Jim Sparks

[Recon]

We never said Jim was a bad guy... I also don't think anyone attacked him personally, I just think he needs to start backing up his claims...

I get that he has no physical evidence from the abductions... but he does have some things that will support his claim... such as the dude that he ran into that was also abducted... I would like to see him accompany Jim on the next show.

Jim sounds like a nice guy, and I still enjoy his stories. I hope he doesn't think we hate him, which i doubt he does. If you in the field he is in, he has encountered sceptics of his story before.

I hope he comes back.
Out of a rating from 1 to 10, I give his story a believability rating of 3.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Looks like he's coming back. March 18th. Looking forward to it.

Hehe, a typo on the notice, "Contacteee".

 

[idris33]

I think he sounds like a nice guy but some of Jim's claims that bother me are:

1. He said that these creatures have worked or sometimes work with our governments (the ones that don't want us to know anything about this issue) but these creatures still reach out to the average Joe, or in this case, Jim, to spread knowledge that our governments clearly don't want spread. So are they working against or with our governments' wishes?

2. Why observe his family and him (and presumably the same for others) for generations just to spread a very general message that we are abusing the Earth today? We have large numbers of people today telling us this without the inter-dimensional help.

3. Are years of semen extraction really needed to pass along this message? Will semen extraction become the 21st century anal probe?

4. Why select him to spread this message and not someone more well known?

5. Why the torture?

6. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but if he was being trained to absorb large quantities of data, what is it? IMHO, that many years is a huge waste of time for the little bit I've heard.

The more I listen to his story, the more it starts to sound like some of the out of body experiences of Robert Monroe. Spiritual, but in parallel with the physical. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there because I have a hard time digesting it as only physical.

 

[The Hawk]

1. He said that these creatures have worked or sometimes work with our governments (the ones that don't want us to know anything about this issue) but these creatures still reach out to the average Joe, or in this case, Jim, to spread knowledge that our governments clearly don't want spread. So are they working against or with our governments' wishes?

2. Why observe his family and him (and presumably the same for others) for generations just to spread a very general message that we are abusing the Earth today? We have large numbers of people today telling us this without the inter-dimensional help.

3. Are years of semen extraction really needed to pass along this message? Will semen extraction become the 21st century anal probe?

4. Why select him to spread this message and not someone more well known?

5. Why the torture?

6. Maybe I wasn't paying attention but if he was being trained to absorb large quantities of data, what is it? IMHO, that many years is a huge waste of time for the little bit I've heard.

I can actually answer these pretty decent based on his book and interviews.

1. He thinks that there are black budget individuals in the know who don't really know as much as they think they do. And some other group the ones working with the aliens but he doesn't know why or what they are doing together.

2. He doesn't seem to know and questions their motives. But as he said in the Paracast interview he thinks he understands 1-2 degrees of their 360 degrees of motives.

3. The semen extraction is normal to gray abductions (older individuals). So is hybridisation unfortunately. One would think it might be a little fringe with abductees. Nope it's the norm to those who remember enough and their abduction experiences are followed to later years. I wonder myself what his take on the hybrids are. I don't think he has addressed the motive to that?

4. He asks the same question in his book. He doesn't seem to know.

5. There was a punishment/reward system they used on him to get him to cooperate. This is actually not very typical to abductions but he was very persistent not too cooperate and if his mind is harder to control than most abductees; which I would assume since he has conscious memory then I guess it makes since.

6. He didn't answer this when asked via interview. From the book it sounds like he was forced to just read mundane nothings. Some of the final material near the end of the book was some story about a friend or something. My guess is that there will be more on that in the next book. (It was a bit fishy that he avoided that question.)

 

[idris33]

Thanks for the details; I appreciate the clarification. The implications of some of Jim's statements, if true, can be seen in a different way.

1. From what I heard, he has not released any significant messages from his visitors but they seem to try to convince him, and others, that they have one to reveal. It may also be possible to conclude that he is being deceived into thinking he has a "mission" or "purpose" in order to make him compliant for something.

