Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Question Time: Nick Redfern is ON FIRE!

The most-read post in the history of this blog-- at least since Blogger began making stats available in May of 2009-- was a blockbuster interview with Nick Redfern, who this writer sees as the top UFO researcher of our times.

Back then we discussed Nick's book Final Events, which traced the origin of the "UFO=Demon" meme to a shadowy, ultra right-wing secret society in the Pentagon called the Collins Elite.

That interview kicked off a major controversy as other sites picked up on Nick's research. Nick's published a few more books since then (the guy is the Stephen King of modern UFOlogy) and has more in the works (which you can check out on his site). Suffice it to say that if you only have time to follow one author on all things alienistic, Nick's your man.

I wanted to check in Nick since next year marks the 65th anniversary of the birth of the modern UFO era; the Maury Island, Kenneth Arnold and Roswell incidents, to be precise.
UFOlogy seems to be in a strange spot at the moment, in that there's both a lot more and a lot less of it out there.

The UFO topic is getting more attention in the mainstream press than it has in ages, and not all of it is bogged down with the usual, lame-ass, "night-light" hoaxes (nearly all of which are the work of Amazing Rambli-worshiping skeptics) or the corny "Bubba butt-probe" cliches that get aired out whenever the topic is raised.

But even though more sightings are being reported than ever before, field work is sorely lacking and the phenomenon seems to have entered a new (some would say fallow) period. Indeed, we seem to be on the tail-end of a flap that peaked in 2009 and 2010, a period which also saw the Vatican and the Royal Society take the topic more seriously than most observers would have dared believed was possible.

One thing I've noticed throughout the years is that UFOlogy-- in all its various expressions-- seems to come and go in cycles.

The biggest story of the past year would be the huge success of the Ancient Aliens series, now in its third season on The History Channel.
The show seems to blow hot and cold and people who've studied the topic aren't crazy about the sensationalism the show sometimes lapses into, but it's brought the subject back into the mainstream in a way we haven't seen since the late 70s.

Nick's been featured as a pundit on the show and will be dealing with the topic in his upcoming book, The Pyramids and the Pentagon.

Nick is part of a new breed of UFOlogists that don't go for the old materialistic, nuts-and-bolts explanations of the phenomenon. And as a cold-eyed skeptic-- in the traditional sense of the word-- and a meticulous researcher, he's not really impressed much with the quasi-religious nature of UFO literature out there either.

You almost get the sense that he'd be just as happy washing his hands of the whole topic if only he could lapse into the intellectual dishonesty and Orwellian mindgames of the denialist crowd ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just a way of saying "I reserve the right to arbitrarily move the goalpost and toss out any evidence I can't explain away"), but his integrity and honesty won't allow it.

Without any further ado, let's get into it. Get out your asbestos overcoats, because this man is on fire....

Secret Sun: 2012 will mark the 65th anniversary of the modern UFO movement. What kind of shape is the old girl in as she nears retirement age?

Nick Redfern: The old girl (actually, it's more like an old, diseased hag) is in the same shape that it has always been in!

That's to say that it is as static as ever, and is largely filled to the brim with: (A) people who believe the UFO phenomenon has extraterrestrial origins, the reason being they have a psychological, comforting need for a rigid belief system, rather than an open, inquiring mind that isn't steeped in belief or one theory; (B) a smaller number of skeptics who think it's all a nonsensical issue they can condescendingly make fun of (because they have weak, fragile egos and self-doubt, and poking fun at people makes them feel significant and strong, but, believe me, they aren't significant or strong), and dismiss with a smile of the type that deserves a good, solid punch or several to their glass-jaws; and (C) people like me who absolutely believe there is a real UFO phenomenon of unknown origins, but which may not be literally extraterrestrial.

Or, if it is, it extends far, far, beyond mere "nuts and bolts" UFOs and alien scientists coming here to "steal our DNA," because their "race is dying."

Secret Sun: You're one of the few UFO authors who's still putting out important books on UFOlogy. Why do you think there are so few books out there while interest in the topic has never been higher or more widespread?

Nick Redfern: I don't care at all if Ufology is widespread or is not widespread. Those who do care are the ones who use Ufology as a means to have a career and who drone on with the same fucking lecture for year after year, decade after decade.

