Louis Jarvis

[cottonzway]

I have been away from the forums for a bit and just read this whole thread. I probably should have probably picked a better time to comment then right before bed, so I'll save it for tomorrow.

I'll take a listen to the show tomorrow as well.

 

[Apocalypto]

Gene, you might want to consider subtitling this episode "Hopi & Changi". Just sayin'.

 

[campbell71]

Well it seems this show has not only stirred up a hornets nest, its put on its best kicking boots and taking a 20 yard run up!

It was a tricky one to follow I grant you that and towards the end I found myself thinking about what I could have been doing for the previous couple of hours but it IS supposed to be a show about the paranormal and I guess Jarvis and his views come under that term. I don't know if it is just me but his scattergun approach meant that I was drifting in and out of the show which I suppose adds to the feeling some folk have that maybe he wasn't the full shilling. (For the record I'm not questioning his beliefs. I was raised a Catholic so I'm hardly in a position to start throwning stones from the garden in front of my glass house). I feel he needed to be a bit more concise with his comments.

Still, another job well done Gene & Chris.

 

[Jay]

I found this show disconcerting. To me, it was more a rambling discussion of belief systems and interconnecting (in the mind of the guest at least) prophecies than a discussion on the paranormal. I also wish Louis would have stayed on target more and not went off on so many tangents.<o></o>
I want to know if he can offer ANY proof he ever met with the Clintons. I can say I have met Megan Fox, doesn’t mean I have.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Re-listening to Jarvis' wholly unsubstantiated claims refreshed my memory of a conversation I once had with my friend the late Dick Hall about Jarvis' pal / mentor Ray Stanford. I would direct people who want the real story of the "mystery metal" of Socorro, to the MUFON Journal article written by Dick in the November, 1976 issue.

Here is the link (the relevant article begins at p. 15):

http://ufos.homestead.com/hall3.pdf

Dick's summary at p. 18 is spot on:

In his Socorro book Stanford presents conspiracy theories based on his presupposition that he, in fact, had metallic traces of a UFO. NASA's failure to confirm this could only be explained by a cover-up. It is apparent to me that, far from "verbatim" quotes, Stanford has paraphrased remarks out of context, and taken serious liberties in doing so. His psychic and "contactee" background and his conspiratorial turn of mind give me little confidence that he, alone, has succeeded in uncovering truth where others have failed. Instead, I see in his writings example after example of "reading into" events to which he is already prone to believe. He shows every evidence of what I prefer to call "systematic self-delusion" rather than malicious intent.

Dick spent decades working tireleslly to advance the cause of serious UFO research. His UFO Evidence, Vols. I and II stand, along with Jerry Clark's UFO Encyclopedia, as the standard reference work for serious ufology. People wonder why I get cranky when I hear crap like Jarvis, and Stanford? Because they undermine the work of real researchers like Hall, and in doing so they undermine the cause of serious study of the UFO phenomenon. They deserve my contempt, and I'm tired of soft-peddling it because everyone just wants to get along.

Somewhere, poor Dick is spinning in his grave at the continued propagation of this nonsense.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I wish we had this link yesterday, when we recorded the Stanford interview — even better, the one we did with him in 2009 when we focused on Socorro. It would have certainly served as a reality check with which to ask pointed questions. In any case, we'll be posting some of his purported evidence of the White Sands sightings for everyone's perusal.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I wish we had this link yesterday, when we recorded the Stanford interview — even better, the one we did with him in 2009 when we focused on Socorro. It would have certainly served as a reality check with which to ask pointed questions. In any case, we'll be posting some of his purported evidence of the White Sands sightings for everyone's perusal.

Gene,

All it would have taken was a 1 minute Google search to find it. Basic research, without even having to go into the "field".

Just sayin'.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene,

All it would have taken was a 1 minute Google search to find it. Basic research, without even having to go into the "field".

Just sayin'.

You mean Hall and Stanford? It depends on what you search for, since the basic Socorro search didn't produce it and it's not in the Wikipedia entry on the sighting, which does mention the Stanford book.

