Louis Jarvis

[MikeSee]

Oh well dude--all things to all people. As I said before, Louis is an amazing guy. I've known him since the early '90s. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of comparative prophesy that is far beyond anyone else I have have ever met. He introduced me to the last traditional Hopi Elder, Grandfather Martin Gashweosoma (we've been friends now for almost 10 years), he helped facilitate my weekend meeting with Laurance Rockefeller that resulted in Larry funding my research for two years--he brought the Hopi Fire Clan together with their fire clan ("red hat" Nyingmapa "ancient school") Tibetien brothers (from the other side of the earth) to fulfill their prophecized meeting with one another. This meeting (on May 22, 1995) in Crestone/Baca Grand was fulfillment of two, thousand + year-old prophecies. I'm not making this up. This is all well documented: when Kusum Lingpa and Martin met, Lingpa offered to conduct a powerful Hopi ritual/prayer to placate "palulukang" who is the Hopi version of the Tibetien "naga" thought by both cultures to be the energetic manifestation that will be responsible for the physical calamities that (may?) end this "fourth world" of the Hopi. After the prayer/ritual, in front of 30 distinguished onlookers, clear sky "horizontal lightning flashed overhead and rain showers fell" and "spontaneous applause broke out among the onlookers." (The Mysterious Valley--St. Martins Press, 1996 page 287) I could go on and on about Louis and his exploits...

Do I buy into everything Louis says? Hell no, I'm one of his uber-tricksters, his "Lance Moody," but I sure take notes and look forward to dogging him when his "predictions" don't come true etc. lol But ... something inside me twinges when I contemplate the implications of where Louis (and many others) think this world seems to\ be headed and I have Louis to thank (in part) for this growing feeling of precognitive unease...... Sorry if you thought he sucked... If you only knew... :0

Chris, I can certainly appreciate access to funding, as well as interesting Hopi elders and Tibetans. Frankly, I think that's great, and it's wonderful that your relationship with Jarvis has opened up some interesting doors, and ones supportive of your research. Still, it was a painful episode to try to listen to. I look forward to the Paracast, and I know that it's incredibly difficult to line up good guests every week. I'm just disappointed when someone interviewed appears so unhinged.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I pride myself on being able to address all aspects of a subject, case or question, regardless of what you think. I am very open-minded and open to ALL possibilities. I know I don't know, and I'm OK with it. I do my research and make up my mind but try not to buy into (or become too attached to) my conclusions. It's those things I DO feel I know (and feel strongly about) that I will stoop to arguing, but I don't close myself off to possibilities--like some here do--regardless of what you think. Sorry if you don't like my tone, I'm just mirroring back what's coming at me.

Reading that makes me realize that it isn't really worth arguing about UFOs. Tyder made a great point in another thread. Ultimately most of us are here to have fun. That's why I am here and why I started listening to the show. My opinons have changed about a lot of stuff discussed here since I joined, and I've been asked to help out a little as well. I'm happy to be doing that and I'll continue as long as I can, despite a few nasty PMs sent my way.
People will believe what they want to, and frankly, there isn't enough evidence to go on for me to say anything definitive about UFOs. UFOs are a fun topic to discuss and maybe come up with ideas about what they are, probably none of which are entirely correct. In the end though, they take up very little of my thinking.

The important stuff when it comes to pseudo-science is that people don't fall for the stuff that'll hurt them. Examples include thinking that a medium will help them talk to a loved one, buying into the anti-vaccine people's nonsense, paying a psychic to tell them their fortune, stocking up on gold for the end of the world, having a greedy therapist tell them they've been abducted by aliens, and a whole bunch of other things that can hurt someone financially and/or psychologically. There's also the stuff that hurts one intellectually like thinking there's a "face" on Mars, or that we never landed on the Moon, or that the world was created less than 10 000 years ago. Religions that demean women, or won't allow people to marry the one they love because they pick and choose passages from a book that was written hundreds of years ago.That's the stuff people need to fight against. To paraphrase Chris: That's the stuff that I feel I know, and I do feel strongly about, and that I will NOT change my opinion about.

UFOs - that's open to debate and really not worth fighting about.

People against gays getting married because of a 1500 year old book, or thinking that the world is less than ten thousand years old because of that same book - I will argue with, and I will gladly do my best to make that person look like a fool.

End of rant!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Christopher, this just shows me how close minded you really are to actually exploring all possibilites, even those that go against what you believe. You're doing the same thing that you seem to be so against. I'm getting fed up of your attacks on the skeptical members of this forum. If you don't want us here to challenge your beliefs, please let us know outright and stop being underhanded in the hopes that we'll leave.

