pong
Groupthink Must Die
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style> This post regards several recent shows, even one in November. Before I time-travel back to that November show, though, I want to say how much I enjoyed hearing Jacques Vallee, Tracy Torme and Gary David. In Tracy I hear someone of a like mind regarding hypnotism and alleged UFO encounters. He agrees with me that hypnosis should not be left out of the researcher's toolkit. Yes, it's an imperfect tool but one that might yield some valuable results in the hands of a skilled therapist. Our toolkit is so skimpy to begin with we simply can't afford to leave hypnosis out.
Tracy related some fascinating anecdotes about the Hollywood crowd and I was utterly disappointed to hear that Gene Roddenberry thought UFOs were total bunk, much the way Issac Asimov's mind was closed. How ironic that the sci-fi pioneers who weaved such compelling stories about space and dimensional travel refused to look at the considerable evidence that such things are happening . . . now.
Gary David's debut on the Paracast was welcome and his scholarship is very evident. I join Chris in commending him for his valuable research into the mysterious aspects of the indigenous peoples of the Southwest. Peering back as far as we can see, it's also evident that giants lived in the Southwest. I'd love to hear a Paracast roundtable where Brad Steiger, David Childress and Steve Quayle all get together to discuss ancient giants in the Americas. It would be a hoot. Like UFOs, it's a subject that throws mainstream science and archeology into a panic.
And before I forget, there's one little disagreement I have with Paracast conventional wisdom regarding "exopolitics." Gene, Chris and even Biedny seem to have a big problem with this subject. So what the heck is exopolitics, anyway? Personally, I don't relate exopolitics to the US Government per se or to official "disclosure" by the US Government. It's much bigger than that. I think exopolitics is a vital endeavor and is a subject that involves the whole world. Think about it—already we've witnessed the largest organization on the planet get out front and make important statements about its exopolitical views. That organization is the Catholic Church. In the coming years I think we'll see more of that from other organizations. Here's what the term "exopolitics" means to me: We—the human race—need to start thinking about how we'll react when we eventually meet the intelligence behind UFOs and crop formations. I believe that meeting will happen, eventually, when "they" believe we can handle it. It may not happen in our lifetime but I do believe it will happen someday. Contact will not be a big thing for the human race—it will be the biggest. Exopolitics is the messy head game of getting ready.
Now back to November and the interesting chat with Ron Regehr. Ron's defense industry credentials are impressive and it's always interesting to hear UFO details from someone who was "on the inside" of a government project. During the interview, Linda Howe's name came up as it sometimes does on the Paracast. Ron said he thought Linda made a serious mistake regarding a "buried UFO" near Kingman, Arizona. Well, I tend to agree. Linda was probably putting stock in sincere testimony given to her that really had no stock. At the same time, there seems to be serious disagreement in ufology about what did or did not happen at Kingman. So what else is new . . .
At this point in the interview, though, the host brought up the topic of "drones." The UFO "drones" really seem to bug the Paracasters, just like exopolitics. Linda Howe, the host explained, must be the most gullible ufologist on the planet to post drone photos on her website, photos that are "obviously" fakes. Poor misguided, gullible Linda Howe. Such a foolish woman. Really? Hold on just a minute. This is where Pong draws the line. For the first time in the Paracast Forum, let's look at the actual facts surrounding the drone story as first introduced to the American public by Linda Moulton Howe.
If I'm not mistaken, the first drone story and photos hit Linda's website in May 2007. The affair was also publicized to a huge radio and Internet audience by George Noory. Not since Billy Meier (hold your breath Gene) had we seen photographs of UFOs that appeared as close and intricate as these. The craft were strange, amazingly detailed and, yes, they looked fake. They reeked of Photoshop. Almost everyone said they looked fake, including Linda Howe. Let me repeat: Linda Howe said they looked fake. As Linda explained, the first photos were sent to her by someone (calling himself Chad) who purported to be a young man in California who refused to furnish his last name and could offer no proof that the objects in the photos were genuine. It all smelled fishy.
So why publish these questionable photos? Isn't that reckless? No, not at all. It's very simple . . . you publish because a public examination is needed. A healthy public debate needs to take place and Linda knows that intense scrutiny and analysis of these photos will eventually boil out the truth. Now, isn't that what we all want?
