Blake Cousins (Twins Who Shall Not Be Named -- TWSNBN)

[BlackDogGrimm]

I agree heartily. What Blake Cousins does, isn't that much different from what some of your other guests do... Some of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's claims about Djinns were highly dubious, as was Arty Sixkiller Clarke's.

The latter example is especially relevant, since Sixkiller Clarke did more or less the same as Cousins does, except that its in a book rather than a website.

So why the open hostility to Blake Cousins dubious videos, when Sixkiller Clarke's dubious stories get a relatively free pass?

You're obviously free to "police" the UFO field as you feel free, but by coming down as hard as you did on Blake Cousins, you seem to "enforce" it in a rather inconsequent and inconsistent way.

(Anyways, don't take my critique too harshly. I wouldn't listen to the Paracast if I didn't like it...)

Whoa -- Hang on a second.

Ardy Sixkiller Clarke, a social anthropologist with a PhD, can hardly be placed in the same category (much less the same sentence) as Blake Cousins, who graduated from high school and clearly has no real idea what UFOlogy is despite claiming to study it. Her reasons for writing the book had little, if nothing, to do with the study of UFOlogy, much to the disappointment of the majority of the paranormal community, who clearly had very different expectations of her work. I felt for her and for Chris and Gene simultaneously when I listened to that show because clearly neither party could reach mutual understanding. It was painful.

The job of a social anthropologist is to research/document oral and social traditions and experiences that have previously been undocumented. What she did was actually pretty remarkable. It just wasn't a hard evidence-based investigation of UFO sightings, abductions, and other related activity, and therefore doesn't have much to offer to the advancement of UFOlogy.

 

[Randall]

I listened to the interview with Blake. There is no way I would go to his site. The first thing I look for is some credibility in UFO research, and a site with funny lights in the sky, which has not been authenticated is just a waste of time. I found Blake pretty unconvincing, and thought you guys would tear into him a lot more, afterall, the guy's site has no credibility in the world of ufology. Goggs' suggestion was a good one, but I seriously doubt Blake will do what The Paracast has suggested. I've met people like Blake, and believe me they are a waste of time.

I'm intrigued by your username. Do you actually do digital archiving? How did you become interested in UFOs?

 

[Digital_Archivist]

I'm intrigued by your username. Do you actually do digital archiving? How did you become interested in UFOs?

Hi Ufology,

Thank you for your question. I am a professional digital archivist. I scan old historical books, photographs, negatives, films and maps at an archive organisation. Part of my duties include research too. I get to see people from old walks of life, which makes my day an enjoyable one. I also work at another educational library when required.

Interest in UFOs: probably watching the sky as an eight year old, many decades ago. My interest in UFOs at a professional capacity started late in 2010. I like to keep informed, I enjoy reading research, lots of UFO authors who interest me - I try and keep to the ones i feel are most credible, and who I enjoy. About a year ago, I met a local gentleman who was looking to discuss UFOS but from an ancient astronaut theory perspective. I think there's room for both. I find both interesting.

I also listen to seven radio shows a week. I like The Paracast because they don't give people a free pass. I am also a higher research student studying librarianship, and if I don't put in substantial reading / research, I won't get through my course. I expect the same of others, especially in the field of ufology.


- Digital_Archivist

 

[Melly]

This was an unusual episode. I'm glad Blake managed to show up. Don't take this the wrong way, but this was possibly the most hostile interview you ever did. Gene kept insisting that Blake not talk over him, but he cut Blake off almost every time he spoke.

I guess it all turned out well in the end as you left on an amiable note.

It would seem to me that you catch more flies with honey. I don't think he is trying to cause harm to the community even if that might be what you feel is happening. But I was definitely put off by the way you guys handled him. You invited him on a talk show, but then wouldn't allow him to talk. Fair enough, but I was really put off when Gene kept telling him not to talk over him when that is exactly what he was doing. I don't blame him for not wanting to work with you guys again on the rating system, etc...

Just because you don't agree with his position, doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to have one. This wasn't a case where he was blatantly lying, which would deserve that treatment, this was a case where I think he genuinely believes what he is saying.

