September 16, 2012 Nick Redfern

[red_pill_junkie]

Finding Nick Refern honest and true to himself speaks to his credibility. Even though one may not agree with everything spoken, he seems quite knowledgeable. Taking the time in searching for answers to veiled questions, I found thoughtful, and agreeable. Jacques Vallee has been underground for so long that he may very well have been forgotten. Chris Aubeck wants nothing to do with the top side infighting, and back biting. There are hundreds of exceptionally bright minds who are conducting research on the D.L. and Nick is correct, they shy away from the stigma attached to Ufology.

I would suggest the term Ufology should be neatly wrapped, and placed in the trunk of American pop-culture. And if the need arises in the next century, dust it off, and place it back on the shelf.
Good show, thanks.

Thus’ ends my comments.

I had a feeling your comment was referring to Vallee and his Secret College

I honestly don't think switching for a new term would do any good, if the approach is not switched as well. The language changes, but the minds stay the same.

 

[Smorry]

I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic here, but going through the 10 things Nick pointed out at his blog, I would like to know which ones you think fit with Chris.

Again, I don't want to appear hostile toward your opinion, to which you're entitled. But IMHO I feel that when it comes to the things Nick pointed out, Chris doesn't fit the bill.

Saludos,

RPJ

Sorry RPJ,

I think listing the 5 items that I think fit Chris would only feed an argument I don't want to have.

I was never trying to make a case against Chris. I just enjoyed this show. I thought about it and realized it was because Chris was not there and Nick worked out very well as the co-host/guest. I wanted to voice my opinion so that I could hopefully encourage more shows of this quality. A forum about shows and a thread about this particular show seemed like the appropriate place. I realized the Chris would at some point come in and start name calling (which he has) and possibly threatening because I have seen how he has treated other posters that disagreed with him ("4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford | Page 4 | The Paracast Community Forums"). People criticize actors for how they play a role, directors for how they interpreted a story, sports players for their performance, coaches for the plays they call... When that person responds back with name calling and threats, they are considered unprofessional.

In my opinion Nick would make a great co-host, would invigorate the show, increase the audience and start moving The Paracast toward the popularity of shows like Mysterious Universe.

That's just my opinion. It doesn't matter any more or any less then anyone else's.

Smorry

 

[red_pill_junkie]

In my opinion Nick would make a great co-host, would invigorate the show, increase the audience and start moving The Paracast toward the popularity of shows like Mysterious Universe.

That's just my opinion. It doesn't matter any more or any less then anyone else's.

Smorry

FWIW, Nick used to have a very short-lived podcast along with his friend Raven Meindel: Exploring All Realms.

I wanted to provide for you a link so you could take a listen to the shows, unfortunately the website where they were hosted has gone AWOL. The podcasts were good but, honestly? they were not that great. Possibly because Nick & Raven, whom I both hold in high regard nonetheless, never managed to overcome the technical difficulties to improve the quality of the audio.

 

[Wade]

rpj said

"... And even further: We need to SHARE the information freely among researchers. Not keep it hidden away from prying eyes afraid that someone is
going to steal our star case and covet all the glory and riches --glory, and riches... LOL

We also need Ufologists willing to
compare facts with Cryptozoologists, and Cryptozoologists listening to
Parapsychologists, and all of them
minding the words of Demonologists
and... well, you get my meaning.

LET'S STOP BEING SO INSULAR.
Those APRO files? gone. And the same fate awaits to all the research and documents of independent ufologists, once they head to the asylum and their kiddies start cleaning up their home offices. Information is barren if it's
not shared freely.."

Right On Brother, if it were possible I would cc this sentiment to every fortean researcher out there and if there ever is a fortean researchers hall of fame let these words be enblazoned above the entrance but it would have to be a pretty big entrance or very small print

 

[Randall]

rpj said

"... And even further: We need to SHARE the information freely among researchers. Not keep it hidden away from prying eyes afraid that someone is
going to steal our star case and covet all the glory and riches --glory, and riches... LOL

We also need Ufologists willing to
compare facts with Cryptozoologists, and Cryptozoologists listening to
Parapsychologists, and all of them
minding the words of Demonologists
and... well, you get my meaning.

LET'S STOP BEING SO INSULAR.
Those APRO files? gone. And the same fate awaits to all the research and documents of independent ufologists, once they head to the asylum and their kiddies start cleaning up their home offices. Information is barren if it's
not shared freely.."

