Paracast bounces back with Marcel Jnr & listener Mike! - Sun 16th, Nov. 2008

[CapnG]

I do take your point but I struggle with the fact that debris from a crashed UFO just happens to consist mainly of foil-like material and balsa wood-type material in an area where it's reasonable to believe that an earthly device consisting mainly of foil and balsa wood may have crashed...

I don't think you got my point at all. Foil-like ISN'T foil. And the only reason balsa wood is mentioned is as a weight reference "Light, like balsa wood". This is the whole confabulation thing I was just talking about!

And yet, as I mentioned, Marcel himself during his later interviews (while ostensibly promoting the case) blows your assertion to bits by identifying the material in the photos as the same miraculous space stuff he recovered.

Junior or Senior? Actually it doesn't matter, since Junior wasn't there and Senior was getting on in years at the time of the interview so having him remember exactly which photos were which means little to me. The only thing you're blowing is debunker hot air...

THIS ENDS THE STORY UNLESS YOU ARE STUPID.

Even the most idiotic Roswell believer can see that the material in the photos is just what the Air Force said it was (more or less--they were hiding the fact this was not really a weather balloon but part of Mogul).

In other words, foil paper and balsa sticks.

Yes, let's insult people, that will win them over- a brilliant strategem! Now CLUE IN- nobody's talking about the photos except you and there's plenty of evidence in terms of testimony to show that those photos with the ballon wreckage were STAGED, including one shot which seems to show the parcel from which the newly identified "saucer" was packaged in!

I'll say it again- NOBODY would EVER get excited over rubber, tin foil and balsa wood. NOBODY... EVER.

 

[macavity]

I don't think you got my point at all. Foil-like ISN'T foil. And the only reason balsa wood is mentioned is as a weight reference "Light, like balsa wood".

Honestly - I don't want to belabour the point - but I think I *do* get the point you're making - hence my careful distinction between foil and foil-like, etc.

The point I was trying to make is that for me it's too much of a coincidence that the material discovered just happens to be somewhat like the major constituent parts of a device the potential crash of which I believe is credible.

In my own mind I try to weigh up whether it's likely that the above is simply a coincidence or whether it's more likely that someone handling that material (presumably somewhat affected by having been left outside for some time) and living in a time when the nuts and bolts view of ufology was seen as the most likely (the only?) explanation - still fresh in the public consciousness - might be tempted to think "Woah! What the hell is this??!!"

I do agree with your previous point (I think it was you who made it!) that we'll just never know now for sure, the best we can do is simply weigh things up and decide for ourselves what seems most likely. I freely admit I could be completely wrong.

 

[CapnG]

Yes, yes, we are using believer standards so that when Marcel's (Senior) testimony supports a flying saucer we KNOW it's true. When it doesn't he's confused.

That works well for you, doesn't it?

Actually it does. If I witness a car crash I will remember some details (ie the important ones) and not others (ie the minutia), it's how memory works. That's not a "believer standard", it's human nature.

So the argument you're making is that if Marcel handled alien debris, it's not the sort of thing he'd be likely to remember accurately but if he had to pose for several pictures on the other hand he should recall exactly which ones and when? Interesting priorities...

In bizarro believer world, you are winning! Yay you!

For the record, I'm not a hardcore UFO crash believer, I'm a mogul dis-believer. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the UFO story was a cover for something but not a weather balloon. Do I really need to make my tin foil/rubber/balsa wood point for a third time?

 

[CapnG]

No the more likely explanation is that Marcel was enjoying the spotlight and perhaps spinning a tall tale (as many other witnesses in this case have).

"Preferential" does not equal "likely". Bizarre things happen all the time but the fact that they cannot be corroborated to the NTh degreee does not mean they didn't happen.

Clearly the debris in ALL of the known photos is earthly.

I don't think anyone disputes that (regardless of what Marcel said/didn't say). The value of the photos is in whether or not it was a staged event. The look on Marcel's face tells me it was.

Also I am not saying that Marcel Junior is lying but rather that memory can be unreliable.

And I'm saying where life changing events are involved, memory tends to remain more or less intact. Any one of us can probably remember significant, non-paranormal events of personal significance with ease.

I know that this falls on some deaf ears (not yours Cap'n, perhaps?) because (even setting aside my snarky manner) no matter what, Roswell MUST be believed.

What's to "believe"? Clearly something significant happened or we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[Drew UK]

Extracting tangible evidence from children, whether formed in there memories or not - should be treated with caution, since they are young and are just developing experiences - there is wide scope to propopagate misinformation and harness there gullibility to your advantage.

