Jan 18th - Leo Sprinkle

[subject x]

Pretty good show. I thought Sprinkle had a tendancy to state certain speculative material as fact, but he seems to remain open to contradictory ideas. It struck me that he's been mucking about in the field for so long that he's past the point of arguing about it with anybody, and simply accepts anybody's theory as "possible". I'm pretty much the same way. Until there's solid proof about any of the things we wonder about, all possibilities need to be considered and not just dismissed out of hand.

Other than that, he's enjoyable to listen to, and I thought there were some interesting ideas/concepts brought up. Good food for thought.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Just finished show and scanned this thread and I agree with these points:

*Sprinkle is a nice dude
*anecdotes within his field of expertise (psychology) have value
*I would not believe/trust anything he says outside of his expertise for obvious reasons
*I appreciated his temperment and larger picture view

Also.....
*the University of Virginia research on Past Lives is very cool, I"m reading a book about it right now. The founder of this program documented around 2,500 cases, that is a lot!!!

*Dusty, do not believe anything from the India Daily website, they post wild stuff with no back up, I have a feeling Micheal Salla is their cheif editor

*Brandon's sugestion that the paracast delve deeper into the pool of theories is welcome

*I agree totally, there is a group that has more info than we know, but I also think it's possible that this group doesn't come out because of several reasons, not just one:

A. They don't want to go to jail including some very powerful people and companies that could be indicted
B. The knowledge of what's going on could have very negative effects on us for tons of possible reasons (everything from we are working with us from the future to avoid nuclear war to we don't want our enemies to know we have access to some powerful tech/knowledge, etc.....)
C. They want to keep power
d. It's a very fragmented complex organization that couldn't put it all out there together if it wanted to

My completely speculative guess just based on keeping up with this field is that the answer is a little bit of each of these all wrapped up together. If nothing else, I bet this group has internally justified what they have done as being for the benefit of the people even if they are lying to themselves.

 

[marduk]

*I agree totally, there is a group that has more info than we know, but I also think it's possible that this group doesn't come out because of several reasons, not just one:

A. They don't want to go to jail including some very powerful people and companies that could be indicted
B. The knowledge of what's going on could have very negative effects on us for tons of possible reasons (everything from we are working with us from the future to avoid nuclear war to we don't want our enemies to know we have access to some powerful tech/knowledge, etc.....)
C. They want to keep power
d. It's a very fragmented complex organization that couldn't put it all out there together if it wanted to

My completely speculative guess just based on keeping up with this field is that the answer is a little bit of each of these all wrapped up together. If nothing else, I bet this group has internally justified what they have done as being for the benefit of the people even if they are lying to themselves.

I'm sure that this has been said before... but what, exactly, is the government supposed to disclose?

"Hey guys, you know... there's these things flying around, sometimes they go into sensitive airspace... we can't catch them and can only sometimes see them on radar. Oh, and some of them might be coming down and visiting you guys at night, we, um, can't really stop them and don't really know what they're doing with you but don't sweat it... nobody really important has gone missing so far so we're sure they're cool. Oh, and sometimes they turn our nukes on or off, but nothing bad has happened so far so we just think they're fooling around. We managed to get what we think are some bits of the things, but we really haven't figured out how they work. We might be onto something there in a couple hundred years or so. So... ya, they're here, and we think we know some stuff, but not much... but don't freak out or anything. I'm sure if we're cool they'll be cool right back.

Thanks, and goodnight."

- vs -

"Move along, nothing to see here."
​

 

[Rocketsauce]

I'm sure that this has been said before... but what, exactly, is the government supposed to disclose?

"Hey guys, you know... there's these things flying around, sometimes they go into sensitive airspace... we can't catch them and can only sometimes see them on radar. Oh, and some of them might be coming down and visiting you guys at night, we, um, can't really stop them and don't really know what they're doing with you but don't sweat it... nobody really important has gone missing so far so we're sure they're cool. Oh, and sometimes they turn our nukes on or off, but nothing bad has happened so far so we just think they're fooling around. We managed to get what we think are some bits of the things, but we really haven't figured out how they work. We might be onto something there in a couple hundred years or so. So... ya, they're here, and we think we know some stuff, but not much... but don't freak out or anything. I'm sure if we're cool they'll be cool right back.