2. I understand that the reported behaviour of greys are consistent with his description but it still doesn't answer why anyone or anything would spend so much time extracting semen or torturing someone into complying. If the "message" is important, why not find someone else who is more accepting. The time saved could be significant if this is true. Again, it seems to me that there is an ulterior motive to obtain biological data from him as a subject, not an attempt to have him disseminate data.

After listening to his encounter, these conclusions seem more plausible to me. Someone/something may be misleading him into believing he has a message but he and his family could easily be the subject of a biological experiment or study. I just don't see any other purpose to it yet.

I'd like to propose a suggestion for him if someone could make it during his next call. Maybe he could be convinced to specifically tell them that he lives in a society with many skeptics and needs more concrete evidence than just his word to spread their message, something physical perhaps. Maybe they could be convinced to appear to people during their waking hours and not just during sleep. Maybe they could be convinced to be clearly photographed. Maybe, if he hasn't already, he could consult a hypnotherapist who could extract more information then he may be able to remember. Just some ideas. What do you all think?

 

[The Hawk]

"... it seems to me that there is an ulterior motive to obtain biological data from him as a subject, not an attempt to have him disseminate data. .."

Well yeah..
They probably have a number of reasons for coming here. If we look at human reasons in comparison think about all the crap scientists do observing animals in the wild they can have 10,20.. 100 reasons for doing what they do around the animals. It's too difficult to try and spend the time explaining to a chimp why you need to give it a shot or something.
We are the chimps..

Also think about the lengths some people go to to study like the mating ritual of some random insect or whatnot. There are people who spend decades alone researching really boring crap.

Or the grays may be so time dilated and emotionly different that wasting 8 years to teach a monkey the alphabet is to them like a day in our time.

I think they are probably like the cold calculated hired science minds in this neck of the universe. Like human culture we hire certain people for certain jobs. Well think of how much more efficient it would be if we had robots or species that specialized in certain tasks (obviously we already do to a degree). The science community wouldn't think twice about having a robot out there for 20 years to study some meek stupid little thing about how kangaroos mate and any number of things like that.

Lastly it's my educated guess that a species given long enough with high technology will evolve out violence and anti-sustainable actions either by becoming cold and calculated or by becoming lovey dovey. The grays being the first. The reptilans probably somewhere in between or who knows. It would make since for an advanced race to point at as and say "..stupid monkey you aren't sustainable". And then not give us crap to work with because we are too unpredictable in the first place. IMO it's the smart thing to do, to let us learn our own lessons and leave definitive evidence of their presence out of the picture. I don't like that.. None of us like that.. but...

 

[hopeful skeptic]

A thoroughly enjoyable show. Whenever Linda Howe and the word "evidence" appear in the same sentence, I know I'm in for a fun ride. I lit a cigar, sat back and listened to 90 minutes of logic and reason being butchered.

I can scarcely wait for the 18th.

 

[idris33]

"... it seems to me that there is an ulterior motive to obtain biological data from him as a subject, not an attempt to have him disseminate data. .."

Well yeah..
They probably have a number of reasons for coming here. If we look at human reasons in comparison think about all the crap scientists do observing animals in the wild they can have 10,20.. 100 reasons for doing what they do around the animals. It's too difficult to try and spend the time explaining to a chimp why you need to give it a shot or something.
We are the chimps..

Also think about the lengths some people go to to study like the mating ritual of some random insect or whatnot. There are people who spend decades alone researching really boring crap.

Or the grays may be so time dilated and emotionly different that wasting 8 years to teach a monkey the alphabet is to them like a day in our time.

I think they are probably like the cold calculated hired science minds in this neck of the universe. Like human culture we hire certain people for certain jobs. Well think of how much more efficient it would be if we had robots or species that specialized in certain tasks (obviously we already do to a degree). The science community wouldn't think twice about having a robot out there for 20 years to study some meek stupid little thing about how kangaroos mate and any number of things like that.

Lastly it's my educated guess that a species given long enough with high technology will evolve out violence and anti-sustainable actions either by becoming cold and calculated or by becoming lovey dovey. The grays being the first. The reptilans probably somewhere in between or who knows. It would make since for an advanced race to point at as and say "..stupid monkey you aren't sustainable". And then not give them crap to work with because they are too unpredictable in the first place. IMO it's the smart thing to do, to let us learn our own lessons and leave definitive evidence of their presence out of the picture. I don't like that.. None of us like that.. but...

