Jerome Clark and the "Unexplained!"

[Sentry]

I enjoyed the show, and it was interesting to figure just what mysteries Jerry found credible. He says he's more interested these days in the experiences than in the evidence in UFO encounters, and that's fascinating. Many UFOs seem to behave just as apparitions, so the memory of the experience is all we have left to examine.

His answer to my question about paranormal authors writing fact versus fiction was good, he said it became fiction at the point they started making things up. I agree, but feel you can get awfully close to fiction when you dress up an event in drama, and then purposely exclude any information that might provide a mundane explanation. Everything is more mysterious in the dark, and a lot of promoters are happier with the lights off.

Jerry also seemed pretty harsh on John Keel, but I think he was mostly on target there. Keel could get pretty nasty with folks (and made some wild false claims about others, including Jerry Clark). Even if Keel was a cranky demonologist, as Jerry says, Keel provided some interesting viewpoints on phenomenon, and as far as proof goes, Keel doesn't seem to have any less of it than anyone else. Keel may have been on the wrong track, but he's owed a debt giving us something interesting to ponder.

 

[Polterwurst]

Boy, talk about teasers. Now I can't wait for the "Skinwalker Ranch" show and although I think Roswell is getting real old, I'm mightily interested what those cryptic Roswell remarks were about (I guess Chris was right about it having to do with the "dream team", maybe they are coming out with some new information in their book).

Also I think I'll have to buy the Unexplained! book (if it gets available with Amazon Germany), because Mr Clark seems like just the researcher I prefer: highly intelligent and staying sceptical with all those wild claims and amazing stories. I'm not much for the "paranormal hacks".

All in all, this was IMO a very fun and thought-provoking show. When Gene asked where people could find more about Mr Clark I was going "what, we're done already?". Thanks for asking my questions, Chris!

 

[wowarning]

Great episode. One segment did inspire me to finally get on the forum here though as I have a question to pose to Chris. The segment I'm referring to involved Jerry and Chris discussing the reluctance of witnesses to divulge certain details of their encounters that they felt would be deemed "too fantastic" and would damage the credibility of the rest of their account, but then later decide to come forward with those details. Chris seemed completely on board with the logic of this rationale during the discussion, but I have heard him poo-pooing Jim Penniston's credibility since he came forward with his "binary message," and this seems to fall squarely into this category. It is certainly almost "too fantastic", but I personally put more stock in it because it was coming from Penniston, rather than dismiss Penniston because he came forward with it. What's up with that Chris? I certainly allow for the possibility of additional details I'm unaware of that make this seeming inconsistency more logical - but at the moment, I am perplexed.

 

[Wade]

I enjoyed the show, and it was interesting to figure just what mysteries Jerry found credible. He says he's more interested these days in the experiences than in the evidence in UFO encounters, and that's fascinating. Many UFOs seem to behave just as apparitions, so the memory of the experience is all we have left to examine.

His answer to my question about paranormal authors writing fact versus fiction was good, he said it became fiction at the point they started making things up. I agree, but feel you can get awfully close to fiction when you dress up an event in drama, and then purposely exclude any information that might provide a mundane explanation. Everything is more mysterious in the dark, and a lot of promoters are happier with the lights off.

Jerry also seemed pretty harsh on John Keel, but I think he was mostly on target there. Keel could get pretty nasty with folks (and made some wild false claims about others, including Jerry Clark). Even if Keel was a cranky demonologist, as Jerry says, Keel provided some interesting viewpoints on phenomenon, and as far as proof goes, Keel doesn't seem to have any less of it than anyone else. Keel may have been on the wrong track, but he's owed a debt giving us something interesting to ponder.

If you haven' t already done so, have a listen to this episode. Its key that the title includes the weird remembered as opposed to tribute. One of guys...I think it was jim moseley...remarked tongue in cheek that he hoped that when he passed on that he wouldn't be subject to the same treatment

July 12, 2009 — John Keel Remembered with Tim Beckley, Jerome Clark, Loren Coleman, Jim Moseley, Brad Steiger and Curt Sutherly | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio


Sent from my LG-P999 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[Sentry]

although I think Roswell is getting real old, I'm mightily interested what those cryptic Roswell remarks were about...

