The Frank and Dennis show 26/7

[grannysmith]

No thread yet?

It was a bit of a 'heard it all before' one (the type you could play a drinking game to) - but interesting enough. I mean, I listened - but I always do

 

[dusty]

July 26 2009

Great show guys, I always enjoy listening to Dennis and Frank.

The Mickey Rooney quote, about not wanting to get into a talk about politics, was to be honest a real turn off for me. As it was for him it seems. Sorry Frank. Though it comes from a different time, and therefore has perhaps more relevance to that time.

I always react badly to any nationalist sentiment, though I was very amused by David's story of his return to America and can totally relate to his joy at returning home, but mostly I was very pleased to hear him state that first of all we are Humans.
More than ever aware I hope, of the importance of knowing this is all we've got;

http://instructor.ecoscenesonline.com/PlanetEarth.jpg

Aside from that I always like hearing these guys, and appreciate what they have done, are doing and what they inspire others to do.
Quality time well spent.

Paradigm shift, bring it on.

God Bless America

Mark

 

[Bixyboo]

July 26 2009

I'm still listening to it (almost done). But I was gonna start a Thread on this show (if someone didn't beat me to it, and two people did already,lol).

I too am really enjoying this one, The Paracast can't go wrong with greats such as Dennis and Frank. Good, solid and REAL information, you know?

THIS show should've been three hours, I never get tired of listening to them!

And I too hope that disclosure is released within their (and our) lifetimes!

Edited to add: Just finished the show. And I wanted to add my agreement that perhaps one of the reasons (if not maybe THE main reason?) for non-disclosure could be that the government would never want to lose what little trust and faith in their ability to protect this planet from an unknown race. (Be they friendly or non).

One of THE biggest fears is fear of the unknown, that includes loss of control, too. WHO likes admitting THAT (on any level)?

Bixyboo

 

[CapnG]

July 26 2009

"Oh god... ROSWELL?! AGAIN?!"

That was my intial thought when I read the blurb for this week's show but I was pleasantly surprised to be waaaay off in my assumptions. A really good episode overall, seemingly built on a foundation of Roswell stuff but branching out to other areas in a way that was both organic and insightful. A real nice "fireside chat" episode. Good work!

 

[Frank Warren]

Hi GS,

No thread yet?

It was a bit of a 'heard it all before' one (the type you could play a drinking game to) - but interesting enough. I mean, I listened - but I always do

Thanks . . . I think.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[bobheck]

No thread yet?

It was a bit of a 'heard it all before' one (the type you could play a drinking game to) - but interesting enough. I mean, I listened - but I always do

Grannysmith, thank you for being so precise and unambiguous in your summary, I mean if we could really understand what it meant.

 

[Frank Warren]

July 26 2009

Hi Dusty,

Thanks for listening, taking the time to start this thread and making comment.

Great show guys, I always enjoy listening to Dennis and Frank.

The Mickey Rooney quote, about not wanting to get into a talk about politics, was to be honest a real turn off for me. As it was for him it seems. Sorry Frank. Though it comes from a different time, and therefore has perhaps more relevance to that time.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point, or more accurately Rooney's point, i.e., that we need to forget about the petty differences we all have and focus on our commonalities . . . and or the greater good; forgive the cliché, but the notion is that we're "all in the same boat."

I always react badly to any nationalist sentiment, though I was very amused by David's story of his return to America and can totally relate to his joy at returning home, but mostly I was very pleased to hear him state that first of all we are Humans.

Same point as above, but on a grander scale.

More than ever aware I hope, of the importance of knowing this is all we've got;

http://instructor.ecoscenesonline.com/PlanetEarth.jpg

Aside from that I always like hearing these guys, and appreciate what they have done, are doing and what they inspire others to do.
Quality time well spent.

Paradigm shift, bring it on.

God Bless America

Mark

Thank again!

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Frank Warren]

July 26 2009

Hi BB!

Thanks for your input and kind words!

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Gareth]

July 26 2009

Ive been following the Bragalia Nitinol/memory metal story and I was curious to hear opinions on that. Its seems like a pretty strong lead, although like usual there is no definiteive piece of evidence.

Why cant we get just one piece of conclusive evidence to blow this open? You would think after all this time something would materialise.

