Feb 22nd show

[skunkape]

Could you say more about this, please?

Here's a good place to start.
Search the database for 'archons.'

The Hypostasis of the Archons -- The Nag Hammadi Library

 

[BrandonD]

Here's a good place to start.
Search the database for 'archons.'

The Hypostasis of the Archons -- The Nag Hammadi Library

The gnostic mythos of the human condition is one of the religious models that best reflects reality, in my opinion.

 

[Kevin Daly]

I was a little surprised to hear Rich give credence to the "International Bankers" conspiracy idea - I'm guessing he hasn't encountered some of the really loony stuff that makes it clear that "International Bankers" is a codeword for ITJITYG (It's The Jews I Tell You, Goddamit). I used to read Rense.com and saw a lot of that as it degenerated into a transcript of Mel Gibson's subconscious.

My own take on the role of bankers is that it's like the hive mind thing: lots of organisations and individuals pursuing their perceived self-interest according to a shared view of how the world works can produce an effect that looks like conspiracy while not being anything so organised.

Of course there are times when certain memes are deliberately injected into society with devastating effect: look at the way loopy Ayn Rand disciples have successfully created a generation who believe that "Market Forces Are The Only Way And Nothing Must Get In Their Way" is a rule of nature. But they didn't need a conspiracy, they were just very effective at intellectually cloning themselves.

I was pleased though to hear his response to the Peckman question: it reassured me that he hasn't after all gone off the Paola scale of credulity (-50 Paola is a Klass, in case you wanted to know).

 

[Frootloop]

Really great interview this one, I managed to get all the way through it even with a real bad headache 'for effective relief from headache, take two ibuprofen and one episode of The Paracast'

Personally, I dont think 'we' as a species know what the exact nature of the UFO phenomenon is. Sure..... there may be those who 'know' a bit more than others by stubling upon a clue, guesswork or by parts of an unwanted experience, but we are likely a long way off from a unified theory of not just the various 'experiences' but the true nature of reality as a whole.

We probably simply dont have the capacity to comprehend it, maybe that will come with our own evolution?

 

[subject x]

Just finished listening to the episode. Another good job.
Mr Dolan seems to know a lot about the history of "ufology", and has some good opinions about how things are tied together. Some I agree with, some I don't, but I find that in everything.

He does, however, seem to give more credance to the "woo-woo" set than I would. I suppose, though, that in writing about the topic you have to be able to add them into the mix, as they are undeniably there.

Keep up the good work. As frustrating as it gets, it's still important.

 

[Gen]

Hey Gen, I may be not on quite the same page as chuckleberryfinn, but I think they be referring to the concept in Gnosticism of the beings known as Archons...

I knew nothing about this, and it's exactly the kind of stuff I really get into. Thank you.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Could you say more about this, please?

I will, yes. My speculations have nothing to do with what one may find in the Nag Hammadi documents, such as Hypostasis of the Archons. I will talk to y'all about it later.

 

[CapnG]

I was a little surprised to hear Rich give credence to the "International Bankers" conspiracy idea - I'm guessing he hasn't encountered some of the really loony stuff that makes it clear that "International Bankers" is a codeword for ITJITYG (It's The Jews I Tell You, Goddamit). I used to read Rense.com and saw a lot of that as it degenerated into a transcript of Mel Gibson's subconscious.

Well, Bilderberg is a real group and the World Bank is certainly real, so it's no conspiracy to say these people exist. It's only when you start speculating on goals that you can trapse off into jack-booted paranoia.

I was pleased though to hear his response to the Peckman question: it reassured me that he hasn't after all gone off the Paola scale of credulity (-50 Paola is a Klass, in case you wanted to know).

You should watch that. We have enough trouble as it is working out imperial vs metric. God knows where we'll wind up the moment we start calculating how many Korffs there are to a Greer...

Anyhoo... Rich Dolan always makes for a good show. His entusiasm is boundless and his knowledge encyclopedic and yet he's not really married to any of it. He's more than happy to debate, question or re-evaluate any part of this topic without bristling in defense of his own position (although obviously he does have his own opinions on certain issues). That's what really makes him a "good guy" in this field, the willingness to engage in a dialogue and it's why Rich and the Paracast are a great mix.

That said, he could do with replacing his grey box with a series of progressively lighter and darker grey boxes. At least three anyway (probably true, don't know and probably fake). Giving equally footing to say LMH and the drones simply because of her preivious work or extending a free pass to likes of Bob Dean and Clifford Stone because they're friends of his erodes Rich's credibility somewhat in-so-much-as it speaks to, if not a lack of objectivity, a variable objectivity.

 

[CinderMoltenHowl]

I love it when my name is mentioned in any podcast. Any publicity is good for me nowadays.

