March 22nd / interview with Mike C!

[Gen]

Something else important:

Other people have spoken about how hard their experiences have been for them, but MikeC is the first experiencer to come on to the Paracast who is still in obvious emotional distress. If Gene and David continue to dig deeper into the accounts of the experiencers -- and I think they should -- then they are bound to encounter more guests who are still raw, and probably much more so than MikeC.

It's obvious that Gene and David would know how to handle that, but this presents a real challenge to us as a community on the forums.

If I were MikeC, I would feel re-traumatized by the irrational and occasionally cruel response from some posters here. It would make me reluctant to share again in the future, or maybe I would feel inclined to only tell part of my story. If this happens, it's a loss for everyone who is seeking answers -- and maybe even the whole world, since these experiences are potentially that significant.

I don't think anyone wants this forum to lose its intellectual sharpness. Nor do we want to feel forced to accept someone's account of their experiences just because they might feel even more upset if we don't.

But if we are going to come to any answers in this field, we are going to have to learn to deal with not just the intellectual and physical implications of this phenomenon, but the emotional and spiritual aspects as well. Otherwise, I guarantee you that we will never get there.

 

[Gareth]

So that makes me wonder what the female side to this equation might be, if there is one, and whether it may be the missing side of the story.

dont you know nutin'?

dey just godda cleen dem dishis and berf dem der aleeun harbrids!


YEEEEHHHHHAAW

 

[Tim777]

One upside to it, if there is an upside, is that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Once you've been through depression it makes you enormously tough. It usually forces some wisdom down your throat as well.

It all depends on your willingness to 'rise above it'. Some people sink down into it and pretty much become their illness. Also, Gen-Xers have the 'evil' tendency to romanticize depression which feeds the whole problem. I'm not disagreeing with you, though. Depression provides a valuable opportunity to stare straight in the face of your own ugliness and come to understand its purpose. It seems that some people are'nt capable or ready to do that. I'm sympathetic, yet vehemently opposed to that tendency.

I'm speaking from experience, by the way. It's not empty pontification.

 

[mikec]

The issues of depression are important. It seems to show up at a much higher rate in people with "contact" experiences (no data, just my anecdotal observation).

And - creative types are at a MUCH higher risk for clinical depression. This is NOT anecdotal, this has been researched.

I got extremely depressed during the winter of 1992. It was devastating. It changed EVERYTHING. I came out of it slowly, and did a lot of hard work to make sense of what had happened.

Let me say, I am a better person now after having been thru that dark chapter of my life. I've gained some very real sensitivity. I'm kinder. And - The fact that I am communicating this, sharing this - right here - is something I would have NEVER done before 1992.

I still get depressed sometimes, but I feel like I have a lot of tools to mange it (including medications).

And romanticizing depression is easy when you are young. Art schools are full of these types. But that can only last so long - eventually there comes a time to deal with the issues. I speak from experience.

peace,
Mike C

 

[wicro]

Something else important:

Other people have spoken about how hard their experiences have been for them, but MikeC is the first experiencer to come on to the Paracast who is still in obvious emotional distress. If Gene and David continue to dig deeper into the accounts of the experiencers -- and I think they should -- then they are bound to encounter more guests who are still raw, and probably much more so than MikeC.

It's obvious that Gene and David would know how to handle that, but this presents a real challenge to us as a community on the forums.

If I were MikeC, I would feel re-traumatized by the irrational and occasionally cruel response from some posters here. It would make me reluctant to share again in the future, or maybe I would feel inclined to only tell part of my story. If this happens, it's a loss for everyone who is seeking answers -- and maybe even the whole world, since these experiences are potentially that significant.

I don't think anyone wants this forum to lose its intellectual sharpness. Nor do we want to feel forced to accept someone's account of their experiences just because they might feel even more upset if we don't.

But if we are going to come to any answers in this field, we are going to have to learn to deal with not just the intellectual and physical implications of this phenomenon, but the emotional and spiritual aspects as well. Otherwise, I guarantee you that we will never get there.

While I agree with your sentiments Gen, 're-traumatized' seems slightly strong. Someone that appears on a popular podcast (twice), was going to appear on Ritzmann podcast, is in the process of making a documentary of themselves, has a blog of their experiences, and makes two thread about themselves on two public forums which by there nature invite discussion about their experience, does not in my opinion need 'protecting'. Surely MikeC is asking for some critical discussion which may be conducive to his own experience? I can only assume from this list that MikeC wanted to be challenged on his fundamental ontology i.e. that he had his own doubt about his alleged 'paranormal' experiences and was inviting critical (public) discourse?