If I write a book that sells less than 500 copies (as some of my books have done over the course of their "lives"), or if they sell more than a couple of thousand of copies (as some of my books have done), the important thing is not the number of copies sold, but getting the word out to those who are interested, and those who care about what's afoot in Ufology and the latest breakthroughs.

There are actually a lot of good books on UFOs being published, but many are self-published, e-books, print-on-demand etc. This, in itself, is not the problem. The problem is that many UFO authors are totally sh*t at promoting themselves. If someone writes a UFO book and it doesn't sell, then that's entirely the author's fault and no-one else's: Stop complaining, get off your arse, and promote it! But just stop whining! Do what needs to be done to get the word out.

As for how this lack of interest in UFO books relates to interest in the subject being at its height, its actually very, very simple: The Internet is free, TV shows are free, live-radio is free. UFO-themed books and magazines are not free. And, in the current economy, free stuff is better than spending money.

Secret Sun: You're a featured commenter on History Channel's Ancient Aliens series. Why do you think the show is so incredibly popular? What chord do you think it has struck in the public consciousness?

Nick Redfern: I think most people realize that our world, our history, the field of archeology, are all filled with mystery, and unresolved issues that mainstream science either ignores or tries to place into rigid, simplistic camps.

Maybe, it's some deep, inherited, ancient memory, but I think most people know - even if they don't exactly know why they know - that our views on the very, very earliest years of human civilization are sorely lacking, and that significant things have happened in our past that are primal, subconsciously remembered and that strike a chord - huge floods, ancient races possessed of fantastic technologies, amazing cultures that flourished and died, and much more.

And I think Ancient Aliens hits that note - it brings out something in our inherited, subconscious memories that we are missing something massively significant about humanity's very ancient past. I really do believe that.

Secret Sun: I'm old enough to remember when Chariots of the Gods was an international blockbuster and spawned countless imitators. Why do you think the ancient astronaut topic vanished so suddenly with the rise of Reagan and Thatcher and went viral again after the end of the Bush/Blair era?

Nick Redfern:
Well, I don't know as I think that the ancient astronaut issue sunk because of the rise of Reagan and the vileness of the evil Thatcher regime that I lived through in England. I think it's pretty clear that, when it comes to paranormal topics, subjects surface, peak, and decline.

And sometimes - like with the Ancient Aliens series - they come back. Other times they don't. Astrology was big once. Back in Victorian times, it was seances, and table-rapping. Ouija-Boards had their day, as did the Contactees. Look at stories of alien abduction - nowhere near as popular or prevalent today as they were in the late 80s and in the 1990s. That's how things go.

It's no different to rock music - it began in the 50s, with Elvis, Little Richard, etc. Then there was the Beatles and Stones in the early 60s, Psychedelia in the late 60s, Glam-Rock in the early 70s, punk in the late 70s, new wave and crappy keyboard shit and skinny ties in the 80s, grunge in the 90s, and lip-synching bitches with no brains today who have sold their musical heart for cash and fame.

Forteana and Ufology are the same - one time something is popular, then it's something else.

Secret Sun: You're a born Englishman who lives in America. What's the difference in the two countries in how the UFO topic is perceived in the public and in the media? Is there a disconnect between the average Briton and the establishment press?

Nick Redfern: I think where there are similarities is that, both in the UK and the US, the media (TV, radio and newspapers), are more willing - today - to take the subject with a greater degree of seriousness than, say, 15, 20, or 30 years ago. I think public perception is pretty much the same, and very much black and white as it always was - it's either literal aliens or it's not real.

The biggest difference, as I see it, is that in the UK the UFO research community is more willing to look at alternatives to the ET hypothesis. One of the key reasons for this is that US Ufology is very commercialized, and if you don't kiss ass and say what people want to hear, it won't bring people to conferences and money won't be made. That's a tragic, f*cked up approach.

I'm not saying the following to be big or clever, but no-one of prominence in US Ufology would ever have even contemplated writing a book like my "Body Snatchers in the Desert," because they would have feared the backlash from colleagues and peers, and they would have feared not getting booked to speak at mainstream, major UFO conferences etc.