I'm wasn't trying to speculate on what grays and reptilians may be. I'm simply saying that Jim's story can easily be seen from a different and darker point of view. But you bring up a good point that I would like to expand upon.

Last year, I spoke to a woman that claims she saw a demon in her church, and has seen many more before that. I have spoken to others who make the same claim. There are some belief systems that acknowledge the existence of demons, devils, angels, etc. and we have never had any proof that could be shown to the masses as to whether this is even true or not, but tons of people believe in them whether they've experienced these creatures or not.

After thousands of years, there is a growing culture that is now replacing the religions of demons, devils, and angels, along with their mysterious motives, for greys (1/2 mechanical or fully biological), reptilians, blond hybrids, crypto-terrestrials, etc. I'm not implying that any of these experiences or stories are untrue but I think that, after all of the damage that belief systems run rampant have caused us, it seems like this is all becoming a new religion. We've now got a partial mythology of what these creatures are, their technology levels, and now, even the idea that we are like chimps to their intellect. And this is all without a shred of verifiable evidence. Again, it may all be true, but we need verification. Based on things Jim said, they weren't above working with our governments in the past so they seem capable of seeing us as something more than chimps.

BTW - Are you Ben Grundy, host of Mysterious Universe or associated with him?

 

[idris33]

General question for anyone. Can someone let me know of a contactee or abductee that is generally considered credible or that has a track record of producing evidence? I'm not necessarily looking for a photo of someone shaking hands with or smoking a Cuban cigar with a gray, but something credible. Let me know. I'm curious and want to read up on more solid info if it is out there.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

General question for anyone. Can someone let me know of a contactee or abductee that is generally considered credible or that has a track record of producing evidence? I'm not necessarily looking for a photo of someone shaking hands with or smoking a Cuban cigar with a gray, but something credible. Let me know. I'm curious and want to read up on more solid info if it is out there.

Debbie Jordan "Intruders" case. Derrel Sims and Roger Leir have some interesting abductee cases where some "implants" have been removed. Although a few tomatoes might get thrown, Ed Walters has some possible evidence (dog death, marks on body, trace case, multiple witness, some hard, if not impossible to fake photos and vids), Whitley Streiber has interesting video of him with his doctor. The doctor is trying to get an anomalous object from inside Whit's ear and the thing moves etc. Betty Cash close encounter, Stan Romanak case, Betty and Barney Hill case to name a few.

I've dealt with a few cases myself, but the only physical evidence were strange scars.

 

[idris33]

Debbie Jordan "Intruders" case. Derrel Sims and Roger Leir have some interesting abductee cases where some "implants" have been removed. Although a few tomatoes might get thrown, Ed Walters has some possible evidence (dog death, marks on body, trace case, multiple witness, some hard, if not impossible to fake photos and vids), Whitley Streiber has interesting video of him with his doctor. The doctor is trying to get an anomalous object from inside Whit's ear and the thing moves etc. Betty Cash close encounter, Stan Romanak case, Betty and Barney Hill case to name a few.

I've dealt with a few cases myself, but the only physical evidence were strange scars.

Thanks! I've read a bit on the Betty and Barney Hill case and am intrigued by the item in Whitley Streiber's ear. I didn't know there was any video footage regarding it so I will have to look for that. I will also look up the others as well. Thanks for the info.

BTW, I lied, I really would like to see someone with an alien smoking a Cuban cigar.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Thanks! I've read a bit on the Betty and Barney Hill case and am intrigued by the item in Whitley Streiber's ear. I didn't know there was any video footage regarding it so I will have to look for that. I will also look up the others as well. Thanks for the info.

BTW, I lied, I really would like to see someone with an alien smoking a Cuban cigar.

I've seen Whitley's video myself. It's hard to find on the net though. I've only seen it once. I'll try to find a link to it, though I doubt I'll succeed. If anyone else out there knows where one can view the vid, please let us know. Thanks.

