Re: http://paratopiary.blogspot.com/
Just finished up the latest entirely free Paratopia, and I have to say this.
Bravo! Hosts Jeff Ritzmann and Jeremy Vaeni allowed —if still flawed— the most revealing telling of the entire Flatwoods affair yet! They did this respectfully revisiting the conventional wisdoms of the klasskurtxian and skeptibunky camps, and some of the more unusual ones at that! Who is allowed to drive oil spewing 1940's era pick-up trucks and where they are allowed to drive them, springs to mind. Answer: no one and not anywhere.
No, Feschino was able to rationally address every concern. "Rationally address," from fact, reader, not rationalize.
I don't think it is a stretch to report that the Paratopian Pair were impressed, even gobsmacked by the accounting.
Flawed? Yes. Interviewers are reluctant to face the provenance of the Monster and seem equally reluctant to inquire about it at all. True, Ritzmann, and Vaeni too, tried to pin Feschino down on Feschino's accounting as pointing to a hypothesis that is extraterrestrial in origin... or the currently abhorred, besmirched, and dreaded "extraterrestrial hypothesis": beings of an indeterminate biology, in other words, interacting with humanity in some manner outlining a way that might mimic our behavior, reader, if we, swapping shoes with the alien, were the extraterrestrials. Frank got it, folks. We've talked about it, frequently. The ETH is unfairly toxic territory these days, a decided magnet for premature derision and too hasty opprobrium. I point out that Paratopia did not engage in this.
Certainly, Frank Feschino, reporting the story he's pieced together over enormous hurdles for almost 20 years, is reluctant to go there for reasons obvious especially to the self-proclaimed critically thinking. In the first place he refuses to speculate on a provenance of something he doesn't know, in a manner which is unsupportable, regarding whether the "Monster" is crypto-zoological, trans-temporal, extra-dimensional, or para-psychological. How should he pretend to know that? He doesn't.
Feschino would prefer to stick with that which IS supportable! What is supportable is that the Flatwoods affair, again, is at the end of an enormous flap as it pertains to UFOs, reader, UFOs enjoying the consequences of the whole of a Military Aviation Arm of the United States operating in fact on standing orders to shoot them down!
These are the objects, reader —attributed to one six second Washington meteor— documented in 21 hours of continuous UFO sightings, mind you, as flying erratically, being on fire, dropping molten detritus, and making funny sounds... alien aircraft attacked and damaged?
Well, reader... Feschino will make no apology that this whole affair, even if it seems to be that obnoxious "extraterrestrial hypothesis...," is right in the reader's face... up close and personal! Though, why Feschino's reluctance?
He doesn't know what or who the Flatwoods monster is reader, in the first place, as pointed out above! Too, considering how ridiculously and inappropriately non-trendy the ETH is these days —this writer suspects— Feschino is loath to give a person any reason NOT to look at the massive data he has collected about, and get this, a secret Air and Sea War —against something decidedly odd— in which so many pilots, other persons, and aircraft were lost. Shoot Them Down is a fact, reader.
Closing, Ritzmann and Vaeni agreed the Flatwoods affair is ridiculous, their words. I caution the misquoting reporter; however, that they also made every indication that this ridiculousness actually credited the Flatwoods case. It did not remotely discredit it. See, we all agree that this UFO thing IS ridiculous as a portion of its part and parcel. It is ridiculous to the "conventional wisdom," reader, but I think we all might further agree that this says more about "conventional wisdom" than it does about Feschino's Flatwoods accounting of the Flatwoods affair.
Again... Well done Paratopia!
Read on.
alienview@roadrunner.com
> http://www.alienview.net/
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- http://www.ufomag.com/
10 comments:
I haven't listened to this one yet; been catching up and just listened to the Emma Woods and Redfern episodes last night. I give them both a lot of credit for what they had to say about Woods, Schyuler (sic?) and UFO Hall of Shame/Fame in general.
Thanks Alfred, much appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it...I know I did. Still amazing to me how this thing looked like it walked right off the campy set of Lost in Space. Fascinating event to say the least.
Wait'll you explore the military aspect of all this replete with UFOs enjoying the consequences of the whole of a Military Aviation Arm of the United States operating, in fact, on standing orders to shoot them down! Woo!
That said, your note —sincerely and remembering all "disagreement" for lack of a better word— is most welcome Sir.
Yeah Regan... I have to give these guys full marks for being entirely genuine and listenable while being such, eh?
I say this reporting that I had characterized to myself an uber-regard for Hopkins, Jacobs, and Mack even affected by a problematic hypnotic regression used as a tool, you know?
When you have _no_ tools, are discouraged tools by polite society, and then denied tools by a corporate academia... maybe a good man, or three good men, will grasp and clutch at anything even remotely resembling a tool,eh?