The biggest difference is that I really do not give two f**king sh*ts what people think of me, nor do I do want people want me to do, nor do I care about what people think of me. And I see that as a big difference between the UK and the US - American Ufology is about selling tickets at gigs, about continuing "the scene," about hooking up with the right people to become a minor celebrity in Ufology, and about keeping the industry going. UK Ufology is more about just the phenomenon.

Secret Sun:
I've written on the blog about what I call the "Elusive Companion Hypothesis," arguing that whatever we call UFOs are not in fact extraterrestrial as we might understand the term (meaning originating outside the Solar System) but are in fact part and parcel of our physical environment, similar to the Watchers of ancient myth. How seriously is this taken in UFO circles?

Nick Redfern: Well, my view is this: people say I don't believe in the ET hypothesis, and that I prefer to focus more on such issues as Tulpas, Tricksters etc. That's true. However, I don't outright dismiss the ETH at all.

Rather, as I alluded in an earlier answer, I think the simplistic issue of "nuts and bolts UFOs" piloted by "alien scientists" coming here to "steal our DNA because their race is dying," is the sort of stuff people want to hear at conferences.

This simplistic approach (which is the same simplistic approach that life after death equates to something as simple as going to Heaven and Hell) does not - and simply cannot - account for other aspects of ufological experiences, such as synchronicities, cross-over cases between Ufology and (for example) poltergeist activity, Shadow People, or Cryptozoology etc.

How seriously are the views of yours taken by Ufology? My experience has been that many high-profile Ufologists have either experienced the high-strangeness stuff or know people who have, that are suggestive we may NOT be dealing with literal ETs.

But they lack the self-confidence to say so, because - again - they worry about how their views will be looked on by the old-timers of Ufology.

The reason they worry is that the old-timers are plugged-in to the people who arrange the conferences and the magazine editors who promote their books, and they don't want to rock the boat. F**k all those c**k-s**kers who know - but who lack the strength to stand up and say: "There's something weirder going on than just ET scientists visiting."

As long as Ufology is dominated by being a business and not much else, this will never change.

Change will come when the old and tired researchers who yearn for pre-Internet eras when people wrote letters instead of emails, and who mailed 'zines instead of emailed PDFs, have gone to their graves.

I have no faith at all that Ufology will advance, progress or learn anymore than it has already unless Ufology becomes more open-minded to all sorts of ideas and paradigms.

Sixty-four years since Kenneth Arnold, and all we have to show are lots of filing-cabinets, filled with lots of files, and lots of memory-space taken up.
That aside, all we have is theories, ideas and beliefs, but no hard evidence of what's afoot. That's because belief controls the nature of how people investigate things.

If Ufology falls and fades, then Ufology can only blame one thing: the field itself.

You know what I would love? If, next year, one of the big UFO conferences had on their roster someone talking about how DMT can provoke abduction-type UFO experiences, someone else giving a lecture titled "Saucers and Synchronicities," the next person addressing the story of Aleister Crowley and Lam, and a fourth person presenting on ritually invoking purported alien entities while on mushrooms swigged down with Absinthe.

It's not gonna happen though. Instead, it will be more regurgitation of a pro-ET nature on Roswell, Socorro, Mantell, etc. That is the "good old days" that old-school Ufology wants and which sells tickets.

Ufology might go the way of the dinosaur, or it may bring itself back from the brink. The sad thing is that, such is the belief-driven nature of the subject, I really don't care at all if Ufology does implode. The phenomenon will still interact at a deeply personal level with us, even if Ufology as a movement does die.

The phenomenon has always been with us. It doesn't need Ufology, the movement, and its preconceived beliefs to interact with us. What the phenomenon wants from us are minds that are willing to break down barriers and boundaries and look beyond the simple into the far more complex.

Ufology, though - or at least as it stands today - may not be up for the challenge. Too bad for Ufology.


  1. For some reason, the children's book: "Where the Red Fern Grows" has been a powerful sync for me. In the book, the red fern represents an encounter with the angels. Right on topic, I think.

  2. Do the DMT space elves conference. It will attract a younger crowd, not the same old stuffy UFO lecture crowd. If the right people got in the same room, I'd even fly there in these meager times. Perhaps Disinfo could help put it on...

  3. "And I think Ancient Aliens hits that note - it brings out something in our inherited, subconscious memories that we are missing something massively significant about humanity's very ancient past. I really do believe that."

