David Andrew

[Christopher O'Brien]

[T]o Dave and Gene's credit, BOTH politely analyzed his story on the air and were NOT willing to just give it a pass... I think they saw that this "testimony" was a quickly deflating hot air balloon ...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?).

lol—good analogy. Good guests are few and far between. I agree that he seems to believe in the reality of his experiences (whether real or dreamed) and I admire the relaxed courage it takes to relate them publicly, but...why has he felt compelled to tell a large 'net audience about his experiences? Is it simply ego? Or something else? IMO, how "experiencers" like David relate inexplicable experiences to others (and the impact of the stories as they unfold in the culture) may be more important than both the truth or accuracy of their stated experiences. It appears to me that much of the contactee/experiencer/abductee field belongs over in the sociology department. But these stories are told to the willing ears of strangers and I think this is very important, as is the fact that they have felt compelled to open themselves up to ridicule and potential social suicide. I think his stated ambivalence to write a book (or read Romanek's book) is telling us something...

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Christopher,

Why would a young woman create a YOUTUBE video about her vision of Jesus on her toilet seat? Actually, if you just waste some time surfing around YOUTUBE, the question of "why" pops up a lot in my brain. What was this guy thinking when he created a video for the entire internet world of him flexing his pectoral muscles for 3 minutes? (I suppose someone could also ask, why did you watch? Well, I didn't watch for 3 minutes, if that is any defense).

Perhaps we each crave our 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps we each crave a sense of community, even if that community is rather eccentric or bizarre (like the people on the internet who help anorexics continue to secretly starve themselves even when they are under treatment).

I can't possibly understand and define the motivations of the entire human race, and I get annoyed when others glibly do so. Perhaps a person who truly believes his abduction stories is seeking validation, some sort of redemption or release by sharing the experience. Perhaps unconsciously such a person even wants the ridicule because it feeds their sense of victimization (aliens hurt me, humans hurt me....I can't get no respect).

A couple days ago I sent Gene a document of MY so-called strange experiences in life. Since then I have tried to figure out why I did that. I never did this before. Maybe I just wanted to finally make my own little testament to what I've been through. His reaction seems strangely irrelevant. If I was so inclined, I guess I could have instead built a coral castle in Florida. Of course, if I wanted immediate acceptance and even adoration, I could have just spiced up my tale a bit and taken it to Exopolitics. Geez, maybe I'd even be the center of a Camelot Video Interview! Wow.

In some manner, I guess we all want to be heard, like little baby birds chirping their heads off when the mother bird returns with a worm. I agree that the psychology and sociology would be fascinating. I also find it fascinating to witness people's will to believe. Humans have the ability to believe the most idiotic things.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

[W]e all want to be heard, like little baby birds chirping their heads off when the mother bird returns with a worm. I agree that the psychology and sociology would be fascinating. I also find it fascinating to witness people's will to believe. Humans have the ability to believe the most idiotic things.

I agree, but I intuit that there are key cases where these apparently ego-driven impulses resonate through culture and have end up having tremendous impact. The fact that you, an obviously aware person, watched some dude flex his muscles on youtube speaks volumes about the fractal nature of the internet. I also find it highly intriguing that you felt compelled to send Gene accounts of your "strange experiences." What WAS the motivation? But, I was addressing the fact that people are willing to set themselves up for social suicide by publicly embracing low-status subjects like UFOs and abductions. I have interviewed many people who are willing to tell an investigator anonymously about their experiences, but wouldn't even contemplate going on the record. Is there an over arching program/ agenda behind this compulsion of certain individuals to communicate their experiences to the culture at-large? Obviously, everything is relative but I suspect that the quality of this unfolding process is an important, key element we need to unravel the true nature of these events and those who experience them.

 

[dyingsun]

I don't know why really, but I believe people with alleged abduction experiences more if they are unsure and struggling to remember what happened and don't have prefabricated answers. I liked the show, not sure if anything happened to the guesr, but he didn't struck me as a liar or 'attention whore'.

 

[alzo]

Gene and David did a great job of probing (for lack of a better word) David Andrew's claims without slamming him or hurting his feelings. I think we have to remember this is such a bizarre phenomenon that people are going to react differently when their world is “turned upside down”.
I am sure David Andrew believes all the things that have happened to him. I personally think he has had a strange experience (or two) and then through out his life has linked up a series of unrelated events to fill in gaps, basically looking for answers.

 

[Blacknight]

I think we'all should remain open minded still, since there is enough evidence to suggest there is more to abductions than mere fantasies.

