Nick Redfern's New Book Sounds Intriguing!

[Martina]

She channels the damn stuff, what are you talking about?

I'm not too crazy about her either but I don't think she's resorted to channeling, rather she digs up stuff and spins it for her market to make as much as she can off it.

 

[xLordSummerislex]

Hah, I was trying to be diplomatic about it! I was specifically thinking about the incident where she was taken to an air force base by Richard Doty and left alone in a room with a file of bogus material about aliens.

 

[Trajanus]

I'm just not prepared to believe in saucer flying demons stealing souls and body-snatching all over the world. Serpo sounds a lot more credible to me, but I'm not convinced of that either.

Lol, just about anything is more credible than "demons stealing souls." But IMO Serpo isn't credible.

 

[tyder001]

Lol, just about anything is more credible than "demons stealing souls." But IMO Serpo isn't credible.

Sorry guys (I know I'm playing the party pooper here) But demons stealing souls (at this point) is just as "credible" as men/women from "outer space!"

No real evidence for either one.

 

[Trajanus]

Sorry guys (I know I'm playing the party pooper here) But demons stealing souls (at this point) is just as "credible" as men/women from "outer space!"

No real evidence for either one.

The alien concept is at least rational, and in light of recent discoveries, highly plausible. Few scientists deny aliens are possible and plenty of evidence, albeit not conclusive--as far as the public knows--argues they are here.

 

[tyder001]

The alien concept is at least rational, and in light of recent discoveries, highly plausible. Few scientists deny aliens are possible and plenty of evidence, albeit not conclusive--as far as the public knows--argues they are here.

I hope you won't take offense at this because I don't mean you any:

What evidence beyond "sightings?" What secret things do "some" know that the public doesnt'? How do you know? Really, doesn't matter what scientist or clergy or anybody else think about something they have not met or touched or experienced. There are either aliens or there are not. Right now there is some "evidence" that something is going on. But, it's not known to be this or that. So, again a soul sucking demon and a spaceman/woman have the same standing (imo) I don't think either is exactly what is happening now. But, I have seen "somthing" in the sky on one or two occassions that didn't "fit" into what I thought should be "up there." But, it could have been military, or a satalite or with my eyesight I could have just "thought" I saw what I think I saw. Or it could have been a craft from another world or dimension. I remain open minded but this "proof" just hasn't (imo) revealed itself as of yet.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm not too crazy about her either but I don't think she's resorted to channeling, rather she digs up stuff and spins it for her market to make as much as she can off it.

I was joking of course. However, her credulity does seem to run a close second to Kerry Cassidy's.

 

[Trajanus]

What evidence beyond "sightings?"

Didn't I already mention the physical trace cases?

What secret things do "some" know that the public doesnt'? How do you know?

Based on witness testimony at Roswell, Kecksburg etc, it definitely appears the government knows much more than we do. It may be in the dark about the phenomenon's plans but IMO it knows it's real.

Right now there is some "evidence" that something is going on. But, it's not known to be this or that. So, again a soul sucking demon and a spaceman/woman have the same standing (imo) I don't think either is exactly what is happening now.

Is any view better supported?

 

[xLordSummerislex]

Finally finished the book today, I was initially doubtful of the disinfo allegations, and while the earlier part of the tale seems plausible, I think the documents relating to Roswell seem a bit dubious, referencing other organisations and experiments at Wright Patterson to close gates that Jack Parsons opened up with occult meddling etc, which seems to go way beyond the informal network of interested individuals that the Collins Elite started out as.
Even if it is disnfo though, as mentioned a few times on this thread, the question of who and why remains interesting. It's well worth a read.

 

[Martina]

I hope you won't take offense at this because I don't mean you any:

What evidence beyond "sightings?" What secret things do "some" know that the public doesnt'? How do you know? Really, doesn't matter what scientist or clergy or anybody else think about something they have not met or touched or experienced. There are either aliens or there are not. Right now there is some "evidence" that something is going on. But, it's not known to be this or that. So, again a soul sucking demon and a spaceman/woman have the same standing (imo) I don't think either is exactly what is happening now. But, I have seen "somthing" in the sky on one or two occassions that didn't "fit" into what I thought should be "up there." But, it could have been military, or a satalite or with my eyesight I could have just "thought" I saw what I think I saw. Or it could have been a craft from another world or dimension. I remain open minded but this "proof" just hasn't (imo) revealed itself as of yet.

Well I respect your empiricist viewpoint and your skepticism toward what you have not personally experienced for yourself. Tell me though, is Tibet a real place? Ever been there?

At some point we have to take seriously all of the trace evidence of landings, such as that discovered after the Bentwaters incident, which consisted of three impressions from the landing gear and radiation readings far above the background radiation. There are many more cases of trace evidence if you are inclined to look for them.

Then too we have quite credible witnesses who's stories have not changed over the years, but perhaps you are choosing to discount them because of all the disinfo and bogus claims out there. I'll be the first to admit that sorting out the frauds from the honest witnesses and researchers can be a daunting challenge, but I think we must balance our skepticism with a certain openness of mind.

Not everything is a fraud or bogus. Do you actually look into any of it, or just dismiss it out of hand?

I've heard of someone hardened against the whole thing saying "Even if it were real I wouldn't believe it."

 

[tyder001]

Trajaunas and Martina I am certainly willing to take a look. I assure you I am not a "debunker." As for Tibet I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist outside my brain since that is where "debunkers" say all activity starts and ends. But, seriously please point me to a link or a paper I can read or download. Of course I can always google it and I will once I get home. Just wondered if you had any suggestions.