    Nick, I really agree with you on that point. There is something weird and intuitive about all that stuff - like something you figure you know, but can't quite put your finger on.

  4. Chris thank you for bringing up this interview. I have always have had a problem with angry synchromystics that have a propensity to use the F word, it is lazy and antagonistic. However being that I have had a level 2 ufo sighting when I was 13 years old, I for one am interested and curious about this phenom. The ancient alien/proto human aspect is my take on such subjects. The problem I have with the alien series on the boob tube is that some of the comentators need to comb their hair(just kidding). What is presented should be more involved to the orgins of the beings us brain stems call god. It is of my belief that the gods of the truly ancient/post neolithic cultures may have been travellers of the stars/time. The Nile/Babylon/Indus/Aryan cultures were influenced by advanced entities. Tptb know this, the general population can only seek knowledge from brain stems like Nick and the commercial media. The Sun of an occulted nature is a breath of fresh and sincere aire. Dennis

  5. Hey Secret Sun I noticed you are using a lot of copyrighted images and clips in your blog posts.
    Today the American government is trying to get a bill passed to censor the internet and even change the way its programmed in an effort to "stop piracy". However the new bill lets the government and corporations take down any site for only one copyright-infringnging ct like singing "happy birthday".
    Funny I didn't hear about this thing anywhere until I opened up online news services while CNN is going on about the newest celebrity scandal.

  6. Dennis

    The F word is not lazy. I'm English and swearing is part of our every day language and culture. It's not done for effect or shock, nor is it lazy. It's how we speak!

    Go into an English pub and you'll see what I mean. Even mainstream TV uses the F word in England.

    And what's wrong with antagonism? That state of mind can achieve a lot!

  7. Hey, at this upcoming conference, can I give the lecture titled "Saucers and Synchronicities?"

    I'm up for it!

  8. Nick, to preceed any intelligent conversation with such tomfoolery is inappropiate /desensitizing/ indicative of lazy syntax. How does it improve what is meant to be conveyed? Words are magic, the word is sacred in nature. Why disrupt one's minds eye with the nonsensical F word. Typical English arrogance. Dennis

  9. You know what I would love? If, next year, one of the big UFO conferences had on their roster someone talking about how DMT can provoke abduction-type UFO experiences, someone else giving a lecture titled "Saucers and Synchronicities," the next person addressing the story of Aleister Crowley and Lam, and a fourth person presenting on ritually invoking purported alien entities while on mushrooms swigged down with Absinthe.

    Well, I would like to attend a conference like this.

    You might find some allies in the Reality Sandwich crowd.

  10. Dennis:

    It's not English "arrogance" or "tomfoolery," as you word it at all!!!

    It's just how we talk, no big mystery, or put-on for effect!

    If you got up in the morning and it was pouring down with rain, you might look out the window and hypothetically say: "Oh, it's raining."

    If we were having a huge downpour, I would almost certainly say to my wife: "F**k me! Look at the bleedin' rain!"

    I'm English, I don't have any need to apologize or change just because I'm not like you, don't think like you, or don't speak like you.

    I don't (and I never would) criticize Americans for going to church (when the vast majority of Brits don't).

    I don't criticize Americans for starting the day with coffee and Dennys, instead of a good, hot, sugary mug of tea and a bowl of cornflakes.

    And I don't criticize many Americans for being uptight about sex, drugs and alcohol (unlike Britain, Holland, France, and most of South America, and Scandinavia).

    What I do is this: I fully accept that the US and the UK, despite sharing the same language, are very, VERY, different countries and cultures, with wildly differing attitudes to a lot of things.

    I take what I believe is a healthy and correct view of those differences - I fully accept them because there's absolutely no reason not to accept them, because they do no harm.

    Instead of saying I, and my country and culture are arrogant (without even knowing me - if that's not arrogance, I don't know what is), you should accept - as I do with your country and your culture - that we are just very different people.

    Indeed, it would be amazing if, separated by thousands of miles, we were alike.

    The problem starts when one person, one country, or one culture equates being different with being wrong. In fact, that's highly dangerous, and should be avoided at all costs.

    America is nothing like Britain. Britain is nothing like Russia. Russia is nothing like Brazil, and so on and so on. And that's not a bad thing.

    Diversity - in every sense of the word - is very good.