Well even skeptics will get "attacked" occasionally, Angel. You just have to get used to it. Just as not everyone agrees with the so called "doe eyed believer" camp. When you openly admit to supporting an active "Sceptic Movement", as described by Phil Plait, designed to make sure us here in Paranormica land are supplied a watchdog, of course some are going to hostile or suspicious towards you. Or in Lance's case, being a part of a Sceptics Rapid Response Squad in the 1990s. How could these things not attract attacks and derision.
In your first line you chide Christopher for being close minded :"...to actually exploring all possibilites, even those that go against what you believe."
Can you say the same for yourself? Can any of us?

In the end you are probably feeling the same way as those whose beliefs you attempt to dismiss with your version of prosaic and mundane explanations to their experiences.
When the boot is on the other foot, be prepared for a kick in the arse!

 

[Ron Collins]

UFOs are a fun topic to discuss and maybe come up with ideas about what they are, probably none of which are entirely correct. In the end though, they take up very little of my thinking.

I wish they and this subject matter took up very little of my thinking. Unfortunately, they do not. In fact I would say that I have little boxes in my mind that are always engaged. My wife and kids have their boxes, my business has its box, and off in the corner I have 2 little boxes. One says Green Bay Packers on it and the other says UFO's. Here lately pool maintenance has popped up too. (why is that so damned hard for me????)

It is fun and it is my release. I enjoy it even if it and its multi-faceted personalities do frustrate the crap out of me at times.

People against gays getting married because of a 1500 year old book, or thinking that the world is less than ten thousand years old because of that same book - I will argue with, and I will gladly do my best to make that person look like a fool.

Agreed and sign me up.

 

[stphrz]

I missed this post earlier and would like to comment.

I, for one, enjoyed the program and in spite of the difficulty you had in getting succinct answers from Jarvis, I listened twice.

I listened too. I found it interesting. He told of a certain miracle that is going to happen within a year or so. May 2011 if I recall correctly. The test here of course is if it happens. If it does not happen I can say with certainty he was wrong.

Those of you who paint Jarvis as a "nut" based on 2.5 hours of Q&A centered on the topic of the paranormal, are no better than him. You worship "grays" and "reptilians" and 63 year old mythologies like Roswell. You falsely and fastidiously hide behind "science" when science wants nothing to do with you. Yet you keep on pursuing some sort of proof, some sort of truth. .

I worship none of those things. To be quite honest I haven't met anyone on this forum that do. Maybe some do, I haven't read every post by every member but I've read many.
Nevertheless this utterly refutes your statement about the collective beliefs of the members of this forum. Go start reading for proof.

Science isn't something you hide behind. It's a methodology for understanding the facts about reality. Science doesn't want anything either, just as logic doesn't dictate. Science and logic are tools. Tools that have provided everything in your life you take for granted, like the computer you used to type out and send your post, the food you eat, the home you live in etc.
Persuing the truth is a good thing. There are no guarantee you will catch it but such journeys are nevertheless worthwhile. I wonder why you would think otherwise.

And for what? Where has your search gotten you? I've immersed myself into looking at this crap for years and I'm not one step closer to knowing anything substantial. I've been lied to, led down the primrose path by liars and thieves, I've downloaded and listened to more podcasts than I can count (most of which were pure torture, hosted by idiots without command of the English language, willing to believe everything that is spat at them), I've spent money on worthless books and movies. I've sat through TV documentaries and utter trash like "ghost hunters" more hours than I care to admit, and it has all yielded zero. There is no truth to be learned here, it's all about faith in a belief system...and yet some of you have the nerve to call Jarvis a "nut" for what he believes in? News flash!...you are a hypocrite.

This is inconsistent. You are readily admitting that you think the field is filled with idiots, liars, theives etc. Well on that point you are right. So, how pray tell do you tell the good guys and bad guys apart? What are your criteria? Why did Louis Jarvis pass your test? I'm assuming he did because you are defending him so vigorously and you admit you liked the show.
I'm sorry you've been deceived. I'm sorry you have wasted so much of your time and money on worthless stuff. I'm sorry you are no closer to an answer. Perhaps if there were more people around who looked carefully at all this stuff, applied critical thinking and spoke out you might have heard them and been spared.
As for there being no truth to be learned, how do you know this? If you fail at a quest isn't it better to examine how you went about it rather than become bitter, declare the quest impossible and give up? Take your own advice and look inside.

No disrespect to Paul Kimball intended (RE: Kimball's post to Steinberg on page 1 of this thread), but I'm not one to pretend that the paranormal is ever going to be taken seriously in mainstream society, it's a pipe dream. The paranormal is, by its very nature and definition, marginal. Read your George Hansen people, George is one of the few (I believe) who has the slightest handle on any of this. To pretend like we can apply scientific method to these things is self delusion...go ahead and prove me wrong.

