Louis Jarvis

[trainedobserver]

Prophecy is only meaningful if the predictions come true. If and when they do, then we can worry about the cause.

Which pretty much renders all prophecy meaningless except as an insight into human psychology.

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

My own personal belief is that this is ultimately what Fatima and this probably comes down to. Imagination built from dogma and then legitimized by the fervor of some ultra religious believers.

Bingo! I agree whole-heartedly with your analysis. It seems to be a clear case of ignorance and superstition fueling imaginations unfettered by an irrational world-view.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Did he not predict the Death of the King of France in a duelling contest, just before it happened, he came to the queen and told her.

Well, since he had a fifty-fifty chance, I would hardly call that prophecy. Bonus: If the King had survived he could have said he had prevented the death.

 

[Kieran]

Well, since he had a fifty-fifty chance, I would hardly call that prophecy. Bonus: If the King had survived he could have said he had prevented the death.

It still a prediction that came true if it's historically accurate. Maybe he should have listened to the queen when she told him, A king can be stubborn.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It still a prediction that came true if it's historically accurate. Maybe he should have listened to the queen when she told him, A king can be stubborn.

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.

 

[trainedobserver]

It still a prediction that came true if it's historically accurate. Maybe he should have listened to the queen when she told him, A king can be stubborn.

There will always be the "educated" or "lucky" guess that comes true. I imagine that is how this whole prophecy game got started. "OH! How did you know that?" "Well, 'cause I'm a prophet!" "Don't anger the prophet, give me all your shiny things and your wimmings!"

 

[tyder001]

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?

 

[Kieran]

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.

Not really, if you predict the correct score and who were all the scores, that something!! Nostradamus said the King would die from his wounds that a blade would enter the front of his helmet and pierce his right or left eye, and it would be during a duelling contest. He could have easily have been killed by falling out the window or be killed by something else. But Nostradamus was specific according to the story anyway!!

 

[bmadccp]

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

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.

<O</OAnd 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.

<O</ONo 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.

<O</OThe 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.

<O</OInstead 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.
<O</OHere'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.
<O
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.<O</O

 

[tyder001]

Riduculed? Not by me. Thanks for the breath of fresh air.

 

[trainedobserver]

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.

What a concept! Listen to the "rational" religious "nuts" who have equally valid theories? How do you get anything valid out of the "Garabandal" business which is nothing more than a threat of punishment for ignoring the "Holy Eucharist" encouraging us to "...make more sacrifices." and to "Reflect on the Passion of Jesus.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">"?


</sup>

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I should also remind people that The Paracast isn't all about UFOs. As soon as you leave those confines, you enter what some call "woo woo" land, the world of ghosts, mysterious creatures, prophecies and lots more. The evidentiary requirements will not be near as stringent, because, except for strange creature sightings, they haven't been.

As soon as you enter these other realms, it's going to be dreadfully easy to say we didn't call a guest out on obvious deception or silly claims. But if they are simply telling you what they experienced or believed, or what they gathered via armchair or onsite research, there's only so much you can do to counter them before you become obnoxious. Saying "prove it" may be pointless.

I can say I just don't buy it, as Long John Nebel did once upon a time, and move on.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Long John did use his panelists to often show the guest for what he was instead of simply agreeing with everything they said. It worked well.

Depends on the episode and John's mood.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Long John did use his panelists to often show the guest for what he was instead of simply agreeing with everything they said. It worked well.

Who says Gene or I agree with everything Jarvis said? I lost count how many times I've stated the exact opposite. You have a conveniently selective memory--a major part of the "hard-core skeptic" (debunker) tool kit.

 

[CapnG]

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'd love to know where this idea comes from. It looks like Mr. 7-posts here doesn't know too much about this audience or the members of this forum. Nice barrage of assumptions though, very informative.

<o></o>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.

Are you talking to yourself? You sound like you are. And that you're very bitter about it too. I'm guessing you've never had any kind of genuine paranormal experience and you're feeling left-out of the game.

Boo-frickity-hoo.

Let me tell you what the difference is between guys like Louis and the rest of us: we don't go out into the spotlight. We don't write books or go on tv or do podcasts and radio interviews. Why? Because we know we can never "prove" to another living soul the things we've seen and experienced, you were either there or you weren't. Beyond the actual event it just becomes campfire stories.

Where then does that leave Louis? Well it basically makes him the 21st Century equivelant of the guy with the sandwich-board sign that reads "the end is nigh". He can't prove it and what's more it won't happen anyway. He believes very strongly in something that fundamentally doesn't exist based on things which are not merely unproven but unprovable. I'd say that's pretty nutty and I'd be being alot more generous than the majority of people would in doing so.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Who says Gene or I agree with everything Jarvis said? I lost count how many times I've stated the exact opposite. You have a conveniently selective memory--a major part of the "hard-core skeptic" (debunker) tool kit.

Do you really think Lance is a debunker? Seriously? Did you see all the work he put into the Kelly Johnson case? I'm of the opinion that anytime a person questions the veracity of a claim, he is called a debunker. I'm really getting sick of it. Just because someone does not accept someone at their word when the person is making claims of things that have never been proven to be true, it does not make that person a debunker. And you know what, when something is bunk, it should be debunked.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Do you really think Lance is a debunker? Seriously? Did you see all the work he put into the Kelly Johnson case? I'm of the opinion that anytime a person questions the veracity of a claim, he is called a debunker. I'm really getting sick of it. Just because someone does not accept someone at their word when the person is making claims of things that have never been proven to be true, it does not make that person a debunker. And you know what, when something is bunk, it should be debunked.

Nope I didn't see all the work that he put in on the Kelly Johnson case. I was commenting on his selective memory. Concentrating on small parts of posts while pretending the rest of the points haven't been made. This approach reminds me of Jim Oberg (who is a debunker--no question) this is Oberg's style of approach that I have dealt with since the late '90s. Lance likes to go for what he perceives are chinks in armor to the exclusion of most everything else. If he's not a debunker, he sure employs debunker tactics! Maybe he's still smarting from being outed for his role in setting up a rapid response debunker blurb program w/ his former skeptics organization ART (?). If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[stphrz]

In battle, the chinks in the armor are all that matter. It is through a chink that the arrow that kills you will get in.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Nope I didn't see all the work that he put in on the Kelly Johnson case. I was commenting on his selective memory. Concentrating on small parts of posts while pretending the rest of the points haven't been made. This approach reminds me of Jim Oberg (who is a debunker--no question) this is Oberg's style of approach that I have dealt with since the late '90s. Lance likes to go for what he perceives are chinks in armor to the exclusion of most everything else. If he's not a debunker, he sure employs debunker tactics! Maybe he's still smarting from being outed for his role in setting up a rapid response debunker blurb program w/ his former skeptics organization ART (?). If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

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.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

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.

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.

 

[icculus]

Maybe I misunderstood the statement but, Chris, I recall you stating in the introduction that you've known Jarvis for 17 years? 17 years and no red flags, or did he stop taking his meds recently? Just wondering how this guy got on the show.