    Or in Brit terms it's JOLLY GOOD.

    Or, even more correctly in Brit terms, it's JOLLY F...ING GOOD, OLD CHAP.

  11. Nick, I am a synchromystic. I have stated my premis why the f word is offensive to my sensibilities. You need not explain the diversity of our species. It is an incorrect way to express oneself. What does it bring to the table? Your exploration of ufo's is to be admired and studied. I am someone who detests anyone's use of the f word for any reason. It is offensive, whatever is being said. It has negative effect. It is lazy and believe you me your defense of it is lame. Shineforth brave souls. Dennis

  12. I think Nick is able to conduct himself in any way he sees fit; using the words he chooses to use. He's also correct to point out that in the UK, we use swear words all the time in the company of adults. Suggesting 'arrogance' is typically English, or any other flavour of nationality, is errm, well...arrogant.

    Limiting the use of vocabulary is similar to his view that discussion in ufology is being curtailed by the demands of the majority. Straying from the ETH can lead to ridicule or opprobrium - just like using the F- word.

    Despite there being some small sample, within the good ETH-type reports, that are suggestive of consciousness and telepathy, mentioning 'consciousness' in some circles would be to invoke scorn.

    Likewise, some of the DMT and consciousness guys laugh too loudly at those who favour the ETH.

    The subject is fractured into groups and individuals who want to dictate the methods of communication. To an extent, this begins with the self-appointed deciding what words are allowed and deflecting conversations into value-judgements based on terminology.

  13. Dennis

    We are just going to have to differ on this one.

    I'm not defending the use of the F word for the sake of it.

    I'm pointing out that I was born into a culture and a country where its everyday use in everyday language is absolutely normal and accepted, so why should I pretend to be something I'm not, or talk like I don't normally? There's no way I'll do that!

    If you were not brought up that way, that's totally fine, and I would not expect you to change the way you speak if it offended me. It's called freedom of speech. So, no-one should expect me to change how I speak just because someone else doesn't like it.

    You said an interesting thing in your last comment: "...the f word is offensive to my sensibilities."

    That's fine, and because of that, you don't use it. But it's not offensive to my sensibilities. It's part of everyday language to me. I don't even give it a second thought.

    You seem to be of the opinion that because it's offensive to your sensibilities and standards that this somehow means it's wrong - period.

    It isn't.

    Rather, it's just wrong from your perspective. Not wrong, period. That's two different - vastly different - things.

    There may be many reading this who, like you, are also offended by the way I speak. There may be many who, like me, are not offended. So what? Who cares? There are far more important things in the world to get irate about than how a UFO author speaks!

    Humans are different to each other, not just in terms of culture and country, but at an individual level too.

    We're not robots coming out of a factory all looking and acting the same. And thank goodness for that.

    Nor can we please everyone, and more importantly, nor should we strive to please everyone, or indeed anyone.

    We should all be ourselves and say exctly what we want (and how we want to say it, and when we want to say it) in a Q&A like this and not apologize for being who we are.

  14. Just saw a news story that Pakistan is censoring text-messages that contain obscene words, a timely illustration of personal beliefs, when taken to their extreme, mutating into a bizarre reality of repression and control. I'm pretty sure EVERYONE who reads this blog can agree on this.

  15. I'd just like to say let's focus on the substance of Nick's words rather than the style. Nick has a point that we all should pay attention to- the whole idea of UFOs as ET scientists is a dead-end street, since we have no access to them or their science. This is why so many people dismiss the issue outright. Looking at UFOs are part of a overarching reality construct with powerful and pervasive tendrils reaching into science, art, religion and consciousness is an entirely different kettle of fish.

  16. Hey Chris,

    Just wanted to congratulate you and Nick on an awesome interview. This is a quick, sly comment while at I'm at work. I'll comment more fully later tonight.

    I've been a big fan of Nick's work for a long time - I really appreciate his style, insights and dexterity of mind. I think some excellent points were made concerning the UFO research industry; that odd desire to turn the field into an either/or binary, which seems ludicrous to me when you consider that most scientists worth their salt can't really come to a consensus on what material reality IS.

    Therefore, trying to fit a huge and complex phenomenon that has been with human culture since time immemorial into a simplistic kind of materialism seems to be doing the phenomenon a disservice, and also does the intellect a disservice too.

