Louis Jarvis

[jratcliff63367]

I think the real question here is why did co-host Chris O'Brien recommend this guy so strongly? Doesn't this raise questions about O'Brien's credibility?

Now, personally, I will listen to most anything purely for entertainment value. For example, there is another paranormal podcast called 'The Mysterious Universe' hosted by two charming chaps from Australia. These guys literally do nothing but sit around and tell ghost stories. On their most recent episode they interviewed a guy who claimed to have discovered a 2,800 year old immortal. Now, you can't get much more nuts than that right? But....they told a coherent and linear narrative for well over an hour. It was extremely entertaining to listen to even if it was all batshit crazy.

So, I would be perfectly happy hearing someone talk about prophecies and ancient astronaut theories so long as...they could hold a coherent train of thought and weave an entertaining story. But when you have a guy on who rambles about as coherently as a homeless schizophrenic on the streets of San Francisco..well..that's not quite the same thing.

Very odd if you ask me.

John

 

[Skymon876]

In the academic world one does not just make a claim without doing proper research. If you would really like me to analyse the two specific images, I will need to know exactly where they come from so I can look at other art by the same tribe. With that, I can research academic journals and books on the topic. For now I come to the conclusion that they are abstract motifs, perhaps to portray a dream or vision the artist may have had.

RygaWa - you strike me as combative and frustrated when someone questions your view on any topic, and in this case you resort to a personal attack on my credibility and academic background. You need to stop doing that. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to art.

I am done posting on this thread.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

In the academic world one does not just make a claim without doing proper research. If you would really like me to analyse the two specific images, I will need to know exactly where they come from so I can look at other art by the same tribe. With that, I can research academic journals and books on the topic. For now I come to the conclusion that they are abstract motifs, perhaps to portray a dream or vision the artist may have had.

RygaWa - you strike me as combative and frustrated when someone questions your view on any topic, and in this case you resort to a personal attack on my credibility and academic background. You need to stop doing that. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to art.

While I don't disagree with you that what he posted does not constitute proof of any kind I fail to see how anyone could not be interested by the extreme similarities with those drawings to modern day accounts of Greys and mantis-like creatures. There is one or two of them that are uncanny. I think they look even closer to the mantis creatures than they do the Greys but maybe that's just me. It could just be a coincidence but they sure do look similar. Doesn't really amount to evidence but does qualify as one of those things that makes ya' go hmm imo.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Hi Lance,

It wasn't just you, but I didn't want to be the first one to say it.

To give any credence to this complete wacko does a great disservice to serious research. He makes Steven Greer seem almost normal by comparison.

Totally inappropriate and out of line Paul. We are all entitled to our opinion, and you can say what you want (within reason) but that was totally uncalled for. Louis has worked with/for religious figures, a retired-editor of the New York Times, the former EDIT under-secretary general of the UN for the Environment, he has brought together revered spiritual elders together and has conducted an amazing amount of SERIOUS research. I don't care what you think of the man, he has a right to his opinions, so lay off with the attack dog tone, please.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

While I don't disagree with you that what he posted does not constitute proof of any kind I fail to see how anyone could not be interested by the extreme similarities with those drawings to modern day accounts of Greys and mantis-like creatures. There is one or two of them that are uncanny. I think they look even closer to the mantis creatures than they do the Greys but maybe that's just me. It could just be a coincidence but they sure do look similar. Doesn't really amount to evidence but does qualify as one of those things that makes ya' go hmm imo.

From studying First Nations art, I can tell you that it's probably coincidence. It's actually far more fascinating than "Greys" and tainting it that way does a disservice to the art and the Native artists that created it.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

From studying First Nations art, I can tell you that it's probably coincidence. It's actually far more fascinating than "Greys" and tainting it that way does a disservice to the art and the Native artists that created it.

Lol, OK.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Assuming I want to bother.

I realize that people are into prophecies and all, but this hasn't been my cup of tea.
Of course a few accurate prophecies, assuming we live to survive the event, would go a long way towards changing that.

