As skeptics go -  this lot are friendly enough and in fact there's a good chance that behind the facade of many contemporary skeptics is someone pretty interested in the wider scheme of reality... they just take a different route to the rest of us.

One point needs making when you look at their chosen use language: exopolitics is neither based in the 'esoteric' nor is it linked to the supernatural. These are real issues with a full data-set.

Ultimately we could suggest that it's all about choice - reality is to an extent plastic and self-generated: what do you want to be your dominant reality?? A dull, Newtonian universe where everything can be explained by pseudo logical steps or one that involves embracing mystery? As we discussed - the UFO issue is not something final or 'out-there' -  it's central to us as human beings and is a developing part of the core evolutionary story.

Interview October 2009 -  UK Skeptics and Exopolitics 

Interview October 2009 -  UK Skeptics and Exopolitics Update - Also with Nick Pope's extra interview

Download a copy of the main discussion RIPodcast-Exouk

Skip to 30 mins or so in for the actual interview and to avoid Skeptic banter.   

Response to points raised... see comments.

- Point of contention #1: Lazar was employed [contrary to the RI Podcast presenters' views] on Edward Teller 's say so at S4 or Area51.

Bob Lazar Story #1

Bob Lazar Story #2

- Point of contention #2:  Trystan from the RI podcast claimed in the Exopolitics interview that Jim came up with the symbols *after* hypnosis... this is false as you will see:

The interview has received the expected, usual comments on their feedback section under the interview itself. I've responsed to some points elsewhere - http://parafort.com/ri/?p=375

For example :

"David Griffin is obvi­ously pretty intel­li­gent, but he needs a hefty dose of incredulity. I enjoyed the moment he man­aged to ref­er­ence Gödel’s incom­plete­ness the­o­rem, an orig­i­nal angle I’ve never heard a UFOlogist use before. It is how­ever com­pletely irrel­e­vant as it only per­tains to math­e­mat­i­cal proofs, not sci­en­tific evidence."

Email (will not be published)

Name

Comment Topic

Comment
 remaining characters

Post