Colin Bennett - June 12, 2011

[Angel of Ioren]

I totally agree with you here Angelo.

The fact still remains that there is something I just don't understand about why those who believe they exist as intelligent E.T. backed craft cannot come to grips with, and that is the fact that we are a planet which has been here for billions of years. Taking that into consideration and the fact that UFO's throughout time immemorial on this earth have been supposedly visiting us, and have been painted on walls, in paintings, eye witnessed, etc., that not one photo, alien visitor, or actual event which can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they in fact exist....has in fact happened.

For this very reason I stay open to the idea that we have no clue as to what they are...I call them demonic....others call them just Unidentified Flying Objects without the Alien hyperbole added in. And those that do would be 100% correct over my theory because I don't have any proof that what is happening is Demonic. Therefore in my statements here and always I imbibe the, "I don't know for sure", or the, "I believe", or the ever loving, "possibility" that they are what I feel they are.

In conclusion to this, to call them "extra-terrestrial" and also "Alien/intelligent" in the same context is an of itself nonsensical for the very reason I cannot call them demonic with any authority other than my faith alone, which isn't verifiable or in any way proof.

So it would be a really nice gesture for all those who BELEIVE that U.F.O.'s are "alien intelligent" driven to please allow for the "I Believe", or, "I don't know for sure", or the ever loving, "Possibility" when they are commenting here or anywhere as well. In that way we can all agree to disagree without stepping on each others feet, getting angry, and then having me say stupid name callings such as "Alien Wannabe's", and "Marvin the Martians", etc. It gets us nowhere to do this and I don't believe that Gene developed all of this here to fight. I believe he did so for everyone contributing and just viewing or listening to come together and learn and be entertained by a subject we are all very interested in.

Ohhh and before I forget...This is the new me so just get used to it!

I'm of the opinion that they are most likely mis-identified known "things" such as weather, airplanes, military crafts, celestial bodies, etc...

 

[PararealitySaint]

I'm of the opinion that they are most likely mis-identified known "things" such as weather, airplanes, military crafts, celestial bodies, etc...

I would have to agree with you here, but then there are the "abduction" cases which is a viable phenomenon, happening to people....Is this able to be explained away as generic, or is it Demonic, or is it E.T., or perhaps inter-dimensionally Alien, Spiritual, Demonic? I don't believe it is 100% psychological, govt based? I'd like to hear your theory on this.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I would have to agree with you here, but then there are the "abduction" cases which is a viable phenomenon, happening to people....Is this able to be explained away as generic, or is it Demonic, or is it E.T., or perhaps inter-dimensionally Alien, Spiritual, Demonic? I don't believe it is 100% psychological, govt based? I'd like to hear your theory on this.

Nothing has shown me that it's beyond anything psychological, but that's an unpopular opinion among abductees. Let's not derail this thread though. Let's stick to what was discussed on this episode.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Nothing has shown me that it's beyond anything psychological, but that's an unpopular opinion among abductees. Let's not derail this thread though. Let's stick to what was discussed on this episode.

Honestly, I think I have said enough about Mr. Bennett but I shall acquiesce to your proposal. Perhaps you can bring back one of the threads which has this subject (abductions) in mind and tell me there. That is unless you have commented on it before and can show me where so I may read your theory on thus.

 

[tyder001]

Threads are like conversations. They go all over the place. But, for a whole new topic you can always just start your own conversation. It is an interesting question and I'm not sure one size fits all to describe it. But, anyway I'll hush cause I have not listened to this episode.

 

[NTS]

More OT -- my understanding is that currently there are quite a number of automatic cameras photographing the sky for various reasons, day and night. You'd think these would be a rich source of UFO photos. So could it be that there aren't very many UFOs, or that photos of UFOs are being ignored because they aren't relevant to whatever the cameras were setup to investigate?

 

[boomerang]

Overall, I enjoyed Mr. Bennett. Yeah, he did sound "off his game" ??. My impression was a stuttering problem and advanced age. Ethanol? Maybe. I tried to concentrate on the content of his answers despite some difficulty understanding his speech at times. Maybe he just got ahold of some bad diphenhydramine.

I don't fault his wide swing into deeper realms of high strangeness. Hey, this is esoterica, after all! His trip down Porno Lane to MIB Land came across pretty lame. One should keep in mind the "trickster" aspect of this phenomenon that is always in control and seemingly works to discredit the experiencer and itself. It's part of the noise that goes with the signal we are seeking.

