David Andrew

[SheaOlmsford]

The informal interview of an alleged abductee is always interesting. Nonetheless, I take abductee narratives with a grain of salt because there's no real way to prove or disprove the story.

However, this episode with David Andrew evoked one thought for me (as a recommendation to such a guest in the future). This recommendation is "Prepare a chronological record of your experiences beforehand, and have it in front of you during the interview".

What I found a little annoying about this specific interview is that the narrative jumped all over time & place, with Gene and David needing to prompt D. Andrew to share experiences that he seemingly forgot until questioned (guess that is a sign of good interviewers!).

Nonetheless, the interview seemed to take a strange turn for me when it became a denunciation of 2 other famous professional alien contactees by D. Andrews. Did I really need to learn that Stan Romanek woke up in a dress that he thinks belonged to Betty Hill? OK, I admit that is an amusing bit of ufo gossip, but it seemed like D. Andrew's story had been pumped dry, and there was still a lot of air time left before concluding the interview. Therefore, the hosts had to let the discussion sort of ramble off into a putdown of Jim Sparks and Stan Romanek.

My humble opinion is that it would have been a more cohesive "tight" interview if the guest had his story down pat in a logical order, rather than speaking in an ad hoc manner. I say this as someone who has had some bizarre paranormal (?) experiences. Perhaps I am just talking to myself, because I have ironically never done so myself! But this episode has convinced me to create a file on the PC. Whenever another memory arises, I will add the story to the file. I am a bit scared and superstitious that doing so will cause a return of the events (I like to think they are over).

Anyway, enough rambling.

 

[Schuyler]

I've gotta go with my gut feelings on this one. I don't buy it. I can't pin it down exactly, but there's this massive "Aooooga!" siren going off in the back of my head. My hackles first went up when he described the blue dwarves and I thought, "He's seen the Communion movie." I didn't catch any more 'gotcha' elements other than the 'What about the missing present,' 'Oh, yeah, there was a missing present' yarn, which seemed to me to be a leading question.

 

[CapnG]

This episode started out interesting but quickly turned into a random, rambling, ping-pong discussion where Andrew first makes declaritive statements about his experiences and then Gene or Dave challenges him and he backpedals, makes more statements, challenge, more backpedalling, etc.

Maybe I'm just tired but I had real difficulty trying to follow it, the whole thing seemed to devolve pretty quickly into a sort of verbal rorshach. Basically it could mean anything but it probably means nothing.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

If I may reply to a thread I started, I also inwardly groaned when I heard about the little blue men. I was waiting for Dave Andrew to say they wore little cover overalls. Isn't that what Whitley Strieber said?

Actuallly, here is a trivia question: What other abductee reported little blue men?

Answer: John Velez, who was also regressed via hypnosis a few dozen times by our friend Budd Hopkins. For the infamous NOVA special about 10+ years ago which trashed Budd Hopkins techniques, John Velez was also featured, along with his drawings of the little blue men which looked exactly like the little blue men in the COMMUNION movie.

I always picture the little blue men with pick axes over their shoulders, marching around singing "Heigh Ho, Heigh Ho, it's off to work we go...".

Of course, many a word said in jest! Perhaps this phenomena truly is akin to the earlier times reports of elves, fairies and dwarfs.

Moving on to another bone of contention with D. Andrew: he reported that he takes upon himself the power to authenticate the stories of other abductees based on how complex the stories may be. If the story is complex, he automatically proclaims (at least to himself) that the story is false. If the story consists of fragments that may be incoherent and illogical, then he gives the story more credance. While I understand what he is getting at (i.e., people who fabricate a story tend to flesh it out more so it makes a much more entertaining yarn), I find this a rather arbitrary standard. Perhaps my arbitrary standard consists of illogic and cliches.