The thought of me getting shafted by a fellow colleague gets me excited, even at my age.

Peace.

 

[marmer]

Enjoyed it, as I always do with Rich. I was a little surprised to hear how quiet David was, though David has explained his frustration with Rich, both on the show and in this forum.

I can sorta understand Rich's unwillingness to criticize the people he's going to run into at every conference. I think, too, a historian has learn to try to find kernels of helpful information in highly speculative sources even when he finds the sources less than credible. It sure seems to me that any serious study of, say, pre-1900 history would have that problem.

I understand why questions about Rich's wife might seem inappropriate, but certainly a little more digging about Rich's increased turn toward political conspiracy and 9/11 conspiracy studies would have been nice, and especially the Laura Knight book review. Even if it was couched in "some of the forum readers are wondering why you take this seriously or some such."

 

[7 String]

I enjoyed the history lesson here today. Rich is definitely a wealth of knowledge. I was a little discouraged by some of the things he was on the fence about or had no reason not to believe.

I gotta say though he in my opinion is a UFO historian and he is placing people and events in time tables of activity. Right wrong or indifferent he's listed the all the players, no bias. Yeah that may bring some piss in the pool, but every pool has an opportunity to become an open sewer. It's for the rest of us to be wise to who is credible and who's a douche bag.

Being an experiencer myself I naturally want answer and have my own strong opinions. I have not buried myself in the study of it,,, I unfortunately have to fix guitars for a living ; ) It is frustrating but there is alot of good information that he can bring to the table and he seemed to be willing to listen to reason. I'm not sure if Rich has ever really been put to task on his logic. I'd like to see him back again.

Don't get me wrong I have a ton of respect for the man, I guess I was really hoping for some strong debate based on mutual respect and logic.
Still alot of good stuff.

Great show!

~A

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I will, yes. My speculations have nothing to do with what one may find in the Nag Hammadi documents, such as Hypostasis of the Archons. I will talk to y'all about it later.

A basic idea of Gnosticism is the division between Deity and intermediate deity. Some gnostics view this division as troubling because the sub-deity has presumably made some mistakes. What mistakes? No one can really say for sure, but the mistakes allegedly become apparent when we view the many evils that humans endure, such as war, disease, famine, slavery, and the rest.

What, then, is the relation between these evils and the UFO phenomenon? I will not say that the relation forcibly impacts the mind and makes these musings significant or even noteworthy. It is weak correlation. Take the possible UFO sighting in 329 BC in Greece, according to Alexander the Great's historians (see here: http://www.ufologie.net/indexe.htm).

329 BC, GREECE, ALEXANDER THE GREAT, VIA HIS HISTORIANS:"...told of 2 strange objects in the sky that dived repeatedly at his army as they were attempting a river crossing. (Jaxartes River). The action so panicked his elephants, horses, and men they had to abandon the river crossing until the following day. They were described as great silver shields, spitting fire around the rims."


We have here weak evidence indicating a correlation between massive warfare and UFOs. So far as evidence goes, it doesn't get much weaker than 2000+ year old documents from the Greek empire. But if we take the report at face value, then UFOs appear to have played a part in provoking the Greeks to warfare or else in preventing them from invading a protected group. Moreover, many tales in the Old Testament seem to indicate UFO involvement in Hebrew warfare. See the many instances in which the so-called Ark of the Covenant, possibly a technological device, won an impossible battle for the Hebrews by wiping out their enemies. Also, if one believes the story of the Hebrew Exodus, then UFOs may have led Moses and his tribe throughout the desert for a number of years. For more information about the possibility of non-human involvement in Hebrew affairs, particularly where it concerns the Ark of the Covenant, see an article by Don Ecker in Vol.14, No. 6, 1999, of UFO magazine, "One God or One Overseer."

If an intermediate deity created the human experience, the UFO phenomenon is one possible way that it might interact with its creation. What if the alleged abduction reports, such as those described in Raymond Fowler's books, indicate that the sub deity has set to work an army of little grey men to maintain Earth and its people? Yes, what if the genetic experiments which may be taking place indicate a maintenance operation. The UFO phenomenon could also be a conditioninig phenomenon, a tool that the sub deity uses to influence the thinking of its creation.

All extremely speculative, yes, but it is a troubling and scary possibility to consider that an intermediate deity, possibly one that doesn't have our care in mind, plays a very deep and influential role in the human experience, particularly in some of the darker aspects of it described above. Have these creatures engineered diseases to infect our population? Do they play a role in spurring international conflict?

 

[CapnG]

All extremely speculative, yes, but it is a troubling and scary possibility to consider that an intermediate deity, possibly one that doesn't have our care in mind, plays a very deep and influential role in the human experience, particularly in some of the darker aspects of it described above.

