September 16, 2012 Nick Redfern

[wwkirk]

Nick was good as usual. But wasn't he on on recently? I guess for a weekly show its hard to get new guests all the time.

(OT: There are new technical hurdles to posting threads. What gives? Tags? Who needs them?)

 

[Battlecat]

Think of nick as more like an intermittant co-host than a guest.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Nick was good as usual. But wasn't he on on recently? I guess for a weekly show its hard to get new guests all the time.

(OT: There are new technical hurdles to posting threads. What gives? Tags? Who needs them?)

Hurdles? Tagging supposedly makes it easier for people to find posts.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Nick was great as usual.

 

[LoremIpsum]

I enjoy Redfern but prefer Chris's bumper.

 

[Wade]

Hurdles? Tagging supposedly makes it easier for people to find posts.

As fast as hurdles gene he may have been referring to the fact that the posting of links in the threads had been somewhat wiggy as of late. At times they don't come out as clickable links.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Ctulhu knows I love Nick. I consider him a major influence in my later development as a Fortean —heck, I guess I can even brag I'm (sort of) his colleague, since I also contribute @ Mysterious Universe.

And I although I thoroughly enjoyed his lists of the 10 things Ufologists shouldn't do, and his article about the future of Ufology, I don't think I can agree with his certainty that 100 years from now UFOlogy would still be pretty much as stagnant as it is today.

I think that, at least for now, there are 2 major developments which could have a dramatic influence on the field, in the next 10 to 30 years:

The Discovery of Earth 2.0: Astronomers are getting really good in the art of detecting new planets, and the list keeps increasing at almost a geometric rate. I don't think it's foolhardy to consider that the day when they announce with 99% certainty that they have discovered a planet with life as we know it on our own is closer than we realize it. That is one major paradigm change easier to bet on that all the Exopoliticians' wishful thinking about Disclosure. One that I can almost guarantee we will all still be alive to witness *knocks on wood*

Why would it have influence on the field: Starting to determine just how common or rare are the worlds capable of sustaining intelligent life will swiftly begin to shift and mold our expectations for encountering smart ETs out there; and although I still side with Nick in thinking the ETH is vastly inadequate to explain the fringier aspects of the UFO mystery, finding a second Earth will still send huge ripples in the field, either strengthening or eroding the case for the ETH —and even for SETI, I reckon.

Development of Strong A.I.: There are a lot of things I don't buy about the Trans-humanist movement, and yet I do recognize how, if we're able to create machines which could learn faster than our brains can, the world as we know it would never be the same.

Why would it have influence on the field: With such a fuzzy event horizon —that's why they call it The Singularity after all!— believing that the only aspect of human inquiry which would remain untouched is UFOlogy seems IMHO a tad unrealistic.

And a possible 3rd,

Unexpected Discoveries at the LHC: The Higgs boson was (possibly) discovered this year, and now the CERN dudes want a bigger & badder collider, to research on gravity at a molecular level.

Why would it have influence on the field: This is a bit more difficult to envision and it's the most speculative of all 3, but perhaps as scientists keep pushing the boundaries of particle physics, they would actually manage to have unexpected breakthroughs in other areas as well. Who's to say that a weird outcome of one of their experiments wouldn't accidentally find the secret behind parallel dimensions?

So, even if things inside the field keep going on as usual, with all of us fighting over petty and silly things, we would still be dragged by the powerful momentum of advances coming from the outside, and force to adapt consequently.

...Unless monkeys finally reclaim the Earth from our hands

 

[Ron Collins]

Think of nick as more like an intermittant co-host than a guest.

But.... He lives in Dallas Texas.

 

[Smorry]

I've been listening to the Paracast for a couple of years now and I was often been tempted to join the forums and voice my frustration. It took this episode with Nick Redfern to make me actually do it. This episode was a breath of fresh air! A logical objective discussion about paranormal events! We weren't told to believe something because the guests were friends of Chris's. Theories weren't blindly thrown out because the guest is not a friend of Chris's. When you started talking about the 10 things UFOligists shouldn't do, I was yelling at my screen "Gene! That's all the stuff Chris does!"

Please don't read this as a rant, but more as a thank you for a great show!

Please think about making Rick Redfern your regular co-host and take this show to the next level.

Smorry

 

[Gene Steinberg]

NICK Redfern is a friend of the show and my friend. He's also a guest co-host, meaning that he's on call when he's needed. Since he is a prolific author, and always coming up with great ideas, you'll hear from him frequently.

And, no, I do not think Chris does any of those 10 things. Sorry man. He doesn't take himself too seriously either.