The scientific method can be useful for taking out the garbage. That's a start at least. Your statement about the paranormal always being marginal is, I believe true. Jacques Vallee has lamented that it is likely to always be in his words "a forbidden science." Have you read Jacques Vallee? If you haven't, I recommend you do. His work has taught me much about critical thought.

The bottom line is this: Weird shit happens, neither you or I know what is causing this weird shit thus a market is opened to slick people who want to sell us the "answers" when maybe we are looking for those answers in the wrong place. Maybe we need to be looking inside rather than outside, maybe we need to LISTEN to those religious nuts out there (the rational ones) who have equally valid theories as to the causes of these strange things. To ridicule Jarvis for his beliefs because they don't match yours is to put your own ignorance on display. Who is to say that you are right and he is wrong? Who is to say that he is right and you are wrong? There is no answer key people, no matter how much "the book and movie pushers" want you to believe that there is. You call yourself skeptical, well then BE skeptical, but be intellectually honest about it. Be skeptical of Jarvis but also be skeptical of your own views on what is true and not true. Be self-aware of your own biases and belief systems and how much those biases and beliefs color what you believe about people like Jarvis and for that matter people like Kimball, Kean, Friedman, and the short list of para-celebrities you seem to worship.

Rational religious nuts? You just hurt my brain.

Beep boop.

There, all better. Allow me to retort. Who is to say I am right and he is wrong? Well it's not so much who but a what. A date to be exact. Again forgive me, but I don't remember the exact date, but he did give a date when something amazing and unprecidented was going to happen to everyone all over the world. If this event does not happen he is wrong. The end.
I can tell you I am skeptical of my own views. I question them constantly. But as I stated above, reality will be the final arbiter of Mr. Jarvis' beliefs and claims. Mine too. You know what? I'm good with that.

Instead of hearing something you don't agree with and calling it lunacy, try challenging yourself to question your own belief system. Maybe, you just might find that YOU are the lunatic. But that's too scary for most people, so we wallow in our in group biases, throwing stones at those who come along and dare to tell us things we don't like to hear, or may not agree with. If you WERE literally throwing stones at people your group disagreed with, it would be a hate crime. But when you throw proverbial stones, you are being skeptical and rational? Get a clue.
Here's the deal. I have no doubt I'm going to get absolutely skewered for this post. I've asked you to question your sacred cows, I've challenged the pseudo-religious paranormal dogma that you have followed like sheep. I've gone against the grain and stood up and called "bullcrap" to your transparent faux-intellectual elitism. I've slapped you in the face and held a mirror up for you to see the hypocrisy in yourselves. I've brashly done all of this, not to sound superior but to try and bring a sense of true intellectual honesty to this shit hole we know as the paranormal community.

The larger part of me knows that this call to action is going to fall on deaf (and occasionally dumb) ears. It will be chided and ridiculed, I'll be called a zealot or a nut. No doubt some of you will point out flaws in my spelling, grammar or punctuation in an attempt to call attention to how dumb I must be. I'm a big boy, I can take it. Hit me with your best shot. Your best shot is the easiest thing I have to deal with today.

Yes indeed you are asking me to question my sacred cows. But I can't. I have none. I've eaten them. So have all the critical thinkers on these forums you have derided. Every single one of us has had to shed irrational beliefs. Every single one of us has sat in front of our computers red faced with embarrasment after being majorly owned by some generous soul who has pointed out to us our errors.
If you think for even one second that YOU are one of those souls I tell you this:

Seriously dude. Get over yourself.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

To paraphrase Chris: That's the stuff that I feel I know, and I do feel strongly about, and that I will NOT change my opinion about.

No Angelo! That's NOT what I said. I welcome anyone or anything that will slap me up-side the head and pop my thinking a 180.
That's the sound of the trickster: one hand slapping!
OK, I admit, I pride myself on the quality of my BS meter. I've looked hundreds of people in the eye and had them relate their extraordinary experiences. OK, Mully will predictably roll his eyes and mutter something about "the cult of the investigator," but I think that experience out in the field has value. It provides you with a cross-section of personal views and reveals valuable clues. I've met more people than I can remember in this realm and heard more stories than you could ever imagine. Only a few of those stories and/or people have sticking power and I pay attention to the subjects, thinking and people whose thoughts, words and deeds "stick" --they have a ring--there's something of the truth there. Oh course, all the rest of it has value and is important (?) but what sticks as truth in my gut is what I focus on and this is where I expend my time and resources, etc.

Life is a series of value judgments and the decisions we make based on those judgments. We are all the same: we assign value and worth and go from there...
Its pretty simple really.

 

[Paul Kimball]

OK, Mully will predictably roll his eyes and mutter something about "the cult of the investigator," but I think that experience out in the field has value.