It is only by virtue of human vanity that we assume any deity operates with our care and benefit in mind; intermediate, ultimate or otherwise. Assuming again of course that any such deities even exist.

 

[dragon376]

Richard Nolan talks about how soon are we going to run out of petrolum since the demand doubles every 25 years...
Here is a interesting video on the subject. After seeing this, I sincerely hope that the US government has another way of creating energy, because there is a good chance we will experience the end of the petroleum era in our lifetime.


Here is the beginning of the video which talks about the problem of steady growth in general, not just energy problem.

 

[cmbezln]

two things about this show i'd like to point out (im sure at least one of them might have been pointed out in this thread)

1) antimosity between david and richard near the end? maybe im imagining things

2) David Bietny: you SERIOUSLY need to get over the whole "scene" thing. WE GET IT, there are people in the field that are full of sweet bologna. It's not rocket science to understand that

what bothers me is that out of anything out there right now, this show in particular has more potiential than anything else. I hear Richard Dolan getting into some deep, amazing stuff and doing PROGRESSIVE work in the field and the whole time i'm just thinking "okay, gene....simmer down because david needs to run with this convertation" because david has the ability moreso than anyone to get into these complex and deep conversation as he has in the past

BUT instead i keep hearing the same speil i hear in every show focusing on the PEOPLE in the field and just getting COMPLETELY hung up over it. So instead of hearing the conversation reach its full potential, I'm (as a listener) brought down by the same RAW RAW FIGHT THE POWAH bull***t i hear every week from Bietny.

it's like....DOLAN (out of all people) could be recounting a story that happened to him last week in which the ambassidor of the alien presence landed in his yard and explained every unanswered question he had while he was with bob lazar and all of a sudden the conversation becomes "yeeeeeeaaaah, i really gotta wonder about that bob lazar guy...just muddying up the field RAW RAW RAW"


i stopped listening to the show about a month ago and came back for THIS episode and for the most part it didnt dissapoint, but it just hurts me to see bietny bringing down the show with this stuff again when he's got so much more potential intellectually. If you're that sick of the circus, get out of the tent my friend.

signing off
cmbezln

ps....not expecting much of a response to this from david or forumers (if not backlash)....just giving my initial reaction to the show. Feel free to fulfill my expectations.

 

[wicro]

two things about this show i'd like to point out (im sure at least one of them might have been pointed out in this thread)

1) antimosity between david and richard near the end? maybe im imagining things

2) David Bietny: you SERIOUSLY need to get over the whole "scene" thing. WE GET IT, there are people in the field that are full of sweet bologna. It's not rocket science to understand that

what bothers me is that out of anything out there right now, this show in particular has more potiential than anything else. I hear Richard Dolan getting into some deep, amazing stuff and doing PROGRESSIVE work in the field and the whole time i'm just thinking "okay, gene....simmer down because david needs to run with this convertation" because david has the ability moreso than anyone to get into these complex and deep conversation as he has in the past

BUT instead i keep hearing the same speil i hear in every show focusing on the PEOPLE in the field and just getting COMPLETELY hung up over it. So instead of hearing the conversation reach its full potential, I'm (as a listener) brought down by the same RAW RAW FIGHT THE POWAH bull***t i hear every week from Bietny.

it's like....DOLAN (out of all people) could be recounting a story that happened to him last week in which the ambassidor of the alien presence landed in his yard and explained every unanswered question he had while he was with bob lazar and all of a sudden the conversation becomes "yeeeeeeaaaah, i really gotta wonder about that bob lazar guy...just muddying up the field RAW RAW RAW"


i stopped listening to the show about a month ago and came back for THIS episode and for the most part it didnt dissapoint, but it just hurts me to see bietny bringing down the show with this stuff again when he's got so much more potential intellectually. If you're that sick of the circus, get out of the tent my friend.

signing off
cmbezln

ps....not expecting much of a response to this from david or forumers (if not backlash)....just giving my initial reaction to the show. Feel free to fulfill my expectations.

One of UFOlogys greatest problems is there is no accepted legitimized body of knowledge precluding it from being an academic discipline (at least to a certain extent). What we are left with is eyewitness testimony, filtered through what ever medium they report the event, filtered through the researchers. Ignoring the 'hard' evidence for one moment; (such as radar, trace or photographic evidence) then when it come to critiquing UFOlogy in general then we are left with how much we can afford to believe in the worldview of others, as no researcher is 'neutral' and are certainly not peer reviewed to vet the obvious mistakes. We have no 'UFOs' to study!