For example, Jim Sparks story consists mostly of being taught some symbollic language by elves, er, I mean aliens. But this is so stupid, literally stupid! What could be more efficent than mind to mind telepathy?!?! The only reason humankind needs complex communication systems is because we don't have telepathy. Why would aliens use telepathy to teach a human a symbollic system that is far inferior to the teaching medium of telepathy itself? Isn't that crazy? So I don't believe his story. Then he jumps the shark by talking about a meeting with all the occupants of the Star Wars bar scene, and how they just adore men in uniforms and hats! How gay! (And I say this as a gay man, so I am not insulting gays, but saying this with amusement).

As for cliches, this goes for just about all of John Mack's clients, who always reported that the aliens were cosmic Green Peace workers here to help alert us to planetary degradation. Well, duh. Every school child nows that the planet is suffering from pollution and other damage. Tell us something new! Give us technology to stop the degradation. (Oh, yes....Steven Greer has a patent on that area).

I suspect that if John Mack was still alive, he'd be attracted to the Exopolitics brand, since they also believe that the aliens are benevolent "space brothers" who form a type of cosmic Star Trek federation, running around telling people on primitive planets to recycle! Sadly enough, in John Mack's second (and last) book about alien encounters, he continually quotes Jim Sparks. I guess John had not been introduced to Alfred Webre at the time.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

As soon as Mr. Andrew mentioned little blue men I asked myself if they had orange hair and waddled around (Oompa Loompa's.)

I'm sorry but I've not heard an abduction/contactee story I've bought, yet, and I do try to keep an open mind about these things. One of my biggest red-flags on the topic has to do with chance-of-discovery. What I mean by that is here we have a human who has a lifetime of contact and experiences with an alien race and at no point in time is there another witness? The aliens never get caught, even visually, by other humans as they're opening portals, landing their craft, wandering around buildings or yards as they stalk their 'victim?'. Additionally, why don't we put these people under surveillance? Plus, if the aliens are trying to communicate a message to our species, why not contact or abduct someone far more public or credible...someone who the public will listen to? After all, their message is SO critical to the survival of our race, yes? Then why abduct/contact Joe Schmoe? It makes so little sense.

Still, being who I am I've not completely written off abduction or contactee scenarios. They're just in my gray basket along with remote viewing and Big Foot, and when I say 'gray' I mean charcoal.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

As soon as Mr. Andrew mentioned little blue men I asked myself if they had orange hair and waddled around (Oompa Loompa's.)

I'm sorry but I've not heard an abduction/contactee story I've bought, yet, and I do try to keep an open mind about these things. One of my biggest red-flags on the topic has to do with chance-of-discovery. What I mean by that is here we have a human who has a lifetime of contact and experiences with an alien race and at no point in time is there another witness? The aliens never get caught, even visually, by other humans as they're opening portals, landing their craft, wandering around buildings or yards as they stalk their 'victim?'. Additionally, why don't we put these people under surveillance? Plus, if the aliens are trying to communicate a message to our species, why not contact or abduct someone far more public or credible...someone who the public will listen to? After all, their message is SO critical to the survival of our race, yes? Then why abduct/contact Joe Schmoe? It makes so little sense.

Still, being who I am I've not completely written off abduction or contactee scenarios. They're just in my gray basket along with remote viewing and Big Foot, and when I say 'gray' I mean charcoal.

Your points are very valid. However, after studying this area for a long time, you come to a point where you have to just throw up your hands (or just throw up!) and realize there is no logic to any of it. The lack of logic does not necessarily mean it isn't real. This is where the concept of the Trickster comes in, where the phenomenon seems to intentionally do goofy things to repell serious appraisal. One of my favorite examples is in the 1950s when this saucer flew up to someone and a voice asked the time. The person responded with the time, and the voice replied something like "You lie! It is really 4:00 o'clock". Then flew away. Makes no sense. There is also the famous case in the 50s when I was a tiny child about a UFO that landed in someone's driveway in Wisconsin and the homeowner was given some pancakes in exchange for water. The pancakes were analyzed and they were just normal pancakes. You would think that with Wisconsin's huge Germanic heritage, the pancakes would be potato pancakes! That would have been logical.