    I understand the need for symbolic and interpretive shorthands, but to ignore certain strains of evidence simply because your model of reality is not big or subtle enough is the complete opposite of what science is supposed to be.

    Kudos to you and Nick for injecting some sorely needed rock & roll rigour and discernment into this field.


  17. Hi,

    I caught this on the news today...

    Neutrinos - said to travel faster than the speed of light!
    '– said to be ‘ghostly’ because they can travel through anything – have a very small mass. Their apparently record-breaking speed raises a host of possibilities straight out of science fiction stories.'

    Read more:

    Sorry I still can't get that as a link.

    Great work guys. Nick I wish I had more time to read. Glad to hear you've still got an open mind to it all. There are some fascinating facts and theories developing.

  18. Thank you Nick, you have much to prove in your defense of the F word and insolence on the word.I have no-thing else to comment on. When humanity can dream the new paradigm perhaps it can not involve the complete vulgar infractions on our common language. Finding ourselves free from hate and violence and commited to finding how this prison planet affects all of our actions/heart/Gnosis. Nick stop using any thing that is not from the heart/gnosis. The F word is wrong. I noticed on your profile how you hate Hippies. Good luck finding the future without us. Dennis Harrison Igou/87/Denzo/shine forth brave souls.

  19. I just did a search on Neutrinos and neurons and found that someone else has already thought what I'm thinking - as is often the case.

    'Suppose that our brain receptors are also capable of collecting neutrinos.'

  20. F**k I forgot to ask you Nick -

    Do you think the release of many mental patients in the UK over recent years (10-15) into the community (due to our government selling off the hospitals/land) has had any impact of the number of open minded people and the general publics perception?

    Considering how in the past (since the creation of mental homes up until recent years (10-15) just about anyone in England who believed in aliens or UFO/paranormal were placed in a mental home.

    I would have thought that would of had a huge impact. It's like how it became acceptable in the UK for people not to go to church and then people were free to do whatever else they wanted and believe whatever else they wanted. You know, now people can believe what they want with regards to this topic without being banged up in a mental home.

  21. Well f*ck me that was a f*cking awesome interview! Keep up the f*ckng great work mate!

    And long live free speech.

  22. PS-- Dennis, your fav movie is The Big Lebowski and you can't handle the F word?

    I think your conflicted partner.

  23. RE:
    "The F word is not lazy. I'm English and swearing is part of our every day language and culture. It's not done for effect or shock, nor is it lazy. It's how we speak!"

    Being Australian I can well see where Nick is coming from here.
    When I was a kid I was brought up prim and proper and swearing was punished and frowned upon by authority figures.
    I remember seeing the movie "Blazing Saddles" at the cinema with my Mum,and she hated it because they said the word "S#!T" so much.
    Then I went to the movies with my friend to see "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" when we were both 15.He loved it,but I hated it.When he asked me why,I said because I don't think they needed to use the word "F#@K" in it.
    I was sensitized to these words by adults who were sensitized themselves as children growing up.
    But as I got older,working,playing football,watching football,etc.
    I was desensitized to swear words,because there really was no malice in them (most times).
    Some swear words over here can be used as terms of endearment like,
    "How you going you old C#nt?"
    And I agree with Dennis that words are powerful,but they are only as powerful as the power YOU give them.Not to say they can't be offensive,because they can be.But still the power is in the ear of the beholder.
    I have an excellent little book that was written by Inga Muscio titled "C#NT" that I have in my bookcase as a reminder of just how silly it is to get offended by a word.
    Words are like jokes,you really have to be careful who you say them to,because while they can be funny or innocuous,sometimes they will get you into trouble with the wrong audience.
    Nicks swearing doesn't offend me(not in the way he is using it here) but I can see how it might offend people like Dennis who can't see that there is no malice intended.
    And Dennis if it's any consultation I like Hippies,I grew up wanting to be a Hippie,but didn't quite make it.
    I'm not taking anyone's side in this argument about the F word.
    But it only has the power that you want to give it.
    Like the rhyme goes,
    "Sticks and Stones will break my bones,but names will never hurt me...unless I let them."