Thanks, and goodnight."

- vs -

"Move along, nothing to see here."
​

Much of the reliable anecdotal evidence we've heard over the years would indicate that:

* materials have been recovered
* abductees have been under surveillance
* someone has gone to extreme lengths to discourage whistle blowers
* there are protocols in place when these things are seen on radar

Even if you were not able to come to any 100% conclusions on any of this and the statement above was the main conclusion (we have no control and don't know who they are), they would certainly have more detailed information on a larger scale than we currently have which could be used for further study by serious scientific minds who are not currently in the loop. To think it's even possible that Dick Cheney and his ilk are the type of people who might have been in the loop on this while some of our top minds are completely in the dark is scary!!!!

Imagine a society where NSF openly funds UFO research, that would be fantastic. But this will never happen without public/government/academic support and I think some type of mainstream coming clean on this issue could have a big impact in creating this type of support.

I spent this weekend in Charlotteville, VA, and could not find 1 UFO book in 3 used book stores I went to right near UVA campus. UVA's psychology department had a department on past life studies but I can't find a Jaque Vallee book in any book stores that target college kids who are there to broaden their horizons???

When you do find UFO books they are lumped together with Sylivia Brown and how to read Tarrot cards.

So I guess my larger point is, even if the conclusion by those in the know is completely inconclusive baring a disclosure, at least they will have some new data available to provide a scientific community out of the loop and funding will be more likely for mainstream studies across the country. Of course if they do have some actual conclusions to share about this, that would be cool too!

But, it is possible ignorance is bliss as well for many reasons, hopefully we'll find out before we all die!

 

[kova81]

I thought the show was C2Cish... Too much theory and NO evidence.
Leo's statement about us coming from Mars is plain "nonsencial"...

 

[mike]

Goodchild fiasco aside, i dont have much of a problem with the "galactic federation" idea.
its been said there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth.......if it is teeming with life in the grand scale of things, then it might go some way towards explaining whats going on here right now.
the snippets of data we have could in that context be taken as a sign that everything is being "managed" by a larger co-operative groups of beings.

if we know they are here, and likewise know that there have been no white house lawns.... that suggests to me some substantial control over the situation, in line with an agenda.

if the universe is teeming with life, if the ufos as seen in the shuttle tether incident are real and indicative of how "busy" it is up there, then all it would take would be for one individual being or species to do the white house lawn thing and the cats out of the bag.

to me that suggests there is a degree of co-operative control in place

FTL spaceflight is prob the ultimate big boys club....
and all clubs have rules
and if thats the case, then im betting the club has policy's, like a no shoes no service policy, only on a grander scale.

 

[dusty]

if the universe is teeming with life, if the ufos as seen in the shuttle tether incident are real and indicative of how "busy" it is up there, then all it would take would be for one individual being or species to do the white house lawn thing and the cats out of the bag.

Totally agree mike. That the universe is probably highly populated but I think the tether incident was well put to bed by Jeff Ritzmann. By pointing out that all the objects shown bear the same orientation throughout that entire sequence. Interesting lesson in what I guess is some sort of optical illusion though.

Mark

 

[mike]

yeah i used the tether incident as an example of "busy" as opposed to proof they are here. thanks for the info though

 

[dusty]

No worries mike,

Until I heard what Jeff had to say, I was convinced that those discs were for real.
Bloody David Sereda and stupid me

Mark

 

[Astroboy]

...I think the tether incident was well put to bed by Jeff Ritzmann.

Yeah, until I see a loop dee loop from a UFO or some controlled flight characteristics without any outside interference from thrusters or such I just can't get too excited by any of the Shuttle UFO footage. Too difficult to distinguish the dust from the tens of thousands of pieces of junk floating up there in orbit.