I agree, Chris, that investigating is a good thing, and never said otherwise. But there are good investigators, and bad ones (and mediocre ones in the middle), and the determination of that doesn't rest on volume or years in "the field". I haven't seen anything in your work or statements that indicates that you have the critical filter that you claim you have, and that a good investigator needs.

This isn't personal. You seem like a nice enough guy. You're just far too credulous for my liking. But that seems to be the MO on the Paracast now, and that's fine. As others have pointed out, it is entertaining, and it sells, because there will always be a niche audience for it, and Gene has every right to earn a living. But it's not what I had signed up for, and in the end, as I have made clear to Gene, I think it limits what the show might really be able to achieve commercially. Yes, you can combine good, open-minded and sceptical reportage with ratings. It just takes a bit more work, and it takes a bit longer to build.

The one thing you can't do is mix that kind of show with the "true believer" kind of show that the Jarvis episode represents (to use just one example). You have to pick one, and go with it.

C'est la vie, and vive le difference.

 

[Kieran]

The Paracast forum has an unique blend, of believers and disbelievers and something in the middle!!
I was resistant at first, to the opinions of Lance and Angel. But over time, I have grown to appreciate their thinking on the subject. The Paranormal field for lack of a better term does have multiple flaws, right down, from the telling of UFO case to the people involved in researching that case.

And, often my Filters about the Paranormal are less fined tuned than Lances would be, and Lance, has often spotted something in a story that I have overlooked, and he highlights that for everyone to see, good or bad!!
Even though at different stages, I still get frustrated when I read some of the posting from Lance and Angel.
There just wired different to me and how I think about these subjects, and I just keep remaining myself, don't lose it, don't get annoyed and frustrated relax.

"I wish a UFO would just park right over the roof of their homes, and wouldn't they both get a shock if they saw it right over their homes, could they deny then" Lance and Angel?

Louis*
I frankly can't tell which stories are true and which aren't, leaving to the side his belief on Prophecy. The New World Order is hard to pin down with facts, and Jarvis mentality is that New World Order does exist for real.
Maybe, he is suffering a form of Intellectual deficiency. I don't see the New World Order plotting against the common folk, and countries around the world disagree with each other all the time, and they do write up their own policies on how they run their own country.
There is a elitist class who do make the rules that everyone follows , but that is nothing new, go back as far as Ancient Rome you find plenty of elitists roaming the corridors of the senate and making decisions. I have to disagree with the belief important men from all around the World are meeting up and deciding policy for the whole world. Business leaders meet up all the time throw in a few Government officials attending those meetings, that still does not mean, they forming and talking about a New World Order.

Also Louis, painted a picture of events after World War 2 .. That On reflection, I found to be extremely interesting. I do have serious reservations about there being any truth to the Nazi Saucer myth, as it currently stands. Mr Farrell presents a dark and more sinister picture, that I personally, just can't buy into.

If a Nazi saucer program existed, it be more like what I describe, in my opinion.

Those machines (however many were build) were crude devices, slow in speed, did not lift too far off the ground to any great height, if even at all. Maybe the Best evidence for it would be the VZ- Avrocar, and we do know a former Nazi scientist I believe his name was Klein worked on the project. Maybe he brought some plans that were being looked with him to the States?

The Nazis were only a tiny bit ahead of the Allies towards the end of War. They had no Anti-Gravity Technology or Flying saucer Craft doing 4,000 Mph Hour or faster, people need to get real here!! Which Country invented the most powerful weapon before the end of the War, If the Nazis were so and so far advanced then the rest. Why didn't they create a N- Bomb before the War Ended.

Finally I heard Louis on Don's show the other night talking about 9/11. Louis man when you say the planes had no passengers on board. It goes against the facts of the events. Those people who died had relatives there on a passenger roster and there names are listed as having died on 9/11. Where do you think those couple of hundred of passengers got to or went to if they did not die on 9/11?

Drones planes or missiles hitting the twin towers or the Pentagon, simply doesn't cut it for me, and claiming the 9/11 Terrorists are still alive is really pushing the boat. I have seen the video surveillance at the Airport on 9/11, one video clearly shows "Mohammed Atta" near an Airport scanner which checks to see if your carrying narcotics, weapons and other illegal items.

Atta, Boarded the Plane he was due to travel on and he died that day and along with many innocents.
If there alive how come not one of them has ever shown up or ever been found, it crazy talk Louis.

Contrary to Louis, there is lot of evidence which does show the wreckage of a plane near the Pentagon. Have you not ever seen the Photographs from that fateful day? There is metal Scattered around the lawn at the Pentagon and that metal has the colours of an American Airlines on it.

"Oh someone most have pulled up in a van that day ran over with the metal in hand and laid it down on the grass"

Chris , I like your thoughts on the UFO subject. And I like Louis, he has some valuable information to give especially around mythology of cultures, but belief in 9/11 being an inside job without having anything other then words to back it up, is a fool's game.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I haven't seen anything in your work or statements that indicates that you have the critical filter that you claim you have, and that a good investigator needs.