It also wasn't on our agenda for this episode, which focused on a different case altogether. We only peripherally deal with Socorro. My "researcher" on the previous episode is no longer connected with the show, as you well know. And, once again, we'd have to focus on the right "basic research" to get that answer. Worse, since Hall is no longer with us, it's not as if we can put the two men together on the show and get this contradiction straightened out.

 

[Paul Kimball]

You mean Hall and Stanford?

It wasn't on our agenda for this episode, which focused on a different case altogether. We only peripherally deal with Socorro. My "researcher" on the previous episode is no longer connected with the show, as you well know.

But that's the problem - even when you "focus" on one case, you still have to address questions about the researcher's credibility, questions that have existed with Stanford for years, and which were raised by people as disparate as Don Ecker and Lance Moody on the very thread that was started on the Paracast forums to solicit questions for Stanford for the White Sands episode.

And it's absolutely unfair for you to pawn off the previous episode on DB when you've said repeatedly that you were as involved in prep for shows as he was.

But I guess we just look at things differently on this point.

As for the search, the following would have done it:

"ray stanford" "richard hall" socorro

Of course, you would have to go to the second Google seach page, which took me... a couple of seconds.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

But that's the problem - even when you "focus" on one case, you still have to address questions about the researcher's credibility, questions that have existed with Stanford for years, and which were raised by people as disparate as Don Ecker and Lance Moody on the very thread that was started on the Paracast forums to solicit questions for Stanford for the White Sands episode.

And it's absolutely unfair for you to pawn off the previous episode on DB when you've said repeatedly that you were as involved in prep for shows as he was.

But I guess we just look at things differently on this point.

It comes down to this. The "basic research" didn't unearth that particular article. Not every search yields the same results every single time, as you know. More to the point, yes, we do ask some pointed questions about Stanford's background. But the Hall article didn't come up until a day too late.

 

[Paul Kimball]

It comes down to this. The "basic research" didn't unearth that particular article. Not every search yields the same results every single time, as you know. More to the point, yes, we do ask some pointed questions about Stanford's background. But the Hall article didn't come up until a day too late.

Again, it seems like we have a different definition of "basic research". C'est la vie.

As for the "pointed questions", I'll have to wait to listen to the episode.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Again, it seems like we have a different definition of "basic research". C'est la vie.

As for the "pointed questions", I'll have to wait to listen to the episode.

Just what search terms did you use to bring up that Richard Hall article since you mentioned it?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Just what search terms did you use to bring up that Richard Hall article since you mentioned it?

See my previous response.

Of course, "basic research" should involve more than just a Google search and a quick check at Wikipedia, but in this case, even that would have done the trick. But even if you know the information, it doesn't do any good unless you're willing to ask the question, and press from there. In the end, however, it goes even further than that - to me, the key is not giving a platform to people of questionable (at best) credibility to spout unsubstantiated bilge in the first place.

Look, Gene, I'm going to let this go, because I made my point re: Stanford and Jarvis and their unsubstantiated loopiness, and that's all I really care about. I've learned over the years that trying to get the vast majority of people in ufology to understand what real research entails is a lost cause.

PK

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Of course, "basic research" should involve more than just a Google search and a quick check at Wikipedia, but in this case, even that would have done the trick.

It didn't, as I said, so knowing the exact search terms you used would have helped.

I would also hope that people will understand that we don't always have time to ask every single question in a single interview even when it comes up.

Even then, we have Richard Hall writing about selective quoting and misleading conclusions in Stanford's Socorro book, all of which depends on believing him 100%, since there's no way to independently confirm his personal correspondence otherwise. While I have no reason to distrust Hall about Stanford, this could end up boiling down to a he said/he said situation. Stanford could just deny it, and there you go, since Hall is no longer here to defend his position.

My early contacts with Hall, in the late 1960s, weren't terribly pleasant, nor did he ever accurately describe the outcome of one particular personal meeting that, in the end, may have hastened his departure from NICAP. We both buried the hatchet a decade later, but the issue at the time caused a reasonable uproar in the field.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It didn't, as I said, so knowing the exact search terms you used would have helped.