On the veracity or otherwise of his claims of course I cannot know, but to portray him as a 'victim' seems slightly strange considering some of the comment that have passed on these forums of others within this field (or even 'mere' participants / listeners of this forum).

I think Mike(non-C) (among others) questioning was pertinent to the discussion, surely that is the point of a public forum ? and hopefully gave MikeC the tools to deal with more critical discussion outside the confines of 'Ufology' . Mike did not seem convinced on the paranormal nature of the experience, surely that is not 'cruel' merely realistic in his opinion ( and certainly not irrational given the circumstance). Being called a 'conman' is not that traumatic, at least here in Scotland, I get called a lot worse daily at my work, maybe my ego is not so easily bruised.

While I'm certainly not defending unprovoked acts on guest on mere suspicion I personal have not seen anything in this thread that crossed any boundaries of decency (unlike other thread on this forum I have participated in by the way) but merely questioned the hosts / guests. Is that so bad? Is discussion only to be related to agreeing with the endorsed guest and nodding our approval at the taking down of 'dubious' guests? If this whole thread had been endorsements of MikeC where would the critical discussion be? And how would that have helped MikeC formulate his world veiw?

Hopefully future guest are not so sensitive to 'our' ( I use the term loosely) inquiry that they need 'protection' from the hosts, especially if it their choice in the first place to participate in this carnival.

Anyway thanks for sharing your experience MikeC, I hope you got something out of it and it was not all negative and I will continue to read your blog. And please correct me if I wrong about your participation on these and other forums about inviting critical discourse.

 

[mikec]

Wicro wrote:
"... thanks for sharing your experience MikeC, I hope you got something out of it and it was not all negative and I will continue to read your blog. And please correct me if I wrong about your participation on these and other forums about inviting critical discourse."


Mike C replies:

Yep. I was certainly aware that by being so visable and so open on these forums that I was opening myself up for some critical feedback.

I enjoy the discourse, I truly do, and that's why I started this (and the other) threads.

At times the tone got a little bit abrasive, and I simply chose to reply to people who were civil with their questions. I have tried to be thorough with my answers.

I never felt re-traumatized. And yes, I learned some lessons.

 

[0hs0]

Having been searching for answers for over 25 years and having recently stumbled upon this site/podcast, i found Bierdny to be a breath of fresh air and a possible game changer.
I feel Mike's take on this Mike C issue is completely plausible and relevent and he has presented his argument in a thoughtful and civil manner. On the other hand, i feel that Bierdny calling him an a**hole and replying to him in the way he did in his last post shows a glaring lack of thought and was quite frankly, childish. Having said that, i still believe these guys ( Dave and Gene) are on to something and have the potential to maybe filter some of the piss from the pool.

Drew

 

[jpw.in.wi]

LOVED the interview with George Knapp, but this was the first Paracast I've downloaded that I can say I didn't finish listening to. Sorry!

My favorite Paracasts (I'm still very new to it, and to this field overall) are those that involve investigators who recount their chasing down of clues, checking out timelines, verifying documents, etc. Other names from those favorite shows include Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman, and Dr. Lier. I just read Mr. Randle's book, The Randle Report: UFOs in the '90s (I know, there was some dust on that one, but it's slim pickin's at our library), and I loved reading about all the detective work that went into the various cases he included.

With that in mind, this "discovery pilgrimage" show was just too mushy for me. Are the Kevin Randles of the field representative of what I've heard referred to as "nuts-and-bolts" ufology?

Thanks!!!!

 

[Gareth]

Yeah, as well as guys like Friedman etc.

 

[Gen]

It all depends on your willingness to 'rise above it'. Some people sink down into it and pretty much become their illness. Also, Gen-Xers have the 'evil' tendency to romanticize depression which feeds the whole problem. I'm not disagreeing with you, though. Depression provides a valuable opportunity to stare straight in the face of your own ugliness and come to understand its purpose. It seems that some people are'nt capable or ready to do that. I'm sympathetic, yet vehemently opposed to that tendency.

I'm speaking from experience, by the way. It's not empty pontification.

There is definitely that risk, and the risk of depression just causing one to become wacky in some other, non-transformative way.