Betty has some supposedly strange chemicals on the dress she wore the night of the encounter. Her dog died from something similar to radiation poisoning. This is often un mentioned, so thought I'd mention it.

Roger Leir reportedly has video of a possible alien materializing in someone's closet. I haven't seen it yet, but communicated with him about it. He told me it's on one of his dvds.... I didn't bite. There was talk of him putting it up on his site, but that hasn't happened since I communicated with him so far as I know. He thought it was up there, but was wrong. He has a webmaster in charge. No cigar in vid though.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Um... ok, so it was very easy to find. It's linked on this page. You'll have to scroll down for it.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/edge/video/


I saw a much longer and better version of it years ago.

 

[Tom Levine]

So, we've basically exhausted ourselves from all of that intense Sparks bashing...

He's going to be back on the show on 3-18, in less than a week, and we have absolutely nothing to say

The threads' been dead for 4 days.

I find that funny.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

So, we've basically exhausted ourselves from all of that intense Sparks bashing...

He's going to be back on the show on 3-18, in less than a week, and we have absolutely nothing to say

The threads' been dead for 4 days.

I find that funny.

I've been really really easy on Sparks. I only thumped him.

 

[BrandonD]

Hi I'm new to the forum and have been a listener of the Paracast for a little over a month now. I appreciate the approach of the hosts, which I believe mirrors my own point of view. I have been a researcher into this subject for a long time and I recognize the reality of the ufo phenomenon, and yet I don't subscribe to any particular point of view regarding the specific nature of the phenomenon.

I recently listened to the interview with Jim Sparks and the commentary that followed it. I would like to throw in my thoughts on the subject, perhaps they'll be of use when he comes back on the program.

From my point of view, Jim is a man who is honestly relating his experiences as he remembered them. The criticisms of his story that I've heard (lack of logic, physical evidence, etc), I do not find as relevant as the fact that he has subjected himself and his story to rigorous examination.

During the mass sighting of the phoenix lights a decade ago, I noticed that people were giving slightly different reports of what was seen. They were all roughly the same, but slightly different (ie, chevron-shaped, triangle shaped, black, gray, 5 lights, 7 lights, etc). Does this lack of consistency mean that the phoenix lights event did not occur, or that the witnesses are lying? People will answer "no" because of the huge amount of witnesses. But imagine if the sighting was only by 3 people. If that was the case, it is very likely that many people would have written this sighting off as a hoax or hallucination.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that, for anyone who has studied this subject and actually takes it seriously, you cannot deny that there are elements of "high strangeness" involved, and that this phenomenon somehow interacts with the consciousness of the participants. It is not just a nuts and bolts phenomenon. Because of this, one of the important remaining factors for establishing the truthfulness of a witness is the fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their story to honest interrogation and questioning.

I have seen many paranormal "participants" who claim to be open to questioning, but when the real hard questions come down, they either clam up or get belligerent. Duncan O'Finioan, for example. (this doesn't mean I disregard his testimony altogether, but a person's attitude toward confrontational questions is very telling)

That being said, just because a person honestly relays their experience doesn't lead me to believe that the "other" entities involved are necessarily being honest. In fact, that is my hunch regarding this particular case: A man who is honestly relaying experiences thrust upon him by beings that are exploiting and deceiving him.

The fact that fear and pain are being used as a means of conditioning, and the condoning of dishonesty of those in positions of power, are alarm bells in themselves. Those are the exact tactics of the military, which I personally do not consider a force of "good" in our world.

And the whole shtick about the environment just comes off as BS. Studying the phenomenon over the years, it is clear that whatever the "greys" and "reptilians" might be, they have no moral objections against using force and punishment to persuade humans to follow their agendas. So it is my opinion that if these entities really wanted our environment to be different, then it would be different. Because of this, I strongly doubt that the environment is really an issue with these entities. I think instead that this story is being used because it's an issue that resonates with human culture, and so it is available as a ready-made explanation to offer "meaning" to the victim, perhaps as a "treat" for good behavior...