Right On Brother, if it were possible I would cc this sentiment to every fortean researcher out there and if there ever is a fortean researchers hall of fame let these words be enblazoned above the entrance but it would have to be a pretty big entrance or very small print

To be fair, I don't find it's always the ufologists who are insular. I've tried several times to network with people, both inside world of the paranormal and with skeptics. In virtually every case there are always those who aren't nearly as interested in "comparing notes" as they are to trash the other side or protect their own interest. Of all the so-called paranormal studies, I actually find ufology to be the most open about the various possibilities. Those who are familiar with my posts here know that even if I don't subscribe to a particular belief system, I'll often say that I believe the phenomena responsible for giving rise to paranormal and occult beliefs is real and deserves investigation. It may seem self-serving for me as a ufologist to interpret that phenomena in the context of alien technology ( ATECH ), however when considered rationally, it's a completely objective viewpoint. The ETH is not a "belief system" as Redfern claims, but an attempt to explain the phenomena the most rational way possible. There is no scientific reason why UFOs cannot exist or why interstellar travel isn't possible, or why paranormal phenomena cannot be accounted for by advanced technology. Yet it would seem that Redfern would have us set aside the most rational approach we have and invest in other theories that usually make little sense and are much closer to any "belief system" than where we are now. I know everyone here ( including me ) likes listening to Nick, but I'm not going to simply agree with what he says because he's buddies with people here. Lastly, if he wants to have some fun with ufology ... great! There are a lot of things about ufology that can be very entertaining ... even funny, but writing a scathing editorial, apparently partly as an inside joke and then writing it all off as a joke, at the expense of the reputation of the field as a whole, isn't something I find ( along with put-down humor in general ) to be very humorous.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

The ETH is not a "belief system" as Redfern claims, but an attempt to explain the phenomena the most rational way possible.

Agreed. PROVIDED all elements of the phenomena are taken into account, and not discarding those pesky parts that do not conform with our preferred model. If during a visit to a UFO craft, a witness meets his long-dead grandmother, you report that without trying to reach to hasty conclusions —"oh, that was obviously a holographic cloaking device the aliens used to interact with the human."

IMHO researchers in the field are so preoccupied with trying to present their little slice of the Fortean pie as credible and rational to the rest of the mainstream world, they might end up doing a disservice to the whole phenomenon. Cryptozoologists are struggling with trying to show the world Bigfoot is just an unidentified primate that is about to be discovered, if we can finally find that god-damned body. And Ufologists are so determined to show the world how some UFOs represent a physical form of technology which can be detected by our radar systems and photographic equipment; and the ghost hunters? they are too busy fooling around with their EMF detectors and running around inside haunted houses screaming "What was that?!"

Meanwhile, there's those cases where the fields intersect, that the major spokesmen of their respective field try to shove those aside for fear they will weaken their credibility when confronted by the debunkers. They don't care to hear about how during experiments with DMT test subjects report meeting entities awfully similar to those reported by alien abductees. Or how having an early trauma during your chidlhood might cause you to start seeing fairies and hairy giants running around the back of your house.

If the debunkers work united —it's all woo to them!— why can't we?

After listening to Paul Kimball interview his uncle Stanton Friedman, I *know* Stan 'the Man' is actually more open-minded about the fringier side of the phenomena that he shows when he's on the cameras with Larry King; and yet I don't think I've ever heard him discuss what consciousness has to do with the UFO phenomenon.

And it does, IMO. Consciousness may be the key that unravels all those secrets.

So maybe we should all forget about the reputation of the field. The field will get its reputation when it gets its reputation, and not a moment sooner; no matter how much we raise our voice and hope to yell "I told you so!" to all the people in our lives who ever mocked us because we "believe in flying saucers and all that nonsense."

I propose that UFOlogy and Cryptozoology and all the other -ologies we care about in this forum will NEVER be solved independently. Ever. Because the wall they are running against is the wall of Reality itself. And that wall might never be torn down.

We'll all have to join efforts, and dig the tunnel underneath it. And then we'll finally grasp the truth: That it is WE who were living in an illusion all alone

 

[SRL+]

There is enough evidence here already to point in some type of direction of the emergence of phenomena, however the necessary tools are unavailable, and may not be for a long..long time. As the answer, (if there is one), will not come from looking in fields, rather than from the emergence of information physics. This is not to say that one should stop looking in fields, rather the sober realization that the answer will most likely come from another direction. As I am under the impression that what information physics may possibly offer up in the next century, could be mind blowing, shaking humanity to its core, which could be a good thing. This assessment is not glamorous, or popular, nor was it meant to be.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

There is enough evidence here already to point in some type of direction of the emergence of phenomena, however the necessary tools are unavailable, and may not be for a long..long time. As the answer, (if there is one), will not come from looking in fields, rather than from the emergence of information physics. This is not to say that one should stop looking in fields, rather the sober realization that the answer will most likely come from another direction. As I am under the impression that what information physics may possibly offer up in the next century, could be mind blowing, shaking humanity to its core, which could be a good thing. This assessment is not glamorous, or popular, nor was it meant to be.