I guess I just feel that because we might not have the same opinion as someone, that doesn't give us the right to treat them in a rude manner.

It made it hard for me to listen to. Normally, I love you guy, but in this episode the midwestern in me made me sad that you treated him so rudely.

In the end, it's his site to post what he wants on. People seem to enjoy it. He admitted that there is questionable stuff up there, and in the end...if there was anyone who had a definitive video which 100% real, then there wouldn't be a UFO debate at all.

 

[enzo]

"Midwestern in me." Yes, I'm Midwestern, too. We like a fair fight. Very simple.

 

[Grifynne]

This wasn't a case where he was blatantly lying, which would deserve that treatment, this was a case where I think he genuinely believes what he is saying.

It might actually be a case where he was blatantly lying. Apparently there are people coming forward saying they helped the Cousins fake some of the videos. I assume the verdict is still out on that but I would imagine that, if true, that would pull them from "poor ignorant SOB thought he was doing the right thing" to "scum bag intentionally trying to deceive".

Much of this was coming to mind as I listened to the interview, but even at the end I thought "well, if they (Big Old Moon Brothers) react well to the offer for assistance or seriously consider improving their approach with said advice, then my opinion of them may change."

It's clear that did not happen. He refused to answer Chris' questions and CLEARLY wanted to do the bare minimum (seeing as he told Chris to handle it instead of taking the info and going with it afterwards). Even his video submission message seemed rushed and unconcerned. I took it as as more of a "I'm throwing this your way so you get off my back" response rather than an honest request for critique. Chris asked the same questions multiple times and they were ignored. Chris asked for uncompressed video multiple times, and that was also ignored despite the guy's educational claims (which indicate that he should have known this without being asked). It devolved to B-Moon calling Chris a jerk off, taking his ball and going home. They don't have to take the advice of Gene, Chris or anyone else, but his response was terrible and, I think, rather telling.

If you watch some of their videos with the intros, it really feels like they are just trying to mimic reality TV. That alone isn't necessarily a bad thing if someone is being sincere, but when you combine it with his approach, lack of concern for evidence quality, YouTube earning potential and attitude, I'm pretty sure it's clear what their intentions are. I don't mean to sound like a big meany pants but I don't like the cut of this guy's jib. I believe their intentions are in the wrong place and so far they haven't proven my theory to be incorrect despite numerous opportunities to do so.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It would seem to me that you catch more flies with honey. I don't think he is trying to cause harm to the community even if that might be what you feel is happening. But I was definitely put off by the way you guys handled him. You invited him on a talk show, but then wouldn't allow him to talk. Fair enough, but I was really put off when Gene kept telling him not to talk over him when that is exactly what he was doing. I don't blame him for not wanting to work with you guys again on the rating system, etc...

Just because you don't agree with his position, doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to have one. This wasn't a case where he was blatantly lying, which would deserve that treatment, this was a case where I think he genuinely believes what he is saying.

I guess I just feel that because we might not have the same opinion as someone, that doesn't give us the right to treat them in a rude manner.

It made it hard for me to listen to. Normally, I love you guy, but in this episode the midwestern in me made me sad that you treated him so rudely.

In the end, it's his site to post what he wants on. People seem to enjoy it. He admitted that there is questionable stuff up there, and in the end...if there was anyone who had a definitive video which 100% real, then there wouldn't be a UFO debate at all.

Sorry, but I do not accept the reality of what you're saying. He was given plenty of time to explain himself, and mostly reverted to his mantra that he's not responsible for anything, after saying that they check each and every video they receive. As to who was talking over whom, I think the show bears out the fact that he mostly talked over me, and I merely tried to get him on point. Not an easy process. We did not, however, accuse him of faking the videos, just posting and promoting fake videos. But it appears the TWSNBN may indeed have done that, but I'd need to see some independent testimony, with names, dates and places, which point in that direction.

We gave TWSNBN the chance to prove themselves. They just brushed off Chris, and his offer to help, rather rudely, and that, as they say, is that. They do not wish to be bothered with facts.

