February 26, 2017 — Jim Marrs

[SPX]

It's interesting to read the mixed reactions here to Marrs.

Personally, I felt like this was the best show I've heard on The Paracast in quite a while. Too often I feel like the episodes come off as more of a meandering, impromptu chat but this show felt more tightly focused and I was engaged from beginning to end.

I can understand the misgivings about Marrs, though. I'm not entirely sure what to think of him. He has legit journalistic credentials, that much can't be denied. But he also comes off sometimes like Bill Birnes, as if he accepts every conspiracy claim at face value. The brief Titanic/Olympic discussion just kind of solidified that for me.

 

[SPX]

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.

I eventually quit listening to C2C for this very reason. The subjects covered and guests just weren't interesting me very much. They would maybe have two or three shows that actually interested me and that just wasn't enough to keep me engaged. Oh, and also I eventually realized that Noory just kind of sucks as a host as it became clear that he was phoning it in every night.

Sometimes I'll go back and listen to old Art Bell episodes but that's about it. It's unfortunate because I have very fond memories of listening to C2C in the early 00s.

It's also a shame that Art's Midnight in the Desert didn't really work out. I'm still not sure what to think of his claims about people coming onto his property and shooting at him. I know a lot of people aren't buying it.

 

[Azz7092]

thanks for asking my questions guys i just wanted to hear Jim's hypothesis.

 

[marduk]

From Rule By Secrecy:

"Life on Earth evolved based on its one-year orbit around the sun, the solar year. Life on Nibiru developed based on its one-year orbit around the sun--3,600 years to Earthlings. It then stands to reason that life on Nibiru would have evolved somewhat sooner than on Earth."

Um, no. Something that far out wouldn't have life as we know it, and even if it did, it would likely be slowly evolving with so little energy to drive it. How stupid is that for him to say?

He quotes David Icke throughout the book. I'm sure I don't need to say how messed up that is.

Don't even get me started on the Stichin BS he buys into hook, line, and sinker. The book is also riddled with historical inaccuracies, wild accusations that are not supported, and just generally becomes a self-referential comedy by the end. And that's just off the top of my head.

And Gene, I hate to disagree with you, but anybody that shills for Scientology just clearly lacks critical thinking skills. And that transfers into just about anything that person says as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SPX]

. . . anybody that . . . thinks Trump is a good idea just clearly lacks critical thinking skills.

Uh oh. You're about to start some shit.

Do you really need to take cheap shots and make blanket statements like that, regardless of your political affiliation?

 

[marduk]

Uh oh. You're about to start some shit.

Do you really need to take cheap shots and make blanket statements like that, regardless of your political affiliation?

Fair criticism. Didn't intend on making this thread political. I'll take it out.

 

[SPX]

Fair criticism. Didn't intend on making this thread political. I'll take it out.

You are of course entitled to your view of things in this free society. But of course comments like that invite a certain kind of response.

 

[marduk]

You are of course entitled to your view of things in this free society. But of course comments like that invite a certain kind of response.

My point was this - your political viewpoints are fair game for intellectual criticism that can translate into your other work.

In other words, if you're anti-reason in one area, you're probably anti-reason in other areas as well.

You can be a reasonable right wing guy. I don't think Marrs is.

 

[technomage]

I don't recall hearing anything unreasonable, from my point of view. There were speculative statements, which one can treat as such.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I don't recall hearing anything unreasonable, from my point of view. There were speculative statements, which one can treat as such.

I must say I do have a problem with some of Marrs' speculations being stated without a caveat of speculation anywhere in some conversations. You know me, I have no problem with speculations and think it's hilarious when anyone thinks there should be no speculation in the wide field of 'para' stuff, but I do think Marrs jumps to conclusions about some things and will present them as if already proven (at least by him). I try my best to throw in that my conclusions are either my opinion, theory, speculation and I wish Marrs would do this much when he states that J Edgar Hoover was behind the JFK assassination, for example. I know I'm pretty confident that I'm right about Etta Place, but I'll readily admit that it's still a speculation.

 

[technomage]

I must say I do have a problem with some of Marrs' speculations being stated without a caveat of speculation anywhere in some conversations. You know me, I have no problem with speculations and think it's hilarious when anyone thinks there should be no speculation in the wide field of 'para' stuff, but I do think Marrs jumps to conclusions about some things and will present them as if already proven (at least by him). I try my best to throw in that my conclusions are either my opinion, theory, speculation and I wish Marrs would do this much when he states that J Edgar Hoover was behind the JFK assassination, for example. I know I'm pretty confident that I'm right about Etta Place, but I'll readily admit that it's still a speculation.