You grok this too, dontcha?

 

[SRL+]

I grok 360.

 

[Randall]

You grok this ( Vallee on information theory and physics ) too, dontcha?

Definitely. I've been onto this for just over a decade now. It's what I've been referring to in other threads as the Computational Model rather than the "Missing Child". It's been around for much longer than a decade, but I really tuned into it after watching the sci-fi movie The Matrix. Since then it has continued to gain favor in serious discussions about cosmology. Here's another model produced by a supercomputer:

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Sorry RPJ, I think listing the 5 items that I think fit Chris would only feed an argument I don't want to have.

I invited you to do so in private. PM me. I'm actually quite approachable and open to critique.

I was never trying to make a case against Chris. I just enjoyed this show. I thought about it and realized it was because Chris was not there and Nick worked out very well as the co-host/guess [sic]. I wanted to voice my opinion so that I could hopefully encourage more shows of this quality.

So, you base your critique of my involvement on how many shows? I've been involved in around 150, or so. Which ones have you listened to? Those shows weren't of quality? Help me out here someone!

I realized the Chris would at some point come in and start name calling (which he has) and possibly threatening because I have seen how he has treated other posters that disagreed with him... When that person responds back with name calling and threats, they are considered unprofessional.

Name calling? What derogatory name did I call you? I re-read my post and only found "George." Threats? You come here anonymously to this forum as a "newbie" (oh, maybe THAT'S the name that you find offensive (?) and, instead of introducing yourself, you get antagonistic and slag the co-host who (for the first time in almost 3 years) wasn't on the show. What would you like me to do? Thank you for the slight? OK, thanks dude (or dude-ess) we welcome your opinion of me and the show. Since you are new, you probably aren't aware that since I've been co-hosting, the show has gained radio network affiliation, increased the show's audience by leaps and bounds, and brought on some of the most cutting edge people in the field. Sue me if I happen to count many of them as friends or research associates! Don't everybody jump in at once to voice your opinion of my role here...As far as "threatening" you, no threats have been made, just a promise to drill down on the quality of your thinking--just like I do w/ everyone else that posts here, as they do to me.

In my opinion Nick would make a great co-host, would invigorate the show, increase the audience and start moving The Paracast toward the popularity of shows like Mysterious Universe.

Nick is a top-notch researcher, investigator and writer. I have nothing but the highest respect and regard for his work. I'm happy that you enjoyed his latest appearance on the show. As to the Paracast's popularity, I would be willing to bet that our show is heard by many, many more listeners than MU. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are only an Internet show... we are on the 500 station GCN radio network.

Uhh I hope I'm done here...

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Definitely. I've been onto this for just over a decade now. It's what I've been referring to in other threads as the Computational Model rather than the "Missing Child". It's been around for much longer than a decade, but I really tuned into it after watching the sci-fi movie The Matrix.

The what?



Yeah, the moment I read Messengers of Deception, some years ago, by the time I reached the final chapters with the conclusions Vallee proposed —that we live in an associative universe, rather than a causative one— it just hit me like a wall of bricks. I'm sure back in those days just a handful of people were able to grasp the total depth of what Vallee was saying, simply because almost no one had had any interaction with a computer.

But now that all of us are used to concepts like hyperlinks on the web which help connect disparate packets of information regardless of space & time, it all made sense: Synchronicities are HTML links in the Internet that we call Reality

 

[Wade]

But now that all of us are used to concepts like hyperlinks on the web which help connect disparate packets of information regardless of space & time, it all made sense: Synchronicities are HTML links in the Internet that we call Reality

Man you are rolling 7's today !!!!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Man you are rolling 7's today !!!!

I agree, great analogy RPJ!

 

[Randall]

The what?

Yeah, the moment I read Messengers of Deception, some years ago, by the time I reached the final chapters with the conclusions Vallee proposed —that we live in an associative universe, rather than a causative one— it just hit me like a wall of bricks. I'm sure back in those days just a handful of people were able to grasp the total depth of what Vallee was saying, simply because almost no one had had any interaction with a computer.

But now that all of us are used to concepts like hyperlinks on the web which help connect disparate packets of information regardless of space & time, it all made sense: Synchronicities are HTML links in the Internet that we call Reality

