-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Credibility of researchers?
- Thread starter rowdy27
- Start date
Free episodes:
S
schticknz
Guest
I think if you search the forums here you'll find message on message and thread on thread discussing Streiber and Hoagland and their milieu (god I got it into a sentence at last ... yessss
).I think myself that Hoagland started out ok but seems to have drifted off into a world of his own ... but recently I was informed that he seems to be coming down to earth again under the influence of working (to some extent) with Dr Joseph Farrell (I still have to check out Hoaglands recent work since then).
Streiber though is a hell of an enigma. I've got Communion by my bedside table, and I've not managed yet to start reading it because I'm so baffled by his work and whether or not he's a good guy or just a charlatan.
However, in the end I tend not to take any great notice of either Streiber or Hoagland to any great extent so their work doesn't affect me in any particular way. I'm too involved with reading Vallee, Dolan etc etc etc...:
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
To me it isn't a question of honesty as it is lack of stupidity or delusion. Or one's level of accuracy. Hoagland is just plan wrong about much of what he spews. Even when he's being honest.
Whitley is tougher to nail down. I would not say Whit is credible these days however. He needs to back up what he says with something I call evidence. Til then, it's ify/inconclusive at best imo. Early on he had some minor to mild evidence to support some of what he claims. These days he is much taller on claims, prophecy etc. and much shorter on evidence.
Tons of other threads on this.
Whitley is tougher to nail down. I would not say Whit is credible these days however. He needs to back up what he says with something I call evidence. Til then, it's ify/inconclusive at best imo. Early on he had some minor to mild evidence to support some of what he claims. These days he is much taller on claims, prophecy etc. and much shorter on evidence.
Tons of other threads on this.
