• 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!

Your Paracast Newsletter -- May 26, 2013

Free episodes:

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
THE PARACAST NEWSLETTER
May 26, 2013

Leslie Kean and Retired Air Force Col. Charles Halt Appear on The Paracast

The Paracast is heard Sundays from 2:00 AM until 5:00 AM Central Time on the GCN Radio Network and affiliates around the USA, and online across the globe via download and on-demand streaming.

Why It's Important for You to Donate to The Paracast: Although ads help cover a small part of our expenses, the income they produce is never enough to pay your humble hosts decent wages. Also, we do not receive any revenue from the ads placed on the show by our network or local stations. So we hope you're able to help fill the gap, if you can, to help us cover increasing server costs and other expenses -- or perhaps provide a little extra cash for lunch and utility bills. No contribution is too small (or too large :). It’s easy to send a donation. We have a Donate link on our home page, below the logo and audio player. There's also a Donate link on our forums, at the bottom of the sidebar on the right. Or just send your PayPal donation direct to sales (at) theparacast (dot) com. And if you’ve had a problem getting to our Donate screen, please try again. We just fixed a serious PayPal access problem, and it should wor k properly now.

Attention U.S. Listeners: Help Us Bring The Paracast to Your City! In the summer of 2010, The Paracast joined the GCN radio network. This represented a huge step in bringing our show to a larger, mainstream audience. But we need your help to add additional affiliates to our growing network. Please ask one of your local talk stations if they are interested in carrying The Paracast. Feel free to contact us directly with the names of programming people we might be able to contact on your behalf. We can't do this alone, and if you succeed in convincing your local station to carry the show, we'll reward you with one of our special T-shirts, and other goodies. With your help, The Paracast can grow into one of the most popular paranormal shows on the planet!

Please Visit Our Online Store: You asked, and we answered. We are now taking orders for The Official Paracast T-Shirt and an expanded collection of other specially customized merchandise. To get your T-Shirt now featuring our brand new logo, just pay a visit to our online store at The Official Paracast Store to select your size and place your order. We also offer a complete lineup of other premium merchandise for your family, your friends and your business contacts.

About The Paracast: The Paracast covers a world beyond science, where UFOs, poltergeists and strange phenomena of all kinds have been reported by millions across the planet.

Set Up: The Paracast is a paranormal radio show that takes you on a journey to a world beyond science, where UFOs, poltergeists and strange phenomena of all kinds have been reported by millions. The Paracast seeks to shed light on the mysteries and complexities of our Universe and the secrets that surround us in our everyday lives.

Join long-time paranormal researcher Gene Steinberg, co-host and acclaimed field investigator Christopher O'Brien, and a panel of special guest experts and experiencers, as they explore the realms of the known and unknown. Listen each week to the great stories of the history of the paranormal field in the 20th and 21st centuries.

This Week's Episode: Gene and Chris are joined by investigative journalist Leslie Kean, author of "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record," and retired Air Force Colonel Charles Halt, one of the key figures in the 1980 Randlesham UFO case in the UK. Both are scheduled to speak at 2013 Symposium on Official and Scientific Investigations of UAP (UFOs). We also ask questions posted by our forum members.

Chris O'Brien's Site: http://www.ourstrangeplanet.com

Leslie Kean's Book Site: UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record | by Leslie Kean

Reminder: Please don't forget to visit our famous Paracast Community Forums for the latest news/views/debates on all things paranormal: The Paracast Community Forums. We recently completed a major update that makes our community easier to navigate, and social network friendly.

It’s Not What You Know, But What You Can Prove!
By Gene Steinberg

Over the years, I’ve made a point in stating that you cannot assume that UFOs are spaceships. Sure, the evidence may seem to point in that direction, what with the objects in question displaying evidence of intelligent control, incredible feats of maneuverability and, more to the point, they appear to be solid objects in the way we understand solid.

So the logic goes that, since no Earth-based civilization that we know about can possibly manufacture such advanced aircraft, they must inevitably come from another planet, no doubt from another star system. Our own scientists have buttressed this belief as we discover more and more potential Earth-like planets in our galaxy. So it would seem to make perfect sense that one or more of them have civilizations that are capable of space travel.

