• 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!

What case did you once believe - only to find later it was a hoax/false?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

The one that got me badly was something called 'rods' they were like little flying insect sized UFOs with strange configurations.

It turned out that they were actually insects and they only looked weird because of something called interlacing (basically the combination of the film frames).

I don't know why I was so convinced of them, maybe it was just because I have always liked really big or really small things like Gulliver in Lilliput or land of the giants or the borrowers, it just seemed that there was no reason UFOs could not be minuscule, and it could help them hide/go undetected.
 
Spectre73 said:
Not so much a particular case, but I was a very big fan of Timothy Good. I took everything he said at one point as gospel. While I regard much of his work important I think much of it was BS.

I'm still amazed he sighted Adamski as an important case on his last appearance on the Paracast :mad:
Click to expand...
Citing Adamski as anything other than a fraud/hoaxer makes the person citing him a fraud/hoaxer. Sometimes I read articles about "disinformation agents". If ever I was going to believe in one of those things, I'd have to state Bob Oeschler as a disinfo agent. There is NO WAY that a "NASA mission specialist (which is a lie by the way)" is going to believe the below video is authentic. It's one of the most laughable pieces of footage I've ever seen. Not only the shape of the craft but it's "movement". So I'm supposed to believe that Bob authentically believes this footage is real? I showed the footage to some 9 year old girls the other day (my daughters playmates) and they all laughed at it. Bob also believed that the Guardian case was real. That was another laughable case. It was laughable WITHOUT the little alien figure being included in the footage, but once they included that - it was even more laughable.

 
Han said:
The one that got me badly was something called 'rods' they were like little flying insect sized UFOs with strange configurations.

It turned out that they were actually insects and they only looked weird because of something called interlacing (basically the combination of the film frames).

I don't know why I was so convinced of them, maybe it was just because I have always liked really big or really small things like Gulliver in Lilliput or land of the giants or the borrowers, it just seemed that there was no reason UFOs could not be minuscule, and it could help them hide/go undetected.
Click to expand...
Oh yes...I remember the rods....
 
S.R.L. said:
How about the Kumburgaz Turkey UFO case? For a time it was quite the buzz while there are images of an alien in the window of the Mothership. I’m guessing some still believe.

Kumburgaz Turkey UFO - Google Search
Click to expand...
That's another one I've always laughed at. I thought it was pretty apparent what it was right from the start. But you know how that goes. I could hang a truck mirror or a model train wheel from fishing line and film it from 8 feet away....yet someone with a masters degree in calculus will tell me...."based on the shadows coming off of that one telephone pole, and the shadows of the chickens that are in the foreground, and the barn in the background, we can determine that the object is a great length from the camera and is approximately 30 feet in diameter. Plus we ran the photo's through the computer and the computer verifies all of this. Blah blah blah blah."

Sometimes if I am standing 3 feet in front of a Chevy pickup truck. I don't need a 47 step calculus formula and computer verification to tell me that it's a Chevy pickup. I can determine that on the spot by myself.
 
The Trent UFO photo caught my attention and when it was discovered that it matched the missing mirror of his farm truck, the excitement immediately vanished.
upload_2018-3-6_11-25-59.jpeg

The Costa Rica mapping photo is a good example of something that looks real, however, Ray Stanford was under a much different opinion.

timthumb.php

http://ufoupdateslist.com/listers/1971costaricaanalysis.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S.R.L. said:
The Trent UFO photo caught my attention and when it was discovered that it matched the missing mirror of his farm truck, the excitement immediately vanished.
upload_2018-3-6_11-25-59-jpeg.6915
Click to expand...
It's refreshing to see that you have common sense and can recognize the truck mirror. There are fools on here (and the rest of the interweb) that think it's absolutely ridiculous that we say it's a truck mirror lol.
 
Han said:
The one that got me badly was something called 'rods' they were like little flying insect sized UFOs with strange configurations.

It turned out that they were actually insects and they only looked weird because of something called interlacing (basically the combination of the film frames).

I don't know why I was so convinced of them, maybe it was just because I have always liked really big or really small things like Gulliver in Lilliput or land of the giants or the borrowers, it just seemed that there was no reason UFOs could not be minuscule, and it could help them hide/go undetected.
Click to expand...
At least you didn't get duped by Meier like myself. I'll defend myself here a little by saying I was like 12 (and thru high school).
 
withoutlimits09 said:
Gulf Breeze is a joke IMO, the crafts are transparent, clearly some kind of double exposure. Also, they look ridiculous, the windows are not evenly spaced or equidistant, it looks like a hand carved crude model was used.
Click to expand...
You took the words pretty much verbatim right out of my mouth. The UFO is completely goofy looking AND transparent as you say. That's the #1 red flag that something is off (the transparency). Then you add Walters diagram of his little alien visitor and it's even more laughable. And miraculously Walters is the only one to get detailed photos of the craft lol. But to muddy the waters, you get a hot shot photographic "expert" like Bruce Maccabbee that confirms there is no way to fake the photo's & that they must be genuine. Keep in mind Bruce also authenticated the red light from a computer mouse as being a flying saucer in the night sky. So so much for cred (which is why I don't believe one shred he says regarding the New Zealand squid boat light or Paul Trent's hanging truck mirror).

BTW - doesn't anybody find it odd that in 2018 - we have no valid photo's of a structured flying saucer when there are millions of cameras in everyones pockets (that dont require film by the way) and millions of surveillance cameras everywhere - but miraculously back in 1950 Paul Trent just so happened to have his camera at the ready (with film) at the exact split second a real flying saucer comes overhead. Were supposed to believe that we can't get that type of photo in 2018 - but back in 1950 Paul Trent the great farmer pulled it off :confused:
 
Back
Top