Some clues: The Big Study: Just For Fun: Lunch With The Illuminati.

 

[wwkirk]

Good episode.

 

[exo_doc]

I really liked this episode! I have listened to it twice now. I especially liked the discussion concerning "high strangeness" events. Can't wait to read his new book.

 

[Polterwurst]

but I have heard him poo-pooing Jim Penniston's credibility since he came forward with his "binary message," and this seems to fall squarely into this category..

Good point. On the one hand, this "download" might be of the too-bizarre-to-be-reported-right-away variety. On the other hand, back in the 1980s, ASCII code was still widely unknown and would have given the story a scifi-touch. I'm totally scratching my head over this one. I thought Penniston was very credible, but that story is so silly it reminds me of some not-so-well-written X-files episode. And makes me wonder if he just wants to get some more ufologist attention.

 

[wowarning]

Good point. On the one hand, this "download" might be of the too-bizarre-to-be-reported-right-away variety. On the other hand, back in the 1980s, ASCII code was still widely unknown and would have given the story a scifi-touch. I'm totally scratching my head over this one. I thought Penniston was very credible, but that story is so silly it reminds me of some not-so-well-written X-files episode. And makes me wonder if he just wants to get some more ufologist attention.

To the best of my knowledge, Penniston was never looking for the attention that Bentwaters brought him. The supporting evidence for the event is so strong that believing the sighting is almost effortless. I'm not sure I understand the logic behind somebody having no problem believing that Penniston not only saw a ufo in the forest, but went up to it and touched it - but the idea that some information may have been passed to him is so ridiculous that they tap out. I have no problem with the idea that he was unaware it was binary data in 1980 - his main reason for not coming out with it apparently. I also don't know if we need to ascribe a motive to the message - that he was necessarily 'impregnated' with it to bring it to the humble inhabitants of Earth - or if it could have been some strange accidental tapping into of the 'mission data' for the craft or something of that nature. Could it also be post-event programming that appears to have occured - yes, but I have to say that the idea of the NSA being able to hypnotically put a 12 page binary message into somebody's brain seems much less likely to me than a higher intelligence being able to pull it off. For me this leaves the only two real possibilities - either it's the real freaking deal, or Penniston became a complete lying con artist contrary to his lifelong reputation as a straight shooter for a five minute segment in a History Channel show (as many skeptics claim as his motive). If that's the case, then why believe anything he says about Rendelsham?

 

[Polterwurst]

If that's the case, then why believe anything he says about Rendelsham?

Well, that's my point. It makes his whole story questionable. I have to admit, I don't trust John Burroughs, he seems like just the kind of guy for a tall tale. And I don't know anything about the third guy who stayed behind. So this story IMO stands and falls with Penniston's credibility. And with the ASCII code, that's suffered a lot for me. I mean, some undefinable binary code, okay, strange but why not. But when it translates to low tech 80s ASCII code and forms english sentence fragments like "exploration og humanity" or something, that's just kinda silly.

But of course, there is the trickster. He seems to like silly.

Btw., with Charles Halt, however, I don't think there's any doubt he's sincere.

 

[Fcseven]

It would be nice to hear more about the Collins group (elite?) that Chris brought up. The idea of Parsons/Babylon Working rituals being involved with the UFO phenomenon is something I believe should be explored further.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

It's always awesome to have Jerome Clark on the show. He's a solid critical thinker, from what I can tell, but not one to toss out the fantastic if it fits within a reasonably credible context. Jerry's one of those guys I'd love to sit down with, share a beer, and talk about all-things paranormal.