I was more disappointed at Bennett's lack of detailed knowledge concerning personalities involved during what were perhaps the headiest and most active years in the history of ufology. As an investigator, he should really know if Ruppelt has offspring who might be interviewed. Tie-ins like this are crucial. He also seemed to lack a grasp of the style and methods of other major figures of that era.


IMO, workable entertainment with some good info here and there.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I was more disappointed at Bennett's lack of detailed knowledge concerning personalities involved during what were perhaps the headiest and most active years in the history of ufology. As an investigator, he should really know if Ruppelt has offspring who might be interviewed. Tie-ins like this are crucial. He also seemed to lack a grasp of the style and methods of other major figures of that era.

Ditto. That to me was the most disappointing aspect about the interview. Bennett says that going to the United States to do some research would be a very expensive proposition, yet I'm supposed to spend money on his books? Besides, there's this new thing, called 'The Internet', and with the aid of collaborators you might be able to pursue some fact-checking without the need to leave your home.

The most crucial question to be answered is: what caused Ruppelt to modify the conclusions of his book in the 2nd edition? Bennet assumes it was due from depression caused by his heart condition, but I for one would like to see more digging into this.

 

[mike]

My first impression within a few minutes was "Arthur" played by dudley moore.
But once he got to the soft porn theatre, i was forced to revise that to Capt jack Sparrow

Worth listening to once

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hi folks,
Mr Colin Bennett was a enjoyable listening and its always easier to take the skeptic side.8) His sixties adventure was funny and his enjoyable comments on drinking was even more funny. He pointed out "the clash of cultures" 8)regarding modernity of technology in developing world a food for thought:exclamation:. However, the UFO debate is alive and well.:question:

 

[Double Nought Spy]

I finally got around to listening to the rest of this episode. Excellent!

I'm not the least bit surprised the show made a lot of people uneasy, angry, whatever. The melee at a UFO Updates I mentioned in my previous post is another example of Bennett's thinking on these topics being far too advanced for most observers. I don't mean that as criticism and I certainly don't mean to sound condescending, but I'm not "scratching my head" and while I don't agree with every opinion Bennett holds (of course) I enjoyed the show a lot and had no problem with anything he said. I agree with most of it, and I thank Gene and Chris for having him on the show.

By the way, don't bother asking me to explain Bennett's statements. If I had that kind of patience, I'd be a successful author with several published works to my credit. I do expect to be flamed for this by people who like tidy explanations that don't challenge their world view. Fire away. As Bennett often says, we all need to sleep at night.

 

[Randall]

During the interview Colin gave an account of his own sighting where he saw a shape shifting UFO. I thought that was pretty interesting. But I'm not so sure I would have demonstrated as much restraint as our most gracious hosts did with respect to some of his commentary.

j.r.

 

[fatbaddie]

Actually, if you listen to the answer, the full extended answer, I think it makes sense and I think you would agree with him at least in part. He actually alludes to the fact these things exist primarily as our misperception and misconception of something else. His story of the cargo cult and the label on the can was meant to illustrate that our perception most likely is in no way representational of its actual nature. Now, you can go any which way you want with that (everything from mistaken identity to earth lights) but I cannot argue with it as it stands.

I enjoyed the show and the fellow's delivery for the most part.

These were my thoughts about the show too, the cargo cult comments he made were very astute, a moment of lucidity in what was otherwise a painful experience for the listener. Good work though Gene & Chris, you handled it about as well as anyone could have, lol.

The last two "hello... hello..." were actually quite disturbing, genuine fear in that second and final "hello...".

I used to live in the Sheppard’s Bush and Notting Hill area, still work just down the road from there and I can tell you, there are some pretty odd people around, no doubting that Mr Bennet is a very different strawberry.

and P.S I'm sorry Colin, love is great and all that, but it's not *a dimension*.

 

[Schuyler]

I found Mr. Bennett largely incoherent, not only in his speech, but also in his subject matter, which seemed to change in mid-sentence. I don't think this was simply an accent issue as I understood Nick Redfern (and Nick Pope) perfectly.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thank you. I thought it was just me.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

The conversation was not easy to follow and downright difficult at times. Part of that seemed to be a fuzzy connection, at least part of the time. It was interesting for me to hear Bennett speak for the first time, after having read a lot of his stuff. Most of what I've read is quite lucid. Since I understood the material and where the guy was coming from, it made sense to me. Now if you had been interviewing a Russian mathemetician, say, I'd have been completely at sea.

See? Ah cain't even spell mathematician.