Well, the distance between hallucinations, illness, mental disease and other physiological/psychological causes and fantasy is huge. There is, quite simply, not one single bit of credible, verifiable, physical evidence to support an abduction. Unless and until there is, prudence warrants that our open minds attribute abductions to some logical cause, and aliens of any sort are so far down on that list of possibilities to not even be worth serious consideration. In fact, even fantasy IS higher on the list of logical possibilities than aliens would be.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I agree, but I intuit that there are key cases where these apparently ego-driven impulses resonate through culture and have end up having tremendous impact. The fact that you, an obviously aware person, watched some dude flex his muscles on youtube speaks volumes about the fractal nature of the internet. I also find it highly intriguing that you felt compelled to send Gene accounts of your "strange experiences." What WAS the motivation? But, I was addressing the fact that people are willing to set themselves up for social suicide by publicly embracing low-status subjects like UFOs and abductions. I have interviewed many people who are willing to tell an investigator anonymously about their experiences, but wouldn't even contemplate going on the record. Is there an over arching program/ agenda behind this compulsion of certain individuals to communicate their experiences to the culture at-large? Obviously, everything is relative but I suspect that the quality of this unfolding process is an important, key element we need to unravel the true nature of these events and those who experience them.

Christopher, Are you contemplating if the urgent need of some abductees to come out of the closet is caused by an external source, e.g., Jacques Vallee's "controllers"? I responded earlier with my amateur views of what might prompt an individual to spill the grey beans, so to speak. But if you are wondering about some sort of herd indoctrination program or other agenda by the Tricksters or Visitors, I can pretty much just shrug at this point. I dunno.

Seems to me if there is an external agenda to either make abductees look idiotic, that is working well. I remember how deeply disgusted I was by the much publicized CONFIRMATION TV special that Whitley Strieber helped put together from his book in 1999. Along with the usual terrifying memories retrieved only via repeated hypnotic regression, the program had special effects by Steve Neal of terrifying grey aliens looming into the TV screen along with spooky music. The host announcer appeared on a stage with dry ice smoke floating up to his knees, and he was dressed like a vampire. In fact, the set looked much like a graveyard. Some commentators in the ufo community later said that it set serious ufology back decades. Of course, this was before Exopolitics was around. They seem to think any publicity is good, even if it was a game show where contestants throw pies at abductees to win prizes.

If there is a plan to make abductees look credible, I have not seen it. Instead we have the "future of Ufology" (as they put it themselves) = Exopolitics. One of their latest interviews hosted by Alfred Webre is with Anthony Kane, who says he married a male Reptilian (gay marriage in outer space!) and would be a poster child for any psychologist or psychiatrist who would like to sharpen his/her nails on an abductee. Kane (in the same interview) said he was chased by hundreds of Seattle police one day, but it turned out they were imposters from the New World Order. It only gets worse and worse....I was waiting for him to announce proudly that he was carrying his partner's reptilian love child.

If there is a plan, it seems very subtle to me. I realize there are folks who believe that Hollywood and the secret government (!) have been in collusion for decades to prepare us for ET. Yet I just see a profit making machine with its pulse on the public's level of paranoia, need for comforting narratives (ET - the Extraterrestial), and renewed blood lust for action films like Independence Day (which I initially loathed by now enjoy in a campy macho sort of way - it is so absurd it is almost a modern day cult film in the making).

What did you mean by agenda? Maybe I interpreted your post totally wrong. Too bad we can't just use one magnificent symbol (provided by Jim Sparks) to completely contain all our thoughts on this subject.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Well, the distance between hallucinations, illness, mental disease and other physiological/psychological causes and fantasy is huge. There is, quite simply, not one single bit of credible, verifiable, physical evidence to support an abduction. Unless and until there is, prudence warrants that our open minds attribute abductions to some logical cause, and aliens of any sort are so far down on that list of possibilities to not even be worth serious consideration. In fact, even fantasy IS higher on the list of logical possibilities than aliens would be.

I suggest that your view depends on your ability to accept that there may be events and experiences that defy logic. I can sympathize with the intellectual desire to reduce all inexplicable experiences, e.g., Paul's blinding light transformation on the road to Damascus, ghosts, etc to logical explanations. As my dad used to say "If you see hoof prints, start out looking for a horse, not a unicorn!" Therefore, the first step in any investigation of a paranormal claim would be to check for logical explanations.