    So if you let words hurt you,then you're just a silly old Tw@t .-)

    (That was a joke...I just hope I told it to the right audience.-)

  24. Whoops!
    The above comment should have read
    "if it's any consolation" not
    "if it's any consultation",sorry.
    Stupid f#<%!#@ spellcheck !!!
    Made me look like a silly old penis...are we allowed to write penis that way or do I have to write it like pe#!s.I wasn't sure how bad that word was.It's not like I wrote c#nt or f#ck ?-)

    Check this clip out over at Dedroidify's blog if you want to know which words are acceptable on TV.

  25. As far as the topic of the interview, other than the direct to-the-point comments on the UFO phenomenon and paranormal phenomena in general, I think he makes an even stronger point about the social phenomena surrounding "UFOlogy" and related fields of study.

    It's not just that it isn't very respected by mainstream science, is consistently ignored or or that the entire violently rejected by an increasingly rabid skeptical press - though, of course, that is important - but that there is an insistence by long time UFO researchers that their expectations and interpretations are proven and cannot be questioned or that alternative theories must first acknowledge what they've proposed.

    The extraterrestrial "alien" hypothesis is certainly incomplete and may be entirely off base. To me, it seems like this was part of the conversation from the beginning with all the books I read on the topic theorizing that this must be a primarily terrestrial experience going back to prehistory, especially John Keel's, bringing up the Ultra-terrestrial concept way back in the 70's. But, today, it seems like what I'd call the "Roswell contingent" have established a kind of literalist conference where the only interpretation of UFOs is that they are actual solid vehicles piloted by hairless humanoids with big eyes who evolved on another planet and flew here from across distant light years. AND that the US Government, and possibly other governments, actually do have access to this technology from multiple crashes over the 20th century.

    On an opposing angle from the idea that aliens are demons, I find that religious dogma about the angelic nature of UFOs is also complex but equally confusing. There is something of a religion grown up around UFOs and difference classifications of the "aliens" from "grays" to "Nordic" to "Archons" that just aren't useful except as shibboleths signifying which school of thought you subscribe to.

    I'm personally primarily interested in archaeological research that poses alternative ideas about prehistory when faced with obvious anomalies challenging our assumptions about the origin of civilization. However, it also seems that much of this field is being adopted by or even dominated by creationist theology who want to set it into a literal Biblical Flood context.

    As Chris says, these phenomena shadow every aspect of wider human life. This is what humans do - they take positions and then, when defending them, those positions risk becoming petrified, especially when your fighting mainstream derision from the outside and challenges to your theories from either peers or raw newcomers.

    Especially when you are fighting for a book you've written and want to sell to as many people as possible. You can't forget that even though this is on the "fringe" it still has a very big audience. And when money gets involved, clear thought can often go out the window as well.

  26. I've been experiencing increasingly more vivid out of body experiences in the past year. Some of the entities I've encountered look like what we have been programmed to think of as "aliens" but I don't believe them to be extraterrestrials. Recently, MSN addressed this phenomenon with a study done on lucid dreaming: Basically, they're telling me that it's all in my head. I'm thinking that DMT plays an important role in these experiences which is one of the main reasons we are being pumped full of fluoride--to stop our dreaming and destroy our pineal glands.

  27. Nick, first off great interview; and it is pretty pathetic you had to response three times to that one person about the F word, after all it was a constructed interview with someone who can handle it.

    My question, if you would like answer. I would like to know what your counter argument against Alan Watt's statements would be.

    Its only 40 seconds of video. Skip forward to 2minutes.

  28. Brizdaz said: ... I like Hippies,I grew up wanting to be a Hippie,but didn't quite make it.

    This made my day - very funny, whether intentional or not.



    The link above is a really great interview where Nick and I try to make sense of the present UFO lore. A relevant companion to the SECRET SUN interview.

  30. I totally had that UFO comic about living arial creatures as a kid. It really captured my imagination at the time.

  31. I never thought of the ETH quite like that before. Thank's Nick for providing some great insight into what we all need to do to move this ufo reality forward.

  32. Dennis seems to have been raised in my guestimation under the "vulgar is hate" mantra of the RCC. He writes a line, "vulgar ,,, common language." Dennis, vulgar IS common.

    They see any thoughtful use of words as an affront to a dream like hope in how the world really works.