Opinions are like sphincters--everybody has one. I had no idea you were familiar with my work (By your attitude and tone toward me in general--I didn't think you were interested in anything I do.) But now that you mention my work, I'm curious: which of my books have you read? Have you watched my lecture DVDs ? Have you ever seen any one of my five in-person presentations? BTW: I do I have a well-developed "critical filter" whether you think so or not. I can separate signal from noise as well as most people on the board--better than some even. Laurance Rockefeller thought so, maybe that's why he funded me for two years.

The one thing you can't do is mix that kind of show with the "true believer" kind of show that the Jarvis episode represents. You have to pick one, and go with it.

Say's who? Certainly not Gene. Why put on tunnel-vision blinders and be so cut and dried? I think it is healthy to show alternative viewpoints and progressive thinking. Everything and everyone has to be up to your standard of credulity? I know, many of you Paracast old-timers are dismayed that the show is no longer our elitist little secret, but with the new network affiliation and the potential for growth, the show needs to grow and expand. Who would you have on the show Paul? Besides a filmmaker friend, I don't I seem to recall what other guests you brought to the table or have even suggested. Maybe I wasn't paying attention? At least I'm attempting to bring people who will shake up this Para-pot a little and create a dialog and discourse about their work. I get tired of "ufos" I think there are a lot of subjects that can be brought into the mix--shake it up a little! I don't think I've ever seen so many posts on the forums as I have the past week or two. And that's a good thing Paul--whether you and your sphincter think so or not. Vive le difference, indeed...

 

[dyingsun]

Well, it's pretty much the same thing as predicting the outcome of a football game - I mean even a German Octopus can do that.


As a red blooded American and a southerner I can tell ya. Football season is on the way. I'm talkin "real football" Ya heah?

'Real' football season already started, Bayern Munich lost yesterday, which is all kinds of awesome.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

So I'm starting to see a trend, a pattern when it comes to characters like Louis Jarvis. This trend is purely psychological and something I believe cultures in an individual over time. Here are some insights in the mind of an individual such as Jarvis.

First - establish credibility. Jarvis has attempted to do this in two ways. First, he touts that his father was in the military and led an "above top secret" life that started somewhere in the 70's. Before that, I'm sure, you can trace Jarvis' father's military career quite cleaning. I'm curious, however to know how the official record on the senior Jarvis' life ends. How does the military report his leaving the military? Unfortunately I do not have the resources to do this myself, but would venture to say the ending of the senior Jarvis' military career was quite mundane; an honorable discharge or the like. I can say this, I'd wager my left nut that there's no mention in Jarvis seniors military record of being tagged as "doctor death" or involved in paranormal, undercover research with aliens and gods. Of course the key there is Louis will fire back stating that 'of course there's no official record of his work in this position! It's above top secret!' (more on the conspiracy mentality, later.) So, Louis touts off unverifiable statements about the position, lethality, importance, and secretivness of his father's military career, and Louis implies that by some miracle of genetics, he has inherited some of his father's instinctive knowledge and insight into the paranormal.
Now that the military and governmental credibility is established, we move on to religious, spiritual, or supernatural creditibility. As any good church-going Catholic will tell you, there are few more powerful supernatural images than the mother Mary. If you're getting 'input' from such a divine being, well, that's certainly credible information, then. What better source of information than a being that birthed a god? This is similar to another Paracast guest, recently ( *cough* Walter Bosley *cough* ) who may very well have been a CIA agent, but he also so images of the goddess Isis in a mountain top. Here the pattern is repeated: military or high-government "in the know" and supernatural guidance.

With credibility presumed, Jarvis moves on to the second aspect of those of his ilk; the threat. The threat comes from supernatural sources, our own materialistic obsessions, and paranormal or demonic entities. Other threats swirl around our little human race that is so important it must be preserved from 'world to world' as well such as our own government which Jarvis implies is perhaps the most immediate threat. I'm convinced that Louis has missed the irony of his fantasy in that he establishes credibility via his fathers career in the military only to turn around and make claims that the government is corrupting our brains, casting massive illusions upon the American public, and slowly shifting us into a dictatorship control state (the last bit I wouldn't argue against too strongly.) Of course the supernatural and ET forces are actually here to help us, guide us, nurture us into the beings the universe knows we can be but is fearful of coming right out and telling us.