I would also hope that people will understand that we don't always have time to ask every single question in a single interview even when it comes up.

Even then, we have Richard Hall writing about selective quoting and misleading conclusions in Stanford's Socorro book, all of which depends on believing him 100%, since there's no way to independently confirm his personal correspondence otherwise. While I have no reason to distrust Hall about Stanford, this could end up boiling down to a he said/he said situation. Stanford could just deny it, and there you go, since Hall is no longer here to defend his position.

My early contacts with Hall, in the late 1960s, weren't terribly pleasant, nor did he ever accurately describe the outcome of one particular personal meeting that, in the end, may have hastened his departure from NICAP. We both buried the hatchet a decade later, but the issue at the time caused a reasonable uproar in the field.

Therein lies the problem with the entire field of "Ufology." No real proof of anything leads to wildly varying ideas and speculation, not any of which are falsifiable, and why real science doesn't take the issue seriously. Only when people like Lesly Kean come out with a book that doesn't pretend to make any definitive conclusions does the scientific community actually take a look, as Kaku's recent comments show. He's optimistic by regular scientific standards, but he's well within the realm of possibility, unlike some things I have read about Stanford and Jarvis.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Therein lies the problem with the entire field of "Ufology." No real proof of anything leads to wildly varying ideas and speculation, not any of which are falsifiable, and why real science doesn't take the issue seriously. Only when people like Lesly Kean come out with a book that doesn't pretend to make any definitive conclusions does the scientific community actually take a look, as Kaku's recent comments show. He's optimistic by regular scientific standards, but he's well within the realm of possibility, unlike some things I have read about Stanford and Jarvis.

Well, in the Socorro case, you do have evidence that makes for a compelling case, even if you remove Ray Stanford and Richard Hall from the equation.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Therein lies the problem with the entire field of "Ufology." No real proof of anything leads to wildly varying ideas and speculation, not any of which are falsifiable, and why real science doesn't take the issue seriously. Only when people like Lesly Kean come out with a book that doesn't pretend to make any definitive conclusions does the scientific community actually take a look, as Kaku's recent comments show. He's optimistic by regular scientific standards, but he's well within the realm of possibility, unlike some things I have read about Stanford and Jarvis.

Hi Angelo,

Dick's UFO Evidence is Kean's book written many years ago (depending on which volume one is talking about). Kean hasn't really done anything new - she's just doing it today, and getting some good press about it (and good for her, and for the serious study of UFOs). But she's re-inventing the wheel that Dick and others first built decades ago.

I just heard something in the Jarvis episode that I had missed the first time - his letter from Michelle Obama. Wow... that's great. Here's the thing - how about getting him to post it? I mean, he's talked about it, so it's not like it's a secret now, so why not post it? That would surely quiet all of us doubters.

I made a similar request of Steven Greer over five years ago: http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/05/greer-vs-woolsey.html

Needless to say, the good doctor never "put up". I suspect the same would be true of Jarvis.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Thanks Paul. I didn't know that. It just that Kean was just on the show and she's in the press now, so that's what's fresh in my mind. I'll have to take a look at the Hall book.

 

[trainedobserver]

But in other threads (including one I replied in just a few days ago) the topic was all about how quantum physics suggests the material universe seems to respond even across time to the mere scientific observations made by our puny little human minds. Maybe it's not so "arrogant" after all to claim that our lives on this little dust particle really do matter somehow to the rest of the universe.

Personally I think that speaks more to how humans respond to the universe (perception) than how the infinite universe responds to what is happening inside of 1300 grams or so of brain matter.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Thanks Paul. I didn't know that. It just that Kean was just on the show and she's in the press now, so that's what's fresh in my mind. I'll have to take a look at the Hall book.

I think "re-inventing the wheel" was the wrong phrase - the better way to put it is that she's building on the foundations that people like Hall and Clark have laid.

But it's always been people like Jarvis and Stanford, Greer and Salla, that get in the way of any real progress and investigation, and it's why the UFO subject is still radioactive for the scienctific community, Kaku's occasional commentaries notwithstanding.