 

[Blacknight]

...I agree totally, there is a group that has more info than we know, but I also think it's possible that this group doesn't come out because of several reasons, not just one:

A. They don't want to go to jail including some very powerful people and companies that could be indicted...

I don't follow this. Exactly what crime would these people have committed if they held information secret which they were lawfully bound to hold as such. If you're speculating that this is a "rogue scenario", without lawful authority, it would be one hell of a conspiracy, both in scope and breadth, running for some 6 decades, several generations of employees, without one documented leak or sheet of paper making its way to the public.

I think it's quite possible the government has more data than any other single, private sector source. But I don't think data necessarily equates to answers or even serious research. Let's put this in context. We have a government--like all governments--that's little more than a conglomeration of bureaucrats, motivated mainly by self-preservation with notional accountability to politicians who have become little more than elective bureaucrats. Bureaucracies are inherently chatty and ineffective. Secrets don't last long and, in an era which lionizes "whistleblowers", if there was any substantive information out there one of these bureaucrats would have run to 60 Minutes or maybe even a real news origanization long ago. Unless, of course, the "secret" is so earth shattering that its release would be catastrophic. In that case, let me be the first to say "Good job keeping it secret, bureaucrats!"

 

[Schuyler]

It is probably a mistake to characterize the entire government as composed of bureaucratic buffoons. You certainly have ample evidence of that, but that's what you believe anyway, so each observation tends to 'confirm' your belief. I have a fundamentalist Christian cousin who believes the pattern of holes seen in a sand dollar confirms the divinity of Jesus. My point is that you are fighting your own belief structure when trying to make an 'objective' observation.

Add to that the fact that it is in the best interests of government to appear to be just like you think they are. Think Peter Falk in Columbo, who perfected this to a fine art. So you have a situation where both the believer and the object of this belief want the object to appear in the same way. Not surprising that the object appears in the way that it does.

Anyone who believes the government is incapable of keeping a secret has never undergone the governmental security process. I once held a Secret clearance myself, which is not very high and relatively easy to get if you are not a total fuck up. But even then I was subject to an intense background check that was, frankly, nerve-wracking. At higher levels of security it gets even more serious. I mean life-sustaining serious. Your life is no longer your own. You are subject to sanctions both during and after your work is finished--for the rest of your life. (You are often prevented from visiting certain foreign countries, for example, even after you retire.) The scrutiny on your life is microscopic compared to a mere 'Secret' clearance. NOBODY who goes through the top-level clearances does so without being serious. It is a life-altering and mind-altering process. In some cases, depending on where you are and what you know, there is someone else whose assignment is to kill you if your location is about to be over-run to prevent you from falling into enemy hands.

Just think "Manhattan Project." The manpower, engineering, theoretical work, experimentation, cost, and size of this project was immense. The entire complex at Hanford in southeast Washington State, for example, was built without most people who worked on it knowing what they were doing. It took a number of years to complete. When Harry Truman became President, he didn't even know the project existed.

So when somone says the government is full of buffoons who can't possibly keep a secret, I have to say that is demonstrably not true, though it is in the best interests of the government to keep you thinking that way.

 

[skunkape]

Just think "Manhattan Project." The manpower, engineering, theoretical work, experimentation, cost, and size of this project was immense. The entire complex at Hanford in southeast Washington State, for example, was built without most people who worked on it knowing what they were doing. It took a number of years to complete. When Harry Truman became President, he didn't even know the project existed.

Reminds of the theme of the movie 'Cube.' Well worth checking out.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/01hUyIrubWE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/01hUyIrubWE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[David Biedny]

Reminds of the theme of the movie 'Cube.' Well worth checking out.<object height="344" width="425">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/01hUyIrubWE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

A fascinating film that completely falls apart in the third act, the ending is totally and absolutely weak, IMO. Great effects, though, especially that gruesome opening scene.

dB

 

[gstetphan]

I found Dr. Sprinkle to be interesting enough to listen to. I found him to be either somewhat ill informed on some topics/people or pehaps he is simply not willing to pass judgement on anyone. In any case, his interview was interesting enough and he is obviously not in it for the fame or fortune, unlike some others.

i would like to see him back on the show again at some point, I think he has alot to say that could be interesting for all.