Even up to the ages of students - the universities and colleges have been ideal locations to spread political thought and control on naive recepients - the Socialist Youth, The Nazi youth, The Christian youth - control them and you control the future.

I took a younger member of my family and introduced them to a small clump of moss in the back garden - I then poked it with a pencil and told them to watch - The moss spread out in all directions and eventually disappeared. Now there fully mature - the memory of it is still with them along with the confusion.

 

[Blacknight]

I'm not entirely sure why there's still any interest in the Roswell incident.There is no new information to be had and the facts thorough the last 60 years make it, at least, as plausible that this was a case of a balloon gone astray as any other explanation. In fact, surely the whole extraterrestrial bent is THE least plausible of all possibilities. Add to that the somewhat unsavory characters attached to the incident, and I keep coming back to...why? This one is irresolvable, in the absence of some unforeseen disclosure, the likelihood of which diminishes with each passing year. Of all the solid possibilities which deserve further examination, why all the attention paid and effort expended on Roswell? I honestly don't get it!

 

[Atrayo]

Hello All.

I won't dare to read a thread now 6 pages deep in its entirety. So i'll just add my humble comments in here amongst the many others who have done so already.

The MikeC testimonial of his "Orange Light" episode so many years ago. Kinda reminds me of the movie called Phenomenon with actors John Travolta & Brent Spiner (Star Trek Next Generation Fame).

Where in this 1996 movie John Travolta as the lead actor walks out one night from a bar in a small town. And is overwhelmed by a similar bright light episode that leaves him passed out on the road. In the movie he becomes a genius due to being exposed to this bright white light. Reading books like they are pamphlets with 100% recall of there material. Even decoding military transmissions by CB radio and such. Grabbing the attention of the US government where actor Brent Spiner plays a IQ examiner.

That's the flashback in my mind of what Mr. MikeC recounted in his own personal experience.

 

[mikec]

I wish I had an excuse for a higher IQ, and the ability to read books like pamplets.

I never saw that movie, but there was a handful of films from the mid-90's that hinted at higher realms and weirdness beyond our understanding. The other Travolta movie Michael (not me again) was pretty lame, but it tried to hint at something. So did another luke warm movie - Powder.

 

[jratcliff63367]

My thoughts. I agree that the Marcel interview was interesting. I was most impressed with the fact that he served his country so recently in Iraq. Jesse's involvement in the Roswell episode is minor at best. It's great to still have this first hand witness testimony but we have all heard it many times before and it offers no great revelation in its retelling.

I thought it odd that Jesse corrected Dave and Gene at least once, maybe twice, that he thought that the government dude was NSC *not* NSA. But, Gene kept saying NSA over and over again.

Now, here is the question I have. How the heck can you guys go off on so many lines of questioning but fail to bring up the *most obvious* hypothesis. Look, in life, in general, some percentage of the population is interested in UFOs. The same holds true for people who happen to be in the Government. Did it ever occur to any of you that this 'government agency guy' was JUST SATISFYING HIS OWN PERSONAL CURIOSITY??

That certainly seems the most obvious hypothesis to me. Not disinformation. Nothing 'official', the guy was just curious like you, me, and anyone else.

As far as the second half of the show, I found it a bit weak. Is that what experiencers are left with these days?

One thing that bothers me about these experiencers is how few of them take drugs. If these experiencers would take more drugs, or join more occult societies, they might be better equipped to understand what is going on.

Can we all agree that, for many people, when you consume pyschoactive compounds you are capable of having a wide array of compelling and interesting personal experiences?

Can we also agree that, for some people, they can enter altered states of consciousness *without* the aid and assistance of a specific external pyschoactive compound? In fact, the human brain *produces* any number of psychoactive compounds all by itself.

I am not an 'experiencer', I have never seen a UFO or been abducted by an alien. I have, however, experimented with pyschoactive compounds and other attempts to program the human biocomputer.

Strange and odd experiences at a personal level add a certain richness, if not at least a form of entertainment, to our lives.

I did not feel that the few experiences shared by the guest on the paracast were particularily more exceptional than a decent lucid dream or LSD drug trip.

If more alien abductees would take more drugs, or join more occult societies, maybe we would have a greater understanding about the true source of these phenomenon; a source most likely tied to altered states of consciousness and how it might possibly interact with other frequencies of reality.

Just a thought...


John

 

[CapnG]

Ah, this road again...

If more alien abductees would take more drugs, or join more occult societies, maybe we would have a greater understanding about the true source of these phenomenon; a source most likely tied to altered states of consciousness and how it might possibly interact with other frequencies of reality.