At the risk of romanticizing, I do see depression as a sane reaction to an insane world. (I also think that there are probably unknown environmental factors at work.) Of course, one shouldn't stop with that depressed reaction and wallow there, but as you point out, many people do.

 

[Gen]

While I agree with your sentiments Gen, 're-traumatized' seems slightly strong.

It probably is in this case; I just like the word.

Someone that appears on a popular podcast (twice), was going to appear on Ritzmann podcast, is in the process of making a documentary of themselves, has a blog of their experiences, and makes two thread about themselves on two public forums which by there nature invite discussion about their experience, does not in my opinion need 'protecting'.

Maybe not "protection" -- we're all adults here -- but certainly a particular kind of consideration. The UFO phenomenon is one that can apparently produce emotional reactions anywhere from "gee whiz" to "I've just been raped." Coming forward as an experiencer may feel like no big deal for some people, but for other experiencers it obviously takes a lot of guts and is imbued with risk at every level. Within the UFO community, I think we do need to keep that in mind.

The Kevin Randles of the world have researched "nuts-and-bolts" stories (as if we had nuts, or bolts) to such a fine level of granularity that we know who sneezed the day of the Roswell event. This is great. But there are personal emotional and spiritual aspects of this phenomenon that remain almost entirely unexplored, and if we intend to really explore them it's going to require a different, more sensitive set of tools.

Surely MikeC is asking for some critical discussion which may be conducive to his own experience? I can only assume from this list that MikeC wanted to be challenged on his fundamental ontology i.e. that he had his own doubt about his alleged 'paranormal' experiences and was inviting critical (public) discourse?

On the veracity or otherwise of his claims of course I cannot know, but to portray him as a 'victim' seems slightly strange considering some of the comment that have passed on these forums of others within this field (or even 'mere' participants / listeners of this forum).

I think Mike(non-C) (among others) questioning was pertinent to the discussion, surely that is the point of a public forum ? and hopefully gave MikeC the tools to deal with more critical discussion outside the confines of 'Ufology' . Mike did not seem convinced on the paranormal nature of the experience, surely that is not 'cruel' merely realistic in his opinion ( and certainly not irrational given the circumstance).

Being called a 'conman' is not that traumatic, at least here in Scotland, I get called a lot worse daily at my work, maybe my ego is not so easily bruised.

I'm all for critical discussion. I hope that's clear in my post. And I'm not advocating that we carry experiencers around on a litter or anything, but treating them as hostile witnesses just isn't gonna work. We are not all tough as Scotsmen, nor should we be expected to be. There are some sensitive Irish types present as well, don't forget. Heh.

Now I really want to know what you do for a living!

 

[swatcher]

Mike,

You're right, my judgment is worthless, I have failed the entire world. I did not spend weeks researching Mike C., I did not realize that he's in cahoots with this Lamb woman, who is a dues-paying member of the Meier clan.

I think you should take over my responsibilities on this show, so I can get on with my professional life. Lord knows it'll be more constructive than this horseshit. So when are you taking over for me? We gotta coordinate with Gene, and you'll need to come forward with your actual name and identity. I hope you have a decent radio voice, dude, and don't mind anonymous people on the Web deconstructing your every thought and comment. You're right, I should have absolutely NO friends in this sandbox, cool, well, Jeff is obviously no longer a friend, check, Vaeni is history, check, Mike C., go fuck yourself, you lying, two-faced piece of dirt. You're making shit up, you psychopath, so the doe-eyed space brother believers can look up to you and tell you how cool you are. I hope you're happy with the results of your lies, you've ruined my life and others. You should go kill yourself now. Mike has determined that you don't deserve to live, and I should die as well, for my totally mindless lack of discernment abilities.

dB

dB,

I don't even know how to address it properly, but this outburst is beneath you. This ain't right.

 

[David Biedny]

dB,

I don't even know how to address it properly, but this outburst is beneath you. This ain't right.

You're right, it's not like me to post something like that. It was an incredibly bad week for me, and I was pushed over the edge.

dB

 

[David Biedny]

Having been searching for answers for over 25 years and having recently stumbled upon this site/podcast, i found Bierdny to be a breath of fresh air and a possible game changer.
I feel Mike's take on this Mike C issue is completely plausible and relevent and he has presented his argument in a thoughtful and civil manner. On the other hand, i feel that Bierdny calling him an a**hole and replying to him in the way he did in his last post shows a glaring lack of thought and was quite frankly, childish. Having said that, i still believe these guys ( Dave and Gene) are on to something and have the potential to maybe filter some of the piss from the pool.