 

[skunkape]

A fascinating film that completely falls apart in the third act, the ending is totally and absolutely weak, IMO. Great effects, though, especially that gruesome opening scene.

dB

Yeah, I agree, it kinda crapped out at the end, but the premise and first 2/3rds was cool.

 

[Astroboy]

It is probably a mistake to characterize the entire government as composed of bureaucratic buffoons. ...

Anyone who believes the government is incapable of keeping a secret has never undergone the governmental security process.

I noticed an interesting irony that the same people who claim the government is incompetent and incapable of keeping secrets are often the same people who claim the government is behind all the conspiracies.

So let me get this straight. The government is a bunch of blabber mouth fools except when they are behind the greatest conspiracies of all time involving thousands of people and then all of a sudden they operate with perfection to execute overly complex plots without any whistleblower coming out EVER. This never made sense to me.

 

[Blacknight]

...Just think "Manhattan Project." The manpower, engineering, theoretical work, experimentation, cost, and size of this project was immense. The entire complex at Hanford in southeast Washington State, for example, was built without most people who worked on it knowing what they were doing. It took a number of years to complete. When Harry Truman became President, he didn't even know the project existed.

So when somone says the government is full of buffoons who can't possibly keep a secret, I have to say that is demonstrably not true, though it is in the best interests of the government to keep you thinking that way.

Or...think Watergate, Iran-Contra, NSA data mining and Russ Tice, Shawn Carpenter, Abu Ghraib, the Pentagon Papers, Col. John Vann's Vietnam disclosures, and hundreds of other instances in which "secrets" were outed. To always point to the Manhattan Project is to point to the exception which proves the rule. (Let me point out that during a time of declared war, releasing military secrets is treason for which death may be the consequence.) Now think of a secret that has been held for over 60 years, the sheer number of people who, over those decades, would have known about the secret and have some evidence to support that. Such a long term, major secret would have to be systemic in nature, with staffs, systems, records, budgets, etc. And NOBODY has come forward?

It is certainly possible that our government has kept this massive secret for all these years. Of course, when I look at the current handling of our financial crisis, and proposed "economic stimulus package", I'm 99% sure our government couldn't find its ass with both hands let alone maintain a secret for 60 years.

 

[marduk]

It is certainly possible that our government has kept this massive secret for all these years. Of course, when I look at the current handling of our financial crisis, and proposed "economic stimulus package", I'm 99% sure our government couldn't find its ass with both hands let alone maintain a secret for 60 years.

It is possible but improbable that any agency sufficiently large enough to study and examine this phenomenon would be able to stay secret all these years.

However, I would submit that it is equally possible but improbable that some government agency hasn't been spawned over the past 60 years to tackle the question.

I think they're between a rock and a hard place on this one. They probably know some stuff but not enough to put forward any actual explanation that the populace as a whole could grasp and understand.

Let's also not forget that whistleblowers have come forward -- but the curtain of laughter keeps it out of the public's eye. It's very powerful.

 

[Schuyler]

To always point to the Manhattan Project is to point to the exception which proves the rule.

I'm sorry, but that is sloppy logic at best. The use of the phrase, "the exception proves the rule" is meant for instances such as a sign that says: "Parking prohibited on Sundays." This 'exception' proves that parking is allowed all other days.

The facts you point out about other instances where 'the government' has been unable to keep a secret in no way disproves the demonstrable fact that it DID keep a very big and complex secret involving tens of thousands of people for a long time. Pointing out the Manhattan Project as a 'successful secret' does not 'prove' the government CANNOT keep a secret; it proves that it CAN. I am suggesting this is not unusual.