Jerome Clark Show

[exo_doc]

Listening to the show at the moment. I find it suprising Mr. Clark doesn't think Phillip Klass had any ties with the Government, even behind the scenes.
I have often wondered what drove Mr. Klass to such extremes to explain away all UFO/UAP phenomena as hoaxs or mistaken weather/meteor/swamp gas. I mean, after having seen Klass numerous times in interviews, and reading several of his articles, I think he had some kind of pathological hatred or fear of the whole idea of even the possibility of aliens visiting earth.
That is, IF Klass wasn't working for the Feds. If he was, then I could see why he would not budge on his views because he was doing his job as Uber-Debunker for the Feds.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I don't know why that's hard to believe. There's plenty of skeptics and debunkers. You don't need to be a government stooge to feel that way. All the time there's allegations of cloak and dagger antics being tossed around in ufological circles. I think it's all pretty hilarious.

 

[exo_doc]

Yeah, I think it's a credibility stretch for any UFO/UAP investigator to have Fed ties, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
But if it was to happen to anyone, I'd put Klass at the head of the list.

 

[Simone_m]

I recall --years-- ago, hearing some mufon people murmuring about Phil Klass paling around with this KGB guy named "Artamanov" or "Artamonov". I did google search and it was frustrating to come up with this llllllllonnnnng narrow old computer text from 1996, the same one in all my click ons, and I didn't wan't people murmering about it, I was hoping to find some actual article. I know that the late Todd Zechel used to write articles about that kind of stuff. Maybe someone who's more talented at navigating the searchers, can come up with something of more substance------IF there is such a thing.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Good show,

Mr Jerome Clark is a straight shooter which I enjoyed his theories on a number of the Ufology subject regards historical cases and individual players such as Roswell , Col Corso , Mr Phil Klass etc.
Furthermore, Mr Clark viewpoints on Mr Eddie Buller findings on the hypnosis outcomes even though it up to the individual to decide .
Good job Gene & Chris.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't know why that's hard to believe. There's plenty of skeptics and debunkers. You don't need to be a government stooge to feel that way. All the time there's allegations of cloak and dagger antics being tossed around in ufological circles. I think it's all pretty hilarious.

Yup - most of the skeptics I follow don't have any ties to the government, but again, most of them don't concentrate on UFOs. The skeptics I follow (like the SGU people) usually get accused of being shills for big pharma and the NWO...
I think all Klass wanted was for people not to believe anything without true physical proof. That's how I look at it anyway.

 

[Kieran]

Come on. A number of Skeptics joined this forum and were very much opposed to UFO's.., Is Angel working for the government? You don't have to be working for anyone, but yourself to be skeptical. I don't see any evidence we could point to support that argument.

I thought it was an ok Interview. I have begun to understand that lot of people researching UF0s, will never understand the complexities of Feary lore, and lot of them think all the information about this lore exists in Vallée books. Actually the best information is found outside this field with new DNA discoveries and historical evidence. The thing is you have to connect the dots to this field of research, which lot of UFO researchers can't seem to do. Vallee and Imbrogno got into it a bit with their own research.

I do believe there is connection between Feary lore and UFOS, Jerome believes their Aliens from other planets fine, nothing other than their is objects been spotted on radar that we can't explain. Jerome says Vallée does not believe in ETH.. well that is totally wrong, Vallée even on this show ETH is valid Hypothesis but the data the evidence does not support that theory. There is a difference.

The new evidence about Rendlesham is exciting if true. Again another hint or clue showing a connection between fairy myth and UFO's. I personally believe Jim is telling the truth why would Jim let his notebook be tested, if he was hiding something?

 

[J.T.]

Terrific episode. The ability of the guest and the hosts to disagree on a subject, yet discuss it in a civil, intelligent manner -- Jung, Vallee, Fairies etc -- is commendable. Clark seemed to be somewhat off in his assessment of Vallee as Kieran points out.

The conversation about acceptance of ambiguity and dedication despite any discernible resolution in the horizon, was nicely verbalized and always important to bring up.

Clark has strong opinions, and years of experience to back them up. I don't agree with all of them, but his conviction certainly made me rearrange and reconsider some of my own reality tunnels. Good job.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Terrific episode. The ability of the guest and the hosts to disagree on a subject, yet discuss it in a civil, intelligent manner -- Jung, Vallee, Fairies etc -- is commendable. Clark seemed to be somewhat off in his assessment of Vallee as Kieran points out.

The conversation about acceptance of ambiguity and dedication despite any discernible resolution in the horizon, was nicely verbalized and always important to bring up.

Clark has strong opinions, and years of experience to back them up. I don't agree with all of them, but his conviction certainly made me rearrange and reconsider some of my own reality tunnels. Good job.