Too, I recall a renowned Dr. Benjamin Simon had a lot success treating PTSD (A Hill-like stress disorder) and hypnosis was a major tool by report improving the lives of countless persons so effected. Simon also treated the Hills.
You know, it must be true... to be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous, certainly. All we can do is use the tools we can as honestly as we can.
It remains, abduction research really takes one below the waterline and it was their own errantly fired and bloody torpedo at that!
One can hardly blame Paratopia when a ship's guns are turned inward and it fires on itself. One can only respect the report on same. Didn't we have some records and supplies on that boat?
The treatment of this woman... even _if_ ... _especially_ if she's crazy as an out-house rat, seems demonstrably unconscionable.
This needs to be addressed aggressively even as some concern must be given to throwing out babies with dirty water or some-such like thing...
For now? All hail Paratopia, a true, if only current, gold standard.
Al-
I have to tell you we went quite the rounds as we had before awhile back. We may not agree on many issues, but I've come to several epiphanies the past 3 weeks or so and one being that we can disagree without hating people or talking to eachother like shit.
We both did this in our discussion...if one could even call it that.
I for one am done with this - I mean what does it really accomplish anyway? We should be able to disagree and not get so bent - it really serves no purpose. I know being personally involved in this subject tends to make me passionately angry at times when I see things I don't agree with.
I've seen the error in this while listening to someone we both have a great deal of respect for, Terence McKenna. I immediately thought of you and I and Lesley and our tussle. Terence launched into what a shitfest UFOlogy is when you're really looking for answers in a passionate way, and how as he put it "this field can't stop hitting itself over the head long enough to get anything done - it's all about posturing who's right and who's out to lunch - if these people would put half the energy into studying the phenomena as they do into smacking each other around for their views we might know more about what's going on".
We don't have to agree. And that said, I'd like to say I'm sorry for our discussion and how personal it got. Half of what we said to each other had nothing to even do with the discussion of the subject.
My heart is in this subject, because of all that has happened to me and the toll it takes on my life. But that's no excuse for letting my passion equate to what happened with us. I know I can't understand half of what you write and mostly don't agree with it...but I believe you are a good man. That should be all that needs to be understood to have a calm discussion and respect each other.
So. I am sorry for how that went. I guess I'm getting old eh?
~Jeff
And by the way, here's one for you Al-
One has to give credit for a man who had as big a fallout with us as he did...and still has the grace to acknowledge positively what we do. This should be known to Al's credit - and I'm going to say this on the show...because it's an example of what more people in this should be like, me included.
I wish I could be more like that. But it's hard. I will certainly try to be.
Of course that doesn't mean the true jackasses of this subject get a free pass either. ;) But, they also shouldn't be the focus, which is what I always wanted Paratopia to do - ignore the mess and focus on the subject. I like to think we've done that in large part.
~Jeff
I suspect we agree on many if not most issues, Jeff.
Few to none ask me what I'm talking about, so I must presume that they don't care to understand, understand only too well and are loath to get into it, or understand and agree in premise. If understanding is not forthcoming, all anyone ever has to do is ask, eh?
It doesn't take grace to be honest with yourself, really. If I'm not honest with myself I get hives, headaches, and endure despair. Besides, if I criticize and condemn with honesty, then I must also commend and congratulate in the spirit of that same honesty — if either position can be expected to have _any_ value, am I right?
You're a good man, Jeff, attempting to do good work... I'd sooner we were cooperating allies than fueding enemies.
...I'da still voted for Tim, understand... [g].
Jeff - I haven't listened to the latest show yet, but I did listen to the Redfern episode. I was very impressed with your statements at the end. Believe it or not, I used to "go after" people I didn't agree with or thought were scammers too, until like you I realized that it was accomplishing pretty much nothing. People willing to look already know that stuff and the others pay no attention anyhow. Heck, I still do it from time to time depending on the situation. Sometimes it is hard to keep your anger from controlling your typing fingers.
Anyhow, no hard feelings on my part and I wish you guys luck with the new direction of the show. I imagine it is always easier to attract listeners with hate, anger and controversy, but then again, maybe not. Tim has always done well with none of that.
Thanx Les. It's not really a new direction for the show, as we've always in large part ignored the morons, and don't entertain them even in an expose' setting.
Like you said, it's fish in a barrel...so who cares?
It's more that we're going to ignore those would would trash us for bringing up legitimate concerns and issues. These people too, fit into the faceless malcontents - who I think get more satisfaction in just being another one to "pile on"...rather than to making any real point.
That's a large contingency of the people in this...it just seems to attract them. I have no more time for them.
Actually the last time I listened to the show (before Nick a couple weeks ago) was way back when we were feuding. So likely I unfairly came to a conclusion of which direction the show was taking back then. :)
I will also say that I probably formed an unfair opinion of you personally without knowing you because of your association with a certain other podcast that you were on before paratopia, which I have never liked.
My bads for basing opinions on limited information.
Post a Comment