Seriously, the idea of surveillance has been attempted many times with abductees but it never seems to work. One problem is that (as David Andrews noted) experiences are sporadic. How can you pay someone to spy on another human being day after day, year after year in hopes of capturing evidence of abduction? Only the CIA has such assets.

Finally, I think we should in this case retire the idea of a gray basket and make it a BLUE basket. Since D. Andrew only sees his little blue friends in a blue moon, it seems hard to substantiate his claims. But I had an interesting thought: If the little blue guys pulled their pants down and exhibited their buttucks to him, would that count as a Blue Moon? (yeah, my humor can be corny at times).

I respect Dave Andrew, and think he is probably telling the truth as he knows it. Nonetheless, it does not help his claim to have a wife who seems to be gaa gaa about this field and even has a talk show about it. That kind of bleedthru or even "conflict of interest" makes his claims a little harder to swallow.

 

[jkoci]

I take abductee narratives with a grain of salt because there's no real way to prove or disprove the story.

I agree. I just got done listening to the episode and am left thinking that at times he seems to be recounting his dreams.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

In case Gene reads this, can I ask a question? (I know, THAT was a question). Anyway...

What was the motivation for having David Andrew as a guest? In other words, I understand that David Biedny talked to him several times. Did David B. believe his story? Did you?

Or was this presented (with some skepticism) with the idea of letting the listeners decide for themselves?

I guess my basic core question is: does the Paracast present people that you find questionable? I realize you've done this in the past. e.g., the Billy Meiers mouthpiece, Bruce Goldberg...but what is the underlying motive on the show? Is it to present what you think is credible guests or to be an open mike for people with interesting ideas? (like Coast to Coast).

Sincere questions (yes, I cheated. I asked if I could ask a question and ended up with several).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In case Gene reads this, can I ask a question? (I know, THAT was a question). Anyway...

What was the motivation for having David Andrew as a guest? In other words, I understand that David Biedny talked to him several times. Did David B. believe his story? Did you?

Or was this presented (with some skepticism) with the idea of letting the listeners decide for themselves?

I guess my basic core question is: does the Paracast present people that you find questionable? I realize you've done this in the past. e.g., the Billy Meiers mouthpiece, Bruce Goldberg...but what is the underlying motive on the show? Is it to present what you think is credible guests or to be an open mike for people with interesting ideas? (like Coast to Coast).

Sincere questions (yes, I cheated. I asked if I could ask a question and ended up with several).

David Andrew seemed a credible person based on his article for Frank Warren's "UFO Chronicles" and DB's interaction with him prior to the show. But the story came apart, alas, too quickly. I think he believes he had real experiences, but they all seemed to be dreams, other than the flying belt scenario that his father and brother also experienced.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

David Andrew seemed a credible person based on his article for Frank Warren's "UFO Chronicles" and DB's interaction with him prior to the show. But the story came apart, alas, too quickly. I think he believes he had real experiences, but they all seemed to be dreams, other than the flying belt scenario that his father and brother also experienced.

Thanks. As you noted on the show, there's nothing very unique about "flying belts" in science fiction. As a boy in the 50's, I was an avid reader of the D.C. Comics collection of Superman, Batman, etc. Such belts were common in these stories. They were always called Anti-Gravity Belts. You put one on, press a button and start flying around. Cool!

It is quite possible that even this aspect of Andrew's story was dream related. When I was a boy in such ancient times, my friends and I would spend hours playing with action figures of the period. We'd always assume that our make-believe world included gravity belts so that we could have the action figures zoom from spot to spot (in our hands, of course).

 

[Kieran]

I see why i get sick of this topic at times. David Andrews told his story, ok some of you don't believe him that is fine. I think we'all should remain open minded still, since there is enough evidence to suggest there is more to abductions than mere fantasies. I've relatives who have experienced these creatures that David outlined in the interview.
So i personally believe those creatures exist. What they are, is anyone's guess. Those creatures could be ET beings or Dimensional beings or hollow earth creatures, or those beings could be something else entirely. IF People don't believe such creatures exist. No problem, your entitled to your opinion. But your opinion has little or no relevance to people who have experienced those creatures. That is the reality of the situation.