Lastly Jarvis, and others like his kind, cocoons his credibility, back story, and ludicrous predictions into a neat bundle of conspiracy. I enjoyed the part in the interview when Jarvis took steps to remove the stigma involved with the word "conspiracy", or as he put it, "breathing together," but in the modern sense of the word Jarvis hides behind the shield of conspiracy very very well. Any one who questions his statements or disbelieves them is immediately an enemy, a disinformation agent, or the like, but even before that if you genuinely want to peer into Jarvis' claims you'll get no where. The nice thing about conspiracies is that they always end in unverifiable trails. We can't verify the depth of Jarvis' father's military career and if it doesn't add up, Louis can simply hide behind the shield that the government is covering up the latter details. If we can't verify apparitions of the virgin Mary appearing and prophecying, Louis can claim it's because we're among the unfaithful and we are evil...that we're going to die of a heart attack when "the miracle" occurs. Like with all other conspiratorial wack-os, Jarvis will always have an excuse. He will always argue with circular logic, turn to ad hominum attacks, and claim that skeptics, or even just those of us that would legitimately want to research each and every detail of his claims, are members of 'the enemy.'

And it's the flooding of details and description that is yet another self defense mechanism for people like Louis. In technical support we have a saying, "If you can't impress them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." Louis rambles. He rants and raves and spouts off for hours and hours, but as any cop knows you can smell a lie or deception very clearly by the fact of too many details out of your witness. Jarvis spewed diarrea of the mouth for 2.5 hours, last Monday, and less than 3% of it is truth, either now, or after 2011.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Jarvis spewed diarrea of the mouth for 2.5 hours, last Monday, and less than 3% of it is truth, either now, or after 2011.

Wrong. Your attempt at analysis, was just that, an attempt. Nice try... Keep your questions handy in case we have him back again. I can't wait to hear how he responds as he has meticulously documented his research (and of course his father's bona fides, etc) and will address your presumptive thinking and offhand dismissal of his integrity, research and thinking. If he is such a bullshitter, why has Ecker had him on his show three (or four?) times? Don has a well-honed BS meter... What's up w/ that? To each their own, I suppose...

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I've already commented about the mental nature and psychological break-down of Louis Jarvis, but there were a few logic flaws I wanted to point out in several aspects of his pretend story:

Catholics are also Christians (at least for now), and the Catholics are the only branch of Christianity that believes in the divinity of Mary. Other Christian denominations simply believe Mary was a vessel, a blessed one at that, but a vessel used by God to deliver Christ to us. Mary was a decendant of David so this fulfilled a prophecy, however Christians outside of Catholics do not worship, pray, or pay homage to Mary as she was just another human being like you and I. However, like I said, the Catholics do believe that Mary is touched by divinity in a way, just by her role in the birth of Jesus Christ, but at no point did Louis approach the subject of Jesus Christ as being the savior of the human race, and that we were saved 2,000 years ago by Christs sacrifice, according to the bible. So if we're saved by Christ, why do we need saved again? Well, it's simple if you want to set yourself up as a profit with all the answers and the solution to a species-endangering threat. See, Jarvis' rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt at a foundation of a modern religion. It's the same MO early Christians (and Jews and Muslims) used to strike fear into the hearts of humans and promise salvation if you but listen and obey to every word I say. It's the same formula with different values plugged into the variables.

Louis also needs to recognize the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic may be open minded about such prophecies as those that spewed from his mouth, at least until they prove wrong, which they already have. An atheist wouldn't believe them from the start.

In the end people like Louis are easily proven wrong. They cannot produce even a hint of validity of their claims, not one tiny smidgeon, and yet he claims the statements he pukes out of his lips are the most important claims of the human species. I doubt if the supernatural forces or ET entities that are rooting for the human race care about us as much as they do that they would be so subtle or elusive. The fact is they would be here by now, and we would very much be aware of their intentions. Since we have nothing to depend on but a crackpot spouting repackaged religious rhetoric, it's no wonder very few people believe, give credence to, or even bother to download and listen to Jarvis podcast. Unfortunately I did, and now have another name on my whoo-whoo list.

BTW, thank you to Gene for at least calling him out a little bit and pinning him down with an exact date. Please tell me you have him lined up for May 13, 2011 already. I want to hear the idiot grovel like the same fools after 1/1/2000.

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

Wrong. Your attempt at analysis, was just that, an attempt. Nice try... Keep your questions handy in case we have him back again. I can't wait to hear how he responds as he has meticulously documented his research (and of course his father's bona fides, etc) and will set your presumptive thinking on its head.

Findings? Of what, please?