I guess its a secret that someone (or some group) really, really didnt want out.

 

[grannysmith]

Hi GS,



Thanks . . . I think.

Cheers,
Frank

No worries, dude.

??????Can I point out that this thread was first for this show?

 

[Frank Warren]

July 26 2009

Hi CapnG,

"Oh god... ROSWELL?! AGAIN?!"

That was my intial thought when I read the blurb for this week's show but I was pleasantly surprised to be waaaay off in my assumptions. A really good episode overall, seemingly built on a foundation of Roswell stuff but branching out to other areas in a way that was both organic and insightful. A real nice "fireside chat" episode. Good work!

Appreciate the positive input, and in retrospect a "fireside chat" is a very accurate description; as I told Dennis later, it was kind of a free-wheeling episode and there were many things that we didn't get to . . . which is often the case.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[grannysmith]

Hi GS,



Thanks . . . I think.

Cheers,
Frank

Actually, to be fair, you were interesting and have clearly researched your topic in a professional way.

I guess I was referring (in my 'drinking game' comment) to db's run through of all his 'favourite points' again - though I tend to agree with a lot of them.

 

[Frank Warren]

July 26 2009

Hi Gareth,

Ive been following the Bragalia Nitinol/memory metal story and I was curious to hear opinions on that. Its seems like a pretty strong lead, although like usual there is no definiteive piece of evidence.

Why cant we get just one piece of conclusive evidence to blow this open? You would think after all this time something would materialise.

I guess its a secret that someone (or some group) really, really didnt want out.

There is a bit of irony with your a fore mentioned statement; awhile back I wrote an article entitled, Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist? It's a piece done in sarcasm in regards to the hypocrisy that exists with scientists in all other astro-biological matters in comparison to Ufology.

Here's a snippet:

It’s important to note that “exoplanet believers” have “no direct evidence” for their claims, save one—a blurry picture of an “alleged planet.” Given today’s computer technology e.g., Photoshop etc., one has to wonder about the origins of the photograph. Perhaps the “European astronomers” who first made the claim and presented the image were looking for notoriety, and or monetary rewards.

Even if the photograph of the “distant light” is genuine, “other exoplanet believers” are hesitant to jump on board! Its been pointed out that the “distant light” (or alleged exoplanet) can’t be confirmed in having a “gravitational connection to what’s thought to be it’s host star.”

What that leaves is “circumstantial allusions” in support of the “exoplanet believer’s theorems.” The bulk of the exoplanets which are alleged to be in existence by “believers” have “not been seen by anyone, or photographed (excepting the a fore mentioned “blurry photograph” of a distant light); they haven’t been traveled to, or physically investigated in any way; there is absolutely no “physical evidence.” Additionally, there isn’t anecdotal, eyewitness and or documental evidence of any “past proof” of the existence of exoplanets.

What believers are left with for the most part is a “detection method” for a “star’s wobble,” wherein the “conjecture” is made by “believers” that an “exoplanet’s gravity” is causing a “slight pull” on it’s host star. This method is called “Doppler Spectroscopy”—the observation of Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star around which the planet orbits.

From the onset of this methodology, as well as the “believer’s” first claim of the existence of exoplanets—there has been controversy within their own camp.

One of the early stars purported to host an exoplanet was “51 Peg”; Dr. David Gray (Univ. Western Ontario) published a paper back in '97 suggesting that some undulations or oscillations of the star, are responsible for the Doppler shifts, rather than an orbiting planet—this polarized the astronomical community, and although Gray’s position may be overlooked today, it hasn’t been rebutted in any definitive manner; henceforth the “exoplanet believer’s methodology” is arguably flawed.

Admittedly, there are “other ‘indirect’ schemes” in regards to the stars which “believers” imagine may host exoplanets; however, these are also “indirect contrivances.”

In the end like “Seth Shostak” of SETI says, “The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious.” Finally, “Michael Shermer” concurs: [regarding science] “the default assumption is that whatever the claim is, it's not true until it's proved. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.”
​

Prior to that I had a colloquy with Dr. Frank Drake about the same hypocrisy, see Frank Drake—Evidence/Data Methodologies In Ufology.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Frank Warren]

Thanks GS! I appreciate the sentiment . . .