That's a great point. There were disagreements, but they were discussed properly. Gene and Chris did a great job.

 

[CapnG]

Great show this week. Interesting discussions on a broad range of topics and yet it never felt rambly or unfocussed.

One sort of random point about Jerome's comments regarding Ezekiel's wheel though. I don't think it takes any effort at all, extraordinary or otherwise, to "unpack" that story into a UFO encounter. Granted, this means taking a story out of the Bible at nigh-face value, something not to be done lightly but it does stand out from other books simply because it is so much less alagorical and so much more in the form of a "report".

Which is not to say I'm supporting that bizarre effort by... um... damn, what was his name now... he was a frenchman I think, anyway by that guy back in the 70s to codify the story into a physically recognizable craft with propellers and landing gear and so forth. Nothing sillier to me than trying to take the interpretation of a man from the bronze age and shoe-horn it in to the visual vernacular of the space-age. I'm just saying it's not a leap across the grand canyon of believability to suggest a primitive human encountering an exterrestrial craft and it's occupants would result in a document like the book of Ezekiel.

 

[Thabtos]

It is my firm opinion that if Mr. Friedman is the dean of UFO research, Jerome Clark is the University President. I read his Encyclopedia of Strange and Unexplained Physical Phenomena when I was a teenager, and I personally think there is no better researcher into the paranormal.

I've always thought that he constantly searches for the truth, and if he thinks he's wrong than he admits it and amends his views. He seems to me as someone who tries his to best to be open-minded to every point of view, be it a skeptic or someone trying to explain every hitherto unknown detail about ET culture. He doesn't belittle anyone and if he disagrees with someone's views, he simply says, "I'm not convinced."


I thought this was the best episode since Michael Horne's legendary on-air nervous breakdown.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You sure you didn't mean Steve Bassett?

 

[mike]

An excellent interview, worth listening to twice at least,
His comments about vocubulary are on the mark imo, as were his comments on vallee.
At times it was like listening to myself being channeled with an american accent.
The vocabulay we are using to describe the enigma is evolving, abut i dont think we are quite there yet.
Specifically i think we are looking at this via the life and death filter that is our reality.

My gut feeling is that once we master this technology

In Kurzweil's estimation, we will be able to upload the human brain to a computer, capturing "a person's entire personality, memory, skills and history", by the end of the 2030s; humans and non-biological machines will then merge so effectively that the differences between them will no longer matter

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/by-2040-you-will-be-able-to-upload-your-brain-1792555.html

We will have the language to describe the reality

If THEY are transbiological in nature, If in fact the vast majority of sentient space faring entities are post biological, that what we call reality is a primative minority example, then our vocabulary isnt yet up to describing them.
Is it possible that Kurzweils estimation is the natural progression made by all sufficently technologically advanced sentience.
Survival is the prime directive of most life forms, finding a way to preserve conciousness after the native bioform breaks down beyond self or external repair may be the natural order of sentient evolution.
we already do it on a small scale ie heart transplants etc, Kurzweils vision is simply the next logical leap, rather than replace broken components to preserve conciousness, transplant the conciousness itself.
We are biological entities, we see the universe through that filter, thus we see EBE's. Thats where our vocabulary is at in the present day.
I suspect that once Kurzweils dream becomes reality, we will be a considerable step closer to possesing the vocabulary to properly describe Them

 

[plumbbob12]

Real vs. shadow realm:
I really enjoyed Jerome Clark’s interview, but in my humble view, we are all missing the boat. As I have speculated about in previous post, I think that the human mind is somewhat of an enigma in our part of the universe. I believe, (although I cannot prove using scientific method), that the EBE’s are not attempting to hide their existence. They do not “wipe” our memories when we experience abductions. The aliens are interested in the part of our minds, (which we call sub consciousness), which they do not see as separate from our consciousness. There is no need to wipe our memories, because, just as a dream is vague or not remembered, so too are the experiences we have with either there craft, or there interaction with us. We tend to think that all intelligent minds will act the same, and the walls we have in our minds, between the ego, and unconsciousness will exist in other forms of life. Maybe the major part of our minds is our unconsciousness, and our ego mind, or our waking mind is just a small unimportant part of our total consciousness, and does not even register in the “minds” of our gray friends. This would mean that all the hoopla written by such greats as vallee’ and others, who believe that this is some kind of illusion on the group unconsciousness is a non-issue. A good metaphor would be our viewpoint of breathing air. For the most part, we never think of all the different molecules that define our air. We would have a hard time dealing with an intelligence that defined air as only the argon it contains, and ignores the oxygen, and nitrogen as “illusionary”, or a figment of our fantasy. We humans are treating our consciousness as the “argon” that makes up only 0.93% of our mind “atmosphere”, while ignoring the oxygen and other gases that gives us life. Maybe our minds are much the same, and what we call the waking consciousness is only an minute part. pb

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Yeah, I think it's a credibility stretch for any UFO/UAP investigator to have Fed ties, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
But if it was to happen to anyone, I'd put Klass at the head of the list.