Also, we recently switched cell phone companies and the new service does this weird thing where it sounds for all the world like the line has gone completely dead. At least we no longer have multiple dropped calls per day, but it is a bit disconcerting even after a few months. Point being, someone on the other side of the Atlantic going Hello? Hello? is not necessarily a sign of senility.

 

[Xylo]

I found Mr. Bennett largely incoherent, not only in his speech, but also in his subject matter, which seemed to change in mid-sentence. I don't think this was simply an accent issue as I understood Nick Redfern (and Nick Pope) perfectly.

I couldn't agree more with this comment. I considered that perhaps the interview was at a late hour for him, or maybe he had a nightcap...but still he rambled. I had a very difficult time understanding any of his points, if he actually made them.

 

[pong]

Holy mother of chocolate-covered onion rings! I like this guy! Not only did he have a dramatic UFO sighting but he had a face-to-face with an MIB. I love it! Forget Ed Ruppelt, for gosh sakes . . . history certainly has. Did Ed Ruppelt have kids? Did they have the faintest idea what daddy did at the UFO desk in Dayton? Oh please, who gives a rip. Move over Ruppelt, I want to know more about Colin Bennett, a wry old metaphysician who actually deserves some serious attention before he leaves this earth.

Bennett's infectious laughter and unabashed honesty cracked me up! Here's a guy who loves life for the bizarre and unexplainable condition that it is. He is what he is. Can he explain UFOs or dimensions beyond ours? Ha! Were you hoping for a Kaku moment or something? Of course he can't. No one can.

I absolutely loved the brief trip to the soft porn movie, the UFO sighting and the astonishing encounter with an MIB who wasn't supposed to be there--an MIB who was gone in a poof. If you were listening, Bennett tried to tell us: there is no explanation for all this that the church of science will ever like. No, we're on our own. Better to look for an explanation in your dreams or your wildest imagination. We're on stage, all of us, in some theater, in some elaborate production. We may never know who the producer is. We're not supposed to.

Bennett is a masterful writer, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here's what Mac Tonnies said in 2003 about Bennett's book POLITICS OF THE IMAGINATION: The Life, Work and Ideas of Charles Fort . . .

In a world of books about anomalies, very seldom does one come across a title that is, itself, an anomaly in its aptitude and outspokenness. Colin Bennett's "Politics of the Imagination," a heady examination of the life, work, and ideas of paranormal heavyweight Charles Fort, is a rich and singular book in which Bennett's postmodern sensibilities are brought to bear on one of the 20th century's most radical thinkers. Fort, an intellectual outcast who viewed science as so much socio-mythological advertising, has become synonymous with the unexplained. Bennett argues that "Fortean" phenomena such as UFOs, inexplicable artifacts, and falls of live fish reveal cracks in the buttresses of Big Science's illusory (and ever-fashionable) rationalism.

Bennett, like Fort, views reality itself as an anomaly to be held in constant question; "explanations," if available at all, are only a superficial means of understanding. Bennett grabs hold of the enigma that is Fort's iconoclasm and doesn't let go. Summoning a mass of scientific and literary esoterica, he writes with impeccable wit, pursuing his quarry with impressive dexterity. "Politics of the Imagination" is a high-calorie intellectual banquet of a book: challenging, learned, and incredibly fun. As long as Bennett is writing, Western empiricism can run, but it can't hide. With a foreword by John Keel, author of "The Mothman Prophecies."

Let's please have Colin Bennett back on the Paracast soon to talk about Charles Fort . . . and Colin Bennett.


Colin Bennett

 

[PararealitySaint]

Holy mother of chocolate-covered onion rings! I like this guy! Not only did he have a dramatic UFO sighting but he had a face-to-face with an MIB. I love it! Forget Ed Ruppelt, for gosh sakes . . . history certainly has. Did Ed Ruppelt have kids? Did they have the faintest idea what daddy did at the UFO desk in Dayton? Oh please, who gives a rip. Move over Ruppelt, I want to know more about Colin Bennett, a wry old metaphysician who actually deserves some serious attention before he leaves this earth.

Bennett's infectious laughter and unabashed honesty cracked me up! Here's a guy who loves life for the bizarre and unexplainable condition that it is. He is what he is. Can he explain UFOs or dimensions beyond ours? Ha! Were you hoping for a Kaku moment or something? Of course he can't. No one can.