Drew

Drew,

You're absolutely right, I had an extreme reaction, and subsequently, I emailed Mike and apologized to him profusely. I was wrong, and I 'fessed up to it. I had a very, very rough week last week, and it came out on these forums - there are some times I should probably stay away from here, and that day was one of them. I made a mistake, and I privately apologized to Mike for it, so what more can I say?

And thanks for the kind comments, and welcome to ze forums!

dB

 

[mikec]

When I read that "fiery" posting from David, I laughed out loud. I know irony when I see it.

I even thanked him.

The PARACAST is a truly remarkable thing. I just scrolled thru the archive. Wow. The list of impressive guests, once a week for over three years - and most of the shows are TWO hours long! Just the thought of that much commitment (and passion!) leaves me in awe.

This is a truly impressive format. I have benefitted enormously from being a listener.

Huge thanks again David. And - I give you permission to be a human, and get frustrated and angry if you need to. I can't imagine any one else having the mettle to suffer the grief you've been thru as you grapple with the unknowable.

You hard work is appreciated by me - truly!

peace,
Mike C

 

[cottonzway]

I am finally getting around to listening to this now (roughly 3/4 of the way through) and it's pretty interesting. I know this much, if I ma to ever really have some awkward, startling event that could maybe have a "paranormal" twist (though I guess I've had them if we are to be honest) I would choose waking up to sex. Infact, I'm going to run this one by the wife tonight.

 

[fencejumper]

There's been a lot of discussion on credibility and I'd like to make a few more points. I've been bothered by the call for critical thinking with arguments which are inconclusive. I think the main criticisms were that Mike stated he has an important purpose and message, he's working on a documentary, and that he is receiving publicity. If there are more points please correct me.

I can't claim to know with certainty if he is genuine. However, I'm open to listening and I'll explain why. Regarding the important message for the world, I haven't heard it yet. He has said all along that he doesn't know what this all means. When he starts pushing an agenda I'll re-evaluate, but I don't see one yet. As for the documentary, again, we don't know. It hasn't been released so we don't know the content or how he will profit. People make documentaries for a variety of reasons including education. Lastly is the publicity. I mentioned this before, but how do you share extraordinary events and not be the center of attention? And even when you are that doesn't mean it's beneficial.

All these points are valid for suspicion, but I don't agree with concluding *anything* from them. All we have are possibilities and no facts. I also look at his background as a professional artist as credibility. He seems to be quite good, and I don't see this being an ego boost or helpful to his career. He says this has been very negative and I feel a certain sense of sympathy. That doesn't entitle him to a free ride, but I choose to be cautious with my accusations. I worry about people who push answers, and so far Mike is only pushing questions.

 

[David Biedny]

Fencejumper,

You bring up some excellent points.

I want to point something out: The Clueless One has gone on the attack regarding Mike C., as far as motivation and integrity. I'm not going to fully address these issues here, but I feel the need to point out that as far as the documentary question, Jeremy produced a documentary about himself which is subtitled "An Alien Abductee's Story". To watch it and hear what his friends and family have to say about him, it's most enlightening.

Further, I would like to remind folks that Jeremy has also written a book called "I Know Why The Aliens Don't Land".

'Nuff said.

dB

 

[Schuyler]

"I Know Why The Aliens Don't Land".

Whenever I see the phrase "I know why" I think: "No, you don't." Whenever I see the phrase, "WTF?" which is essentially what mikec has said, I think: "Share the pain!"*

* "Share the pain. See Star Trek V with a friend."

--- in jeans we trust ---

 

[mikec]

Reply to Fence-Jumper:

I stated in an email last summer that :

...my "coming out" ... seems really important to me. And, to the world.

The full email is in post #82 on this thread.

That lofty sounding sentence above is nothing more than my gut-feeling. This is a weird suspicion that I simply can't explain logically. I feel an urgency and I don't know why.

As delusional as it sounds, I feel like there is some reason to speak out, and it's important.

I added a thread on this forum titled: Are "experiencers" compelled to SPEAK-OUT?

I have no message to "the world" - I'm totally confused about all of this. I truly feel that *something* is happening, but I have no idea what it is.