Behind the curtain. You have to ask yourself: What if a covert agency of the US Government (there are many) developed unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct close-range surveillance of Americans and the populations of other countries. What if these vehicles were designed to be invisible but sometimes, for brief periods, were also visible. The agency involved (NSA?) would certainly be concerned that people would occasionally see the UAVs and report their sightings to local law enforcement or other out-of-the-loop public officials. So how could those witnesses be discredited? The way they always are!
Maybe Linda Howe's young e-mail contact "Chad" is really a 48-year-old NSA employee working at an undisclosed operation field office in Utah or Nevada. Maybe Linda Howe, once again, was chosen as a disinformation channel because of her wide reach and influence via Premier Radio. If CGI photos could be posted on Linda's website, and then fully discredited, maybe those drone witnesses around the world would just be ignored. It's just CGI, after all. That's all it is.
Remember Doug and Dave? They did all the crop formations. Case closed.
I throw out the preceding scenario because, to my mind, it's more likely that surveillance drones in our skies are from Lockheed-Martin, not Dimension-X or Zeta Reticuli. Invisibility and antigravity impossible, you say? Don't be so sure.
Unexpected aftermath. The release of the "Chad" photos by Linda Howe was just the first chapter in a story that evolved, took on a life of its own and continued for many months. As you will see, the photos sent in anonymously were just the tip of the drone iceberg.
During May and June 2007 Linda received additional photos. They also looked fake. But then a most interesting thing happened: More witnesses contacted Linda, one after another, and they were not anonymous. They had real names and addresses. They mostly had no photos to share but that was almost comforting. These new witnesses weren't pushing any CGI at us but they were telling very intriguing stories about drone-like objects—stories that need to be considered. Here's a partial listing of sightings and locations:
o Italy - Drone-like object photographed over rural area, July 1999.
o U.S. - Drones seen in 2005 and 2006.
o U.S. - Drone seen at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, mid-1980s.
o U.S. - Drone observed by tourist over Yosemite National Park. She quizzed a park ranger for information but he said he had no knowledge of it. June 2007.
o U.S. - "Dragonfly drone" seen in Arizona sky, October 1995.
o U.S. - Close-range drone sighting near Maxwell AFB, Alabama, June 2007.
o U.S. - Odd drone-like objects seen over Memphis, Tennessee, 2005 & 2006.
o U.S. - Drones seen in skies of Oklahoma and Arkansas, report made in 2008.
o U.S. - Drone observed at close range in southern Ohio forest, report made in 2008.
o U.S. - Drone hovering in city sky, Chicago, Illinois, report made in 2008.
o The Netherlands - Drone seen and photographed near Petten, Sept. 2007. Witnesses not anonymous but names withheld for privacy.
All these reports, carefully compiled by Linda Howe since 2007, lead me to a tentative conclusion: drones are real and they're in our skies right now. I agree with Gene and Chris, though, that computer graphic imagery (CGI) dropped conveniently in our lap in 2007 is demonstrably bogus, as well as the "personal letters" that accompanied the images.
When someone goes to the effort of cranking out at least 29 elaborate Photoshop images and composes a whole slew of letters supposedly written by different individuals, you'd better get your red flag and run it up the pole. We are being disinformed and misdirected. We are being conned. It's what intelligence agencies do.
But are all the real drones "ours"? That's the most fascinating question of all. Gene, the drones are calling. Time to do an entire Paracast about the drones, focusing on witness testimony, not images. There is no shortage of witnesses.
A few more things. For quite a number of months now, the Paracast has been mostly inside baseball—the academic paranormal. Every Sunday, Gene and the co-host put up their feet and chat with authors, experts and filmmakers. While it's usually entertaining we're drifting away from the most compelling part of the paranormal universe: eyewitness testimony. I'd really like to here more witnesses tell their stories and I wish at least 15 minutes of each show was devoted to everyday people coming on and describing the extraordinary things they experience. UFO sightings and other paranormal events are not just on bookshelves. These things happen everyday around the world and the Paracast hosts should try harder to connect with witnesses of recent events and get them on the air.
And the hidden tablets of Adnil? Those are the little orange and green antacid tablets that Linda Howe keeps in the zippered compartment of her purse. She chews two of them whenever Gene goes on his semiannual drone rant.
Future guest request: Martin Landau. Why? Because Gene looks a little like him and Landau is a very cool guy! (Gene is too.)