I absolutely loved the brief trip to the soft porn movie, the UFO sighting and the astonishing encounter with an MIB who wasn't supposed to be there--an MIB who was gone in a poof. If you were listening, Bennett tried to tell us: there is no explanation for all this that the church of science will ever like. No, we're on our own. Better to look for an explanation in your dreams or your wildest imagination. We're on stage, all of us, in some theater, in some elaborate production. We may never know who the producer is. We're not supposed to.

Bennett is a masterful writer, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here's what Mac Tonnies said in 2003 about Bennett's book POLITICS OF THE IMAGINATION: The Life, Work and Ideas of Charles Fort . . .

In a world of books about anomalies, very seldom does one come across a title that is, itself, an anomaly in its aptitude and outspokenness. Colin Bennett's "Politics of the Imagination," a heady examination of the life, work, and ideas of paranormal heavyweight Charles Fort, is a rich and singular book in which Bennett's postmodern sensibilities are brought to bear on one of the 20th century's most radical thinkers. Fort, an intellectual outcast who viewed science as so much socio-mythological advertising, has become synonymous with the unexplained. Bennett argues that "Fortean" phenomena such as UFOs, inexplicable artifacts, and falls of live fish reveal cracks in the buttresses of Big Science's illusory (and ever-fashionable) rationalism.

Bennett, like Fort, views reality itself as an anomaly to be held in constant question; "explanations," if available at all, are only a superficial means of understanding. Bennett grabs hold of the enigma that is Fort's iconoclasm and doesn't let go. Summoning a mass of scientific and literary esoterica, he writes with impeccable wit, pursuing his quarry with impressive dexterity. "Politics of the Imagination" is a high-calorie intellectual banquet of a book: challenging, learned, and incredibly fun. As long as Bennett is writing, Western empiricism can run, but it can't hide. With a foreword by John Keel, author of "The Mothman Prophecies."

Let's please have Colin Bennett back on the Paracast soon to talk about Charles Fort . . . and Colin Bennett.


Colin Bennett

And the lady bends over the table and whispers in the ear of her friend,

"Ill have what she's having....."

Holy Pompous Identity Crisis Batman....Bring out the big butterfly nets, someone let out The Reality Challenged once again and it's raining horse hockey chips.*

*The author writes in this way because he knows beyond the shadow of a doubt the original writer of this piece has to be kidding.....

Please tell me he or she (or because of this forum and content it just might be one of our extraterrestrial brethren), "IT" is kidding???? Please please......please tell me it's so.

 

[tyder001]

Saint ya know I have some beliefs that are woo woo to many people. You also have some that are woo woo to many people. I honestly beleive that a man walked the earth two thousand years ago and had a special relationship with the "source" of all being. But, it's not scientific and not even very likely to most of the world. Others who "believe" go farther than I can. They think a virgin conceived ( I consider this church of Rome myth) that dead bodies reanimate (I consider this a Stephen King novel) and that God is an angry ole dude in the sky who gives a rip about Jack and John or Sue and Ann do in their bedroom. So, I am very careful about the knee jerk "Lets put it on the altar of science argument." For one thing science is great for medical cures and research and getting us into space and taking hearts out of one body and putting them into another. But, "science" (Darwin fogive me) can't even get to the point of understanding how "we" become "me." Conscinuness is the biggest mystery in the universe and no those people who "poke" an instrument into the brain and watch it light up have not "explained" it. They have simply idenified a little bit of how the machinery that conducts it is wired. Incredible? Yes but not the "theory of everything." So, while I do consider some things to be very far fecthed. Stuff like e.t. and fairies and even Leprechans ( I say even because I have waaay back in my ancestry Celtic blood.) But, we all believe strange things. To me the person who can look at the way the world works and not see a "reason" or "plan" is foolish. To others who look at the way the world works the idea that an "old man in the sky" is "up there" is foolish. I heard an interview with a scientist the other day. He was really smart and quite a intelligent fellow. He is an atheist but at the same time is fascinated by the "mystery" in the universe. Matter of fact some people got mad at him on the materilistic side because he dared to "accept" a Templeton Award which is given to researchers who exibit the best in bringing Science and religious thought together for the common good. Anyway, he said (very respectfully I might add.) that some of his collegues belive in a personal God. Most don't but many belive in "purpose" and he seemed to lean a little toward "purpose" himself. I find that I still "beleive" that purpose has will and intent. But, I try to remember that my "intent" is another persons woo woo. Also, that one persons "logic" can be to me the "blind leading the blind." I didn't listen to this interview as of yet. But, from what I've heard both pro and con this man seems to be interesting.