Is The Paracast avoiding "New-Agey" guests?

[Ally]

Mike,
Kind of off topic but did you make any good connections in Laughlin? Was there a nut that had to get kicked out again? My last UFO conference was in 2004 there. Were you disappointed by some of the insanity or did you go in knowing this is all part of the conference experience?

 

[mikec]

Reply to Ally:
==========

I found Laughlin to be enormously rewarding.

I met a lot of people, and some who I will forever consider dear friends.

Leo Sprinkle ran an abductee support group fro a series of evenings. And this was, to me, really powerful. I'm not sure what you may have read of mine, but I have a series of curious life events that point to some sort of "contact" experiences.

It was really helpful in ways I didn't expect. Mostly, just to see a bunch of NORMAL folks sitting in a circle.

Sadly, yes - there were some people there that seemed, well, pushed over the edge... Some flakes, some preachy people, and some folks that I think are pursuing something down a blind alley.

But why is THEIR story any strange than MINE?

People I really connected with: Barbara Lamb, Jim Marrs, Mike Orrem (sp?), Leo Sprinkle, Richard Dolan, Greg Bishop, Peter Robbins, Budd Hopkins, Farah Yurdoza...

- and - I really liked Jim Sparks. I sat with him for a while. There was something sort of sad about him, like when I meet war vets that have had a hard go of it. But he was really thoughtful and open.

And, it was wonderful to spend time with a bunch of the coontactees, experiencers, abductees (whatever you wanna call 'em)...


peace,
M!

 

[Ally]

Well I am glad conferences work for some people. Personally I find UFO conferences difficult in some areas

On one hand they can be a lot of fun.

However the UFO congress lets Riley Martin speak...look him up if you don't know who he is. Where is the discretion!

Another quite annoying part of the conference experience is having abduction-like experiences during the conference. Other experiencers were also having these. What's up with that?

Mike,

Did you have any strange experiences during the conference that might seem manipulative in nature?

 

[Mothra]

Reply to Ally:
==========

I found Laughlin to be enormously rewarding.

I met a lot of people, and some who I will forever consider dear friends.

Leo Sprinkle ran an abductee support group fro a series of evenings. And this was, to me, really powerful. I'm not sure what you may have read of mine, but I have a series of curious life events that point to some sort of "contact" experiences.

It was really helpful in ways I didn't expect. Mostly, just to see a bunch of NORMAL folks sitting in a circle.

Sadly, yes - there were some people there that seemed, well, pushed over the edge... Some flakes, some preachy people, and some folks that I think are pursuing something down a blind alley.

But why is THEIR story any strange than MINE?

People I really connected with: Barbara Lamb, Jim Marrs, Mike Orrem (sp?), Leo Sprinkle, Richard Dolan, Greg Bishop, Peter Robbins, Budd Hopkins, Farah Yurdoza...

- and - I really liked Jim Sparks. I sat with him for a while. There was something sort of sad about him, like when I meet war vets that have had a hard go of it. But he was really thoughtful and open.

And, it was wonderful to spend time with a bunch of the coontactees, experiencers, abductees (whatever you wanna call 'em)...


peace,
M!

Jim Sparks was probably feeling a tinge of guilt

I grew up in Lake Havasu and My Uncle had a swimming pool business in Bullhead city. We used to hit the buffets in laughlin almost daily. Man do I have some stories about that place.

 

[Ally]

Mothra,
Please share you Laughlin stories. Do you think Jim sparks is feeling guilty about charging what was it 100 dollars an hour to talk to him?

 

[mikec]

Hi there - I opened this "thread" a while back and asked about channeling and New-Age topics.

It was sort of funny, some folks acted really intense and seemed to deny that THE PARACAST should go down this ally. I kept trying to say that this is a very real part of the UFO phenomenon. People are reporting very strange things, and some of those things can be viewed as (sorry to say it) new-agey - like channeling. It is totally dismissed by the nuts-and-bolts crowd, but that doesn't mean it's NOT happening.