 

[dyingsun]

I've already commented about the mental nature and psychological break-down of Louis Jarvis, but there were a few logic flaws I wanted to point out in several aspects of his pretend story:

Catholics are also Christians (at least for now), and the Catholics are the only branch of Christianity that believes in the divinity of Mary. Other Christian denominations simply believe Mary was a vessel, a blessed one at that, but a vessel used by God to deliver Christ to us. Mary was a decendant of David so this fulfilled a prophecy, however Christians outside of Catholics do not worship, pray, or pay homage to Mary as she was just another human being like you and I. However, like I said, the Catholics do believe that Mary is touched by divinity in a way, just by her role in the birth of Jesus Christ, but at no point did Louis approach the subject of Jesus Christ as being the savior of the human race, and that we were saved 2,000 years ago by Christs sacrifice, according to the bible. So if we're saved by Christ, why do we need saved again? Well, it's simple if you want to set yourself up as a profit with all the answers and the solution to a species-endangering threat. See, Jarvis' rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt at a foundation of a modern religion. It's the same MO early Christians (and Jews and Muslims) used to strike fear into the hearts of humans and promise salvation if you but listen and obey to every word I say. It's the same formula with different values plugged into the variables.

Louis also needs to recognize the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic may be open minded about such prophecies as those that spewed from his mouth, at least until they prove wrong, which they already have. An atheist wouldn't believe them from the start.

In the end people like Louis are easily proven wrong. They cannot produce even a hint of validity of their claims, not one tiny smidgeon, and yet he claims the statements he pukes out of his lips are the most important claims of the human species. I doubt if the supernatural forces or ET entities that are rooting for the human race care about us as much as they do that they would be so subtle or elusive. The fact is they would be here by now, and we would very much be aware of their intentions. Since we have nothing to depend on but a crackpot spouting repackaged religious rhetoric, it's no wonder very few people believe, give credence to, or even bother to download and listen to Jarvis podcast. Unfortunately I did, and now have another name on my whoo-whoo list.

BTW, thank you to Gene for at least calling him out a little bit and pinning him down with an exact date. Please tell me you have him lined up for May 13, 2011 already. I want to hear the idiot grovel like the same fools after 1/1/2000.

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------



Findings? Of what, please?

So you didn't like the episode, huh ? ;-)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

We need to stop defending people like Jarvis. They are storytellers at best, con artists at worst. You know those TV commercials for telephone psychics where at the end they say "for entertainment purposes only?" Well the same should be said of episodes with people like Jarvis.

The next time you have a person like Jarvis on please make sure to ask him where his prophets were when there was the earthquake in Haiti, when Katrina hit New Orleans, or when the Tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004. Honestly, if we still even provide these people with a platform, we should try our best to use it to knock them down a peg. The more people stop worrying about the end of the world, the more time they can spend living in the present.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We need to stop defending people like Jarvis. They are storytellers at best, con artists at worst. You know those TV commercials for telephone psychics where at the end they say "for entertainment purposes only?" Well the same should be said of episodes with people like Jarvis.

The next time you have a person like Jarvis on please make sure to ask him where his prophets were when there was the earthquake in Haiti, when Katrina hit New Orleans, or when the Tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004. Honestly, if we still even provide these people with a platform, we should try our best to use it to knock them down a peg. The more people stop worrying about the end of the world, the more time they can spend living in the present.

Well, if Jarvis' prediction for 2011 doesn't come to pass, he'll have to answer to us.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, if Jarvis' prediction for 2011 doesn't come to pass, he'll have to answer to us.

Honestly Gene, that episode was worth listening to hear you offer him a spot on the show for May 13, 2011.
I can't thank you enough for doing exactly what I would have done.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Honestly Gene, that episode was worth listening to hear you offer him a spot on the show for May 13, 2011.
I can't thank you enough for doing exactly what I would have done.

Put it in your date book, contact manager or whatever, and give me a two week reminder so I can remind Jarvis of his commitment.

 

[bmadccp]

I missed this post earlier and would like to comment.


I listened too. I found it interesting. He told of a certain miracle that is going to happen within a year or so. May 2011 if I recall correctly. The test here of course is if it happens. If it does not happen I can say with certainty he was wrong.


I worship none of those things. To be quite honest I haven't met anyone on this forum that do. Maybe some do, I haven't read every post by every member but I've read many.
Nevertheless this utterly refutes your statement about the collective beliefs of the members of this forum. Go start reading for proof.

Science isn't something you hide behind. It's a methodology for understanding the facts about reality. Science doesn't want anything either, just as logic doesn't dictate. Science and logic are tools. Tools that have provided everything in your life you take for granted, like the computer you used to type out and send your post, the food you eat, the home you live in etc.
Persuing the truth is a good thing. There are no guarantee you will catch it but such journeys are nevertheless worthwhile. I wonder why you would think otherwise.



This is inconsistent. You are readily admitting that you think the field is filled with idiots, liars, theives etc. Well on that point you are right. So, how pray tell do you tell the good guys and bad guys apart? What are your criteria? Why did Louis Jarvis pass your test? I'm assuming he did because you are defending him so vigorously and you admit you liked the show.
I'm sorry you've been deceived. I'm sorry you have wasted so much of your time and money on worthless stuff. I'm sorry you are no closer to an answer. Perhaps if there were more people around who looked carefully at all this stuff, applied critical thinking and spoke out you might have heard them and been spared.
As for there being no truth to be learned, how do you know this? If you fail at a quest isn't it better to examine how you went about it rather than become bitter, declare the quest impossible and give up? Take your own advice and look inside.