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style> [FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]UPDATE. If you head over to Flickr you can see the Drone Photo Gallery I've posted. These are the new drones that are in high demand by police forces and the military. Some of these machines are pretty radical and will almost certainly generate UFO reports in the future. Here is the link: [/FONT]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58453408@N04/sets/72157625846571216/
Tracy related some fascinating anecdotes about the Hollywood crowd and I was utterly disappointed to hear that Gene Roddenberry thought UFOs were total bunk, much the way Issac Asimov's mind was closed. How ironic that the sci-fi pioneers who weaved such compelling stories about space and dimensional travel refused to look at the considerable evidence that such things are happening . . . now.
Gary David's debut on the Paracast was welcome and his scholarship is very evident. I join Chris in commending him for his valuable research into the mysterious aspects of the indigenous peoples of the Southwest. Peering back as far as we can see, it's also evident that giants lived in the Southwest. I'd love to hear a Paracast roundtable where Brad Steiger, David Childress and Steve Quayle all get together to discuss ancient giants in the Americas. It would be a hoot. Like UFOs, it's a subject that throws mainstream science and archeology into a panic.
And before I forget, there's one little disagreement I have with Paracast conventional wisdom regarding "exopolitics." Gene, Chris and even Biedny seem to have a big problem with this subject. So what the heck is exopolitics, anyway? Personally, I don't relate exopolitics to the US Government per se or to official "disclosure" by the US Government. It's much bigger than that. I think exopolitics is a vital endeavor and is a subject that involves the whole world. Think about it—already we've witnessed the largest organization on the planet get out front and make important statements about its exopolitical views. That organization is the Catholic Church. In the coming years I think we'll see more of that from other organizations. Here's what the term "exopolitics" means to me: We—the human race—need to start thinking about how we'll react when we eventually meet the intelligence behind UFOs and crop formations. I believe that meeting will happen, eventually, when "they" believe we can handle it. It may not happen in our lifetime but I do believe it will happen someday. Contact will not be a big thing for the human race—it will be the biggest. Exopolitics is the messy head game of getting ready.
Now back to November and the interesting chat with Ron Regehr. Ron's defense industry credentials are impressive and it's always interesting to hear UFO details from someone who was "on the inside" of a government project. During the interview, Linda Howe's name came up as it sometimes does on the Paracast. Ron said he thought Linda made a serious mistake regarding a "buried UFO" near Kingman, Arizona. Well, I tend to agree. Linda was probably putting stock in sincere testimony given to her that really had no stock. At the same time, there seems to be serious disagreement in ufology about what did or did not happen at Kingman. So what else is new . . .
At this point in the interview, though, the host brought up the topic of "drones." The UFO "drones" really seem to bug the Paracasters, just like exopolitics. Linda Howe, the host explained, must be the most gullible ufologist on the planet to post drone photos on her website, photos that are "obviously" fakes. Poor misguided, gullible Linda Howe. Such a foolish woman. Really? Hold on just a minute. This is where Pong draws the line. For the first time in the Paracast Forum, let's look at the actual facts surrounding the drone story as first introduced to the American public by Linda Moulton Howe.
If I'm not mistaken, the first drone story and photos hit Linda's website in May 2007. The affair was also publicized to a huge radio and Internet audience by George Noory. Not since Billy Meier (hold your breath Gene) had we seen photographs of UFOs that appeared as close and intricate as these. The craft were strange, amazingly detailed and, yes, they looked fake. They reeked of Photoshop. Almost everyone said they looked fake, including Linda Howe. Let me repeat: Linda Howe said they looked fake. As Linda explained, the first photos were sent to her by someone (calling himself Chad) who purported to be a young man in California who refused to furnish his last name and could offer no proof that the objects in the photos were genuine. It all smelled fishy.
So why publish these questionable photos? Isn't that reckless? No, not at all. It's very simple . . . you publish because a public examination is needed. A healthy public debate needs to take place and Linda knows that intense scrutiny and analysis of these photos will eventually boil out the truth. Now, isn't that what we all want?
Behind the curtain. You have to ask yourself: What if a covert agency of the US Government (there are many) developed unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct close-range surveillance of Americans and the populations of other countries. What if these vehicles were designed to be invisible but sometimes, for brief periods, were also visible. The agency involved (NSA?) would certainly be concerned that people would occasionally see the UAVs and report their sightings to local law enforcement or other out-of-the-loop public officials. So how could those witnesses be discredited? The way they always are!