And then I listen to Phil Imbrogno on the latest show - and - He talks seriously about channeling!

This is EXACTLY what I was hungry for when I posted (and got slammed by some other users), and low-and-behold I got it! Huge thanks Paracast!

HEY - Phil is a level headed guy and decidedly NON-new-agey... But he recognized that there was something connected to this topic, something that is easy to laugh at and dismiss, and he went forward and investigated. Right on for Phil!



Now, I am gunna agree with Phil on some stuff. He said 90% of channeled stuff is utter crap. Agreed!

But, what is that 10% and what does it mean? I truly believe that SOME folks claiming UFO contact are actually bringing forth information. The weird thing is, that the info that is brought out from the ether is somehow purposely "benign" and stays "lite". Nobody is channeling about how to cure cancer or solve the energy crisis. The stuff I've read is all about being connected to the rest of humanity, and the universe - very spiritual.

What is happening??? Once again, I agree with Phil, that whatever is unfolding, it is setting itself up in a way that it stays elusive and unknowable.

peace,
M!

 

[Graphimancer]

From the perspective of Chaos Magic, any entity channeled would be:

1) An aspect of the channelor's own psyche
2) an archetypical being from the collective unsconscous.

In the case of an archetypical being, the jury is still out on whether such beings are individually self-aware and consistent, or that is just how they maniferst through the mage. As far as chaos mages are concerned, the difference is immaterial, and the truth is in the perception, not the source.

Imbrogno brought up two encounters with Donestra from two different channelers. This implies that the Donestra entity is a self-aware thing, consistent from encounter to encounter. Of course, the possibilities of the following exist:

1) Donestra really exists out there in archetype space
2) Imbrogno's subconscious sort of matrixed what he wanted to hear, as people do when they hear records backwards and assume words

Chaos magic is a relatively modern invention, but it is also not New Agey. It takes all the mystery out of magic, reduces it mechanics anyone can access, and tosses out the feel-good, doe-eyed rubbish. In some ways, it's the technological aspect of magic, without machines.

 

[mikec]

Reply to the previous posting:

Hey Graphicmancer, You should read some of the "channeled" stuff from Delores Cannon!

She hypnotizes subjects, and then THEY channel info to her. A "conversation" happens with some other entity beyond the hypnitized person. Later, she'll hypnotize someone else. The next subject, totally unaware of the previous "conversation" will pick up right where it left off. Weird and strangely insightful.

peace,
M!

 

[Graphimancer]

Really? That's pretty cool. I'll look into that right away.

As a many-time ghost experiencer, I'm well aware that there are self-aware, individual non-corpeal entities, so I wasn't trying to talk anyone out of that understanding with the Chaos magic stuff.

There's certainly a difference between ghosts and actualized archetypes. I would explain further, but why put myself in that position. Still the possibilities are endless.

 

[Cosmic Ejaculator 1814]

HEY - Phil is a level headed guy and decidedly NON-new-agey... But he recognized that there was something connected to this topic, something that is easy to laugh at and dismiss, and he went forward and investigated. Right on for Phil!

Yup,he went ahead and investigated,and now he's forever lost in a labyrinth of smoke and mirrors - instead of doing valuable work like he did on the Hudson Valley sightings...

Now,if someone could channel Mozart and make him finish Requiem,I might listen...

 

[Gil Bavel]

Is The Paracast purposely avoiding this subject?

Stan Friedman get called on his avoiding anything beyond the ETH. Are Gene and David - in a way - guilty of the same thing?

Any thoughts?


___________

I'll put my two cents in: Yes. They are avoiding it... because UFOs are indeed wacky enough without getting into channeling, and all the other airy-fairy stuff.

When one of the most credible "experiencers" in the field claims (and is believed) to have been abducted on an alien saucer and then shot down by the government and interrogated by both the military and some kind of MK-Ultra deal with guys dressed up in alien suits while they drugged her up with some kind of hypnotic--I'd say that falls in to the near-unbelievable category all by itself.