 

[Randall]

Hi Ufology, Thank you for your question. I am a professional digital archivist. I scan old historical books, photographs, negatives, films and maps at an archive organisation.

Thanks for that. Does this archiving organization have a website link? It sounds quite interesting.

 

[nameless]

New to the forums, so I'm sorry if the quoted style is wrong.

Anyways, this is more or less the problem with getting 'young people' into the field. I've heard Mr. Steinberg and Mr. O'Brien speak often about how the average age of the UFO conventions is around 98 or so....Look guys. I'm 30. I've been interested in the UFO field since I was a kid...But, there is 60 or so years of information to dig through at this point. Some of it is straight laced military reports, some contactee weirdness, some the 'errythang is connected' multiverse/paranormal explanation. To be sure, a bit of each is part of the solution, but it's a lifetimes worth of material to review.
There are no High School or College courses to take on the subject. There is no guide to the hucksters and researchers. There are very few people in the field with sterling background. It's a mess of hear-say, conjecture, theory and lies. Some out-right bold faced lies. Yet again, it would take years to sift through all the material to come to a conclusion.
I'm not saying Cousins is right or wrong. I'm impartial as I don't think random lights in the sky mean anything. Yes, he could convince some people the entire field is bunk. Yes, he could bring out a gaggle of 'true-believers'. Either way, those that really care will look deeper and come to some understanding of the topic, be it a technological/multi-dimensional/psychological approach. Again, I don't condone what he's doing, but I think it's not much different than 'Sightings' from back when I was a kid.
But to the point. If you guys really want a new generation of researchers to come out of the wood works, it's probably best to let them make mistakes. Let them learn a bit. Let them fall down and let them ask for help. We aren't born educated and wise. It takes time to build that up. I'm sure if you dug deep enough that the teenager researchers in the 40's and 50's were just as over-zealous as we can be.

This is a kind of rehash of what I said but with some glaring problems. Its such a mangled reinterpretation that highlights the problem.
There is a real issue here with separating the need for entertainment and the need for information. You can combine the two which is a very big difference from making an entertainment out of a serious subject. Programmes like Sightings are a populist mangle of interpretation of data I dont think anyone has ever seriously approached the study of UFOLGY and joined MUFON based on an episode of SIGHTINGS more than they would watch HAPPY DAYS and want to join the Hells Angels. Popular sci-fi films and TV, toy robots, The Invaders, comics and pulp mags, all add to the wanton thirst of the imagination. We know these to be unreal but they offer us a fun filled diversion with a hint of what could come plus through metaphor and analogy help understand the world we live in. We are happy to run through the minds of authors like Arthur C Clarke and Phillip K dick be entertained plus enlightened. People who are really inspiring and really push people into thinking new things. Thats if you have an imagination that hasn't been forced fed or constrained to being just a consumerist.

Its a really poncey thing to say but if your in a position of influence or responsibility the you have to be responsible and consider giving people what they need rather than what they want. I mean I would love to eat KFC , McDonalds all day and drink root beer.

Unfortunately the herd are too conditioned to understand this. I think its too complacent and detrimental for us to think its ok to allow people to make the wrong choices and decisions when you are giving them bad choices in the first place and saying, "they didnt have to buy into that".

 

[Digital_Archivist]

Thanks for that. Does this archiving organization have a website link? It sounds quite interesting.

Sure.. It's Cultural Collections at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Here is out Flickr site. We have a lot of old historical images from the 1800s, too.

Enjoy

Flickr: Cultural Collections, University of Newcastle's Photostream

- Digital_Archivist

 

[Bob Watson]

Before the interview I. Brought up that 3rd phase was paling around with stan rominek.
Now let's be honest...if I wanted a serious discussion on UFO's would I want romineck any where close to me? It is clear 3rd phase dose not care About serios research.how many more rubber aliens will it take for ppl to see that?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

People are sometimes known by the friends they keep, but the TWSNBN have also interviewed Friedman and Dolan, but it's clear from Dolan's comments that they weren't aware what they were getting into.