My overall impression at the moment re. Klass is that his vocal distaste for the UFO phenomenon stemmed from his moral sense of patriotism; and that many Ufologists' constant claim that the government was "hiding the truth about UFOs" rubbed him in a very wrong way.

As for the show, I enjoyed it. A civil discussion with good questions. Personally I find kind of baffling that Clark can't entertain the possibility that the UFO phenomenon has joined mankind prior to the XXth century —although I can respect it if he feels there's no evidence to support this.

I also don't feel I can agree with his position that Ufology should focus on the trace evidence left by close encounters of the second kind —what he refers to as the "core" of Event Phenomena. He makes a clear distinction between these events, and what he refers to as Experiencial Phenomena, where all the tales of high-strangeness lurk —Mothman, abductions, and the menacing stare Indrid Cold and his MIB compadres.

I don't disagree with the distinctions. Where I do disagree is with this clear downplaying of the Experiencial phenomena. Mr Clark believes the "meat" of the bone lies in following the trace evidence in order to make a case and advance our scientific knowledge. He seems to suggest we should focus on the cases related to UFOs "as we understand them" (i.e. as we expect them to behave). Close encounters are then relegated to the kind of visionary experience that have been part of mankind's mystical lore for thousands of years. They are "too hard to explain"... so why bother, then?

I'm afraid I just can't share Mr. Clark's certainty. I suspect there may be something very significant to discover in Experiencial phenomena, if we just bother to pay attention.

 

[SRL+]

Searching Wikipedia I found Mr. Clark highly credentialed. His insight as to the history of research into the phenomena is remarkable. I wouldn’t go as far as to liken Mr. Clark as a “University President” with Mr. Friedman as “Dean”. I would tend to think of Mr. Friedman as “Fleet Admiral,” and Mr. Clark as “Admiral”. While searching for the “the meat on the bone” hidden within the soft white underbelly of the shadow of complexities Mr. Clark attempted to share his view on the phenomena. Whether or not Mr. Clark shared Vallee’s views , Mr. Vallee did not deserve to be assailed in such a toxic manner. It’s almost as though Vallee & Jung had collectively rendered Mr. Clark unconscious, pooped in his Easter basket and then hid it in Jung’s library.

 

[Kandinsky]

Whether or not Mr. Clark shared Vallee’s views , Mr. Vallee did not deserve to be assailed in such a toxic manner. It’s almost as though Vallee & Jung had collectively rendered Mr. Clark unconscious, pooped in his Easter basket and then hid it in Jung’s library.

Clark and Vallee have a lot of personal history. They've been in the scene for about the same amount of time, shared the same ideas at one time and were friends. Clark's opinion of Vallee's views is valid and based on his intellect and personal experience. Rather than 'toxic,' it's informed opinion.

 

[mike]

Personally i didnt see the comments re Vallee as toxic,
Humans have a natural tendancy to try and fit the evidence into their ideas and theorys as to the answers, Mr Vallee is no exception here, You take the evidence ,fit it into your theory, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes, Vallee's outside the box approach is a valuable contribution to the field, but not everyone is going to salute it when its run up the flagpole.

personally i have a problem with quotes like this, they put me off Vallee

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>The visitors seem willing to conform to whatever mythology or beliefs they find; they become what we want them to be and tell us what we want to hear. Modern mythology having shifted from the magical to the scientific, it's only logical that the visitors would pose as scientifically advanced beings from space."

Dr. Jacques Vallee​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

"I dont Know" are the three most honest words we have in this genre, so when i read quotes like that , which come across as absolute statements of fact, i have a red flag moment.
And i think that quote typifies the gestalt of what Mr Clark said about him. Hes taken the data and used it to support his premise (which is normal) but i cant salute the premise. To me it seems more likely that they havent changed at all, that our vocabulary has changed from mythological to scientific as we have advanced our knowledge base, and as such our descriptions are more accurate.
I think its more likely that in the scenario vallee describes in that quote, whats changed is our vocabulary, not the nature of the mystery.

 

[SRL+]

Clark and Vallee have a lot of personal history. They've been in the scene for about the same amount of time, shared the same ideas at one time and were friends. Clark's opinion of Vallee's views is valid and based on his intellect and personal experience. Rather than 'toxic,' it's informed opinion.

If they were friends, where & when did that love end? By the way I do agree "toxic" is overstated, lets then just call it unflattering....fair enough?

 

[mike]

You sure you didn't mean Steve Bassett?

I went and saw Mr Bassett when he toured the land down under.
I ended up leaving at the tea break, way too much noise and bugger all signal