Cheers,
Fank

 

[ondafritz]

Thanks to all involved for another excellent episode.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I'd like to start my reply to this post in saying that it was a good show. I enjoyed it a lot. Honestly I've taken more of an interest in the UFO field and credit the Paracast with doing that. Usually I'm chasing things that go 'bump' in the night but more and more I find myself drawn to this topic of paranormal research, too. Right now I'm a simple novice who does little more than read material on the Internet, take in a few books, and listen to Gene and David with rapt attention.

I may cut crap for this but, hey, like I said, I'm new; I bought the first season of the Roswell TV show that aired back in 2000 - 2002. It was a decent little family flick that myself and my family enjoyed through all three seasons. It spiked my curiosity enough that I'm seriously considering traveling to Roswell next year for the convention around the 4th of July, (I'd like to follow the convention with a road-trip up over to Arizona, take in the sights and see the Grand Canyon and such).

What caught my interest regarding the Roswell convention this year (what I saw of it online) was, indeed, all the family oriented activities as Frank mentioned. I thought that was great! and it's something I would feel comfortable taking my family to...and spending money on.
A lot of people are criticizing the selling of books and DVD's and lecture time on these forums and honestly I'm not sure I understand it...or perhaps it's they who do not understand. With the study of UFO's not being funded by...well...anybody, the $ has to come from some where. It's not going to come from government grants nor high-end universities so I can completely understand the idea of selling <i>something</i> to off-set expenses. It's the leeches that sell to profit and profit only...the ones who don't sell for purposes of research funding, that taint the entire ideal.

Despite my wanting to bring my family to Roswell's convention for the family atmosphere, I can understand the frowns by serious researchers that would cause. I understand that Roswell could become a hub of the <b>serious</b> study of UFO's and carnival type of conventions like this do distract from that. In the end, to survive, I'd like to see the town of Roswell become schizophrenic; half entertainment for funding and the other half serious and focused on genuine UFO research. If I were a millionaire, that's what I'd do.
My 2 cents. Again, great show and maybe, with a little luck, I'll see Frank and Dennis next year at the convention. Here's for hoping.

Stay safe.

J.

 

[Apocalypto]

Fun to listen to, thanks. Good fellows, interesting stuff.

 

[Kieran]

Another good show made by the Paracast. Frank and Dennis opinions for Corso being genuine were interesting.Roswell is a ufology story that needs to be told, it is one part of human history that hopefully one day in our future will be discussed in our schools.

 

[Frank Warren]

Good Day Sandanfire,

Thanks for your detailed post and kind words! Nothing takes the place of "doing your own research."

Apocalypto & Irishseekers,

Appreciate your comments as well and here's a snippet of a piece I did on Corso awhile back:

Did Colonel Philip J. Corso Lie About His Tenure With The NSC—You Decide!

The late Col. Philip J. Corso who was the foundation as well as co-author of the book, “The Day After Roswell” continues to evoke controversy even from the grave.

When Corso’s book was initially published it was applauded by most in the UFO community mainly because of his stature, and his accredited military career; he was an insider breaking silence, and perhaps the smoking gun to finally force the powers-that-be into sharing UFO information with the public.

As Carl Sagan once said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” As protocol dictates, Ufologists quickly began to investigate Corso’s declarations.

As with Ufology is to the layman, Corso’s claims were to Ufologists; most just couldn’t swallow these grandiose affirmations; soon many well-known Ufologists would begin to chip away at the base of Corso’s anecdotes.

Personally, and admittedly Corso wasn’t “my cup of tea” so to speak, and I adhered to the mind-sets of colleagues I respected/respect after a good amount of research/investigation had taken place.

Years later I filed a FOIA for Corso’s military records for one of the afore mentioned colleagues, and upon arrival was surprised to see the magnitude of his file as well as the many commendations, awards, etc., in addition to time served. I was also impressed with his involvement and contributions to the POW/MIA proceedings along with his many years in military intelligence. That said, I found myself questioning why a man with such an impeccable record would lie about anything; in essence the accusations (him being a charlatan) certainly didn’t fit the mold of the man whose military file I held in my hand.​

​

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank