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!
Yeah..."...but it's sort of speculative..."
Mr Fibuli, you can pretty much say that about 90% of what gets talked about on the Paracast and any podcast show that discusses anything paranormal or conspiratorial, etc. lol
Just call me Agent Scully.
Thanks for your comment. I noticed you are fairly new and haven't posted much, so welcome to the forum! Don't be afraid to speak your mind. I know from personal experience that they don't ban people for too long
.
Actually Gene. I thought you chimed in with some really good comments and questions without any intent to monopolize the show. Personally, and I'm not just trying to get brownie points here when I say that I continue to have a growing appreciation for your style as a broadcaster/interviewer. One of the main reasons is because we often hear the guests say something along the lines of, "This is just my research and I'll leave it up to people to make up their own minds.", but your comments and questions don't really let them off the hook that easy.
.
From DS: It's one thing to clandestinely have an outpost or secret base, but having a breakaway civilization implies a huge infrastructure that needs to be self-supporting and independent. Hiding it in plain sight is the only way to hide it. There truly are no hospitable planets or moons in our solar system that humans will prefer to live "there" vs our Spaceship Earth, so where else can "they" go? Underground or underwater is not ideally suited for normal human living conditions, so living on the surface is still always going to be "the place" for humans to choose for any civilization. Underground or underwater is for survival purposes during emergency conditions, and any nation-culture interested in its survival should have a plan to protect its progress and technology from national disasters.
Thanks for your comment. I noticed you are fairly new and haven't posted much, so welcome to the forum! Don't be afraid to speak your mind. I know from personal experience that they don't ban people for too long
DS: Since you believe that humans are already elsewhere in our galaxy beyond our solar system, then when did these space brothers come here to begin Humans here?
WB: Specifically? How the hell would I know?
Obviously, those humans did not stay with us from the beginning to share their tech, since most humans do not know of their presence now. What's "the plan", and why leave us so ignorant even of their presence now?
WB: Again, assuming your scenario is accurate, how the hell would I know?
So, I assume the astrobiologists are keeping the other human planet(s) "top secret" too? Surely, we've detected all Earth-like planets within 100 light years by now. Where are our space brother humans located? There must be many human seeded planets considering we are light years away from these planets.
WB: I think you have me confused with those guys who imply they have all the answers, lol. I certainly don't do that. I won't do it. Think what you will, regardless what I or anyone else says or thinks.
Why do you question whether there is some hospitable location within our solar system? Where do you think it is?
I question that view of planets because of how easy it would be for us to be told one thing when the truth is another, re space especially. Remember, I'm also convinced that certain monarchs and their scientists and explorers likely knew about the New World before Columbus ever came along. But again, that's my view. Form your own. Look at the available material yourself and decide.
Let me get my bearings here with some certainty. What work are you specifically talking about? There's no information on your profile to indicate who you are but some of the content here suggests that you are the guest ( Bosley ). Are you, and either way can you please provide a link to your website or someplace we can look at your work without necessarily having to go purchase it from the store?'"This is just my research and I'll leave it up to people to make up their own minds.", but your comments and questions don't really let them off the hook that easy.'
lol, What hook? My work IS just my research and it IS up to people to make up their own minds.
95% of my material is in my books. My website is merely my blog which Gene has linked elsewhere and doesn't give what the books contain, but here it is again: empireofthewheel.blogspot.com. And whereas I'm certainly not getting rich from writing what I do, I'm not quite fool enough to give away everything that is also in my books that I am trying to make part of a living from as it does reflect my time and effort. I would never expect anyone who isn't interested enough to read them to buy them.
Thanks Walter. I don't like to make assumptions. First: When you posted:Most people here know that 'AdventureMan' is me, Walter Bosley. 95% of my material is in my books. My website is merely my blog which Gene has linked elsewhere and doesn't give what the books contain, but here it is again: empireofthewheel.blogspot.com. And whereas I'm certainly not getting rich from writing what I do, I'm not quite fool enough to give away everything that is also in my books that I am trying to make part of a living from as it does reflect my time and effort. I would never expect anyone who isn't interested enough to read them to buy them.
As to my work, I'm on Amazon. Just look up my name.
What I meant by "off the hook" is that the Paracast purports to be an enterprise with the aim of, "separating the signal from the noise". So not everything a guest says is accepted at face value and content is subject to question and analysis. So there is some element of accountability for the claims made by guests, and when someone is held accountable they can be said to be, "on the hook". It's a common expression. However Gene and Chris are at the same time, professional interviewers and they know ( I assume ) that simply barraging guests with demands to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims isn't going to result in a show that is either entertaining or informative, let alone make guests want to participate. So I was giving them a compliment on their style.'"This is just my research and I'll leave it up to people to make up their own minds.", but your comments and questions don't really let them off the hook that easy.'
lol, What hook? My work IS just my research and it IS up to people to make up their own minds.
. You can't remain anonymous with no way for your credentials to be checked and still operate as an authority qualified to analyze someone else's work and theories -- and pass public judgment. Much that passes for logic here in these forums is actually subjective opinion. This is a fair point, don't you think? Again, no disrespect intended but I don't worry about what is said about me in the Paracast forums where critical analysis is concerned because my policy is that my books (thus I) provide references on all I can and make clear what is speculation otherwise and reserve my right to have opinions and personal conclusions. That's fair, right?
That's a little nebulous. What is the "something" to the idea? And does the "some came and some stayed" idea propose that prior to any humans arriving from elsewhere, there were no humans here on Earth?I think there is something to the idea that some humans came here from other planets and stayed, some visited and moved on. I don't think that explains all the stuff that certain others do. But neither do I claim to be a specialist in that, either. Who is?
I don't necessarily think that a forum poster needs to reveal their identity in order for them to be correct or provide critical analysis, because critical analysis should be as unbiased as possible, and therefore personal identity shouldn't have any bearing on the content. It is however useful to know who the one is who is conveying the information for analysis, because that avoids the confusion of who really said what in connection to the claims made. BTW: I include my website link in every post and from there anyone can figure out who I am.I must address what you said regarding critical analysis, though. The issue some may have with that here is what makes someone in a forum qualified to conduct such analysis? I think that's a fair question. And if they are qualified, they need to identify themselves, i.e. true identity. If they don't think they can do that, then they should bow out of such critical analysis here in forums because you can't have it both ways.
By stating that your books aren't scientific treatises you have insulated yourself from claims that your work is pseudoscientific, which is a wise move. I make the same type of argument where ufology is concerned, but the skeptics don't always pay attention to that. Nevertheless, I still make an effort to be as accurate and coherent as possible when I'm being serious about the subject matter. Maybe I should ask you. How seriously do you take your work? If it's true, it has tremendous implications.
I guess your analogy to movies depends on what kind of movies and what is being claimed. If some documentary or another attempts to sell the public on some idea or product that isn't actually as it has been presented, then there may be cause for some sort of legal action. As for books, how about when an author fakes their academic credentials and then authors a bunch of unsubstantiated claims? I'm not suggesting this is you, but such cases are not unheard of. What I am suggesting is that authors who make claims or submit wild theories should bear some personal responsibility for them, otherwise they shouldn't be expected to be taken seriously. Do you want to be taken seriously? Or is this just a casual expression of your personal interests that you think maybe some other people might also enjoy?When you hear me say something, it's usually from my book and I provide a source there. And I do not defraud people -- they get a book for their money. When you see a movie you don't like, do you accuse the studio of fraud? Of course not, that's ridiculous. I bring that up because the fraud accusation flies around the Paracast forums like fireflies in July, lol.
Don't get me wrong here. I appreciate the opportunity to have this exchange and I'm making a real effort not to approach controversial issues from what might be misconstrued as an adversarial perspective, while still getting some of the information I'd like to see that would help me evaluate the claims made.I enjoy doing the show with Gene and Chris and Goggs et al. I have no problem answering questions of interest. But don't take it the wrong way if I don't consider the forum gauntlet here to be serious critical analysis, lol. If you have a question about something you hear me say in an interview, just ask me which of my books it's in and I'll tell you. And, to a limited degree, I'll gladly tell you the source(s) I cite, way short of just handing over the book for free, of course. If someone thinks they need to know what's in the book for their own analysis, they can buy it OR ask people who've read it to borrow their copy. I often give copies of the books to hosts before an interview. Become a host and get one free that way. All due respect and sincerely good natured will, I don't owe the forum any more than that. No guest does.
You'd have to cite specific examples and explain why you think your opinion of how other people choose to spend their time is more reasonable than theirs, why you think they're not enjoying themselves when they engage a topic, and where the flaws are in their critical analysis. If you're not prepared to do that, then unfortunately, your comment carries very little weight. On the issue of venom, this place is nothing compared to the old JREF forum ( now the skeptics forum ). I also think it's important to distinguish between venom and people who simply don't agree with one thing or another and are passionate about their beliefs because they do take them seriously on some level. BTW, we do have some fun here, and one good place to check is on the Official Funny Stuff thread: Official funny stuffTruly not trying to be an asshole, I just think people should have more fun with all this stuff. Some people have waaay too much time on their hands to be so dedicated to what passes for critical analysis here. I watch these forums, lol. There is much venom here -- and it's actually pretty sad. I'm not selling overpriced tickets to a BS event pushing slides of mummies as ETs.
Sounds fair to me. I'm not asking for sources, just your personal reflections on what you think is actually a possibility on the question ( back at the top ): What is the "something" to the idea? And does the "some came and some stayed" idea propose that prior to any humans arriving from elsewhere, there were no humans here on Earth?Anyway, returning to my work, what have I said that you need me to source? Let me know, I'll answer.
Healthy debate is a time tested way of moving our understanding toward the truth, that if done in the right spirit of things, can be very enjoyable. It doesn't have to be on the assumption that if one side reveals flaws in the position of the other, that the other is a moron deserving of public torment and humiliation. At least that's certainly not what I'm about here and never have been, regardless of what some others might have said elsewhere.Again, I'll gladly come around here and answer questions about my work after I've been on the show, but once the venom flows, that's a bore. For the record, I've been looked at by some of the skeptics around here. Lance Moody has seen my DD214, Paul Kimball knows me personally, Greg Bishop and Don Ecker and the late Kevin Smith all saw my DD214 and document proving my employment with the FBI, etc etc. I welcome the scrutiny but I won't engage in bickering. Bickering masked as 'debate' is silly and unbecoming of grown men, don't you think?
Great! Glad we're off to a good start. If you have time to elaborate a bit on that question as indicated above, it would be much appreciated. And BTW, I collect all the stuff I can find that is even peripherally related to UFOs, so at least a couple of your books will likely end up in my libraryI know you were just clarifying, not picking an argument. That's what I'm trying to do, too, as regards what you brought up.
If there are no more questions related to the show, then thanks again for listening! I sincerely appreciate when Gene and Chris have me on.
.
Oh, I take my work seriously where being as accurate as I can be is concerned, etc etc. But I try to step back when it's done and remind myself that I'm writing about stuff that no matter how serious I may take it a lot of people are just gonna say "I don't see it" or "So what, who cares about lost civilizations" lol
The reason I go about it the way I do is that I see where there is a valid question about something and I want to raise the question and why it is a question to me. I could take the path of taking a lot more time to dig out even more evidence etc and PERHAPS find a better smoking gun. But I weigh my big picture goals and say "IF I have found enough to validate raising the question, then I'll do the book -- and I can always return to the 'case' and dig out more later."
In the case of the Burton book, there is this fascinating fact of Manuscript 512 and its association to Burton and his explorations. I had one weak source connecting it directly to Burton but kept digging until I finally found a much better source -- yet still not perfect. I only mask it here because I don't want to spoil the surprise for a reader who hasn't listened to the show. It is kind of a cool little 'bingo' in the book. Anyway, the Burton book HAD to be a grand speculation for three chapters because of the conspicuous blank in the record. The whole breakaway aspect of this is a speculation based on an investigation in progress and I just want to be honest about that which is why I don't say 'This is the truth, I declare it is!'.
But, yes, I do sincerely think I am right about much of what I've written and am confident I am on the right track in general even if wrong about some speculative conclusions. I do not mean for my 'have fun with it' demeanor to imply otherwise. Yes, Walter Bosley stands by what he writes. I just don't want be all 'religious' about this stuff.
I was on the phone for hours BSing with my son so I'm hitting the hay. Basically, my issues with 'critical analysis' here is as long as it remains civil and isn't obviously (or even suspiciously) serving a troll agenda, I'll participate. But I've seen this rodeo before and I won't waste my time with the sort of snarky bitch trolling going on in other threads lately. I think that is only fair and reasonable.