Nonetheless, we have to be open to the idea that these experiences may not fit within the already defined realm of our reality. Jacques Vallee often refers to the "controllers" or what we'd perhaps call trickster element in the paranormal - it seems to have its own intelligence that mocks us and teases us. We might eventually find proof that we share this world with entities that either can pop in or out of this energy frequency or hide in the cracks in the sidewalk (or maybe they can shrink down to the size of eye lash mites and live on the eyelids as I type this! Woo!).

 

[Kieran]

Well, the distance between hallucinations, illness, mental disease and other physiological/psychological causes and fantasy is huge. There is, quite simply, not one single bit of credible, verifiable, physical evidence to support an abduction. Unless and until there is, prudence warrants that our open minds attribute abductions to some logical cause, and aliens of any sort are so far down on that list of possibilities to not even be worth serious consideration. In fact, even fantasy IS higher on the list of logical possibilities than aliens would be.

Mate, I have looked into the eyes of my uncle and aunt when they convened the details of what occurred. They have told me about these experiences numerous time's, not out of impulse to tell me, but because I would ask them. I Never once said, what my uncle or aunt experienced was an Abduction event. Just in case people had those thoughts? I said, and convened in a previous thread Creatures came into their room, and those creatures had a similar appearance to what Whitley streiber described, with some differences in appearance. Did they leave physical traces no, did the leave any other type of evidence no. Are my uncle and aunt prone prone to any of the elements you mentioned no.
They've moved since from this house were this occurred. There was a history of experiencing odd phenomenon with this house before they moved in and after. There was a rumours of a ghost, in the house they learned that from their neighbours later. They never expected to experience what they did though. I have no problem showing were the house is, they don't live there any more, I haven't looked on Google earth or anything, But I Know of the location.

It is a fantasy to person who has never experienced such phenomenon. I understand that really i do, but I know what i know and what other people think doesn't change what i know.

 

[Roger]

Well, it was my idea to bring this guy on the show, ... dB

I think it was a very good idea. I'm a bit surprised to see the naysayers here. If it comes to nuts and bolts items like photo analysis, there is an ample opportunity for hard science; but when it comes to the human subject, it's dirty. Very dirty indeed. We all have our capabilities, limitations, motivations, and reactions. If you're going to study human behavior, you have to roll up your sleeves, prepare for the worse, and muster inhuman courage. There is no grand unified field theory of psychology and my bet is that there never will be. This can be unsatisfying for some. But, personally, not for me. i think we are a mystery living in a great mystery. Davide Andrew's case, I view, is one such mystery. It personally resonated as part of the mystery of which I speak; warts and all. Thank you DB for bringing Mr. Andrews onto the show.

-Regards
R

 

[SheaOlmsford]

I think it was a very good idea. I'm a bit surprised to see the naysayers here. If it comes to nuts and bolts items like photo analysis, there is an ample opportunity for hard science; but when it comes to the human subject, it's dirty. Very dirty indeed. We all have our capabilities, limitations, motivations, and reactions. If you're going to study human behavior, you have to roll up your sleeves, prepare for the worse, and muster inhuman courage. There is no grand unified field theory of psychology and my bet is that there never will be. This can be unsatisfying for some. But, personally, not for me. i think we are a mystery living in a great mystery. Davide Andrew's case, I view, is one such mystery. It personally resonated as part of the mystery of which I speak; warts and all. Thank you DB for bringing Mr. Andrews onto the show.

-Regards
R

Your points are well made. However, they could be taken to mean that you think there are no psychological or psychiatric standards by which a sense of emotional/mental stability can be measured. That would mean over 100 years of study and analysis of the brain and the mental state of humankind was all for naught. Instead, we should just consider the mind "mysterious" and close down the mental hospitals and diagnostic care and therapy that is offered to people suffering (truly suffering) from mental anguish, sometimes chemical in nature, other times brought on by trauma and shock.

To me the burden of proof on anyone telling a "tall tale" is on that person. There is no political correctness rule (at least not yet!) the requires anyone hearing this tale (who also had an interest in the paranormal) to simply accept that tale point blank. People can be deluded. People can lie. People can confabulate. People can confuse dreams and reality. People can have many motives for telling such tales. Certainly our position as listeners is not to immediately bebunk or malign the teller of the tale. Nonetheless, we have a right as listeners to evaluate that tale based on our own psychological dispositions, life experience, and opinions. I do not consider any of the posts here about David Andrew to be "naysayers". Not at all. They seem to be the honest reactions of people who may be experiencers themselves, or have a longterm personal interest in the field, or be judging the account based on other case studies on similar material. If you put your paranormal story out into the public, this is going to happen. Otherwise, you end up with Exopolitics, which includes people like Alfred Webre who believe EVERY STORY and present them without any sense of common sense critical analysis. Their "mouthpiece" is Camelot Interviews. You may wish to google this and check out their website. They have scores of interviews with such notables as John Lear, Steven Greer and some channelers of alien information and mysterious "whistleblowers". You will find no naysayers there. They honor the "mystery" of each tall tale but do they actually get anywhere closer to truth?