Now, we have stuff like the Starseed Transmissions, which were received by 12 of our best and most intelligent writers (some of whom we didn't know about publicly until after their deaths), including Philip K. Dick, Robert Anton Wilson, Uri Geller, Dr. Timothy Leary, Antero Alli, and others.

This was supposedly a set of protocols designed to move the human race forward in the areas of intelligence intensification and longevity so that we ourselves could move into the stars.

Does it have anything to do with UFOs? No. Is it appropriate material for the Paracast? You'd have to ask David, I guess.

But I'd just as soon stick with the nuts and bolts stuff, if I want airy-fairy, I can listen to George Snorry and his Crazy Christians with their on-air scripture reading and calling UFO occupants and ultraterrestrials "demons" and "unclean spirits".

I mean, what is this, the new Dark Ages? There are plenty of other shows you can listen to if your really want to hear that shit. The Paracast has a clear mission statement, in my mind: To advance our knowledge of these areas with science, not with pseudoscience. The scientific method needs to be applied with as many approaches as possible until every one has been tried and exhausted. Then, we could broaden the scope of science.

Until then, the New Age stuff, as you call it, should really be the scope of entertainment. Like horoscopes, Astrology, and religion.

 

[mike]

i think the show does a great job of acknowledging this aspect of the UFO topic, without getting mired or bogged down in the stuff.
theres enough wheat and chaff to seperate as it is, without adding the potential bushels of BS that invariably come with the new age datasets.

 

[mikec]

The previous post reads:
"I'll put my two cents in: Yes. They are avoiding it... because UFOs are indeed wacky enough without getting into channeling, and all the other airy-fairy stuff."

You clearly articulate what a lot of folks are saying.

BUT - The airy-fairy stuff is PART of the phenomenon. We may deeply yearn for the phenomenon to behave, and to stay in the nuts and bolts box. But is simply doesn't. There is a very consistent component that can only be defined as airy-fairy.

If we ignore that component, we will no different than the close minded researcher who refuses to stray beyond the ETH.

I thought Phil Imbrogno took on the subject with maturity and an open mind. It was good to hear, and David seemed intrigued.

peace,
M!

 

[Cosmic Ejaculator 1814]

The previous post reads:
"I'll put my two cents in: Yes. They are avoiding it... because UFOs are indeed wacky enough without getting into channeling, and all the other airy-fairy stuff."

You clearly articulate what a lot of folks are saying.

BUT - The airy-fairy stuff is PART of the phenomenon.

Channeling is part of the culture - not the Phenomenon itself...

 

[Gil Bavel]

Channeling is part of the culture - not the Phenomenon itself...

Eggs-actly. There are those of us that are aware of the... uh, shall we say, less measurable phenomena, in the UFO area, and choose not to pay attention to it, simply because it's not quantifiable.

We know it's there, it's not going away--we see shadow people, too, we understand there are parts of the culture that exist--that we pay less attention to--but we acknowledge that they're there.

Just don't ask us to encourage the airier guests to come on the show.

The Paracast has typically been a nuts and bolts approach, with, as you say, indulgences. When the needle on the BS meter starts spiking, though, it's going to get ugly.

Which is, you know, fine.

 

[Graphimancer]

I have no problem with the Paracast staying the way it is. It has found it's niche, and taken on the subject in certain light--ie., the scientific method, and in a "no nonsense" nuts & bolts manner.

I'm not a proponant of new age thinking. It's soft and squishy and everyone takes what they want and makes what they want out of it. The misunderstanding around angels is a classic example, as covered quite well by David in the recent episode. I actually agreed with him!

But, before you write off everything that's not nuts & bolts science, keep in mind that you are dealing with opposing realities. I know several old school occultists who deal in a tangible, potentially dangerous world of mysticism. Things happen around these people, and their reality is quite valid and seemingly much more real that ufos.