So, naturally, they must be coming here. End of story, and no arguments to the contrary will be accepted.

Sure, it’s true that, when most anyone is asked if they believe in UFOs, they assume you mean extraterrestrial visitors. About a third of the U.S. population believes this to be so, according to one survey sponsored by National Geographic when they were engaged in promotion for the “Chasing UFOs” reality TV show. But often ignored is the fact that previous surveys over they years indicated that roughly half the U.S. population held that belief, or maybe they have other priorities these days that are more important than worrying about strange craft in the sky.

The recent Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, conducted by UFO disclosure evangelist Stephen Bassett, was predicated on that belief, that the hearing would somehow convince ex-members of the U.S. Congress that we were being visited by ET, and thus fuel demands that the government tells us what they really know.

But that belief system is what often dissuades scientists and government officials from studying the phenomenon. Even if the concept is perfectly reasonable based on what we know about the universe, don’t tell them that such a thing is happening now. Your pleas for disclosure will fall on deaf ears.

Unfortunately Bassett polluted his conference with the voices of people who may have sensational stories to tell, but who are unable to prove their claims. So the many speakers who presented solid evidence that something really strange is going on were overlooked by most members of the media in place of those who had the wildest claims. The press these days is more interested in provocative sound bites and entertainment than in telling you what’s really going on.

No, it’s not the alleged “liberal” media that some blame for most everything they don’t like. It’s the corporate media that discovered that profits can be made if the news coverage is tailored to achieving the highest circulation, the maximum number of hits, or high ratings.

So when you approach the people you need to interest, you have to be very careful what you say, according to investigative journalist Leslie Kean, who wrote one of the few best-selling UFO books in the last few decades, entitled, "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record."

Her intent was not to prove or even make a case in favor of UFOs being spaceships. Instead, she focused on compelling cases that simply cannot be explained as any conventional aircraft or phenomena. Just the facts, and she and her contributors presented an intriguing collection of sightings that the skeptics simply cannot explain away.

Now it doesn’t matter so much what she personally believes about the phenomenon. Clearly she has been sufficiently impressed to devote the last 10 years of her life to the subject, and those of us who have been involved in UFO research for a long time can understand that she’s taking a huge risk. Getting involved in this field can be a dead-end for many, but she was willing to take a chance for the greater good.

Understand that it is not very difficult to take the evidence and claim it proves there is an alien origin for UFOs. How can it be otherwise? But that doesn’t mean you can prove such a thing. If the smoking gun was available, they wouldn’t be UFOs. They’d be IFOs, Identified Flying Objects.

Leslie’s goal is to persuade government officials and scientists to take the subject seriously, and commit the cases to thorough investigation. She doesn’t draw conclusions; she simply wants the experts in various fields to figure out what’s really going on.

Now it’s a sure thing that some of the scientists she’s contacted may already believe that UFOs are spaceships, or favor some other non-terrestrial explanation. Being politically correct, however, is the best way to open that door and keep it open. The subject of UFOs already has a lot of baggage, and there are many who won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Indeed, some organizations, such as NARCAP (National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena), which, as the title implies, concentrates on UFOs reported by aviators, actually refers to them as UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). I suppose that’s one way to avoid the ongoing influence of the crackpots that continue to pollute the field.

Sure, it may well be that some governments already have guilty knowledge about what UFOs really are. But demanding that they tell you what you perceive to be the truth is a non-starter. They just won’t listen to you, or will repeat the usual mantra that there is no evidence that UFOs are anything but conventional objects or phenomena.

Yes, it may seem frustrating to hold back what you really believe, but that’s what being politically correct is all about. Besides, if it draws more serious attention to what’s really going on, we may all be the winners in the end.

Privacy Policy: Your personal information is safe with us. We will positively never give out your name and/or e-mail address to anybody else, and that's a promise!
 