True; there were a few statements that were stated as though they were fact. It's better to clarify and say "there is evidence to suggest" or "I have reason to believe".

 

[SPX]

I must say I do have a problem with some of Marrs' speculations being stated without a caveat of speculation anywhere in some conversations. You know me, I have no problem with speculations and think it's hilarious when anyone thinks there should be no speculation in the wide field of 'para' stuff, but I do think Marrs jumps to conclusions about some things and will present them as if already proven (at least by him). I try my best to throw in that my conclusions are either my opinion, theory, speculation and I wish Marrs would do this much when he states that J Edgar Hoover was behind the JFK assassination, for example. I know I'm pretty confident that I'm right about Etta Place, but I'll readily admit that it's still a speculation.

My biggest problem with Marrs is that it often seems like he never met a conspiracy he didn't like. As I mentioned earlier, it reminds me of how guys like Bill Birnes and Giorgio Tsoukalos blame EVERYTHING on aliens. I mean, are there other, more conventional explanations at least SOMETIMES?

 

[Walter Bosley]

My biggest problem with Marrs is that it often seems like he never met a conspiracy he didn't like. As I mentioned earlier, it reminds me of how guys like Bill Birnes and Giorgio Tsoukalos blame EVERYTHING on aliens. I mean, are there other, more conventional explanation at least SOMETIMES?

Yes, there are. But consider that the guys you see and hear getting the most airtime are the guys who are selling their schtick harder. That might explain why it seems that "It's ALWAYS ____ (fill in the blank depending upon who you're talking about)". Not begrudging, just stating a fact. It's how that's done.

 

[SPX]

Yes, there are. But consider that the guys you see and hear getting the most airtime are the guys who are selling their schtick harder. That might explain why it seems that "It's ALWAYS ____ (fill in the blank depending upon who you're talking about)". Not begrudging, just stating a fact. It's how that's done.

Okay, I mean, I get it. It's a business.

But I guess I also just refuse to believe that people can't engage in this kind of stuff in a for-profit capacity while also maintaining their intellectual honesty. Especially in Marrs's case, being as how he's not only a classically-trained journalist but also has taught university classes, I would expect him to be pretty rigorous in his approach and to maintain a high level of objectivity.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Okay, I mean, I get it. It's a business.

But I guess I also just refuse to believe that people can't engage in this kind of stuff in a for-profit capacity while also maintaining their intellectual honesty. Especially in Marrs's case, being as how he's not only a classically-trained journalist but also has taught university classes, I would expect him to be pretty rigorous in his approach and to maintain a high level of objectivity.

Your point is quite valid. This stuff should not be a business first. The material should be sincere and the research as legitimate as one can do on their limitations. After that, it can be packaged as a product, yes, by all means. But writers of this stuff should approach it as research or an investigation.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Your point is quite valid. This stuff should not be a business first. The material should be sincere and the research as legitimate as one can do on their limitations. After that, it can be packaged as a product, yes, by all means. But writers of this stuff should approach it as research or an investigation.

Boy, do I resemble that remark! It sucks that if you don't come up w/ a couple of major headlines—sensational claims per year—you can't make this field into a career. You can also bang the drum of cult of personality, but nothing can substitute uncovering & providing the masses w/ bad sci-fi drama...

Unless you're Nick Redfern and write 40-50 hrs per week, 40-45 wks per year...

 

[SPX]

Unless you're Nick Redfern and write 40-50 hrs per week, 40-45 wks per year...

I'll never understand how he puts out so many books. How can he even do the proper research in that amount of time?

 

[Walter Bosley]

I'll never understand how he puts out so many books. How can he even do the proper research in that amount of time?

He's more like a real journalist. He does what most reporters do, consolidate what's known with some personal investigation thrown in as much as possible. I mean all this in the most positive sense, too. He's an example to follow for a lot of us. What I especially like about Nick is that he credits where he gets stuff and does not act like what he's written originated with him and his research, like some in the 'community' do (all the time).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

According to this post from Kevin Randle:

A Different Perspective: Jim Marrs is Gravely Ill

Marrs is ill. Let's all wish him well, and, one hopes that he will recover.

 

[Waller]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1175634/pg1

June 18, 2017

"He is on dialysis at home and has apparently lost his eyesight. He's fighting the good fight according to those close to the situation but I figure we can all take a moment and think of him."