On this edition of The Paranormal Report, Jim asks the heavy questions about UFOs and possible alien life… including whether our friendly neighborhood podcaster may be one himself!

Download TPR 136 (Click Here)

Later in the program, he’ll help listeners understand what led him to question this, but in other items of news, a HuffPo writer asks whether drones mean the end of UFO investigationAlso, a UFO video over Puerto Rico has been analyzed in a new 161-page report, and a Vatican astronomer confirms his belief in “UFOs and aliens”… or does he?

On the ancient mysteries front, a secret doorway may have been discovered within the walls of King Tut’s tomb, and an ‘elongated’ Akraim skull displays cranial deformation.

Jim and Micah will both be attending the Paradigm Symposium in Minneapolis, Minnesota this October 1-4 2015, and we’d love to see you there. Do you have your tickets yet? Tell them you heard about this on The Paranormal Report and receive 20% off your purchase by calling (651) 468-8115. 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Micah Hanks

Author: Micah Hanks

Micah Hanks is a writer, researcher, and podcaster. His interests include areas of history, science, archaeology, philosophy, and the study of anomalous phenomena in nature. He can be reached at info@micahhanks.com.

8 Replies to “TPR136: Is Jim Harold Really a Human-Alien Hybrid?

  1. Okay, I want to repost my comment from Reddit’s /r/UnexplainedPhotos where I mentioned you in regard to the Homeland Security “UFO” … Here it is:

    I was surprised this got so much attention. I first heard about it on the Paranormal Report so I decided to take a look. …Who are these skeptics who can’t tell what this is? I’m not a skeptic, but even I get this one. Really, I want to know.

    So the first important thing is that this is infrared vision. It says IR right on the top panel. That’s important because the big argument against it being a bird is that the wings are hard to see, but you’d expect that with infrared: The body of the bird has a high heat signature, while the wings, being thin, low-vascular and getting all the air flow, have little to no heat signature, making them almost invisible to infrared. Even so, there are a couple of times when you can see wing movement, especially after the two birds take off from the water.

    Seriously, did Micah Hanks even think this might be the real deal? Isn’t Micah supposed to be the UFO skeptic? Well… I wish it was, because I’m always hoping. But no, it’s just a bird. You get a couple of shots of wings, but you’d expect they’d be hard to see in IR. And also: IR can’t tell the difference between the water and atmospheric moisture, as you can also see in this video. Skepticism must be really in decline. 🙂

  2. UPDATE: I condensed my comments into a blog post and provided proof of the errors made by the Scientific Coalition for Ufology. They were embarrassing mistakes, really. I’ve already heard from Robert Powell of SCU asking me for my data and mathematical calculations, which I provided. I expect there will be a revised report in the future.

    The saddest part, Micah, is that had you been halfway diligent about monitoring your comments section you could have had a big scoop. But now… I don’t know. Well, that’s the saddest part for you.

    The saddest part for me: Curt Collins said on the Paracast that the Roswell Slides group is now working on the video, and I’m sure they will eventually take credit for my work. But always remember, I told you FIRST. The same thing happened with the Roswell Slides themselves, where I did the decode the night of the event, after having watched it. And I TOLD you about it. But instead we all had to wait for the media whores for the Roswell Slides group – and they got all the accolades.


    A frustrated listener 🙁

    1. Hi Shen-han,

      Thanks for all of this information… I’d be interested in hearing more. And apologies about not being “halfway diligent” about monitoring comments; I’ve been away on business for several days, and the team of space-monkeys I pay with circus peanuts to do that for me must have been sleeping on the job. Sorry to be such a let-down.

      All jokes aside, if you’d like to correspond with me directly, which would help get the information to me more quickly and efficiently, I can be emailed at info@gralienreport.com.

      On a side note, Curt Collins and I are regularly in touch these days, so I’m glad to hear he and the others are looking into this. After having discussed this with several other researchers, folks appear to have been divided on whether it’s indeed a bird in the video, or possibly a balloon. Probably a pelican, as you surmise.

      That said, I have not yet read the entire post you’ve authored on this, since as mentioned, things have been quite busy these last few days. I will try and do that tonight, or early tomorrow, and of course would love to give full credit for any information referenced.

      Thanks for your patience, and for the information,


      1. Thank you. Yes, I was surprised at all the division on this. I think I’ve put an end to that. If SCU doesn’t issue a revision I will be surprised and saddened. They made mistakes, and once you see and correct for the mistakes, all of the arguments against the object being a bird are dead. There’s nothing left to hang the UAP label on except wishful thinking. Of course, there is plenty of that going around. The exposing of the “Roswell” mummy didn’t stop certain people from continuing to promote that one and I’m sure my scientific proof here won’t stop some people from calling this a UFO. It’s a sad fact of human nature.

        And I apologize for being pissy. 🙂 The thing is, I get this stuff right and dead-on, with proof, and everybody keeps acting like it’s a mystery until some big name in the UFO field finally says the same thing ..then everyone acts like they made a brilliant discovery. What am I? Chopped liver? 🙂

        Really, I’m jut an ordinary person with an unusual ability to notice things. I’m not looking not write books or be on the radio, but I wouldn’t mind if someone noticed that I’m good at what I do. 🙂

        1. Hey, no need for apologies, I know how frustrating this field can be. I am planning to briefly address this case on The Gralien Report tonight, and Alejandro Rojas of OpenMinds will be joining us; I told him in advance that I wanted to look at the pelican angle, in reference to your article, as well as some general background on those working with the SCU, and why they came to the “unknown” interpretation.

          As I mentioned, I’d love to reference some of the info in your comments here, and the article at your site, in relation to that discussion. Thanks again, I really do appreciate the information!

          Warm regards,


          1. Thank you. The funny thing is, I don’t even like writing a blog …and I don’t want to write books or be on the radio. But I don’t like to be ignored, either. 🙂

            I heard from Curt Collins saying I was off to a good start but SCU demanded substantial data(!!!) …Is he kidding me? I proved that every crucial point that they used to call this an “unknown” was wrong. Every. single. point. I did it with math and the information that’s right there on the display. I proved that they arrived at the speed estimates using the the coordinates in the lower right of the display, and I demonstrated unarguably that those coordinates are of the land seen in the far distance, not the target. Case closed. 🙂 Obviously, Curt didn’t really read what I wrote. The game’s over. Other’s can replicate my results, but shouldn’t be taking credit for it.

            Thank you again, Micah!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.