I suggested having Louis on to Gene for a several reasons. 1) Louis is entertaining and controversial. 2) He has an impressive background and he is passionate about his beliefs 3) We knew he would be controversial and stir the pot up here and he is not selling anything. Is everyone having fun yet? Like most of you, I too have a major problem with the subject of prophesy, but millions of people out there do not, in fact, as we get more and more programmed by the culture to expect some sort of end-times, more and more people buy into these scenarios. Whether you want to admit or accept this is beside the point. When it comes to prophesy research, I personally don't know anyone else that can hold a candle to Louis--he's in a class all by himself. As far as his appearance harming the reputation of the show? It will take way more than an appearance by a Louis Jarvis to do that! But, as far as harming the tone of this forum, some of you are doing a yeoman's job!

 

[Skymon876]

Totally inappropriate and out of line Paul. We are all entitled to our opinion, and you can say what you want (within reason) but that was totally uncalled for. Louis has worked with/for religious figures, an retired-editor of the New York Times, the former secretary general of the UN for the Environment, he has brought together revered spiritual elders together and has conducted an amazing amount of SERIOUS research. I don't care what you think of the man, he has a right to his opinions, so lay off with the attack dog tone, please.

I agree with you Chris,

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Thanks to Christopher O"Brien for bringing Louis Jarvis on to the Paracast. And I mean that without any sarcasm or snideness. In the end you can think what you like about Louis Jarvis and I think that's the whole idea. People here don't need to be told what to think about him or his stories. Sometimes a good yarn is just that, sometimes entertaining, sometimes incredulous and sometimes an element of truth or all of the above wrapped into one. So what? Even Greer can be entertaining at times.
At least Chris offers up an alternative point of view in his selection of guests. And kudos to him for it.
I keep hearing complaints that people like Biedny and Kimball are no longer acting as the agents of truth and light on the show. Well one has thankfully gone for good.

Whatever the case there is no need to call Louis Jarvis names like "wackjob" and "nut". Especially since we are supposed to respectful on these forums, Right?

 

[Skymon876]

Pair of Cats

Whatever the case there is no need to call Louis Jarvis names like "wackjob" and "nut". Especially since we are supposed to respectful on these forums, Right

Only if someone else is disrespectful is it wrong, but the other way around suddenly its ok.

 

[Frank Stalter]

As far as his appearance harming the reputation of the show? It will take way more than an appearance by a Louis Jarvis to do that! But, as far as harming the tone of this forum, some of you are doing a yeoman's job!

I agree with this. Like any other show, some guests go over and some don't. Is every comedian the Tonight Show books funny? Of course not.

As far as my own cheap shots aimed at a particular individual, and I freely admit they were cheap shots and meant to be, it's due to how he comports himself and not his claims. I wouldn't cheap shot somebody just for making what I view as implausible claims.

 

[justcurious]

From studying First Nations art, I can tell you that it's probably coincidence. It's actually far more fascinating than "Greys" and tainting it that way does a disservice to the art and the Native artists that created it.

Angel, I wish to bring a serious point about your post, do not take it personally.

I think you said that because you always read "Greys" as physical aliens (ETH) just as you always seem to read "UFO" as spaceships. If you consider the possibility that they'd be archetypal constructs in a Jungian sense, they could very well have been present (to which degree of ontological reality is another fascinating question) throughout history and in geographically widely separated cultures, and that seem to be the case. Viewed like this there no disservice to the art and the Native artists that created it.

What do you think ?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Angel, I wish to bring a serious point about your post, do not take it personally.

I think you said that because you always read "Greys" as physical aliens (ETH) just as you always seem to read "UFO" as spaceships. If you consider the possibility that they'd be archetypal constructs in a Jungian sense, they could very well have been present (to which degree of ontological reality is another fascinating question) throughout history and in geographically widely separated cultures, and that seem to be the case. Viewed like this there no disservice to the art and the Native artists that created it.

What do you think ?

I wouldn't try dressing up his comment. Gives it more credit than it deserves. His whole thing that I might be insulting natives was just plain silly. It's pretty clear in those pictures that either A)They saw aliens and were drawing what they saw or B)Someone with an imagination was drawing what he thought someone from the stars might look like in the same way someone like Issac Asimov imagines aliens and then writes about them. In either case there is nothing insulting about what I said. If anything it's a compliment to say that something intended to be aliens (Either real or imagined) looks like aliens. He was just taking being PC to some laughably ridiculous level.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Gene, I know that you have a tough job coming up with guests week in and week out---I probably have no idea how tough! And I could definitely sense some discomfort.