Peace to you!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Christopher, Are you contemplating if the urgent need of some abductees to come out of the closet is caused by an external source, e.g., Jacques Vallee's "controllers"?

YES, sorta. I suspect a deeply entrenched program of change has been set in place that has been designed to accomplish several tasks—one of them being: topple outmoded thinking within our static cultural belief system. For lack of a better term, I call the agent or antagonist of this change "Trickster(s)." In these interesting times, isn't it obvious? Individuals, groups and the masses are being manipulated into believing that change is manifesting in their environment perpetrated/programmed by beings coming here from outside this closed "Gaian" system in space. It doesn't matter if you believe in UFOs or aliens or not. This viral belief, meme/supermeme response has insidious impact across the entire culture and (IMO) is more important than the "nutz&boltz"/who,what,when and where.

Are we witnessing the rapid advancement of tricksterish times that will possibly topple religious, political, cultural and personal belief structures that have been entrenching themselves in place for that last three+thousand years? We are living within that overused Chinese curse of living in interesting times? I dunno, but I suspect that the Steven Andre Weber Greers (plus most folks) don't realize they are in a forest of trees in a quicksand swamp of our own design.

There are a lot of babies currently being bathed and we'd best double check the bathtubs before we decide to fling them dry.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

YES, sorta. I suspect a deeply entrenched program of change has been set in place that has been designed to accomplish several tasks—one of them being: topple outmoded thinking within our static cultural belief system. For lack of a better term, I call the agent or antagonist of this change "Trickster(s)." In these interesting times, isn't it obvious? Individuals, groups and the masses are being manipulated into believing that change is manifesting in their environment perpetrated/programmed by beings coming here from outside this closed "Gaian" system in space. It doesn't matter if you believe in UFOs or aliens or not. This viral belief, meme/supermeme response has insidious impact across the entire culture and (IMO) is more important than the "nutz&boltz"/who,what,when and where.

Are we witnessing the rapid advancement of tricksterish times that will possibly topple religious, political, cultural and personal belief structures that have been entrenching themselves in place for that last three+thousand years? We are living within that overused Chinese curse of living in interesting times? I dunno, but I suspect that the Steven Andre Weber Greers (plus most folks) don't realize they are in a forest of trees in a quicksand swamp of our own design.

There are a lot of babies currently being bathed and we'd best double check the bathtubs before we decide to fling them dry.

Is this necessarily bad? I suppose if a person is a right wing fundamentalist Christian conservative, then any change from memes that have been fossilizing over 2000+ years might seem very frightening, but to me this could be a good thing IF IF IF it means the human race will finally grow up and treat each other with respect and dignity for all (fat chance). We call them Controllers and Tricksters, but what is their message? THAT is what we must evaluate. Is it that humankind is moving to some sort of authoritarian facist dystopia? Is it a message that humans must respect the biosphere? Can we really trust that any so-called message we get from some self-proclaimed ufo cult or channeler of aliens is anything more than a projection of the human subconscious?

How do we know? Frankly, considering that the religious institutions are hopelessly locked into dogma and corruption, and our political system has been sold out to corporate interests and lobbyists, ask me if I care one bit if changes are coming, unless they are even worse?

 

[Xylo]

I am still finishing up this interview.

But what surprised me is how some of my own personal experiences mirrored Mr. Andrew's esperiences. I started a thread in the "Personal Experiences" forum before I had ever heard the interview, and as I was listening I was a bit surprised at two of the experiences: First was the "blue man" experience, as I remember talking about him (them) as a child, though I have no clear recollection of anything other than a blue glow associated with the memory. The second was the flying experience. I do remember flying once at an early age (8-10yrs old) but my experience did not include a belt, nor do I remember directing my flight, whether mentally or physically. I also felt as if I was being pulled from my chest region, rather than being pushed. (Whether my experiences were recurring dreams, completely imagined or real, I do not know with 100% confidence.)

That being said, I find Mr. Andrew's account of his other experiences a bit less believable, more perhaps because of the disjointed way in which they were presented. I don't believe that one would have UFO experiences and call himself a researcher yet not do a simple thing like check the NUFORC to corroborate or even to report the sighting. He also mentions his "research" regarding abductions/ experiencers but fails to mention what his research entailed, whether reading books, interviewing witnesses/experiencers or anything of the sort.