 

[Randall]

I've been listening to the Paracast for a couple of years now and I was often been tempted to join the forums and voice my frustration. It took this episode with Rick Redfern to make me actually do it. This episode was a breath of fresh air! A logical objective discussion about paranormal events! We weren't told to believe something because the guests were friends of Chris's. Theories weren't blindly thrown out because the guest is not a friend of Chris's. When you started talking about the 10 things UFOligists shouldn't do, I was yelling at my screen "Gene! That's all the stuff Chris does!"

Please don't read this as a rant, but more as a thank you for a great show!

Please think about making Rick Redfern your regular co-host and take this show to the next level.

Smorry

Glad to see you took the plunge. Regarding the show, I think that I heard more editorializing going on than you did, but I still enjoyed the show.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

When Gene read out the 10 things Ufologists should not do, one of them was the use of an initial for a middle name when the author would not usually go by that form of their name.

I happened to be reading a copy of 'Nexus' the day after catching the show and at the back of the magazine there are adverts for all sorts of books on the paranormal. There was indeed quite a few using the initial!

Now, does Nick's rant on this particular subject extend to Stan Friedman? I'm sure on his books he is credited as the author using 'Stanton T. Friedman'? lolly.

 

[Smorry]

NICK Redfern is a friend of the show and my friend. He's also a guest co-host, meaning that he's on call when he's needed. Since he is a prolific author, and always coming up with great ideas, you'll hear from him frequently.

And, no, I do not think Chris does any of those 10 things. Sorry man. He doesn't take himself too seriously either.

Fair enough. I just listened to the list again and yes I shouldn't have said all 10 items. I would say 5 of them fit, but then I'm only going on how he comes across in the show while you know him in much greater depth.

My apologies to Nick for not catching my spelling mistake(Arg! I even own some of this books!).

Keep up the great work Gene!

Smorry

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Fair enough. I just listened to the list again and yes I shouldn't have said all 10 items. I would say 5 of them fit, but then I'm only going on how he comes across in the show while you know him in much greater depth.

My apologies to Nick for not catching my spelling mistake(Arg! I even own some of this books!).

Keep up the great work Gene!

Smorry

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here, but going through the 10 things Nick pointed out at his blog, I would like to know which ones you think fit with Chris.

1. THE MYSTERIOUS MIDDLE INITIAL : Nope

2. THE LETTERS AFTER THE NAME: Chris doesn't brag about any career title that I know of.

3. THE UFOLOGICAL DRESS CODE:

GQ cover material!

4. SAYING THE RIGHT THING TO THE (ALLEGEDLY) INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE: I really couldn't tell about this one since I've never went to a UFO convention, or talked personally with Chris, but in light of the Paracasts shows I've heard, I honestly feel Chris doesn't shy away from pointing out where he disagrees with the guests.

5. CREATING AN IMAGE OF: "DON'T TALK TO ME! I'M A FAMOUS UFOLOGIST!": Again, see above.

6. "THE TRUTH IS COMING": I think Chris is more skeptical than most when it comes to 'Disclosure'.

7. IT'S E.T. FOREVER!: Chris is pretty much anti-ETH, with exception of how he regards Ray Stanford and his research on Socorro. Now, it this had been 'It's the Trickster forever' instead...

8. NEVER TURNING OFF THE "I'M A UFOLOGIST" SWITCH: See #4 & 5

9. BIGFOOT!: Chris is no afraid of mixing his Cryptos with his UFOs and shake them to make a tasty Fortean margarita

10. UFOLOGICAL WORRIES: See #4, 5 & 8.

Again, I don't want to appear hostile toward your opinion, to which you're entitled. But IMHO I feel that when it comes to the things Nick pointed out, Chris doesn't fit the bill.

Saludos,

RPJ

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here, but going through the 10 things Nick pointed out at his blog, I would like to know which ones you think fit with Chris.

1. THE MYSTERIOUS MIDDLE INITIAL : Nope

2. THE LETTERS AFTER THE NAME: Chris doesn't brag about any career title that I know of.

3. THE UFOLOGICAL DRESS CODE:

GQ cover material!

