-
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!
February 26, 2017 — Jim Marrs
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
Free episodes:
matthew1977
Paranormal Maven
just listened to the show, Jim Marrs is always interesting. I' d love to hear an interaction between him & John Lear going back & forth regarding various conspiracies. I hadn't heard the rumor about J.E. Hoover being gay before. I viewed the knee jerk reactions to pro Trump comments regarding hushing Jim to be hypocritical as a few pro-left views were allowed to be shared. (censor all or nothing political, can't have one sidedness) Gene, you are like my wife, she always has to have the last word (or poke).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
ChrisJohnsen
Paranormal Adept
There is a political thread where both sides are represented. We actually keep political commentary on The Paracast at the minimum nowadays. What "pro-left" views did you hear on the Marrs episode?
Having the last word? Our show — our rules!
Mr. Fibuli
Paranormal Adept
Don't you mean... "Our show rules!" ?
Listeners feedback is absolutely wanted and listened to - especially subscribers. It is your right, maybe even duty, to let the guys know what you do like about the content you pay for as well as what you do not like. Personally, for years I have suggested that some shows be extended up to an hour extra - you know when a show is really really good and it seems it's over too soon with so much left to ask and discuss? ATP has provided that sometimes when the main guest agrees to a follow-up recording (ATP) and we get to cover more from guests who have lots to offer. Often the guest cannot or will not appear on ATP that week, so maybe then sometimes the ATP content isn't as worthwhile as it is at other times.
Bottom line is, if you have a suggestion for something that is not already being done by the show in ATP (or the main show), by all means send in suggestions. I personally am all ears and would promise to ensure Chris n Gene get briefed on such a request. There is lots of scope for audience feedback being taken seriously and acted upon, as long as people let us know what they want and do not want. Don't be shy folks, everyone is entitled to contribute, there is no 'insiders club' that get special treatment. If you listen to the show, your opinion and thoughts absolutely count.
Of course, 'nasty' could be used by the 'down with it' youth of today in the same way that someone may describe something as 'sick' but actually meaning something good or positive. In that sense, I'm happy to be called a real 'nasty piece of work!'
Appreciate defending me and my lack of 'nastiness' !
Goggs you're a legend!
The exact opposite of nasty
I am indeed a leg-end, based loosely on a real event with a modicum of truth, but ultimately mostly untrue!
ChrisJohnsen
Paranormal Adept
I am indeed a leg-end, based loosely on a real event with a modicum of truth, but ultimately mostly untrue!
Is there any guest(s) you would like on the show? Also, would you ever consider appearing on a listener roundtable show? I think it vital that listener guests are not automatically people who love everything about the show and only praise it - you seem to speak your mind, good and bad so I for one would support having you on. What do you think? A fair number of listeners have been on over the years, listeners with very different views and dislikes etc and bringing on listeners is a feature of the Paracast I commend highly. We have some amazing intellects in the forum, people far better qualified than I to speak on many subjects and people might be surprised at the number of members who have been invited on several times but never accepting - the show absolutely at least tries to get members on that represent the spectrum of views held but many have busy lives and some just don't feel comfortable at the thought of being broadcast....
technomage
Paranormal Adept
I meant "nasty" in the most negative context you can imagine.
Ah well, negative nasty it is.
technomage
Paranormal Adept
I think this was a very entertaining show and I didn't have the problems some others have had. I think Chris tended to trot into political territory as much as Jim Marrs did and Gene did a good job of keeping it under control. Regarding learning something new, that's rare period; partly because I've heard so many shows on all the different paranormal topics already and partly because there is not much new information to learn; that's the nature of the subject.
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
I commend Gene and Chris and their peers in this biz for sticking with it. Look at C2C now. Noory spends as much time on 'health issues' as he does any of the things that made the show interesting to begin with. That's a big reason I started turning it off, along with Knapp increasingly doing stories on the Mob in Vegas and going down Memory Lane in the music industry when there was a time you could always count on him for a UFO show at least once a week. Like it or not, that show was the juggernaut of UFOs and paranormal for a long time. I think Gene and Chris and Don Ecker and some others prove that such a show can still be done on these subjects, and I still think on a daily format, but it will mean having some guests on that irritate the pissy element or the purists of the audience. I'd rather have a show with every episode being on the paranormal, UFOs etc etc and have to endure the occasional thing with which I might disagree or think is BS. I know that when I listen to an ep of The Paracast I'm gonna get the 'para' stuff.