I Don't care, if David Andrews or Whitley Streiber's have similar stories. So what, it has no baring on what i know.

My relatives have had no prior knowledge to such creatures, their knowledge is there own and not from other sources. You can take my word for it or you can call me a liar. I happily be called a liar. It still doesn't change the facts it happened. And it wasn't a happy experience for my aunt and uncle. It was frightening experience.

David Andrews could be a complete bullshitter. Some of the details of his encounters are very ivy. The stories about the belt that enabled him to fly was for me a little odd. I was highly doubtful that was true. I was even more doubtful when David told this story, he said, the beings told him to concentrate with his eyes and his mind, He concentrated.
David said then, i could see pass my roof to the stars, the more i concentrated the further i went. I had hard time believing him/ when he said that openly. But who know's this topic at times never makes sense.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I see why i get sick of this topic at times. David Andrews told his story, ok some of you don't believe him that is fine. I think we'all should remain open minded still, since there is enough evidence to suggest there is more to abductions than mere fantasies. I've relatives who have experienced these creatures that David outlined in the interview.
So i personally believe those creatures exist. What they are, is anyone's guess. Those creatures could be ET beings or Dimensional beings or hollow earth creatures, or those beings could be something else entirely. IF People don't believe such creatures exist. No problem, your entitled to your opinion. But your opinion has little or no relevance to people who have experienced those creatures. That is the reality of the situation.

I Don't care, if David Andrews or Whitley Streiber's have similar stories. So what, it has no baring on what i know.

My relatives have had no prior knowledge to such creatures, their knowledge is there own and not from other sources. You can take my word for it or you can call me a liar. I happily be called a liar. It still doesn't change the facts it happened. And it wasn't a happy experience for my aunt and uncle. It was frightening experience.

David Andrews could be a complete bullshitter like i said before. Some of the details of his encounters are very ivy. The stories about the belt that enabled him to fly was for me a little odd. I was highly doubtful that was true. I was even more doubtful when David told this story, he said, the beings told him to concentrate with his eyes and his mind, He concentrated.
David said then, i could see pass my roof to the stars, the more i concentrated the further i went. I had hard time believing him/ when he said that openly. But who know's this topic at times never makes sense.

I've had abduction style experiences also much of my life. Yet this makes me MORE skeptical about such claims, whereas I notice that people who've never had such experiences (but have a New Age outlook) will believe just about anything (paging Exopolitics!). I don't think anyone here personally insulted David Andrew, so don't take the criticism personally. He has a right to tell his story and everyone has a right to their reaction. We have not met him, and that can make a world of difference. I believe he was telling the truth as he knows it. I just don't buy into it. OK, so maybe I have a mental block against stories about little blue guys. I can visualize them doing an acrobatic act at the circus or bursting out of a little car in clown outfits, but otherwise I just have a mental block. Sorry, that's just me. I also am a little embarrassed by abductees who report that they flapped their wings (arms) and visualized being able to fly, and were able to do so. This reeks of PETER PAN (maybe the blue meanies sprinkled pixie dust on him?). Whatever....it is people like David Andrew who can make this field rather entertaining and fascinating. If the only people involved were nuts & bolts types like Stanton Friedman, I would have left long ago.

 

[cottonzway]

Mr. Andrews seems like a nice man who had a bunch of lucid dreams IMO.

 

[Kieran]

I've had abduction style experiences also much of my life. Yet this makes me MORE skeptical about such claims, whereas I notice that people who've never had such experiences (but have a New Age outlook) will believe just about anything (paging Exopolitics!). I don't think anyone here personally insulted David Andrew, so don't take the criticism personally. He has a right to tell his story and everyone has a right to their reaction. We have not met him, and that can make a world of difference. I believe he was telling the truth as he knows it. I just don't buy into it. OK, so maybe I have a mental block against stories about little blue guys. I can visualize them doing an acrobatic act at the circus or bursting out of a little car in clown outfits, but otherwise I just have a mental block. Sorry, that's just me. I also am a little embarrassed by abductees who report that they flapped their wings (arms) and visualized being able to fly, and were able to do so. This reeks of PETER PAN (maybe the blue meanies sprinkled pixie dust on him?). Whatever....it is people like David Andrew who can make this field rather entertaining and fascinating. If the only people involved were nuts & bolts types like Stanton Friedman, I would have left long ago.