4. SAYING THE RIGHT THING TO THE (ALLEGEDLY) INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE: I really couldn't tell about this one since I've never went to a UFO convention, or talked personally with Chris, but in light of the Paracasts shows I've heard, I honestly feel Chris doesn't shy away from pointing out where he disagrees with the guests.
5. CREATING AN IMAGE OF: "DON'T TALK TO ME! I'M A FAMOUS UFOLOGIST!": Again, see above.
6. "THE TRUTH IS COMING": I think Chris is more skeptical than most when it comes to 'Disclosure'.
7. IT'S E.T. FOREVER!: Chris is pretty much anti-ETH, with exception of how he regards Ray Stanford and his research on Socorro. Now, it this had been 'It's the Trickster forever' instead...
8. NEVER TURNING OFF THE "I'M A UFOLOGIST" SWITCH: See #4 & 5
9. BIGFOOT!: Chris is no afraid of mixing his Cryptos with his UFOs and shake them to make a tasty Fortean margarita
10. UFOLOGICAL WORRIES: See #4, 5 & 8.
Again, I don't want to appear hostile toward your opinion, to which you're entitled. But IMHO I feel that when it comes to the things Nick pointed out, Chris doesn't fit the bill.

Thanks RPJ, I appreciate you for your involvement in the field and for pointing out the obvious as it relates to my rock-solid POV and my proud lack of an agenda -- besides drilling down on "The Truth" (whatever that may be.)
It's fun watching newbies (who obviously haven't done their homework) coming to the forum attempting to splash the pool dry. It makes for spirited reparte and perhaps it will aid in their educational process.
For the record: I pride myself as being one of a few of us that are willing to point out that the emperor's on parade are naked. I've never claimed to be any sort of expert. In fact, I start most of my talks with the statement. "I'm not an expert. I don't call myself an expert. There are no experts--just people who ask more creative questions. If anyone comes up (to this podium) and calls themselves an expert--run the other way." The truth? We can't handle the truth--that's why its masquerading itself as "ET." Hello? Is the truth coming? Hell no, its already here--we just haven't recognized it for what it is. Ufologist switch always on? Hah, that's a good one. In social situations, I'm embarrassed by the subject and avoid it if possible. I have a very robust life that purposefully excludes"ufology." I won't bore you w/ all the details, but ask if you don't believe me, i.e., musician, videographer, professional guide, outdoorsperson, artist etc. Crypto connection? Like Nick, I've been shouting for years that we should recognize the interrelatedness between most forms of so-called "paranormal" phenomena. I've been saying this for 20 years! Maybe George "Smorry" should read my book "Stalking the Tricksters" and get up2speed about my thinking (?)
I'm not sure about the "ufological worries" bit. What's that about? The only thing that really worries me is the rampant ignorance and stupidity that the rest of us are being subjected to in this dysfunctunal culture during interesting times. And then there are the true believer types willing to abdicate their process to the "space bros," or "evil aliens" etc, blah, bla blah, ad nauseum (heh-heh I can't believe I responded to this post!

Smorry. Care to take your conversation about me in a PM? If not, hunker down---After 20 years battling against the BS in this so-called field I don't take your brand of criticism lightly and I'll be watching you... and scrutinizing the depth and quality of your "thinking."

 

[Randall]

When Gene read out the 10 things Ufologists should not do, one of them was the use of an initial for a middle name when the author would not usually go by that form of their name.

I happened to be reading a copy of 'Nexus' the day after catching the show and at the back of the magazine there are adverts for all sorts of books on the paranormal. There was indeed quite a few using the initial!

Now, does Nick's rant on this particular subject extend to Stan Friedman? I'm sure on his books he is credited as the author using 'Stanton T. Friedman'? lolly.

Nick's rant ( and that's all it was ) was just editorializing to get a reaction. There are lots of authors and lots of people with the same name. Adding an initial or name helps to ensure that there is less confusion about who's who. For example an Amazon search for author John Smith returned 8,784 results while a search for John Q. Smith only returned 11. I often, but not always use a letter "J" in front of my name because my first name is actually Joseph, but I'm usually called by my middle name which is Randall ( blame my dear departed mother ). So because I'm known by both names I've used J. Randall Murphy for many years. Now I'm working on my first book and if it's accepted for publication, it will have my name spelled exactly that way. So there you go, but do we all now have to provide an explanation because Nicholas D Redfern thinks it's pompous for people to use their middle initial? Good grief ... a case could just as easily be made that Nick is being pompous by thinking he can judge other ufologists by such a ridiculous standard. Fortunately most people aren't taking his article all that seriously and I got the impression from Nick during the show that the article was toungue and cheek and intended mainly to stir up conversation.

 

[SRL+]

Finding Nick Refern honest and true to himself speaks to his credibility. Even though one may not agree with everything spoken, he seems quite knowledgeable. Taking the time in searching for answers to veiled questions, I found thoughtful, and agreeable. Jacques Vallee has been underground for so long that he may very well have been forgotten. Chris Aubeck wants nothing to do with the top side infighting, and back biting. There are hundreds of exceptionally bright minds who are conducting research on the D.L. and Nick is correct, they shy away from the stigma attached to Ufology.