You make a butt-load of assumptions there.

Speaking only for myself, as someone who's had some minor weird experiences and has never done hard drugs (and never plans to either) I'll just say this: I have no interest in pursuing artifically induced, FAKE experiences to see if they sorta-kinda line up with my real experiences.

To me, equating drug-based experience to the real deal is like comparing Billy Meier photos to an actual UFO sighting. It's "auto-hoaxing".

 

[jratcliff63367]

>>Speaking only for myself, as someone who's had some minor weird experiences and has never done hard drugs (and never plans to either) I'll just say this: I have no interest in pursuing artifically induced, FAKE experiences to see if they sorta-kinda line up with my real experiences.

All experiences that *you* have are completely and entirely *real* to *you*. You are under the influence of 'drugs' at all times; as your brain is a giant biochemical computer which is flooded with a wide array of consciousness altering compounds all day long, morning noon and night.

Some of the most powerful psychoactive compounds are produced by the human brain itself.

If you are unwilling to experiment on your own human bio-computer, well, that is your choice. But you have no right to discount the experiences anyone else that were produced by a meditative state, or with the aid of psychoactive compounds any more than I should be able to discount your personal weird contact experiences.

You need to learn that all of reality is constructed within your own mind. The assumption that there is some sort of static, universal, unbending, and shared external (i.e. 'etic') reality is just that, an assumption. It cannot be proven in any way shape or form.

The only reality you know, the only reality that *any* of us can know is the reality that we form, each in our own individual minds, as filtered through our neurolinguistic grid.

A personal experience is just that, a personal experience and is filtered through our sensory apparatus, language, and culture to form our individual personal reality labyrinth. To suggest that it is somehow 'fake' is to misunderstand the fundamental nature of experience itself.

I strongly recommend you read 'The Cosmic Trigger' by Robert Anton Wilson and maybe some things will start to make more sense to you.

John

 

[macavity]

One thing that bothers me about these experiencers is how few of them take drugs.

John, Walter Bishop (Fringe) would be proud of you!

 

[CapnG]

redundant presumptuous whitenoise

I'm not getting into this crap again, I've said my peace. If you want more, there's a DMT thread on the forum somewhere, you should do a search.

 

[Gareth]

Did anyone else hear Marcel correct them and say NSC rather than NSA? I definitely didnt. Will have to listen and check.

 

[Atrayo]

Hi All,

Did anyone else hear Marcel correct them and say NSC rather than NSA? I definitely didnt. Will have to listen and check.

I do recall two instances that Mr. Marcel Jr. stating that it was either a NSA or NSC agent. The second time was when he was talking directly to just David Biedny, saying he wasn't sure if it was NSA or NSC.

At another point earlier in the conversation David Biedny asks Marcel Jr.. If the words UFO or Extra Terrestrial were used by his father. Marcel Jr. stated no that his father used the word "Flying Saucer".

Both words of UFO & ET's weren't in the common English vernacular until around the late 1950's or so. UFO's in particular being a Air Force term which the US Air Force branch hadn't formed up yet during the Roswell incident. It was still the Army Air Service or something that it was called.

The origin of the word ET's may have come after that of the introduction of the UFO term.

 

[Mogwa]

As I recall, hasn't the Berlitz/Moore book been shredded by most every legitimate researcher, including Stan Friedman?
I do know Berlitz earned a reputation for sloppy research and inaccurate reporting, perhaps best epitomized by that sensationalist Bermuda Triangle book.

 

[Gil Bavel]

I enjoyed both halves of this episode immensely.

Mike, I salute your bravery for going on (inter)national (radio) broad(/pod)casting with your story.

However, something that sticks in my craw.

When Mike defers and says up front, "I can't believe these experiences as real, even as I hear myself saying it, it sounds unbelievable", essentially saying, "I don't know if these actually happened or if they were some other state of mind/reality", how is this different from Whitley Streiber?

Whitley has been all too forthcoming about how he isn't sure his experiences are real, or what kind of reality they're in, only that they're damned weird, and he's sure that something damned odd happened to him--and he gets crucified for it.

But Mike, because he's a pal, a mensch that we know and love, well, he sounds credible, and we can see the scar on his nose.

So, you know, he's okay.

But that Streiber guy--he's written books about it, so he must be lying. Especially because he wrote bestselling book after bestselling book, and he's still not sure in what state of reality those "abductions" took place.