This leaves us with the situation then, how do we produce anything of value from the amassed data? I'm not really sure if there is an answer to this question, but I can appreciate that one method would be attempt to engage in a discourse with the researchers and see if there are fundamental flaws in the analysis, or if their data set comes from a dubious source (however you define that).

Unfortunately this means critiquing people, as well as reports rather than any 'hard' evidence. How can one investigate, for instance, Roswell without getting bogged down with the personalities involved? We have no other tangible evidence to 'examine'. I think within UFOlogy that this is the nature of the beast. It is in fact, the nature of the beast in almost all disciplines. The area I'm interested in for instance, sociology, is riddled with schism and competing ideologies, its just they are concealed (somewhat) within academic language and the aura of 'respectability' which UFOlogy often lacks.

If I had one suggestion for the show, it would be break up the 'UFOlogical stuff' with guests that come from different disciplines, such as parapsychology, cryptzoology, psychologist, historians, anthropologists (It would be nice to hear from Chris Roth again for instance!) etc more often where there may be more 'tangible' areas to debate that don't focus on the 'personality problem' (or at least to a lesser extent). It may also add a few years to Mr Bidenys life !

 

[Apocalypto]

Thanks for all the kind comments and feedback, folks, it means the world to read all your thoughts and get some supportive words. When I read the kind of thoughtful commentary that you all take the time to post, it very much reminds me why I have to keep doing this with Gene. If we don't, who will?

dB

Funny enough, a couple of weeks ago I was thinking the exact same sort of thing, but from the perspective of one of your loyal listeners. I say THANK YOU to you and Gene for doing what you are doing. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

Can't thank you guys enough. Seriously, you're the BOMB out there. I have spent my entire life pondering this subject, and you two are the only ones who have consistently made good, solid sense on the matter.

I'm originally from Quebec. There's a French expression that I love - "Lâche pas!" It means "Don't give up!" When it's spoken by a French person it comes across with their inherent passion for life. I've always know that PERSISTENCE is the key...

And once again, I say THANK YOU to you and Mr. Steinberg for doing the great work that you do, and with every ounce of respect and gratitude I can muster, I say, "Lâche pas!"

 

[David Biedny]

2) David Bietny: you SERIOUSLY need to get over the whole "scene" thing. WE GET IT, there are people in the field that are full of sweet bologna. It's not rocket science to understand that

Based on the way the mainstream media treats the subject, and the respect paid to charlatans within the field, I would have to disagree with the notion that it's not "rocket science". I've listened to other shows in this genre, and it's pretty clear to me that are precious few are approaching this from the critical side of the equation. And while I would agree with you that I sometimes go overboard with my expressions of frustration, the fact is that this show serves as both an intellectual and emotional outlet for me, so it's likely to assume that my responses to things will sometimes be extreme - the field is extreme. If there were not so many charlatans and dolts involved in the field, I'd have a hell of a lot less complaining to do.

And look, it's not like every Paracast episode is exclusively devoted to my complaints, or even tearing down morons; I think we've got a fairly good balance of constructive and critical conversation going on, and the amount of email we get from folks confirming this seems to weigh in to that effect. You'd all be surprised how many people are not comfortable participating in a public forum, but seem willing to send us private emails, often lengthy ones, thanking us for taking a hard line. It certainly surprises me.

dB

 

[exo_doc]

Well, Bilderberg is a real group and the World Bank is certainly real, so it's no conspiracy to say these people exist. It's only when you start speculating on goals that you can trapse off into jack-booted paranoia.

If you have the Bilderberg Group in direct control over the World Bank, I would not call speculating on their goals necessarily "jack-booted paranoia".....I would call it "Logical Extension".

Think about it....a collection of the worlds richest and most influencial people with dirtect control over the worlds banking.
If getting a particular person elected means more money or power in your pocket, what's to stop you? Your own morals?
If war in one country leads to freeing up natural resources for the taking, what's to stop you?
If rampant (or the appearance of rampant) terrorism frightens people into giving up their basic freedoms for the illusion of protection thereby giving you even more say-so and power over world events, what would stop you?

The bottom line is, if, and I stress IF, the Bilderbergs do indeed have that much power to control things,...what on earth is there to stop them from doing things to increase their power and line their pockets?

That's not paranoia,...that's human nature.

 

[CapnG]

The bottom line is, if, and I stress IF, the Bilderbergs do indeed have that much power to control things,...what on earth is there to stop them from doing things to increase their power and line their pockets?

That's not paranoia,...that's human nature.

You'll get no argument from me, it as you said a matter of logical extension. The paranoia aspect however comes in when one makes the leap from "they could do this" to "they're probably doing this" and then ultimately to "they ARE doing this and WE need to stop them!!!"

Remember that consoidation of power is not in-and-of itself evil, it's the way that power is applied to the populace.