Last edited:
SheaOlmsford
Paranormal Adept
There is a HUGE aspect of ufology that seems to often be totally ignored by the Paracast. That aspect is what is lumped together under the word EXOPOLITICS. Like it or not, this is a giant growing part of ufology. Now, you can have your own opinion about whether this growth is cancerous and malignant, or just part of the whimsical fantasy light side of ufology. This would include modern contactees, people like Sheryl Wilde, all the New Age groupies, and the bizarre but entertaining wild stories of Aryan space babes from the Pleiades who come to Earth because they love the cosmetics industry! LOL
Now, I would not expect the Paracast to present any representatives from this field without comment. Certainly, Gene and Chris could POLITELY ask the kind of questions that many of us ask, such as "Are you out of your mind?!?!" Just kidding. But such a guest could serve as an interesting investigation into the psychology of people who have a need to mindlessly believe in people like Corey Goode and David Wilcock. Is it an authoritative personality type that gravitates to dogmatic but totally unproved stories of secret space programs and Nazi bases on the moon during WW2? For me, it isn't the wild tales, although they can be great fun like an old Flash Gordon movie serial. For me it would be fascinating to have a penetrating look at the person who believes all this stuff. Who knows? Perhaps in the case of Contactees, they actually have been told all the things they believe. If true, does that mean that Jacques Vallee and John Keel are correct, that the ufo phenomena is the trickster in scientific costume? Or is there a "real" nuts and bolts phenomena that the trickster copies? Or is the entire phenomena ephemeral, with the ability to become nuts and bolts on cue for short periods?
I offer these as some thoughts on a potential new area to explore. It would require a tiny smidgen of the old David Beidny approach in terms of asking penetrating questions POLITELY. While I know this is done now, it would be interesting to me to have an occasional Exopolitics or actual contactee type guest on simply for this sort of evaluation, since such people are never questioned about such issues on other shows. The usual strategy is for the host, e.g., George Noory, to accept everything such a guest says with total respect and affirmation. Consequently, the listener learns nothing new.
To ignore this GIANT area of ufology is akin to the USA at one time ignoring the existence of red China, refusing to accept the communist government's existence there, consequently ignoring the existence of over 1.3 billion people. In a very humble way, this can be the way it is with ufology when various large segments are ignored.
In case it is not clear, I personally have NO belief in anything Exopolitics is doing or saying. Nonetheless, I do find it all fascinating and a great psychological study of the human's ability to believe just about any dang thing with zero proof. Such people have responded to my disbelieve by claiming I am aligned with the "Dark Side", a lost soul, jealous (?), unenlightened, evil, and (of course) a government and/or Illuminati spy. Why are humans so susceptible to believing wild things on faith? This intrigues and terrifies me.
ChrisJohnsen
Paranormal Adept
Let me politely offer a dissenting view regarding "exopolitics" and it's inclusion, or lack thereof, on The Paracast. Whereas I do not disagree with your assessment that it is, disturbingly, a growing segment within Ufology, I don't think The Paracast needs to invite the charlatans responsible for this growing movement on the show just to spout their fanciful nonsense. Your interest in having the Wilcocks of the world on the show as a way to hopefully examine their "psychology" and produce a better understanding of "why they believe what they do" is, in my opinion, a fool's errand and rather uninteresting (to me). If you've ever seen any of these people interviewed elsewhere (I have), you know they are so full of their own bullshit that there is no talking sense to them. It's the equivalent of talking to an Evangelical Christian. You're not going to gain any insight into the reasoning behind their beliefs, you are just going to get brainwashed nonsense. Which is fine (live and let live) but I don't have any interest in being exposed to it for 2 hours on The Paracast. Keep your Steve Bassetts, Alfred Webres, Michael Sallas, David Wilcocks, et al. away from this show and let them show up on C2C, Veritas w/Mel Fabregas and other shows of that ilk. By the way, Bassett has been on the show in the past and if memory serves, during his last appearance, I think he got his feathers quite ruffled by the questioning Gene and Chris put him under. I would be surprised if he'd want to come back in to the arena for another round. Although he does strike me as a "true believer" and always thirsty for publicity. I most recently heard an interview he did a few weeks ago on The Unexplained w/Howard Hughes and his claims were even more ludicrous than I previously remembered from his Paracast interview, judiciously updated with references to Hillary Clinton and Podesta, the election and how we were SO close to disclosure until... D'OH! Satan's Cheeto wins! Waaaa! Waaaa! Back to the drawing board, Stevie.
mikeclr
Skilled Investigator
Chris - I know I'm a little late to the table on this, but THANK YOU for calling out Tom Delonge at the beginning of the show. I can't believe the amount of coverage and gravitas this obvious dupe is getting.
