• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Perfect Balance...The Lance Moody Interview

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Stagger Lee said:
"What do you care whether someone believes.."
I don't. The 52' wave flap was mentioned as one incident that remains unexplained, reminding me of the LA incident ten years earlier. I was not aware of the "touch up" possibly done to the photo. That certainly goes a long way in dismissing the photo- although I still find the incident peculiar- as the civilian witnesses to the incident all agree to there being an object. Not to mention the amount of shelling that took place. I'll admit the timing (right after Pearl Harbor) does make the incident suspect...but that could also be that we were more aware of our surroundings, looking for objects in the sky.
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from and I wasn't speaking to you specifically with that comment, just believers in general. I see it every time Lance comes into a thread on this forum and with other skeptics on other forums, believers throwing out their best cases and expecting the skeptic to somehow explain it, as if his failure to know the answer to every single question asked of him somehow justifies their belief. I get it all the time when I argue with conspiracy theorists, you explain one thing and they automatically say "oh yeah well that doesn't explain, this, this, this, this and this!!" and of course, it was never meant to. Sometimes, there are no easy answers, and sometimes there are no answers at all, that doesn't make someone's pet theory automatically correct. Sorry if I came off like I was addressing you specifically, that wasn't my intention.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
For the moderators - this thread apparently has malware (according to Google Chrome). Should it be moved to a new thread? Or is it the Trickster!
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the image located within my signature file, the following url is now used for the graphic:

http://i45.tinypic.com/6z0v9y.png

It should be free of malware and I assure you I am no trickster. Gene took it down because he noticed the file was directed from a free photo upload site which was doing this deed.
 
Muadib said:
I get where you're coming from and I wasn't speaking to you specifically with that comment, just believers in general. I see it every time Lance comes into a thread on this forum and with other skeptics on other forums, believers throwing out their best cases and expecting the skeptic to somehow explain it, as if his failure to know the answer to every single question asked of him somehow justifies their belief. I get it all the time when I argue with conspiracy theorists, you explain one thing and they automatically say "oh yeah well that doesn't explain, this, this, this, this and this!!" and of course, it was never meant to. Sometimes, there are no easy answers, and sometimes there are no answers at all, that doesn't make someone's pet theory automatically correct. Sorry if I came off like I was addressing you specifically, that wasn't my intention.
Click to expand...
No worries. I see how frustrating that can be, people throwing cases in the air to be picked apart- taking it all at a personal level. I have to say, I do find it interesting, the possibility the LA photo could have been tampered with before going to print. That is the first I've heard of that, as that bit of possibility has been left out of the many documentary's I've seen on the incident.
 
dyingsun said:
Good show, since there is no way to qualify personal experiences, I get where Lance is coming from, not agreeing on all points still.

Thanks for doing it , Lance. :)
Click to expand...

I would agree that you cannot prove personal experiences, but to disseminate the person's story with comparisons to actual facts supporting the claim, can provide for more relevant explanations in either case. For instance the mind numbing Bob "Bazzar" Lazzar story. Stanton Friedman looked deeply into the man's background, checking for both his supposed educational career as well as his far out "element" findings. In almost every case the answer was the man was clearly fibbing about what he claimed was factual. He might have been there as a janitor (the jury is still out on that one) but too give his "personal experience" the benefit of the doubt as fact in this case is obviously hard to fathom.

Perhaps the question should in fact be based on honesty within the directive. If one doesn't allow for the end result to be faith based or theoretical in consideration, but instead wishes a more conservatively approved acceptance as the mainstay, one should gather the full picture and judge the claim in the light of a more complete investigation, instead of jumping for answers towards any one side.....that is unless they call it a faith or belief based opinion and not factual circumstance.
 
Stagger Lee said:
Didn't this include ground observation of disk shaped objects- multiple witnesses?
Click to expand...

Actually ground and air radar/visual involving multiple witnesses ( civilian and military ) ... multiple military radar tracks ... jet interceptor pilot vectored to UFO where visual contact with UFOs was made and verified ... multiple sightings over more than one day ... widely publicized ... only a denier of Lance's cailbre would suggest it was only a "supposed" event.
 
Regarding the Battle of LA photo - whether it was touched or not, the fact remains all those klieg lights were pointing at something that caught the attention of the air defence. I'm sure they could see it at times and considering the US had not been invaded, the military should have known if it was theirs or not. Yes, confusion can and does happen in war but considering the reported length of the incident I am confident of at least that no US command had knowledge of the object. Beyond that is pure speculation....and we don't do that in Ufology do we? lol
 
Well, speaking of Phil Klass and the 1952 overflights ...

