Jerome Clark Show

[mike]

On the topic of "greys" being a modern american meme

the big boss WANDJINA, came down from the Milky Way during DREAMTIME and created the earth and all its inhabitants. Then he took one look at those inhabitants and headed back home for reinforcements. This was going to be a tricky job.

With the aid of the DREAMTIME-SNAKE, the WANDJINA descended and spent their DREAMTIME creating, teaching and being God-like to the natives. These Gods from the Milky Way were so powerful that they didn't need to speak. So they didn't bother to have mouths.

They were definite good guys, and are still worshipped and respected Top Gods to this day. (And how many deities can still say that?) Eye-witness reports are thin on the ground, but many ancient cave paintings still exist and show eerie creatures with large heads, huge black eyes and suspiciously spacesuit-like garments. In fact, they look just like Grey aliens from modern U.F.O. abduction scenarios.

Strangely enough, in 1838, a sea captain discovered an amazing treasure trove of Aboriginal artistry, filled with primitive and powerful WANDJINA cave pictures. His name was Captain Grey. Coincidence??? We can't tell you because the Kimberley tribes are very close-mouthed, just like their WANDJINA.

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/australian-mythology.php?deity=WANDJINA&ds=N







Interesting they are depicted with no mouth, might this "depict" telepathic style comunication ?

 

[Simone_m]

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

Could our sub(un)conscious mind be part of an alternate dimension, the one where we go after death? I experienced two dreams following the deaths of people I knew.

 

[plumbbob12]

Thanks for the post on your dreams. My brother and I had a very weird experience when we were young, seeing only what I can describe as a "monster" hand that appeared on my bed one night. The “hand” had long bony fingers. I cannot remember if it was 4 or 5 fingers, but I think four fingers, and long claws, with some kind of smooth weird skin. (To this day, both of us agree about what happened, so I know it was not a dream, but what it was, I do not have a clue). I think that if these Grays are indeed from another physical place, or dimension, they do not divide up there consciences like we do, but live in all aspects of reality, and experience all of it. They are probably very perplexed with us, and the way we only have a conscience remembrance of such a small part of “reality”. Just like your dreams, they might experience all of this as one universal reality. Of course this is pure speculation, and cannot be proven, but it is interesting to think about. pb
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[Thabtos]

You sure you didn't mean Steve Bassett?

Stating the facts as to who was the last person on the Paracast to have a legendary nervous breakdown isn't going to get us anywhere. The point is that the government is lying to us.

 

[Will Penguin]

Great show, Gene and Chris!

I don't agree with Mr Clark's take on everything, but I definitely found him an intelligent and thought-provoking guest. I thought the questions asked and the way both hosts guided the discussion made for a very compelling episode.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

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

Vallée's speculations on the nature of the UFO phenomena are just that, personal views and feelings he gets from the data he possesses (while reading his books I found no difficulties in distinguishing between objective data and personal considerations). I respect Jerome Clark very much, because he is a good investigator and has made several important contributions to the field. The problem is that his separation between what he calls "event phenomena", that he associates with possible extraterrestrial visitations, and the "experience phenomena", a category he uses to encapsulate high-weirdness reports, is reductive and artificial. Vallée work, for instance, makes it clear that those two categories are connected and we have many important cases where a "traditional" UFO sighting walks hand-in-hand with anomalous experiences from the point of view of the witness. The interpretational leaps he makes from there can be subjected to criticism, as any other theories on this matter can. The fact is that there seems to be a connection between the physical processes associated with UFOs (movement, energy, luminosity, etc) and the strange behavior, reactions and after effects presented by the witnesses (specially on close encounter cases). To separate those factors into only two categories is, at least to me, too reductive regarding the perceived amplitude of the phenomena. Trying to find a single overarching answer to the problem is even more counter productive. Until we have a clear definition of what the object(s) of study of "ufology" (understanding it as a putative scientific discipline) really is(are), no answers will ever be attained.

P.S. - By the way, great show Gene and Chris. With guests of this caliber I can only say "keep'em coming!"

 

[red_pill_junkie]

The fact is that there seems to be a connection between the physical processes associated with UFOs (movement, energy, luminosity, etc) and the strange behavior, reactions and after effects presented by the witnesses (specially on close encounter cases). To separate those factors into only two categories is, at least to me, too reductive regarding the perceived amplitude of the phenomena. Trying to find a single overarching answer to the problem is even more counter productive. Until we have a clear definition of what the object(s) of study of "ufology" (understanding it as a putative scientific discipline) really is(are), no answers will ever be attained.

At the end of the day, these fantastic event phenomena seem to be meant to be experienced

 

[jimp]

For some reason, this interview was difficult for me to get through. I am familiar with Clark's book Unexplained! -- which is a wonderful introduction to the unified field of unexplained phenomena -- Forteana, for lack of a better term. Clark came off as a bit starchy, prickly, and "field weary". Gene seemed to prickle a bit in return -- and Chris seemed like a university student asking questions of a great professor. Chris's enthusiasm and gee-whiz attitude was firmly squelched by the great master. "Yes, yes," he says, "I once thought as you do, but now I know better." Clark could have said -- about the Jungian approach for instance -- that although he no longer subscribes to the Jungian view, it certainly raises interesting questions with enticing possibilities. Clark often came off as immediately dismissive -- although it must be wearying for him to hear new enthusiasts proclaiming "new" ideas that he brought up in depth twenty or thirty years ago.

Clark did convince me, though, that at least part of the UFO phenomenon is a physical "nuts and bolts" occurrence. The sightings by pilots and multiple witnesses, with confirmation by radar and other instrumentation, indicates something tangible and "real". I'm not sure, though, that extraterrestrial visitors are the only explanation for such phenomena.

In a field with no sure answers and only fascinating possibilities, it seems to me that the only way a researcher can last without becoming jaded and crotchety is to continue to find new ways of looking at stuff -- or find variations on old ways of looking. I enjoy listening to guests and co-hosts who have a childlike wonder about the paranormal and unexplained, while remaining grounded in reason and common sense.

-- Jim