"Ah you learned well today, so as a reward we'll tell you that you've been chosen as a messenger of the Galactic Federation, with a message to clean the environment." -- This would be irrelevant to the agenda of the entities, and it would probably also cause the victim to be less defiant.

The underlying pattern of abductions is not a positive one in my opinion, and Mr Sparks story is not an exception. The phenomenon has many of the characteristics of a chicken coop (or a "human coop"). But all of this being said, I don't claim to have real knowledge about the greater reality. My opinions are up for criticism just like anyone's. Thanks for reading.

 

[The Hawk]

You make a valid point that abductees being fed stuff about the environment could be a ploy to make them more cooperative or some such thing.

If abductees were offered that BS earlier in abduction process SOME like Sparks probably would not have been in the frame of mind where they would accept the environment ploy.

It would also be in the Grays and Reptilians favor on a grander scale if they cloak their real agenda by ending an abductees decade of abuse with a message:
'Oh, btw all that.. we were just preparing you for tree hugging, I swears."
- So says the Gray overlord in a black cloak wearing a yellow sombrero..

 

[Tom Levine]

..My opinions are up for criticism just like anyone's. Thanks for reading.

Well my friend, you didn't think you were going to get way with saying all of that, and NOT get a rebuttle, did you?

Let's all take a deep breath...We're all friends at the end of the day...Okay, you ready? Here we go...

You said:

The criticisms of his story that I've heard (lack of logic, physical evidence, etc), I do not find as relevant as the fact that he has subjected himself and his story to rigorous examination.

Yes on the criticisms, and no on your point. The vast majority of the interviews that I've heard (which includes C2C, Kevin Smith, TheParacast [respectfully], and a couple others) have all been media-based interviews, ie: radio broadcasts. With respect, these are no "rigorous examinations". Not even Gene and David, although they did ask 'some' of the hard questions. But, the purpose of these shows, primarily, is entertainment. In exchange for a couple hours of material and content, you get radio-time, and a chance to sell your wares. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is completely inaccurate to describe it as "rigorous examination". Sparks has been asked, a number of times, if he would be willing to partake in a polygraph examination. He's said yes. I think he should, and yet, where is it? Radio shows are not courts of law. You are not required to tell the truth under penalty of perjury here. You can lie all you want, disinform at will, misrepresent all you wish, and there is virtually no recourse that can be made against you, unlike if you were to lie under oath in a court of law, which would be perjury and the penalty could be severe. The only recourse that could be made against you for providing false testimony in the media, is if you are providing erroneous information that might hurt someone else, such as libel or slander. For these wrongdoings, a civil action can be brought, and you can indeed face severe financial penalties. But, who is Sparks going to hurt? The Zeta Reticulans? No, sir. Mass Media radio-shows is by no means a rigorous examination.

You said:

"...for anyone who has studied this subject and actually takes it seriously..."

Woh! Carefully, buddy. That sounds suspiciously like a 'wholier-than-thou' statement. You aren't saying that the rest of us have not studied the subject, and do not take it seriously, are you? No, certainly not. I didn't think so. Phew! Glad we cleared that up.

You said:

It is not just a nuts and bolts phenomenon. Because of this, one of the important remaining factors for establishing the truthfulness of a witness is the fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their story to honest interrogation and questioning.

Woops. That's quite a statement. Let's explore it, shall we?

So, what you're saying is that when someone goes on TV or the radio and subjects themselves to questioning, that establishes their testimony as being truthful? And because of the "high strangeness" of paranormal material, it is not a "nuts and bolts" phenomenon? Did I get that right?

Well friend, any research, any investigation, especially paranormal research, requires the highest level of standards. That means the accumulation of facts, evidence, and data. You have to look at the nuts. You have to look at the bolts. You have to gather them, and they are most certainly there. Want some examples? Photos, Videos, Testimony, Radar, physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, legal and Freedom of Information Act documentation, trace evidence from landings, alleged implants, jeez, the list goes on and on.