 

[Martina]

Well when I want to check out a given story or sighting I tend to google the story first, then start looking up also those involved with it, reporting it, and making statements about it, highlighting their names, right clicking, then clicking "search with google." Then I read around the web about them and see what's being said about them and their story, and what they have said/done in the past. Claims they make can be quite easily researched in the same way.

If there's something fishy about the story or the person it usually comes out quite quickly this way. If there's something to it I sometimes run into supporting evidence, though not always immediately, depending on the story/sighting/person. Sometimes this takes time and effort, but I think it's worth it.

 

[tyder001]

Working on it now. There is some interesting stuff both pro and con on it. After a short (and I will keep looking) perusal of the "evidence" it does seem that "somthing" happened. NOt sure what but itis somthing of a jumping off point. I have found things on abductions and ufo's today on two seperate threads that have interested me. So, I'm gonna give this a little better look.

 

[Martina]

Yes, you will run into pros and cons and of course there are things you just can't pin down either way, but that's just the nature of the beast. Abductions for instance are pretty hard to check out on a case by case basis, since it allegedly happened to an individual who was alone at the time in nearly all accounts. For things like that you have to broaden the scope of your research and look at the reported phenomena as a whole. If there was an independently reported sighting in the area at the time of said abduction that would lend it a measure of credibility, but that's not usually the case.

Multiple witnesses in multiple places reporting the same sighting is pretty hard to beat when you are checking out a sighting, it at least verifies that *something* unusual was seen, and more than one radar tracking an object maneuvering far outside the performance envelope of anything terrestrially known is a sure indication something interesting is afoot.

Sometimes you can get a clue as to the credibility of the person making the claims. Those having engaged in past frauds, having been arrested for drugs, scams, or with a history of mental problems tend to show up if you dig deep enough.

I've been at this a long time, and to me it seems there is indeed a core of truth inside the huge ball of fog.

 

[Trajanus]

... I think the documents relating to Roswell seem a bit dubious...

Faked docs what else is new.

 

[Nick Redfern]

Finally finished the book today, I was initially doubtful of the disinfo allegations, and while the earlier part of the tale seems plausible, I think the documents relating to Roswell seem a bit dubious, referencing other organisations and experiments at Wright Patterson to close gates that Jack Parsons opened up with occult meddling etc, which seems to go way beyond the informal network of interested individuals that the Collins Elite started out as.
Even if it is disnfo though, as mentioned a few times on this thread, the question of who and why remains interesting. It's well worth a read.

Yeah, we should treat these documents with great caution. All the other documents in the book I have been able to verify are indeed official documents. However, the Roswell batch is very different.

And I urge caution in the text of the book itself re these documents when I specifiically state on pages 178-179 of Final Events:

"Certainly, documents and seemingly-official Top Secret files of unclear origin and provenance have been made available to a whole variety of players within the field of UFO research for decades, and have provoked unbridled controversy in the process. And, those same files have successfully taken many a researcher on a wild-ride that never ends, and down a pathway where the hard evidence that might confirm the legitimacy of the material is never, ever forthcoming – at least, not yet. The saga of the so-called Majestic 12 documents that dominated much of late-1980s and 1990s UFOlogy - as well as the valuable time and money of Stanton Friedman, Bill Moore, Dr. Robert Wood and his son, Ryan, as well as a variety of others - is prime, hard evidence of that. Perhaps, this is precisely what we are dealing with when it comes to The Collins Report, too. Unfortunately, for all my concerns about liaising with whistleblower sources and their treasure-trove-like collection of fantastic files and aging papers, I have to concede that I find it difficult to not at least address and dissect this material; such is its admittedly hypnotic-like allure."

 

[saucerwench]

Hi Nick Redfern, I listened to your show last night with George Knapp. 'Thanks' for stealing sound sleep from me. Okay, it is clearer to me where you are coming from. In another thread, I percieved that some of my fellow saucerers (ahem) found an interesting way to be further against Western Christianity, in a somewhat hidden clever agenda way, but I see more clearly now. Your 'Final Events' work is most intriguing. It's nothing to sneeze at. Deep stuff. You remind me of Jacques Vallee. You are prolific and think outside the saucer. I heard Knapp say that (next week?) will be a (my term> face-off with Vallee versus Dolan/Zabel?! Holy loggerheads, Batman. I went to the Coast website, but (today as I write; Monday) the schedule only goes to Friday.
Well, Nick, with my limited web time and no access to podcast listening, (at home) I sometimes react to skimmed, not fully studied, threads and posts. Thanks to Coast, I can be more thoroughly informed.

 

[Trajanus]

...Abductions for instance are pretty hard to check out on a case by case basis, since it allegedly happened to an individual who was alone at the time in nearly all accounts.

Plenty of exceptions e.g. Hills, Walton, Alagash etc.

If there was an independently reported sighting in the area at the time of said abduction that would lend it a measure of credibility, but that's not usually the case.

IMO physical evidence like injuries is as good or better.

 

[Martina]

Plenty of exceptions e.g. Hills, Walton, Alagash etc.

Relatively few exceptions considering the number of claimed abductions, which I've been hearing are in the millions, but you do make a good point. The Hills were abducted together, and Travis was right under that ship in full view of his buddies.

IMO physical evidence like injuries is as good or better.

Well..... maybe, what sorts of injuries and how do we know they were inflicted during abductions?

Implants would be a pretty strong indicator, and John Lear has removed a bunch of them I hear.

 

[Trajanus]

Relatively few exceptions considering the number of claimed abductions, which I've been hearing are in the millions, but you do make a good point. The Hills were abducted together, and Travis was right under that ship in full view of his buddies.

Add to that IIRC Coronado island more recently.

Well..... maybe, what sorts of injuries and how do we know they were inflicted during abductions?

Those associated with implants.