I would suggest the term Ufology should be neatly wrapped, and placed in the trunk of American pop-culture. And if the need arises in the next century, dust it off, and place it back on the shelf.
Good show, thanks.

Thus’ ends my comments.

 

[Randall]

... I would suggest the term Ufology should be neatly wrapped, and placed in the trunk of American pop-culture. And if the need arises in the next century, dust it off, and place it back on the shelf ...

Popular culture certainly is an aspect within ufology, but ufology itself it much broader than what we typically associate with pop-culture e.g. movies, games, toys, fiction, fairs, etc. There are some very real and serious aspects of ufology that have relevance to how we perceive humanity's place in the cosmos. I'm not sure whether or not you've seen a UFO ( alien craft ) for yourself, but when you have, you realize it's not just fun and games. They are real and even if they aren't here now, they have been here in the past. I can understand how it's possible to become jaded or burnt out with respect to UFO reports, but they represent a truly remarkable part of human history that should be preserved for future generations, not left to rot in some garage or storage bin like the APRO files. Redfern's comments on the pointlessness of such files are irresponsible. I'd have far more respect for whoever can get those files, rolls up their sleeves, and do some thankless tedious work to digitize the information.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Nick's rant ( and that's all it was ) was just editorializing to get a reaction. There are lots of authors and lots of people with the same name. Adding an initial or name helps to ensure that there is less confusion about who's who. For example an Amazon search for author John Smith returned 8,784 results while a search for John Q. Smith only returned 11. I often, but not always use a letter "J" in front of my name because my first name is actually Joseph, but I'm usually called by my middle name which is Randall ( blame my dear departed mother ). So because I'm known by both names I've used J. Randall Murphy for many years. Now I'm working on my first book and if it's accepted for publication, it will have my name spelled exactly that way. So there you go, but do we all now have to provide an explanation because Nicholas D Redfern thinks it's pompous for people to use their middle initial? Good grief ... a case could just as easily be made that Nick is being pompous by thinking he can judge other ufologists by such a ridiculous standard. Fortunately most people aren't taking his article all that seriously and I got the impression from Nick during the show that the article was toungue and cheek and intended mainly to stir up conversation.

Oh, Nick's tongue was definitely firm on his cheek when he wrote that. Which is IMO one of the things we need to fix in this field: Stop taking ourselves so damn seriously! Why should we, when the phenomenon itself doesn't care one bit to take us seriously in return? In fact one of my rules of thumb is trust a researcher's opinion based on his or her sense of humor

And re. the infamous middle initial, it was great because it gave me the perfect excuse to tease a common friend between Nick & I: Mr. Micah Hanks, formerly known as Mr. Micah A Hanks

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Popular culture certainly is an aspect within ufology, but ufology itself it much broader than what we typically associate with pop-culture e.g. movies, games, toys, fiction, fairs, etc. There are some very real and serious aspects of ufology that have relevance to how we perceive humanity's place in the cosmos. I'm not sure whether or not you've seen a UFO ( alien craft ) for yourself, but when you have, you realize it's not just fun and games. They are real and even if they aren't here now, they have been here in the past. I can understand how it's possible to become jaded or burnt out with respect to UFO reports, but they represent a truly remarkable part of human history that should be preserved for future generations, not left to rot in some garage or storage bin like the APRO files. Redfern's comments on the pointlessness of such files are irresponsible. I'd have far more respect for whoever can get those files, rolls up their sleeves, and do some thankless tedious work to digitize the information.

What Nick is against is keeping filing cabinets just for filing's sake. You're absolutely right: We need to digitize the information. And we also need to correlate it according to all sorts of parameters and statistical variables, the way Vallee used to do back in the stone age of computer science --what they did in a month we could easily do in a single day.

And even further: We need to SHARE the information freely among researchers. Not keep it hidden away from prying eyes afraid that someone is going to steal our star case and covet all the glory and riches --glory, and riches... LOL

We also need Ufologists willing to compare facts with Cryptozoologists, and Cryptozoologists listening to Parapsychologists, and all of them minding the words of Demonologists and... well, you get my meaning. LET'S STOP BEING SO INSULAR.

Those APRO files? gone. And the same fate awaits to all the research and documents of independent ufologists, once they head to the asylum and their kiddies start cleaning up their home offices. Information is barren if it's not shared freely.