Does that mean their reality is your reality? Nope. You guys often don't believe in that stuff, so it will never affact you and not be part of your existence. You've got different realities you've built. (I will say, however, that many people who gravitate to the UFO world have some strongly occult occurances and encounter mystic beings, yet prefer to label such things as part of ufology. Sometimes it blows me away that they can't see what is right in front of them.)

The main thing I've decided in these competing realities is that those who put everything down to ufos, especially abductees, often get the victim mentality. Those who are mystics generally are proactive in dealing with the paranormal, gaining the upper hand in the interchange. I find mysticism a healthier approach, but I've come to see a combination of these realities as the best way to move forward. I refuse to be a victim.

Besides, I've increasingly come to see mysticism and ufology as approximately the same thing, just viewed through different lenses.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Opposing realities? Do you mean that there are capital "R" Realities and little "r" realities?

Is one reality superior in some way to another??

Presumably, whatever is taking place in reality is taking place in reality. How one or another interprets that reality may be subject to that person's "reality filter" as Dr. Leary used to say, but it's all the same reality.

There are "Reality Tunnels" that some writers use to describe the way that people filter reality, and that we all have our own reality tunnel, or our own take on reality--but when it comes down to it, unless you're talking about parallel universes, or alternate realities--and I don't think you are--there is only one reality that we perceive.

The one we're in, and that this forum is in. Like it or not, There's just the one.

Now, String Theory, Brane theory, they're talking about dimensions. That's a whole different ball of string.

 

[Cosmic Ejaculator 1814]

I'm not denying that the phenomenon is much more complex than just Nut's & Bolt's visitors from Mars or Zeta 1 Reticuli - reading Richard Haines's book "Close Encounters of the 5th Kind" have convinced me of that.

But that's a very "conservative" area of research compared too what Dolores Cannon,Dean Fagerstrom (cool name) and Bilak Balooba from the planet Toohaa are talking about...

PS:Have you guys checked out the article I posted about Rich Dolan's newfound respect for everything New Age? It's up on the Dolan thread....

 

[Graphimancer]

Realities with a small r. There's consensual reality, which we all have varying degrees of connectivity to, and then there are reality subsets. I suppose you could take it all the way down to personal realities, but I fail to see the use in that.

My point is that there is some pretty damn compelling stuff that goes on in other reality subsets, and I don't see one reality necessarily trumping all others.

Scientific thought is a particularly successful reality, and it has made the West comparetively rich in many ways. But, as Mr. Imbrogno commented in his last interview, there are places where the scientific method just can't readily go. Indeed, at the edges of science, repeatability and testability get really questionable. (Um, well, maybe Cearn will change that).

 

[mikec]

The previous post noted:

" ... as Mr. Imbrogno commented in his last interview, there are places where the scientific method just can't readily go."



Oh c'mon - sure it can. The word "readily" is the crux. Wasn't there a point when science thought radio waves were nonsense.

Maybe - an online podcast could try to go there...



Here's a story:

I have a friend I met thru Leo Sprinkle in Wyoming.

He's had a lot of weird UFO experiences. He's a level headed guy, married, two kids, nice life. But he qualifies as a "contactee" (or an experiencer, or abductee, etc).

He told me that he went thru a phase where he was channeling, and it was directly connected to his lifelong UFO experiences. He did it by some form of automatic writing.

He was very clear, He did NOT like it. He didn't trust it or understand it.

He told me that he's trying to "atrophy" that part of his psyche. To turn it off, but he says it's been difficult.

I find that fascinating. A seemingly normal guy with lots of UFO experiences says he's compelled to channel. To me, that's really interesting.

I'll add that this guy is NOT new-agey (and neither am I) but there is a component to the experience that falls WAY outside the nut's and bolts thing.

That story, about channeling and the UFO experience is a reoccurring event, and it shouldn't be ignored. Maybe it is all crap, and it should be considered as totally unreliable. But I simply can't make that claim unitl it's been looked at.