Out There Radio, Podcasts, Season 3 — June 5, 2013 at 5:25 pm

Episode 304: Citizens Hearing on Mermaid Disclosure


Out There’s first video podcast begins with an in-depth discussion of the recent popularity of mock-umentaries about mermaids, as well as previous examples of the “found footage” genre. Austin and Raymond then debate the significance of the Citizens Committee for UFO Disclosure and its predecessor, the Disclosure Project.

Episode Source Footage:
Source Video for Robert Salas clip –http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxYR5c…

Source Video for Karl Wolf clip – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud49Gh…



  • Great jobs guys! Love the new video format, it has a lot of potential me thinks.

    Have you guys seen the Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary?

    Good point about the Virgin Mary in Bolivia Raymond. Witness testimonies are great but only physical evidence would differentiate it from religious fanaticism. How is Disclosure 2.0 doing on that front?

    Testimonies are no more than appeal to authority as you mentioned.

  • Welcome Raymond and Austin back to podcasting! It is so great to hear your voices again and I’m pleased you are making more.

    I must say that this one disappointed more because of what you didn’t say, than what you did. If you’re willing to read, then I’ll explain. Apologies for the stream of consciousness format. I wrote these down while listening to the show actually concerning some notable omissions from things you both said:

    1. Though the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) is a very common theory, it is by no means the sole one, nor even the most probable. The works of people like Dr. Jacques Vallee (http://www.amazon.com/Jacques-Vallee/e/B001K8JD8Q) or John Keel are particularly helpful in this regard.

    2. While it is true that just because someone in authority tells a story (certainly how many times have such persons been caught on the record in their own lies?) does not mean it should be automatically believed or accepted, the logic at the disclosure hearing (and the wider study of ufology in general) is that an experienced Air Force officer, for example, can be trusted more to accurately analyze aerial phenomena to a degree that a farmer probably would not be able to, or an astronomer versus a politician. I point this out simply because neither of you mentioned it in your criticism. In any case, I hope you treat the stories given to the mainstream media by official authorities with similar scrutiny.

    3. The claim of lunar structures does not presuppose ETH. If they existed, they could have been built by ancient humans with advanced technology, using speculation based on OOParts and “Atlantean” mythologies. I am simply warning against assumptions here. Secondly online searching will actually yield an assortment of photographs, some “enhanced” by theorists, while others can be downloaded directly from the NASA site if you know the coordinates you want, which appear to show lunar anomalies. This page, if you ignore the rambling, shows quite a few of them which fuel this kind of speculation: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Moon_Others_01.html

    The work of Richard C. Hoagland (whose theories are highly discredited and probably batshit crazy) is probably the most influential source on this theory, which I’m not sure if you are aware of or not (but was not mentioned).

    3. While it is true we should always be wary of attempts to disguise the suspect with “legitimacy”, it is also true that with some scientifically “taboo” subjects that few are wiling to officially study, such as UFOs, ESP/remote viewing(see the work of Russell Targ), alternative archaeological analysis like Graham Hancock’s works, psychedelic drugs and consciousness exploration in the vein of Terrence McKenna etc., despite bodies of evidence which seem to demand further inquiry, these are pushed to the fringe by the scientific community (or the historical community for parapolitical questions), making it difficult to be treated as anything other than fringe research. A source of endless annoyance for serious researchers seeking to increase public awareness I am sure. I am simply saying that scientists, the majority of whom subscribe to a scientific consensus often revealed by the great journals, is loathe to consider information which, partly due to the public’s “contamination” of it with “strangeness”, does not fit into its paradigm. So, to a degree, I can understand their seeking legitimacy in appearance, due to the bad example of plenty of fringe UFO groups who are, let’s admit, fairly wacky. There is a desire to distance themselves from all that negative association.

    4. While I sympathize with your comments about charging people for information, as I am an anti-capitalist myself, I also recognize the argument of people like Nick Redfern of the Mysterious Universe website and podcast, that it takes labour to compile, produce, research and present this info. So, despite, their desire to distribute this info and get the word out, they still have bills and need to eat, etc. That’s not to say there are not con artists out there though. There are plenty, making it good to b able to have an idea of their character, as I feel those of us who have been listening for a while can feel that you two have good character.

    5. Your question about cultural context is amusing, because there is actually several strange UFO reports which originate from and come in from South America (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_sightings_in_Brazil and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_sightings_in_Argentina as a start), just as there are those from France, Russia or Australia. It would seem that some features of the phenomena go beyond cultural borders, and, if one consults Jacques Vallee again (http://www.amazon.com/Passport-Magonia-Folklore-Parallel-Worlds/dp/0809237962 and http://www.amazon.com/Wonders-Sky-Unexplained-Antiquity-ebook/dp/B00466ISNK/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1371307685&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=wonders+in+the+sky+vallee), even historical time period.

    6. Austin’s psychological explanation, which no doubt explains some encounters, fails to explain those seen by multiple persons at the same time or even mass crowds in a few rare cases, nor physical evidence left behind (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=PhysicalTrace) such as marks on the ground or radar signatures (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Radar) attested by multiple witnesses. Are they all making this up or suffering a delusion? Consider cases like this (and there are others some simple, critical, searching can bring up): http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case200.htm.

    As Nick Redfern put it: “So, when people ask me why I believe in the existence of UFOs, I refer them to cases such as this one. Yes, there are hoaxes. And, yes, there are mis-identifications. But, and here’s the most important thing of all, there are also the unknowns.”

    I feel like you denigrated the subject without sufficiently acknowledging its legitimacy as well nor even touching on cursory, simple research like this to offer additional explanation why the people believe in this phenomenon (even though there is no credible proof regarding an definite identification of the phenomenon with ether extraterrestrials, inter-dimensional beings, secret military craft etc.). And, because I regard you and the show very highly, I felt I needed to bring that to your attention.

    My point is just as one can take gullibility and open-mindedness too far to the point of delusion, so can one do with skepticism to the point of denial, so please don’t fall into either trap, whether to discredit yourselves or placate the mainstream consensus.

Leave a Reply

— required *

— required *