Understand that it is not very difficult to take the evidence and claim it proves there is an alien origin for UFOs. How can it be otherwise? But that doesn’t mean you can prove such a thing. If the smoking gun was available, they wouldn’t be UFOs. They’d be IFOs, Identified Flying Objects.
Simply because we can't map out the entire scope of our modern civilization in one fell swoop to prove UFOs aren't from within our own civilization, doesn't mean it's reasonable to presume that they are. That's like Russels's teapot in reverse. We both know there's sufficient evidence to make a reasonable claim that alien craft are real. There is also overwhelming evidence that the word UFO is meant to be used in that context. So why not just tell it like it is?
Indeed, some organizations, such as NARCAP (National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena), which, as the title implies, concentrates on UFOs reported by aviators, actually refers to them as UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). I suppose that’s one way to avoid the ongoing influence of the crackpots that continue to pollute the field.
USI has adopted NARCAP's term UAP for incidents where the object or phenomenon in question cannot be clearly defined as a UFO. But let's make no mistake here: UAPs and UFOs are two separate concepts, and the core of ufology is focused on UFOs, not UAPs. That's why is called ufology. We want to know the story behind alien craft, not all the other stuff that the phenomenon in general may or may not be.
Sure, it may well be that some governments already have guilty knowledge about what UFOs really are. But demanding that they tell you what you perceive to be the truth is a non-starter. They just won’t listen to you, or will repeat the usual mantra that there is no evidence that UFOs are anything but conventional objects or phenomena.
Anyone who studies ufology seriously knows that the government knows more than we do about the phenomenon. How much more they know is uncertain. But how much more do we really need them to tell us? We, already know alien visitation is fact not a fantasy ( "We" meaning those who have sufficient knowledge within the field and/or firsthand experience ). What we'd like to know are more of the details.
 
Item 1: UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object." If it was identified, it would be an IFO.

Item 2: It's really a distinction without a difference. Whether we call them UFO, UAP, or UAO, we're talking about the same thing.

Item 3: No we do not know whether alien visitation is a reality. A possibility, yes, but not yet a reality. If we did, see Item 1.
 
Item 1: UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object." If it was identified, it would be an IFO.
In ufology, the meaning of the word UFO is not as simplistic as the literal translation of the words that make up the acronym. I've gone into this at some length elsewhere on the forum and on our website at www.ufopages.com, but maybe we should hash it out on the show sometime. I'm constantly amazed at how this word continues to wreak havoc within the field :mad:.
Item 2: It's really a distinction without a difference. Whether we call them UFO, UAP, or UAO, we're talking about the same thing.
Actually there is a distinction. You'll find that NARCAP created the acronym UAP specifically to differentiate between UFOs and UAPs. Personally I think UFOs are more cool :cool:.
Item 3: No we do not know whether alien visitation is a reality. A possibility, yes, but not yet a reality. If we did, see Item 1.
I'll grant that not everyone has sufficient firsthand experience or knowledge to justify the claim that alien visitation is a reality; but many people do. In fact, your wealth of knowledge should put you in this category, and I respectfully submit that the only reason you're not there is because that slippery tricksterish word UFO sets off the same bell inside your head that it does in others who seem to be in a state of denial. The good news is that you're not alone and your affliction can be cured ;).
 
I don't see the need to hash out the meaning of the acronym UFO. That has been well defined over the last 60 years, and, no, it doesn't necessarily mean spaceship. And until we can prove our visitors, or whatever they are, are aliens, the matter is still up to further discussion and investigation.

I'd talk about your "affliction" in trying to make a big deal of this, but I have better things to do with my time. :)
 
I don't see the need to hash out the meaning of the acronym UFO. That has been well defined over the last 60 years, and, no, it doesn't necessarily mean spaceship.
I never said "spaceship" ... that was you Gene. And the word UFO has been far from "well defined" over the last 60 years. It was poorly defined to begin with, and it's been a thorn in the side of ufologists ever since.
And until we can prove our visitors, or whatever they are, are aliens, the matter is still up to further discussion and investigation.
It's more like this: Until we know more about the aliens, the matter of UFOs is still up to further discussion and investigation.
I'd talk about your "affliction" in trying to make a big deal of this, but I have better things to do with my time. :)
I accept my affliction ... with a smile :). So if you really think you can help me, by all means be my doctor. On the other hand, having "better things to do" is a typical avoidance reaction for those who wish to remain in a state of denial. Ufology has been an important part of your life ( and mine ) for many years. So please explain how exactly is it that you ( we ) have "better things to do" than nail down this fundamentally important facet once and for all?
 