And gathering that data isn't enough. No, sir. It must be meticulously examined, scrutinized, evaluated, analyzed, and not by anyone, but by the largest, brightest, most brilliant minds on the planet. They're out there, by the way...All kinds of scientists, doctors, and various experts are in on the subject. Only after all of THAT, can you draw some kind of solid conclusions about what each paranormal phenomenon actually is or is not. You don't HAVE do all of that, of course. But, to let someone off the hook because of the "strangeness" factor, is just too much for me. To let the entire paranormal field off the hook, because it's more than a "nuts and bolts" phenomenon, is really throwing almost all of the rock-solid, reliable, empirical evidence, completely out.

It's interesting, but I feel exactly the opposite. I think the paranormal field IS a nuts and bolts thing, and I do NOT believe that someone is speaking truthfully, simply because they are subjecting themselves to media attention. On this point, I believe, we are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Listen, I have nothing against your thoughts and ideas about what may or may not be going on. In fact, I love that stuff! I love hearing your thoughts on what the "greys" and "reptilians" may or may not be, and I enjoy listening to your world-view on subjects like the military, and the Phoenix Lights, and the chicken-coop! So, I'm not beating you up on those subjects. Only the ones mentioned above.

But back to Sparks. Many people have mentioned, in this thread, the countless problems associated with Sparks testimony. I won't go over them at length in this post...They're all here in this thread going back several pages, should anyone care to revisit them. But I will say this: The circumstantial evidence against Sparks, is very high. Gene and David touched upon the illogic of his testimony, there's been the lack of evidence brought forth, that Sparks has he, himself, alleged to in his own public testimony. We still have not seen his friend from Florida that was a participant in one of the mass sightings, we still have not seen the black, sticky goo that they gave him as a gift; We still have not seen the polygraph which he promised to participate in; So, there are countless, countless examples of inconsistencies, illogical statements, lack of evidence, lack of corroboration, etc. It would be very easy for me to go back into a re-rant, so I'll refrain.

Here's the key problem: I still want the evidence. Right now, all I have, is Sparks. I'm afraid that's not good enough. Let's set up some video cameras around Sparks, 24/7, like The Real World. Let's go talk to one of those futuremen Sparks is now cohorting with. How hard can it be to get a strand of hair, a coin from 2050, anything...I'll settle for an alien in a polaroid holding up tommorows' newspaper. Sparks said, to them, it's as easy as using a remote control, right?

And so, you are convinced that he is the real deal. Many of us are not yet convinced of that. I guess the only thing that I'd leave with you on that note, is the following:

One should stay open to the possibility that Sparks is a hoaxer, as much as one stays open to the possibility that he is not.

 

[BrandonD]

Well my friend, you didn't think you were going to get way with saying all of that, and NOT get a rebuttle, did you?

These are all good points you've raised.

A person just coming out of the woodwork and telling their story really has nothing to gain and their reputation as a sane human being to lose, and this was the point of view that I had initally approached the Sparks case with.

But I forgot the fact that this man has written a book and thus has something to gain personally by publicizing himself. That particular factor should require a person to be subject to tougher questions, and require more in the way of evidence.

Thanks for the assistance.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

These are all good points you've raised.

A person just coming out of the woodwork and telling their story really has nothing to gain and their reputation as a sane human being to lose, and this was the point of view that I had initally approached the Sparks case with.

But I forgot the fact that this man has written a book and thus has something to gain personally by publicizing himself. That particular factor should require a person to be subject to tougher questions, and require more in the way of evidence.

Thanks for the assistance.

Yes. Sparks stands to gain money and listeners to what he has to say. He can rationlize the lie by saying to himself that it is for a greater good. To end pollution etc. This is a possibility that is on the table.

I encounter people everyday that do things that do not make sense. For example forum trolls. What do they gain that is worth having? Yet, they do what they do. They get attention. Negative attention, yet that seems to be enough pay off I guess. So, just because someone does something that doesn't make sense, or does something that seems futile to gain, is not proof the person is sincere. Many people do things for stupid reasons, not just reasonable ones.

People have been known to murder their families and wind up in jail for the rest of their lives, or put to death. They had little if anything reasonable to gain, but everything to lose. They still did what they did. Having this in mind, every one should be questioned. Good con artist appear like nice sincere people btw. That's why they are good con artist.