Yup, I confess I'm a Matrix fan. I think the first movie deserves to be up there in the top ten sci-fi movies of all time. Not so sure that synchronicity = hyperlinks ( themselves ) though. I would say hyperlinks are more analogous to the idea of a stargate, and if we can get one of those working it means real practical FTL travel. Synchronicity is more like separate and unexpected bits of information relating to a common thread suddenly entering into our sphere of awareness at the same time. So for example a circle of friends and acquaintances are all connected by information about each each other. A person outside that group is doing some research and finds themselves interested in that group because of a common interest they have with most members of that group. They go to the local library to get a book about the subject of that interest and while there cross paths with a member of the group, recognizes them and thinks, "what a remarkable coincidence". Now that person ( the existing group member ) may have also been going to the library to find some new angle on what they do and it turns out that the person wanting to join the group has a certain unique perspective. So they start to talk and suddenly OMG ... this is synchronicity! Now from our perspective we can see how all the elements relate, but from the perspective of the guy or girl standing in the library scratching their head and looking for a fresh perspective, it's entirely different. I propose that if our sphere of awareness were wide enough, we'd find synchronicity everywhere.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Synchronicity is more like separate and unexpected bits of information relating to a common thread suddenly entering into our sphere of awareness at the same time. So for example a circle of friends and acquaintances are all connected by information about each each other.

I dunno. I think that there are the little synchros that really don't amount to anything. And then there are the WTF! kinda synchros, that are almost completely meaningless to an outsider, but it has a very deep personal impact. in your life.

In my life I've had a few of those. There's one time about 10 years ago. The secretary in the office I work in began telling me of how she used to work in a high school, and there she met a young troubled kid she tried to help as a friend and a guide, because the kid was going through a rough time. The moment she told the name —Pablo— I recognized she was talking about a guy I knew —big deal, right? well, consider the fact that there are between 15 & 20 million people living in Mexico city! so that in itself was interesting. Pablo was part of the group I used to hang out with at the gym, although he would go on long periods when he would travel abroad and we didn't get to see him. So, getting back to the secretary, when I told her I knew Pablo she asked me relay a message to him, ask him to contact her to let her know how he was doing, etc.

Back in those days I had read a lot of Castañeda's books, and I had knowledge of what in the books is called 'intent'. So I told her I would give her message to Pablo whenever I met him again. This was a Friday, and I hadn't seen Pablo in some time —like I explained, he would travel and stop going to the gym— but this time I KNEW that I was going to see him that very weekend.

Long story short, the next Saturday afternoon, when I was at the sauna relaxing after my workout session, the door opened, and in came Pablo. It didn't shocked me or even got me excited. Like I said, I just knew.

I follow my buddy Mike Clelland's opinion on synchronicities: they are the Universe's subtle way to nudge you in the right direction. It's like a soft voice whispering "pay attention" into your ear.

And I think synchronicities get more powerful the more attention you pay to them. And they are the doorway to even more interesting phenomena, like precognitions or other types of PSI-faculties.

 

[Wade]

This subject is probably one of my favorite subjects when it comes to paranormal phenomena, I record every single synchronicity or coincidence that falls on my radar as I have been recording my dreams. Most of them are the garden variety type you think of a person and you get a call, you think of a song it comes on etc. I've mentioned them before. I like mike's blog and it was his interview with chris a few years back that I really grasped with what chris was trying to get out. I always had and recognized these coincidences even a a kid but it was a mother of a synchronistic episode a couple of years back involving a praying mantis that had about half a dozen *links* (again great analogy rpj- hope you don't mind if I borrow that from time to time) before it stopped that really blew my mind There is NO WAY I'll ever let anybody convince me it was "just a coincidence" in the end I don't know if I got anything out of it other than it got me interested in this field to a much greater extent than I was. But for a few days a couple of years ago I was rolling all 7' s

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion of Chris O'Brien is that it might be impossible to find another host who has actually done field investigation off his own back to the degree Chris has. I find his breadth of knowledge on many esoteric topics to be encylopaedic. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but that is the same for every human being on the planet and most certainly for people in the ufology field.
He doesn't drink Kool-aid either and is happy to point out those who do.
He is an absolute asset to the Paracast and the show is all the better for having him and I hope Chris and Gene continue to make the Paracast for ever!

Just my opinion.

 

[Muadib]

I'm with Goggs, I started listening to this show when Biedny was the co host and while I definitely enjoyed his perspective and his ability to tell it like it is, Chris's knowledge of the field is amazing and he, like Biedny, doesn't hesitate to call out people who are full of it or have done sloppy or questionable research, he just has a different way of doing it. I admire both of their styles but Chris is the better host, in my opinion, because of his years and years of research and encyclopedic knowledge of paranormal phenomenon.

 

[Wade]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion of Chris O'Brien is that it might be impossible to find another host who has actually done field investigation off his own back to the degree Chris has. I find his breadth of knowledge on many esoteric topics to be encylopaedic. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but that is the same for every human being on the planet and most certainly for people in the ufology field.
He doesn't drink Kool-aid either and is happy to point out those who do.
He is an absolute asset to the Paracast and the show is all the better for having him and I hope Chris and Gene continue to make the Paracast for ever!

Just my opinion.

I've made no secret I joined this forum because of his presence so you can blame him for having to put up with my foolishness