UFOs are well defined. They are flying objects that cannot be identified, period. That's the original definition, and it hasn't changed. That some equate UFOs with spaceships doesn't mean that the actual meaning changed.

What we need to nail down is what the "Unidentified" means, when the large proportion of conventional objects and phenomena is taken out of the equation. We're still looking for the answer, we're still hoping to turn the "U" into an "I," but it hasn't happened yet.
 
UFOs are well defined. They are flying objects that cannot be identified, period. That's the original definition, and it hasn't changed.
Actually, it's never been that simple and there have been lots of changes. Let's go all the way back to 1958 and start with the following excerpt From USAF AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958:
2. Definitions. To insure proper and uniform usage in UFO screenings, investigations, and reportings, the objects are defined as follows:
1.Familiar or Known Objects - Aircraft, birds, balloons, kites, searchlights, and astronomical bodies (meteors, planets, stars).​
2.Unknown Aircraft:
(1) Flying objects determined to be aircraft. These generally appear as a result of ADIZ violations and often prompt the UFO reports submitted by the general public. They are readily identifiable as, or known to be, aircraft, but their type, purpose, origin, and destination are unknown. Air Defense Command is responsible for reports of "unknown" aircraft and they should not be reported as UFO's under this regulation.​
(2) Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO.​
(3) Pilotless aircraft and missiles.​
3.Unidentified Flying Objects - Any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to known aircraft or missiles, or which does not correspond to definitions in a. and b. above.

So above we can see that the official definition ( by the people who created the word in the first place ) is not nearly as simplistic as you suggest. Essentially ( as I've stated elsewhere ), it is the culmination of a series of refinements that shows a clear intent to distill out all natural and manmade phenomena from the reporting process. Of particular note are Paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 which tell us in no uncertain terms that unknown aircraft and things that are merely indicative of aircraft but remain unidentified should not be reported as they "do not fall within the definition of a UFO".

The above excerpt is but one of many that can be quoted as objective and independent evidence. If you haven't read the article posted on the USI website that explains all this in some detail, then perhaps you might consider doing that. If after doing that, you can provide counterpoint to the specific points made, and support them with independent examples and sound logic, then I'll be prepared to seriously consider it. Until then, the evidence indicates that the word UFO is intended to convey the idea of alien craft, not merely, "flying objects that cannot be identified."
 
No distinction. UFOs are "Unidentified" because they behaved in an unconventional fashion, or had unconventional features. Period. The "Unknown Aircraft" category simply includes conventional objects or phenomena that may lack final identification as to specific aircraft, flares, etc. They might be considered as possible UFOs at first, but would later be put into categories 1 or 2 upon further examination. The Air Force claimed that all UFOs would fit those definitions were enough information available, and that includes the so-called unknowns, the "real" UFOs. That's where the argument begins and ends. Their definition of UFOs doesn't conclude that they as alien spaceships from, say, Planet Serpo or somewhere. But people assume that, if they are real UFOs, they must be ET. We can argue the cause, but still agree we cannot prove what they really are.
 
Their definition of UFOs doesn't conclude that they as alien spaceships from, say, Planet Serpo or somewhere. But people assume that, if they are real UFOs, they must be ET. We can argue the cause, but still agree we cannot prove what they really are.
The above is where we can agree 100%. Alien does not necessitate ET. You do not have to compromise your belief ( or preferred theory ) that UFOs aren't ET in order to accept that they are alien. For that matter alien doesn't even necessitate non-human. For example, we may be dealing with humans that originate from outside our global civilization in some as of yet undiscovered terrestrial location. So in reality, I think we agree on the essentials.

The advantage of adopting the definition of UFOs as alien craft is that we can also eliminate a lot of confusion and skeptical rhetoric, especially the notion that because UFOs are "unidentified" they could be anything at all, including witches, vampires and Santa Claus. That's not what we're interested in. We're interested in establishing the truth about alien visitation ( not unknown visitation or unidentified visitation ). Under official definitions UFOs were objects that were seen or detected well enough to be reasonably sure that they do not conform to any natural or manmade phenomenon, which is just a long winded way of saying they're alien, and if a witness could not be reasonably sure of that then they weren't even supposed to fill out a UFO report. So it's time to stop beating around the bush and lose the stigma of telling it like it is. We know UFOs are real and we know they are alien to our civilization. Using your own logic they must be. After all, if they're not alien then we must know exactly what they are right? Do we? Not yet. However we do know there's a lot more to them than a bunch of vague objects off in the distance that haven't been identified ... much more.
 
