Deep diving into the UFO UAP milieu with a “raw” “open and genuine chat”: Bill Chalker on “The Caulfield Podcast”

Deep diving into the UFO UAP milieu with a “raw” “open and genuine chat”:

Bill Chalker on “The Caulfield Podcast”

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2KlxugUyc&t=5751s

 

Recently I received this enquiry:

 

“Hi Bill,

 

“My name’s Jack Caulfield. I’m launching an upcoming show called The Caulfield Podcast, produced out of Western Sydney. The podcast covers a wide range of topics — from sport to science, society to human curiosity, and everything in between.

 

“I’ve had a lifelong fascination with astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestrial life, so your work has definitely been on my radar. I think you’d be a great guest to have on the show.

 

“I’d love to line up a day with you to sit down for a raw, no-bullshit conversation about a topic we both care about. Nothing scripted, just an open and genuine chat.”

 

“I've done some research on you and find your story very interesting. There are many things I'd love to talk to you about. From your experiences in MUFON and APRO, to the famous sightings in your hometown of Grafton in the 60's, The Oz Files, and other stories like the Westall incident. You would be a great guest on my show and I think we'd have a very captivating conversation.”

 

Jack Caulfield turned out to be a nice guy, starting out a new podcast. His new developing podcast – The Caulfield - was not focused on UFOs, but seems to be like the average guy tracking down folks who are singularly focused on specific interests.

 

His first 2 guests were covering different things, and I recommend you check them out: 

Professor Geraint Lewis is a Cosmologist at The University of Sydney discussing stuff beyond Earth, but was of the “Rare Earth” school, namely we on Earth are it, in terms of intelligent life in the universe, a position I don’t agree with.  The idea that we are the most intelligent life form in the universe is problematic and somewhat depressing.

Professor Gigi Foster is an award winning economist, author, and outspoken public intellectual known for her work in behavioural economics and her commentary on public policy, education, and COVID-19 responses. The interview dives into her views on lockdowns, vaccines, society, and the role of critical thinking in public debate.

 

Anyway, I hope you enjoy these “raw” “open and genuine chats”.  I know I enjoyed mine with Jack Caulfield.

 

Not so enjoyable and genuine was the following dialogue I had with a well known UFO blogger.  However, I think it is important to give an airing to the problems I perceived in this situation.

 

I wrote via email, “I've enjoy a lot of your programs, but I not so enamoured with your efforts on the Amy Rylance affair.

“I don't think you and I have discussed the case, but if we have, I doubt I would have encouraged you to attempt to create "a dramatic interpretation" of the story. I have actively been trying to address the issue with various parties that see something of value in the saga, in terms of contributing to a meaningful contribution to the UFO subject, other than as a calibration case for more solid cases.

“I have browsed your script & I conveyed to (my friend, who shared with me a copy of it) what I thought of it. Not much (in more colourful language), and that my opinion of the case is that it was a blatant hoax, somewhat made curious by a possible scientology connection, as dubious as it seemed. 

“Anyway to put it bluntly I am not a fan of this sort of podcast presentation, as a form of dramatic entertainment, given it seems to dilute the accuracy of the story, to the point that its an either/or situation, depending on one's belief.  It seems unimportant what the facts are, even if the facts are coming from a researcher who tried to pursue the case to the end. 

“A number of "researchers" are putting this story across as credible, even when they have not been directly involved in investigating & researching the story.  It isn't credible. I had to rein back the fuller details, because some evidence was given to me in confidence by police and others.

“Michael Masters, for example, continues to use the case to support his time theory, because its a good story! This, despite being advised of my opinion of the case.

“When you start "channelling" my narrative on the case as direct "quotes", without asking me, its disappointing. So to be clear, I'm not endorsing this narrative, and if you decide to continue with it, you should make a disclaimer that its your dramatic rendition of "my words", not mine. If you don't, I certainly will if it appears.  In fact, I don't want you to attribute dialogue of your creation to me, even if you have developed them from your interpretation of what I may have implied.

“Over to you. Clearly you should read that I'm not impressed with the dilution of investigations of various cases, to create a dramatic narrative, particularly if it dilutes the conclusions of serious involved researchers.   Its almost equivalent to a "dumbing down" of serious UFO research, where the story is more important than the facts, simply because it might be a "good story".”

 

The response to my little “rant” on “UFO entertainment podcasts” was underwhelming:

 

The podcaster responded, “Noted. I won't continue forward with the episode.” 

 

I responded:

“Noted as well.

“A better response might be to make a program devoted to this concerning trend of "dramatising" case studies, without recourse to witnesses, experiencers and original investigators.  But I can see how this might effect content creation along the lines of particular style - "the story" entertainment value drives the style of a show.

“I suspect I wont be invited onto your show to discuss this issue or any other matter.  I can live with that.”

 

Anyway, that seemed to “kill” the “fulsome” dialogue with the UFO podcast “dramatist”.  Perhaps there is a debate to be had here, but I guess it depends whether you want your take on research and events to be of the “entertainment” kind, or “deep dive” of the genuine kind.