The scientific method can be useful for taking out the garbage. That's a start at least. Your statement about the paranormal always being marginal is, I believe true. Jacques Vallee has lamented that it is likely to always be in his words "a forbidden science." Have you read Jacques Vallee? If you haven't, I recommend you do. His work has taught me much about critical thought.



Rational religious nuts? You just hurt my brain.

Beep boop.

There, all better. Allow me to retort. Who is to say I am right and he is wrong? Well it's not so much who but a what. A date to be exact. Again forgive me, but I don't remember the exact date, but he did give a date when something amazing and unprecidented was going to happen to everyone all over the world. If this event does not happen he is wrong. The end.
I can tell you I am skeptical of my own views. I question them constantly. But as I stated above, reality will be the final arbiter of Mr. Jarvis' beliefs and claims. Mine too. You know what? I'm good with that.



Yes indeed you are asking me to question my sacred cows. But I can't. I have none. I've eaten them. So have all the critical thinkers on these forums you have derided. Every single one of us has had to shed irrational beliefs. Every single one of us has sat in front of our computers red faced with embarrasment after being majorly owned by some generous soul who has pointed out to us our errors.
If you think for even one second that YOU are one of those souls I tell you this:

Seriously dude. Get over yourself.

"Me thinks he doth protest too much..." Sometimes our "sacred cows" are our fervent claims that we HAVE no sacred cows. So you'll forgive me if I call bullshit on you.

And I rather enjoy your advice to "get over myself" oooooo, you told me!
But that's what I was asking you and the rest of the Jarvis detractors to do...get over yourselves. You missed the message my friend, or maybe it just stung a bit too much. It's obvious by your paragraph by paragraph retort that SOMETHING got under your skin...otherwise why bother responding at 1:30 am, and at such length?

Another part of my original message was that none of us knows a damn thing about the paranormal, yet some people like to pretend that their pet theories are the ONLY pet theories worth hearing or talking about. And when someone different like Jarvis comes along and talks about unpopular things (like the dreaded "R" word..."religion") then he's crazier than a Charles Manson themed obstetrical unit. And I just love how all of the board certified physicians here are able to diagnose Jarvis as "crazy" after listening to a single 2.5 hour podcast That's talent!

And I love how many of you are now lying in wait to call Jarvis' "predictions" wrong in 2011, but he was only relaying the information. He never claimed that HE could predict the future, he was talking about prophecies that have bee given to other people. So, there's that little wrinkle in the plans.

You'll note that I never indicated that Jarvis passed any of my personal "credibility tests", But he was vetted by the hosts...was he not? Sorry, but I tend to trust the judgment of a Chris O'Brien over an annonymous message boarder (or 3).

Look, everyone has the right to question things they hear, and everyone has the right to express their opinions but people need to be held responsible for the things they say. And it's my OPINION that people who come on a paranormal message board and "diagnose" a podcast guest as "nuts", clearly based on their own disdain for his beliefs and thier unwillingness to hear opinions that don't jive with their own, are placing their own ignorance on display. And on it goes...

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

We need to stop defending people like Jarvis. They are storytellers at best, con artists at worst. You know those TV commercials for telephone psychics where at the end they say "for entertainment purposes only?" Well the same should be said of episodes with people like Jarvis.

The next time you have a person like Jarvis on please make sure to ask him where his prophets were when there was the earthquake in Haiti, when Katrina hit New Orleans, or when the Tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004. Honestly, if we still even provide these people with a platform, we should try our best to use it to knock them down a peg. The more people stop worrying about the end of the world, the more time they can spend living in the present.

Story tellers and con artists seem to make up a good 78.6% of the paranormal "field" (statistic inveted). Please, honestly, do you have a problem with Jarvis or with Prophecy? He never claimed to be a prophet, he STUDIES comparative prophecy/religion. He was invited on the show, asked pointed questions and he answered them based on his studies. I really have to conclude that most of you simply don't like the religious bent of the material. He never claimed to be Christ, or Mary or Buddha...He's not trying to hock a book or a movie here, he was simply asked to discuss his area of expertise and he did. So then we (as paranormal consumers) bitch because we don't like what he has to say? That's messed up people. And people are telling ME to get over myself??? Welcome to the paranormal world.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...so then we (as paranormal consumers) bitch because we don't like what he has to say? That's messed up people. And people are telling ME to get over myself??? Welcome to the paranormal world.

You rock! Thanks for contributing your matter-of-fact analysis of the Jarvis segment and what has ensued on this thread.