I would love to see him on the show so he could be questioned by someone who isn't kissing his d-rate celebrity butt.
I agree with your comments entirely, he's seems to be little more than an arrogant, narcissistic know it all. Oh, he has the answers...but he can't talk about them now.
At least not until the t-shirts come out.
I would love to see him on the show so he could be questioned by someone who isn't kissing his d-rate celebrity butt.
I agree with your comments entirely, he's seems to be little more than an arrogant, narcissistic know it all. Oh, he has the answers...but he can't talk about them now.
At least not until the t-shirts come out.
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
At the 2014 SSP conference, Bassett was simply asked to sit in on a closing panel the first day, because he was attending the event. He parlayed that into acting like he was the central figure of the panel and that everyone in the crowd was in his camp (They weren't.). A bunch of us were reacting like 'WTF?!' as he hogged the mic and the conversation. This was an event at which the audience pretty much heckled the few New Agers from the question mic the minute they started their 'space brotherhood' sermons. Think what you want about the SSP issue (and I don't really care so I'm not inviting the kneejerk compulsion some have to debate everything at all times, lol), the point here is that the crowd was not there for the usual UFO/ET/Disclosure/Cosmic New Age BS and they let these evangelists know it. Jay Weidner and I did a similar thing (rather politely) when the Wilcock/Goode emissary kicked off the audience question on the first day's closing panel at the 2015 SSP conference. The audience was appreciative, too, because they were not there for that stuff -- and they were vocal about it. Dr LaViolette, JPF, and the others on the panel agreed with us. Again, whatever your feelings are about the SSP issue, the point is that we weren't going to let the usual ET-Disclosure-Galactic High Blue Kazoo evangelism usurp the event (and their ranks hate it). These folks are operating under a model that I think is finally losing the reins of public discourse on these things.
Personally, I truly prefer to hear a show where the guest is given a zone to share their ideas and research, etc, without it becoming a 60 Minutes gotcha arena. It simply doesn't make me feel like a superior intellect because a personal opinion has been championed by a like-minded host. Because one or two genuine frauds have been exposed doesn't mean every researcher, author etc needs to be approached and treated like they too are a fraud. What I like about Chris grilling a guest a bit is that he is a genuine researcher himself. It's more like a 'peer' review when Chris and guys like him do it -- and that is what I prefer about the Paracast, and Don Ecker too, as opposed to some other shows. It makes all the difference when a guy who's been out there and done it himself (and has also experienced the weirdness) is doing the questioning. Why? Because if you can stand your ground and demonstrate to guys like these that you're sincere and presenting legitimate stuff, you'll have no better ally. When I do radio Misterioso, it doesn't piss me off when Greg Bishop asks a question that coming from anyone else would be a BS ahole attempt to smear you on the air -- because I know Greg, I know he's the real deal, I know his questions are sincere inquiry and I should be able to give a valid answer (so it's better for me to engage). I have no respect for contrarianism for its own sake but under the circumstances I've just identified I think it's a good thing.
Personally, I truly prefer to hear a show where the guest is given a zone to share their ideas and research, etc, without it becoming a 60 Minutes gotcha arena. It simply doesn't make me feel like a superior intellect because a personal opinion has been championed by a like-minded host. Because one or two genuine frauds have been exposed doesn't mean every researcher, author etc needs to be approached and treated like they too are a fraud. What I like about Chris grilling a guest a bit is that he is a genuine researcher himself. It's more like a 'peer' review when Chris and guys like him do it -- and that is what I prefer about the Paracast, and Don Ecker too, as opposed to some other shows. It makes all the difference when a guy who's been out there and done it himself (and has also experienced the weirdness) is doing the questioning. Why? Because if you can stand your ground and demonstrate to guys like these that you're sincere and presenting legitimate stuff, you'll have no better ally. When I do radio Misterioso, it doesn't piss me off when Greg Bishop asks a question that coming from anyone else would be a BS ahole attempt to smear you on the air -- because I know Greg, I know he's the real deal, I know his questions are sincere inquiry and I should be able to give a valid answer (so it's better for me to engage). I have no respect for contrarianism for its own sake but under the circumstances I've just identified I think it's a good thing.