, there isn't much new in ufology where hard empirical evidence is concerned, because there doesn't seem to be anything new with the stance of those in scientific institutions. And I personally don't think we should expect that stance to change any time soon.

But I think that the increasing networking of information among ordinary people via the internet has shed some new lights on the ufo mystery. It is based upon common threads and anecdotes, that subjective stuff which is definitely not as good as something like a Cal-Tech lab analysis, but it's the best we interested laymen can do.

This type of information, though interesting, is not scientifically testable or verifiable, and so most "respectable" people in the ufo field stay away from anything new, and in fact attack and ridicule people who dare wade into stranger waters.

The times of ridiculing people like Vallee, mavericks of the field, really haven't changed.

A perfect example is the lambasting of Dolan for reviewing a "channeled" book. Yea channeling, that's so wacky.

And yet, it is depicted over and over and OVER in personal accounts that this intelligence communicates with people through means other than audible sounds with vocal cords. When people relate these stories of "alien" beings communicating via telepathy, people informed in ufology don't immediately call them crazy.

Why? Not because aliens speaking via telepathy makes sense, but because it is so common that there is probably an element of truth there.

So I wonder, is telepathy only possible when you can see the "alien"? When the intelligence isn't visible, then is a voice speaking directly into someone's brain just too crazy to believe?

If there is at least a possibility that some sort of intelligence can communicate telepathically with people, then I'd think it's certainly possible that it can communicate telepathically without being visible. And that sounds just like channeling to me.

Now if someone actually "believes" information received via channeling that's another story, but every criticism of Dolan I've read has been toward the fact that he's even dared considering channeling as something worth serious consideration.

To wrap this up, I just wanna add that none of this is directly referring to you Paul (hope you don't mind me going on a first name basis). Your comment just inspired a rant because I pretty much agree with you. And I think the social instinct to immediately swat the hands of people who stray from the herd is one of the reasons that progress in this field is so sluggish.

 

[spacebrother]

I finally listened to the show. There were many more things I wanted to say, of course. Most radio programs are basically a rude conversation where you cut in on people to get your point across, and the Paracast is thankfully not one of them. I believe that there is as much information passed to listeners when the hosts agree with them as when they don't. Debates and discussions are both useful.

As for the complaint that there was nothing new to discuss, and there was not enough debate between the guests, I think that the main messages bear repeating as often as possible, and to a wide audience:

1) The ETH should get a rest.
What might happen if UFO researchers and aficionados (which are probably the same thing) dropped the ETH for a few years? Would the phenomenon change to adapt to other expectations? I tend to think so. What would that tell us? I think that it would indicate that the phenomenon is much more complicated and intimately connected to us than we might think.

2) MJ-12 is a dead end (mostly.)
What truth is there in that mass of disinfo? Is it that the U.S. Government is/ was concerned with the UFO question? We know that already. I mentioned my idea that MJ-12 probably existed, but was not what we are led to believe. Probably it was concerned with foreign technology and aerospace, and that if any researchers ever got closer to the truth of the matter, it would tend to reinforce their prejudices. Perfect for the original creators of the documents.

3) Roswell is a non-issue.
It's sort of like the JFK assassination--it will never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. Most people outside of the UFO hardcore believe it was an alien craft (if that is their preconception) or a Mogul balloon train (if they don't "believe" in UFOs.) Both groups find ample evidence in the literature to back this up, and ignore "facts" which do not agree with their beliefs. I don't see any evidence of this changing, ever.

4) Serious people should treat the UFO mystery seriously.
The point that UFO researchers should be hammering home to the "respectable" segments of our society (the ones who get the grant money and who determine what goes on the news and science shows) is that there is a real phenomenon going on which deserves to have money and brain power thrown at it for awhile. One of the best examples of this sort of propagandizing is Paul's Best Evidence film. Since the subject draws some of the most weak-minded, undiscerning and loudest people around it, this is a tall order. Perhaps this problem is insumountable at this point in history. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Much more to say, but I have to get up in a few hours.

Thanks to Gene and David, Paul, Nick, and especially the listeners and Paracast community for the thoughtful comments!

 

[Paul Kimball]

One of the best examples of this sort of propagandizing is Paul's Best Evidence film. Since the subject draws some of the most weak-minded, undiscerning and loudest people around it, this is a tall order. Perhaps this problem is insumountable at this point in history. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.

Well said, and thanks!

By the way, you have the best Paracast avatar ever!

 

[fahrusha]

I finally got a chance to hear this episode and really enjoyed it. I look forward to seeing the Paul Kimball film mentioned. My big sticking point in the show was the comment about how many UFO's seen over the years have been secret military craft. I don't believe that none of them are government secrets, but the pattern for many UFO sightings has been consistent for years- a craft or lights are seen that can change direction suddenly and often streak off at an amazing speed. They make no sound and can go from a dead stop to faster than any known terrestrial craft with no interim speed. When I saw the first UFO I've ever seen when I was a teen, that was the pattern. I cannot believe the military would not have used such a craft in the intervening years (which are not as few as I'd like).
Thanks for another great show.
Fahrusha

 

[marmer]

Fahrusha,

I remember that bugged me slightly, too. It seemed a little hard for me to believe, knowing something as I do about military aviation history, that we would have something that much more advanced than the advanced stuff we know about. David rejects of the idea that microprocessor technology was reverse engineered from alien tech because the path of advance is clearly and logically visible in the known products of the last fifty years or so. Seems the same is true about the formerly classified aircraft we know about, such as the B-2, the F-117, and the F-22. Their antecedents are clearly visible, and as you point out, their extreme performance is still not anywhere near the actions described in many UFO reports. I do think that some UFO crash reports are the results of classified aircraft and UAV tests gone awry. I also remember a UFO sighting of the '50s when a pilot of the then-classified U-2 overheard a pair of intercept pilots talking about firing on him, and, in order to maintain radio silence and the secrecy of his aircraft, stood the thing on its tail and got out of Dodge in a hurry. The intercept pilots then reported a UFO with performance outside their known abilities. (I think that story is in Dolan's book.)

I also think that Schuyler's excellent point in another thread bears repeating: even with the wars we find ourselves engaged in now, nothing is remotely close to a tactical situation that would require revealing any of our super-secret goodies. If we're talking an A-bomb or higher level of secrecy, then we're looking at a world crisis similar to WWII or greater before we bring out anything big where the secrecy is part of the weapon's value. In other words, if you can kill enough of the bad guys with conventional bullets and artillery, you don't need to show the world you have a laser cannon!

 

[XAF-B-WATERS]

David rejects of the idea that microprocessor technology was reverse engineered from alien tech because the path of advance is clearly and logically visible in the known products of the last fifty years or so.

This is exactly what i have always thought. The same goes with fiber optics. Not back engineered but a result of hard work by engineers and scientists. A natural progression of our own technology. I think Et's are far too advanced to use antiquated microchips and glass fiber for data and communication transfer.
Steve