All in all it was a good interview and I do believe that Mr. Andrews had some legitimate experiences but he also had some experiences that he interpreted as paranormal when they were not. My only question is Mr. Andrew's motivation for coming into the national spotlight.

 

[chikane]

It seems that not many people have expressed this opinion but for me I have some problems with David andrew's story. When I first listened to his interview I'd notice here and there some incoherences or discrepancies. Actually, I even listened to the show one or two more times right after to pinpoint what sounded weird to me or incoherent on my first listening but couldn't come with something really clear at that time since the show lasts about two hours. So recently I decided to listen again to the show while taking some notes so I could compare or go back to what was said previously and figure out what were those problems I'd felt. So here are a few points which cause me some problems with his testimony :

- At the beginning, he starts saying that his memories are conscious memories as if they happened yesterday and very unlike dreams. Actually we can see that all his memories (the ones with interactions with some beings) in fact happened after he had awoken from a previous sleeping period and usually end up awakening again after some "gap" with no recollection in between. At the end of the show he'd also admit that his experiences could be dreams which contradicts what he has stated at the beginning.

- in his first memory at the age of 4, he wakes up te see a grey's face at the end of his bed. He says that he is "scared to death", but nonetheless he'd stay in his bed staring at the being until the tiredness would make him fall asleep again. I have much difficulty here to believe this scenario. How can a young boy of 4 years old could calmly stay staring at a perfect stranger moreover non human, a few from him in his room and, while being scared to death fall asleep again as being too tired? The most probable or natural reaction for a very young boy in such a situation I believe, would be to jump out of the bed as soon as the being has disapperead and go straight to his parents'room to wake them up and tell them what had just happened though they may say that it was only a bad dream. And actually, this is a reaction I had already heard from people who had this kind of experience on other talkshows. I can say for myself that after I had a strange experience one night, I was feeling quite uneasy right after and couldn't fall asleep again and I quit my flat as soon as I could that morning (which may have made my boss happy to me see me that early that day ) although I was much older and it wasn't as weird as having some kind of extraterrestrial being right next to me!

- At the beginning of the show he says that he may have talked to his parents about his experiences but may have got the typical answer "this is just a bad dream". However, he later says that his father and his brother acknowledged having being tested by these white beings on their hability to fly with the belt device the same way it happened to him. He even says that their experiences have lasted longer than his (15 min instead of 5 min), so we can imagine that they have quite good recollections of these experiences. The point is that it doesn't fit with the fact that he pretends not having talked much about these experiences with his family (how could he come with such details if so) and that his parents wouldn't believe his stories when he would have spoke to them about it.

- He says he doesn't believe the people who recount numerous detailed experiences and that he have only a few ones like this. However he later states that he had encounter the blue beings only two times and that they're different from the white beings that have plagued most of his life. Here again, it seems he have a lot of other memories not so vague since he's at least able to distinguish between these two types of beings (and even give an approximate height for each of them).

- He says he has not been interested to ask these beings who they are, where do they come from and why they bother with him. Due to the extraordinary aspects of these experiences, I found this disinterest astounding. Here again, maybe it's my assumption , but I believe that upon living such incredible experiences everyone would be willing to understand about their origin and meaning, no?

- One last thing is the nature of his experiences. I really can't see the point of being taught to fly with a belt device or seeing trough eyes closed. It seems to me so down-to-earth or like pure human sci-fi compared to the strangeness of the context, I mean being visited by some kind of strange beings. This kind of things reminds me of false claims of contactees being taught some spiritual awakening by supernatural beings though here I can't see any spiritual matter in these experiences.

Since he said his father and brother had similar experiences, it can't be dreams (what would be the chance that 3 persons of the same family having the same strange dream), so I assume that there is basically two possibilities. Or he's totally sincere, and I my impressions are wrong or what he says are just stories. Another possibility would also be that he had some real expriences but had somehow invented other ones.

Having said this, I don't want to sound like I want to detract everything he has said or like a personnal attack (I do feel people are quite paranoid in the field of ufology), actually I had listened to him on other talkshows before and at the time felt he was a sincere and serious person but I must say that his interview on the paracast left me with mixed feelings. Like many, I'm just interested in the subject of ufos but really sick of those frauds who pollute the field for any bad reason and prevent the subject to be seriously considered. So maybe my doudts are unfunded but I really felt some discrepancies or incoherences with his testimony and felt compelled to express them.