You all may be aware of the interview I conducted with Klass back in January of 1995 ... and after discussing Jesse Marcel (who, according to Phil was trying to collect a $3000. reward some "unamed newspaper was supposedly offering for proof of a UFO), Phil claimed that the Air Force, if they had really been concerned about the unknown UFOs buzzing the nations capital ... would have had "hundreds" of AF fighters positioned around Washington DC ... instead of having to have them flown in from Delaware. I pointed out to Phil that the reason was that the military bases around the capital were having their runways, I guess, re-paved. I had gotten that little bit of information from Al Chop. What? Don't know who he was? I suggest you look him up.

At any rate Klass became enraged and started screaming Bullshit! bullshit!! bullshit!! 3 times, and when I called him on it he hung up in mid show.

Hmm, now that is informed skepticism.

Decker
 
lancemoody said:
In reference to the 1952 Flap, (which was real, it is the flyings saucers that are unproven):

Notice how the UFO/Steamship incident was not mentioned! Hilarious.

The whole story, as told by pious believers, is a blending of facts to make their story come out the way they want it to. Yes, there were radar targets. Yes, there were lights in the sky. Yes, folks got excited about it.

But connecting the radar angels (a common problem with this early radar) to the lights in the sky is much more tenuous. That UFO zealots ignore the steamship incident, an actual documented part of the story, is just sadly the way UFO believers do their "science".

Note that the famous photo that you always see along with this story is a known fake (actually not a fake, it just shows street light reflections, not UFOs). So often the way UFO believers present their case as a collection of tawdry and transparent artifice. I would think that serious believers might be up in arms about it.

I am just postulating that there are serious believers, of course.

Lance
Click to expand...

Above we see Lances position shifting from "The supposed 1952 flap" [ italics mine ] to the "... 1952 Flap ( which was real ... )", and the 1952 flap going from being a great example of "crappy evidence for UFOs" to "it is the flying saucers that are unproven" ... [ italics mine ]. Does anyone else here see the goalposts shifting? Regarding the Wilson Lines steamboat trip being picked up on radar and the B-25 being vectored toward it. Although it is an interesting aside, it doesn't explain the parts of the incident that are relevant. What Lance has done here is pulled a rather clever Straw Man ... created the illusion of having refuted relevant examples by replacing them with a superficially similar but inequivalent example ( the "straw man" ). Specifically he infers that because an unidentified radar target was visually confirmed as a ship, that the other unidentified targets that were visually confirmed as UFOs must have also been something equally mundane.

Lance then goes on to obscure the above tactics by throwing in a couple of smoke bombs. If you don't acknowledge what he says as legitimate then you must be a "UFO zealot" who does some kind of "sad" science. Lastly, he throws in another straw man involving the famous lens flare photo. So here we see the typical skeptical tactics in action ( moving the goalposts, straw man augments and psychological suppression ), but when all this noise is stripped away from the 1952 DC incident we are still left with numerous unexplained radar/visual reports, some involving other aircraft besides the B-25 that also picked up the objects on their own radar, and one in particular, an F-94 interceptor which was successfully vectored to UFOs on radar where the pilot visually confirmed that strange bluish-white lights had surrounded his jet ... strange bluish-white flying objects that suddenly outpaced his F-94 and disappeared into the distance. Consider this memo found in the NARA archives:

DC-1952-01a.png


Above:
Reproduction of a July 1952 memo by Gilbert Levy,
Chief USAF Counter Intelligence Division
Source: NARA archives via Project Bluebook Archive
 
It must dismay Lance a lot that there were so many UFO non-skeptics in the US, UK and other militaries - enough for them to have UFO study groups for decades. How utterly stupid and gullible all those senior officers must have been. Embarrassing really isn't it?
 
goggsmackay said:
It must dismay Lance a lot that there were so many UFO non-skeptics in the US, UK and other militaries - enough for them to have UFO study groups for decades. How utterly stupid and gullible all those senior officers must have been. Embarrassing really isn't it?
Click to expand...

If I didn't know better ... ;).
 
ufology said:
but when all this noise is stripped away from the 1952 DC incident we are still left with numerous unexplained radar/visual reports
Click to expand...

Exactly.


There are plenty of popular and seemingly credible cases from the 1950's and otherwise that may be explained with dedicated investigation. I don't care about those, except inasmuch as eliminating them works to reduce signal to noise. Cherry picking the easily disproved gets us mostly nowhere. Standing on a small handful of so-called good cases gets us a little further, but not much. What keeps most us interested are large numbers of sane and credible people who claim to have witnessed extraordinary things. By all accounts, these were especially plentiful in 1952. I still contend that sifting through a sea noise in this subject yields an elusive but persistent signal. The signal is not "proof" of anything. But it may be worthy evidence.
 
Back
Top