I don't know, if David Andrews is telling the truth or not. And the end of day. It has little or no importance for me. I wasn't defending David Andrews, i can't defend someone i don't even know. I said we should remain open minded. You claim to have had abduction style experiences, so therefore i will be open minded to your experiences, as long as they are not ridiculous and full of shit. What were your abduction experiences? if you had experiences with the Greys which is typical, should i believe you? those creatures with big heads and black slanted eyes more believable than other creatures.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I don't know, if David Andrews is telling the truth or not. And the end of day. It has little or no importance for me. I wasn't defending David Andrews, i can't defend someone i don't even know. I said we should remain open minded. You claim to have had abduction style experiences, so therefore i will be open minded to your experiences, as long as they are not ridiculous and full of shit. What were your abduction experiences? if you had experiences with the Greys which is typical, should i believe you? those creatures with big heads and black slanted eyes more believable than other creatures.

All my abduction experiences have been with beautiful women who want to learn from me about this thing called "love".

Seriously, I don't want to talk about my experiences in this forum. However, I understand what you are saying. Is Grey a more respectable color than blue? I guess it depends whose side you were on during the Civil War!

 

[Kieran]

All my abduction experiences have been with beautiful women who want to learn from me about this thing called "love".

Seriously, I don't want to talk about my experiences in this forum. However, I understand what you are saying. Is Grey a more respectable color than blue? I guess it depends whose side you were on during the Civil War!

The colour description was different with my uncle and aunt. My uncle said it was more of a black or purple mix colour. Your entitled to be private when it comes to your own experiences. No problem.

 

[SarkozyAide]

This is the first time, in 4 years of listening that I COULD NOT FINISH. Without a doubt, the absolute WORST.SHOW.EVAR. This guy was a joke from the word go. I fear that with the loss of Biedny, the Paracast is not long for this world.

 

[David Biedny]

This is the first time, in 4 years of listening that I COULD NOT FINISH. Without a doubt, the absolute WORST.SHOW.EVAR. This guy was a joke from the word go. I fear that with the loss of Biedny, the Paracast is not long for this world.

Well, it was my idea to bring this guy on the show, so perhaps my leaving is the best thing that could happen.

dB

 

[bobheck]

Ok, so this one was all over the place. But hey, exploring this phenomenon, that is what the show is about isn't it? This one turned out to be a little more noise than signal. Mission accomplished, I say. Better to have done the interview than left that one out there to grow -- might have turned into another Reed or Morton. Not that Andrew is going to run away and hide, but the interview, with exposed problems and all in his story, is now a matter of record.

Good job.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

This is the first time, in 4 years of listening that I COULD NOT FINISH. Without a doubt, the absolute WORST.SHOW.EVAR. This guy was a joke from the word go. I fear that with the loss of Biedny, the Paracast is not long for this world.

Your statements above do not naturally link up logically. OK, I think this episode was quite disappointing, because I really enjoy hearing abductee/contactee stories. Nonetheless, such stories usually disappoint me because they seem contrived.

However, I don't see how this episode can be used to predict the future of the PARACAST when this episode included David Biedny. In fact, I understand he did the so-called pre-show interviews with Mr. Andrew. However, to Dave and Gene's credit, BOTH politely analyzed his story on the air and were NOT willing to just give it a pass. They were kind and respectful towards the guy, since I think they perceived that Mr. Andrew was telling the truth as he knew it to be. Nonetheless, like much of the audience, I think they saw that this "testimony" was a quickly deflating hot air balloon. Both David and Gene helped navigate that balloon down to the ground without either just feigning belief and support (the George Snoory approach) or grinding the guy's face in the dirt (can't think of an analogy of who does this....Glen Beck in response to any concept more modern than the wheel?).