I think you realize that I consider to regard a UFO in the way it was defined by the Air Force in the 1950s. It is not identified as alien or otherwise. However, the evidence does point to some sort of otherworldly explanation of one sort or another. We just don't have the final proof of which theory is correct, or whether several theories apply.

If UFOs were identified, they'd no longer be UFOs. So let's say we are being visited by an alien race known as the Zignoids (I just made up this name), from another star system, that this fact has been confirmed and revealed publicly. When we see one of their spaceships, it would no longer be a UFO, but a Zignoid scout ship, or Zignoid mother ship or whatever. See what I'm getting at?
 
I think you realize that I consider to regard a UFO in the way it was defined by the Air Force in the 1950s.

If you want to rely on the Air Force, you're missing some important points. The first is that Project Sign's Top Secret Estimate of The Situation concluded that flying saucers are probably extraterrestrial spacecraft. That estimate was done by highly trained, educated and experienced analysts at ATIC. But even if you personally reject their conclusions in favor of your own opinions, it still shows that the Air Force wasn't simply investigating any old unidentified thing in the sky. They wanted to get to the bottom of the flying saucer mystery, and as you well know, the phrase flying saucers was ( and still is ) used to convey the idea of disk shaped craft of alien origin, most popularly ET. So if it's the Air Force you want to defer to, that's where the modern history begins, with the investigation of flying saucers ( ET craft ).

The second point is that Ruppelt ( the guy who put the acronym UFO together ), created the word UFO with the specific intent of replacing the phrase flying saucer with something that could be applied to various other configurations of these mysterious craft besides flying disks. So the focus of USAF investigations never changed simply because the term was changed. A flying saucer by any other name is still an ET craft, and the Air Force was still trying to get to the bottom of that mystery. Vague whatevers weren't what they were pusuing in their F-94s and F-86s.

The third and most important point you're missing is that we're not the Air Force. Although we should take some cues from them, the official USAF definitions and other historical files in support of what I'm saying aren't all we should be considering. There is also the independent evidence found in the way society at large uses the word, and most important of all is how we ufologists define the word. We're not bound by Air Force rules to downplay alien visitation and use vague euphemisms, and it would be a mistake to limit ourselves to such a narrow military perspective.

Neither are we Earth light investigators. That's for geologists. We're not strange bird investigators. That's for cryptozoologists. We're not meteor chasers. That's for astronomy buffs. Neither are we debunkers. That's for CSI ( formerly CSICOP ) or the JREF. We're not interested in vague unidentified whatevers that could be almost anything including Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. What ufologists are primarily interested is learning the truth regarding alien visitation to our civilization. If one is primarily interested in something else, then one isn't primarily interested in ufology or UFOs. What that primary interest might be, I don't know, maybe psychic projections or ghosts or exotic aircraft, or mind control, or generic Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ( UAPs ). There's nothing wrong with being interested in those things in addition to UFOs, but they don't represent the core subject matter and they never will.
 
The main point is that we call them UFOs, though some call them other things. Playing the word game doesn't tell us what is really happening. But, again, once we find it -- if we find out -- the acronym UFO will no longer apply to them.
 
The main point is that we call them UFOs, though some call them other things. Playing the word game doesn't tell us what is really happening. But, again, once we find it -- if we find out -- the acronym UFO will no longer apply to them.

True. However there are some distinct advantages to established and well thought out definition. If we take this seriously, it's more than simply a word game. For example I'm just listening to the Kean / Halt show now and the first part identifies a couple of key problems that I examined with considerable care while addressing this problem. It sounds like another excellent episode so far and I'll be back to post some more on this. Thank you for engaging me on this topic. I know it can seem tedious for some folks, but not unlike Leslie, I've constantly found myself having to explain all these details to people both in and outside the field, and the lack of a common consensus on it has paved the way for a lot of damage, and I'd honestly like to change that. I'm not some tin foil hat wearing ufo nut promoting space aliens ... or wait a minute ... ignore that picture of me in my tin foil hat :) !
 
Back
Top