Mike himself said, the closer that you get to the craft, the more reality peels away... who knows what the hell is going on there? Why is Mike more believable than Whit, when the former would have been laughed off the show without the latter having been first?

Why is Whitley castigated and subjected to all the sneers and jeers when he was the one that made it okay for Mike to "come out of the cockpit" himself? And everybody else, too? As Mike mentioned, these days, more or less, people will not only tolerate your story, but you'll likely as not be supported rather than ridiculed. This stuff used to break up marriages, destroy lives, ruin businesses and drove some to suicide.

I don't understand the double standard, and frankly, I think Whitley deserves an apology because, for some arbitrary reason, he didn't pass the sniff test.

Mike, again, I salute you on your bravery and your coming forward on the show. It was not only entertaining, but informative and widens the horizon on the entire phenomenon.

 

[Gareth]

Im not sure I understand who is bagging Strieber? He does alright on these forums, and was there a comment on the episode that I missed?

 

[marduk]

I for one believe Strieber and found his early works to be very compelling and helpful with my own experiences.

I just think he's gone off the deep end in recent years --> drones, CARET, crop circles, meditation groups, Linda Moulton Howe, William Henry, et al.

I think his honesty has been his undoing somewhat; he seems genuinely confused by what's happened to him. Perhaps he's seeking answers where there are none.

 

[mikec]

Gilbavel makes some good points.

There are few personalities that can compare to Whitley Strieber. He is (for good or for bad) an intense dude! And he brings out strong opinions in other people.

I met him and he was nice to me.

Here's a long-winded explanation about what he is like in person.

Okay - Imagine you were working as the casting director during pre-production on a Hollywood drama. The main character is a student in college. But, You needed to cast an actor to play the head of the philosophy department in a ivy league college. This actor needs to play the role of someone that's smart, intimidating, grumpy, a little hard to approach, and he needs to come across as a "few chess moves farther ahead than anyone else in the room." Whitley Stieber would be PERFECT in that role.

I'll add that he's a big guy, over 6 feet tall and an impressive presence in a room. When I met him (at Chet Snow's SECRETS conference in 2007) he had on a suit and tie in a room full of new age caricatures. Making him even more imposing.

Now, I like Whitley's web site, and I realize that makes me rare on the Paracast forums.

His audio interviews have a way of digging really deep in way that nobody else is doing (well, except Gene and Dave to some degree). I'm enthralled by his interview style. Really impressive.

He did an interview with a woman from Canada, and she recounted an ongoing set of abduction experiences - and then she hinted that her daughter was experiencing abduction events too. And Whitley added his deep concerns about his son, and what he suspect about him. Both of them got really emotional, and then - they both suddenly started sobbing. I was at home listening on my computer, and I started crying too! Then Whitley sort of stammered, "We need to end this interview..." and it was over.

This was extremely heartfelt and telling. This wasn't played for exploitation - it seemed REAL. (Why didn't he edit out the sobbing before posting the interview? Was it a display of honesty, or drama?)

Whatever you wanna say about Whitley, I don't think you can call him a phony. Does he tell some "big fish" stories? Well, I think so, sometimes, a little bit. Is he self aware of his own importance in this very strange subject? Undoubtedly.

He's a very good writer capable of creating eerie and dramtic moods in his work. I think this same skill can work against him, he's simply TOO good at telling a story, and it can come across as overly theatrical.

Has he gone off the deep end in recent years, or is he just farther out ahead on the curve? Well, he has a lot to say, and if you are intrigued by this subject, it would serve you well to at least listen to what he's saying.

He is an artist in a realm where we are hungry for materialists to give us nut's and bolts answers. In a lot of ways, that describes me too.

Anyway - I'm full of self doubt about what's going on in this whole confusing subject - as well as in my own life.

* * *

When I met him, I introduced myself, and spoke about how I was trying to come to terms with my own set of experiences, which seemed to point to a series of ongoing abductions.

I said, "Looking into this, I'm really - well - really freaked out."

Whitley said, "I should say so!"

Here's what he told me next:

"You know how when you look at a lake at that moment of a beautiful sunset, and the light is reflecting off the surface of the water. What you are seeing is the color of the sky, and the dazzling display of the sunset."

He made a melodramatic hand gesture to visually describe the flat surface of a lake out in front of him, and then he continued.

"But at the same time you may get a glimpse what's under the surface of the water, but you can only see a distorted refraction. I feel that's what's going on here. There is a LOT going on that we can't perceive, that's hidden from us - and what we DO see is distorted and refracted."

That is as good a definition as I've ever heard about this entire mixed-up quandary.