 

[Bob Watson]

Gene I 100% agree! Friedman and dolan may not know...however how can any one look at romineck and say his stuff is legit? 3rd phase dose....

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Gene I 100% agree! Friedman and dolan may not know...however how can any one look at romineck and say his stuff is legit? 3rd phase dose....

Well Bob I hope you appreciate that Blake was indeed asked about Romanek directly and a few of the exact problem areas were mentioned too.

Blake's response was just, 'Well Stan is an interesting guy with an interesting story.....' and you have to think that well, of course he has an interesting story, you've got greys at the kitchen window, orbs, visitations, strange mathematics, secret government interest/documents all along with classic sightings and abductions etc.

It is indeed interesting -but is it real?

Is it a story of stuff that actually happened? Is there any proof to any of it? These are the questions that Blake should have been asking of Stan, not just giving him free reign to tell his tale.

 

[Randall]

Sure.. It's Cultural Collections at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Here is out Flickr site. We have a lot of old historical images from the 1800s, too.

Enjoy

Flickr: Cultural Collections, University of Newcastle's Photostream

- Digital_Archivist

Very cool ! Thanks for sharing .

 

[enzo]

As any serious researcher knows who has been looking at this crap for decades, it is always trickster stuff. It is always a mix of the real and the unreal, the logical and the illogical. Take the Billy Meier case. Wendelle Stevens went over there and found it legit. Then the Elders. There was much to believe and then there were the weird photos of cave men and cake tins. Yet some of it was real. I see this over and over. They took some of the Meier material to Marcel Vogel from IBM who was a material specialist. He thought it was strange. Almost every case is full of weirdness and illogical nonsense. Travis Walton seeing military men...... Whitley Streiber's absurd stories..... The sex stories........

You are never going to have a 'legit' and 'logical' analysis of these things because they are full of trickster element. Shadow reality that is making fun of us. Who are you to think you can capture the 'legit' cases? It is funny.

Let this guy and anyone just post what they can. None of it is going to bring us answers. Even Gene and Chris with their awesome logic and 'methodology' are not going to clarify this domain.

You can lure UFOs in on any clear night with some good cameras and group intent. Linda Howel found this out to be true. They 'read your mind.'

Step back and see what all that means. Step back and see what it is saying about reality. Stop pontificating like you are in the know for Christ's sake!

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

Would your friend be willing to give us a statement (we can keep the name anonymous if he prefers)? It would be nice to nail this down.

And thanks for listening.

I would LOVE to see that happen. I rarely get riled up like this, but when someone is flat out misrepresenting what they do and shamelessly hiding behind a persona and bold-faced lies, it makes me FURIOUS.

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

The Paracast brought us the German guy who thought the local Jews were stealing his sheep as a plan to get his property. Remember that one? I didn't mind it. It was amusing.


What I bring to the party is this: We are not going to find sasquatch and there will be no alien discoveries let alone 'disclosure' for heaven's sake. Why? Because what we need to be talking about is the nature of reality. These things are not 'real' like this chair is real. It is part of a shadow reality. We need to spend more time thinking about that. All this stuff has to do with the observer and not the thing itself.

.

The more research I do, the more experiences I have, and the more time I spend contemplating the nature of "reality", the more and more aware I become of the fact that the observer is often the key. I also have many more questions than answers, and my own ideas about what is "real" and how I qualify it remains open to interpretation and reinterpretation.

Seriously, though, we need to consider the ways in which we question the reality of the observer whose life has been adversely affected by having their sense of reality completely interrupted -- shattered, even -- by something that didn't exist until they encountered it. When the person is an otherwise healthy, balanced individual, it deserves serious consideration.

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

I sent the University of Nations an email regarding the Cousins' involvement with their school. Here is part of the reply that I received:

Blake and Brent Cousins have done, around 12 years ago, a one-week editing seminar with UofN that was open to participants from the community . The are not per say graduates of our film school which is a longer in depth program that covers all aspects of film and video production.

Oh, Well Done!!!

 

[Afishy1]

An aquatic T-Rex. Looked like an ad for Discovery Channel "Shark week". Was that a seal in it's mouth?