Good point! Why don't you make some calls to your skeptic friends, weed 'em out, find one who is truly up to speed and suggest them to Gene to have on the show. The true-believers around might be feeling left out and be in the need to howl, scoff, whine, insult and denigrate. Just a thought... break out that little black book for us and suggest some guests, won't you?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel, I wish to bring a serious point about your post, do not take it personally.

I think you said that because you always read "Greys" as physical aliens (ETH) just as you always seem to read "UFO" as spaceships. If you consider the possibility that they'd be archetypal constructs in a Jungian sense, they could very well have been present (to which degree of ontological reality is another fascinating question) throughout history and in geographically widely separated cultures, and that seem to be the case. Viewed like this there no disservice to the art and the Native artists that created it.

What do you think ?

The way they were being brought up, there was the implication that they were physical beings of some kind and not a motif from the mind of the artist. That is what I was responding to. Resemblance among other cultures are more due to the similar materials used to create the art - a human like figure used to represent a spiritual being.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Good point! Why don't you make some calls to your skeptic friends, weed 'em out, find one who is truly up to speed and suggest them to Gene to have on the show. The true-believers around might be feeling left out and be in the need to howl, scoff, whine, insult and denigrate. Just a thought... break out that little black book for us and suggest some guests, won't you?

Well, I know that these guys consider Brian Dunning to be Grand Emperor of the Universe so he would probably be a good choice.

 

[pixelsmith]

you mean like when you called me a disinformation agent assigned here to lie?

I did offer to come on and talk about the otis carr story and the long john nebel days but i don't know if enough people would be interested.

Lance

please do!!!

 

[Frank Stalter]

please do!!!

Yeah, I'd like to hear Lance on there. I'd rather listen to a good debate than a lovefest.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

You mean like when you called me a disinformation agent assigned here to lie?

heh-heh, yer funny. I didn't say you were assigned here to lie, I suggested that your debunker friends should assign you to a different forum. That was my brand of dry, trickster humor. I probably should have put a cute smiley face to make sure it came across as a joke, (I've said the exact same thing in jest to Oberg several times, btw). But I was seriously pointing out to you in the post that your tone, at times, suggests to me personally, the possibility of an agenda, (similar to ARTs blurb response idea?). If you felt that was insulting, hey sorry about that, but you have given me (and others here) plenty of ammunition to question your motives and ask ourselves why you even come here in the first place. You can become so adversarial about guests and people's posts and opinions that you make me wonder. Hmmm

 

[Sean Elifritz]

heh-heh, yer funny. I didn't say you were assigned here to lie, I suggested that your debunker friends should assign you to a different forum. That was my brand of dry, trickster humor. I probably should have put a cute smiley face to make sure it came across as a joke, (I've said the exact same thing in jest to Oberg several times, btw). But I was seriously pointing out to you in the post that your tone, at times, suggests to me personally, the possibility of an agenda, (similar to ARTs blurb response idea?). If you felt that was insulting, hey sorry about that, but you have given me (and others here) plenty of ammunition to question your motives and ask ourselves why you even come here in the first place because you are so adversarial about guests and people's posts and opinions.

I don't get the impression that he has any sort of agenda or something spooky like that. Just seems to me like he is one of those guys that thinks he is smarter than everyone else and uses the internet to prove it. He probably views those interested in paranormal topics as easy prey. There's also a condition some skeptics have where A) They liken themselves as smarter than 90% of the rest of us. We're the sheep, they're the sheepherder. B) They want to save us from our own ignorance. Anyone believing in something they do not must be a sad idiot in need of saving. It's the same mentality driving some to demand the banishment of fast food. Anyone who buys it must be a moron and shouldn't be trusted to make decisions for themselves. Meh, I've seen it a thousand times. Nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it. Just human nature. Some people are physical bullies, some intellectual ones. The internet is like Disneyland for the latter. It's the one place they can come to do their thing without fear of being put in a headlock. Although he surely likens himself as breathtakingly brilliant he is just another face in the crowd of a board populated by lots of smart people. Albeit one singing a different tune and a bit more forcibly and self-assuredly than some.