Maybe Linda Howe's young e-mail contact "Chad" is really a 48-year-old NSA employee working at an undisclosed operation field office in Utah or Nevada. Maybe Linda Howe, once again, was chosen as a disinformation channel because of her wide reach and influence via Premier Radio. If CGI photos could be posted on Linda's website, and then fully discredited, maybe those drone witnesses around the world would just be ignored. It's just CGI, after all. That's all it is.
Remember Doug and Dave? They did all the crop formations. Case closed.
I throw out the preceding scenario because, to my mind, it's more likely that surveillance drones in our skies are from Lockheed-Martin, not Dimension-X or Zeta Reticuli. Invisibility and antigravity impossible, you say? Don't be so sure.
Unexpected aftermath. The release of the "Chad" photos by Linda Howe was just the first chapter in a story that evolved, took on a life of its own and continued for many months. As you will see, the photos sent in anonymously were just the tip of the drone iceberg.
During May and June 2007 Linda received additional photos. They also looked fake. But then a most interesting thing happened: More witnesses contacted Linda, one after another, and they were not anonymous. They had real names and addresses. They mostly had no photos to share but that was almost comforting. These new witnesses weren't pushing any CGI at us but they were telling very intriguing stories about drone-like objects—stories that need to be considered. Here's a partial listing of sightings and locations:
o Italy - Drone-like object photographed over rural area, July 1999.
o U.S. - Drones seen in 2005 and 2006.
o U.S. - Drone seen at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, mid-1980s.
o U.S. - Drone observed by tourist over Yosemite National Park. She quizzed a park ranger for information but he said he had no knowledge of it. June 2007.
o U.S. - "Dragonfly drone" seen in Arizona sky, October 1995.
o U.S. - Close-range drone sighting near Maxwell AFB, Alabama, June 2007.
o U.S. - Odd drone-like objects seen over Memphis, Tennessee, 2005 & 2006.
o U.S. - Drones seen in skies of Oklahoma and Arkansas, report made in 2008.
o U.S. - Drone observed at close range in southern Ohio forest, report made in 2008.
o U.S. - Drone hovering in city sky, Chicago, Illinois, report made in 2008.
o The Netherlands - Drone seen and photographed near Petten, Sept. 2007. Witnesses not anonymous but names withheld for privacy.
All these reports, carefully compiled by Linda Howe since 2007, lead me to a tentative conclusion: drones are real and they're in our skies right now. I agree with Gene and Chris, though, that computer graphic imagery (CGI) dropped conveniently in our lap in 2007 is demonstrably bogus, as well as the "personal letters" that accompanied the images.
When someone goes to the effort of cranking out at least 29 elaborate Photoshop images and composes a whole slew of letters supposedly written by different individuals, you'd better get your red flag and run it up the pole. We are being disinformed and misdirected. We are being conned. It's what intelligence agencies do.
But are all the real drones "ours"? That's the most fascinating question of all. Gene, the drones are calling. Time to do an entire Paracast about the drones, focusing on witness testimony, not images. There is no shortage of witnesses.
A few more things. For quite a number of months now, the Paracast has been mostly inside baseball—the academic paranormal. Every Sunday, Gene and the co-host put up their feet and chat with authors, experts and filmmakers. While it's usually entertaining we're drifting away from the most compelling part of the paranormal universe: eyewitness testimony. I'd really like to here more witnesses tell their stories and I wish at least 15 minutes of each show was devoted to everyday people coming on and describing the extraordinary things they experience. UFO sightings and other paranormal events are not just on bookshelves. These things happen everyday around the world and the Paracast hosts should try harder to connect with witnesses of recent events and get them on the air.
And the hidden tablets of Adnil? Those are the little orange and green antacid tablets that Linda Howe keeps in the zippered compartment of her purse. She chews two of them whenever Gene goes on his semiannual drone rant.
Future guest request: Martin Landau. Why? Because Gene looks a little like him and Landau is a very cool guy! (Gene is too.)
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style> [FONT=FreeSans, sans-serif]UPDATE. If you head over to Flickr you can see the Drone Photo Gallery I've posted. These are the new drones that are in high demand by police forces and the military. Some of these machines are pretty radical and will almost certainly generate UFO reports in the future. Here is the link: [/FONT]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/58453408@N04/sets/72157625846571216/