    Funny that the topic is a guy that has been deeply involved in the UFO issue and what he thinks, and Dennis twists it to the use of a few words he objects to him using.
    No Dennis, the world will not ever become what you are taught to hope for.

    Meatwad Strikes again!

  33. Thank you Nick and Chris for a great interview. The boxing of thoughts fucks us over in so many ways. I cannot say it more clearly and concisely than that. It's this or that- I'll look behind door number three, seven, and eleven, thank's much.
    Keep looking Nick!
    Best Wishes, Delorus

  34. Fuck is a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon word, and if someone is going to ignore Nick's incisive view of the UFO phenomenon and research community because he speaks in a way which is culturally acceptable to him and not to the listener, well, what a closed-minded waste of breath and time!

    On to the meat of the discussion: I share the view that Nick Redfern espouses, which was first elaborated by the late John Keel and the still living Dr. Jacques Vallee, which is not a popular view among the UFO community. That said, my experiences have born out what I have read of these men's opinions--that is, that there is something to the UFO phenomenon, something real and that has been extent throughout human history and likely into pre-history, that it has had a profound effect on human culture and we have absolutely no idea what it's origin is, what it's purpose is and whether it means humanity good or ill.

    As for that conference Nick mentioned--I'd attend. I might even present. I've not written about my own experiences in any public way, but if I was among like-minded folk, I'd not mind sharing.

  35. Well, dammit, you should have been at the Mysteries of Space and Sky conference last month in Maryland. I gave a talk, UFOs and the Paranormal: Way Beyond the ETH, which discussed synchronicities, DMT, psilocybin, the pineal gland, occult manipulation of UFO manifestations, and good old LAM. I don't have access to the video yet, but my slides are available at my website.

  36. I am not s close follower of Ufology. I've read the classics by Vallee, Keel, etc. but most of my knowledge of current developments comes from casual listening to podcasts. That being said, what I heard about his hypothesis in Final Events floored me. I tried to follow his podcasting schedule, only to find out less than a year later he was no longer discussing the Final Events material. He seemed to have simply gone on to other things. It's things like this that cause me to wonder about someone's seriousness (or lack thereof). If the Final Events hypothesis has merit and is anything other than past midnight stoner speculation, it's the biggest story ever. You don't just decide six months later to talk about Pyramid Power or whatever. So my opinion of Redfern at this point is not high, although I could change my mind.

    BTW, if the hypothesis is true, I find the right wing dominionist fanatics way scarier than the aliens, however "demonic" they are.

  37. Nick published a book on the topic precisely so he won't have to go around regurgitating the same talking points to interviewers. He has other books to promote. If you're serious as Nick is about the topic you'll go out and buy his book and spread the word yourself.

  38. Anonymous:

    What the hell are you talking about, and why don't you use your real name?

    You said of my Final Events book: "...less than a year later he was no longer discussing the Final Events material. He seemed to have simply gone on to other things...."

    The reason why I haven't discussed Final Events lately is very simple - I don't get requests anymore from radio shows or podcasts to talk about it!!

    When the book came out, I appeared on something like 60 or 70 radio shows about the book, and did 5 or 6 magazine interviews, etc etc.

    You have to remember something: I can only talk about the book on radio shows and podcasts if people invite me on their shows!

    And, typically (and this applies to most authors too) when I have a new book out, there is a very busy period where lots of people want you on their shows as soon as possible.

    But, then, when all the podcasts have been recorded, or radio interviews completed, it's illogical they would want me on again on the very same subject!

    So, eventually, when the list of radio shows is exhausted, then it goes quiet.

    Nothing to do with me walking away from talking about the book, or just going on to other things!

  39. When I began having the odd experience, I couldn't classify it to a particular field of study. Trying to introduce my experiences to groups usually met the same response: I was too broad in my take, ",these things aren't related."(to the group, or to each other). This has always been why I find it hard to surrender to any group. The dogma and terms seem to be created for exclusion. I began feeling there needed to be reconciliation of all these fields, it seems so obvious. I wonder when this cord was struck in the world that reconciliation needed to happen. It seems to be the resounding cry for syncromystics or those associated. I wonder if this is the reconciliation -all this talk about something happening and the importance of the work is just that. This is the thing itself. no? probably need a term for the meta study. I've been using mysticism but it seems miss codified.