Though I've not read his book from what I gather it's a story-book....the kind where he's simply presented what he's heard or casually discovered without going into too much research. It's almost a mid-level on the critical thinking guide but even then he admitted that some stories were just too heavy in the BS factor. He mentioned on the show that when you're researching this stuff long enough patterns of "normality" do form and when you come across a story that really tracks off the rails you know it's probably crap. That's so true. My wife and I run a small paranormal group here in central Indiana and we got a call from a woman one day asking us to do an investigation of her house. She stated that she was seeing demons in things (like within the walls and in blankets and other possessions) and that if you took a picture you could capture these faces. Now this was the first time I had heard about this type of behavior from a reported-haunting so we started checking out the client. It turns out the client was a known meth. user....had been arrested for theft and possession several times, and had a known-violent boyfriend. We passed that investigation off to another ghost hunting team we didn't like.

We had performed another investigation a few years back involving an elderly woman living on her own. The woman stated a troupe of little people would appear around her bed every night, scale up her curtains, and paint symbols and words on the walls (she wasn't able to comprehend them). Then there were three spirits that would appear, human in quality; two men and a woman. The men wanted to harm her and, mostly, her dog whom she loved like a child, but the woman protected her. Having dabbled in psychology a bit the threat against her dog was clear, perhaps externalized by something she was dealing with and not telling us, but the troupe of little people (like a circus) was really mind blowing. We found very little in that investigation except for some strong electromagnetic interference that pulsed through the condo once in a while within the DC frequency range.....not AC like we typically encounter (and debunk as NOT being paranormal). My personal assessment, which I voiced to the investigation lead, was that the woman was suffering from dementia and needed professional help, however I'm not sure if that advised was taken seriously.

Both of these examples are exactly what Jerry was talking about. They were off-the-wall in regards to the typical paranormal events and stories related to me and my group. Hearing of the same types of encounters time and again, therefore, may indicate that there is indeed something 'true' and 'real' to these things we're studying. Hope springs eternal.

 

[starise]

I enjoyed the show. The idea of cultural influences (cultural frontloading)regarding sightings of high strangeness are nothing new and I liked the ideas put forth along those lines for the most part. Ancient cultures would have had less possibilities to choose from than we do when faced with something unexplained. Trying to box the sighting into an area that might not be a good fit was probably commonplace given the lack of information.

Still, I think there is a very real danger of telling the experiencer what it probably was based on our frame of reference and our own cultural leanings and ideas. What if the experiencer sees something that we don't believe exists? Or at the very least are skeptical of?

I see the possibility of modern cultural influences being leaned on too heavily in some cases as a basis of explanation when maybe one of the more "primitive" explanations fits the actual sighting.

 

[Randall]

I enjoyed the show. The idea of cultural influences (cultural frontloading)regarding sightings of high strangeness are nothing new and I liked the ideas put forth along those lines for the most part. Ancient cultures would have had less possibilities to choose from than we do when faced with something unexplained. Trying to box the sighting into an area that might not be a good fit was probably commonplace given the lack of information.

Still, I think there is a very real danger of telling the experiencer what it probably was based on our frame of reference and our own cultural leanings and ideas. What if the experiencer sees something that we don't believe exists? Or at the very least are skeptical of? I see the possibility of modern cultural influences being leaned on too heavily in some cases as a basis of explanation when maybe one of the more "primitive" explanations fits the actual sighting.

Explanations for phenomena need to be based on rational thought. If there are good reasons for believeing a more primitive explanation, then it may be reasonable to accept. However the reverse is also true. If it is more rational to believe there is another explanation than something based in superstition, then it is more reasonable to explore that avenue than to simply accept the superstition at face value, although questioning superstition might not always get you the answers you like ... as Kirk finds out in this classic sci-fi clip:

 

[starise]

I agree Jerome that rational thought should be the litmus test for any evaluation. As you have said in your post a more primitive explanation could possibly fit into that mindset.

What exactly did Christopher Columbus see ? His descriptions of a light in the sky don't seem much different than those we still read about today. What would make an evaluation from that time any different?I'm fairly certain that at that time no human had airships. Can't blame a govt. or military craft in that case. To his credit Christopher didn't jump to any conclusions. With no technologically advanced craft developed by men the possibilities are narrowed."Cultural front loading" is not always a component of a sighting either then or now.

 

[starise]

Correction.....ufology.