Suggested Guests

[Casual Paracast Listener]

Just wanted to post a list of guests that i would like you to host on The Paracast.

Suggested Guests:

1st Tier-

Jim Fetzer - Scientific Evidence of the JFK & 9.11 Conspiracies/Cover-up
Eric Hufschmid - An analysis of the 9.11 Attack
Bart Sibrel - The 1969 Moon Landing Hoax
Robert Zubrin - Space Exploration & Colonizing Mars
Helen Morrison - Serial Killers

2nd Tier-

Michio Kaku - Theoretical Physics
Jeffrey Mishlove - Ted Owens Claimes & Case
Paul Moller - Skycar Project
Michael Trudeau - Cashless Society
Paul Connett - The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

3rd Tier-

Leonard Horowitz - Emerging Viruses
Alex Jones - Conspiracy

The not so sure Tier-

Michael S. Heiser - Hebrew Bible, Semitic Languages & Biblical Theology

Notes:

Regarding Tiers 1 & 2 guests, They are people who i personally regard as credible however i am most interested in tier 1's subjects and guests more than that of tier 2.

As for tier 3 i am not so sure and i have sort of mixed reactions towards them but they will make a good discussion regardless.

AS for Michael S. Heiser, Quiet frankly i do not remember very well his theme(s) but as far as i can tell it will be a good 2 hours. Like to hear his take on Zecharia Sitchin's ideas. Which reminds me... If you may make a Sitchin episode along side with the proper critique.

Also like to add that before doing Bart Sibrel episode "if", Consider watching his documentaries "specially the first 2" as he is a film maker as well and generally do your homework on the subject as this is no BS as you may think and i can not stress enough on that. Regardless of the strong feelings on this subject that different parties may have... Please do your homework and reconsider.

Anyway i can not finish this without expressing my favorite Paracast guests so far though i can not say that i have listened to every episode and every sound bit as there are subjects & guests that i simply do not touch. Any way here are my favorite Paracast guests so far...

Kenneth F. Thomas "I want more"
Don Ecker "although i think his trust in Mr. Sitchin is misplaced"
and Paul H. Smith


That is about it

Have a nice day and good luck with your podcast.

 

[BrandonD]

Just wanted to post a list of guests that i would like you to host on The Paracast.

It's great that you brought up this subject, I've been making a list that I forgot to post on here.

By the way, I like your choices of guests.

Here is my list of a few other people whom I consider intelligent, well-researched and interesting in the "esoteric" fields:

Jerry E Smith - HAARP and weather modification / Nazi UFO research

Dr Rupert Sheldrake - Psi abilities, morphological fields

William Thomas - Chemtrails

Andrew Eggeletion - Federal Reserve, "Illluminati"

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Good luck with the moon landing hoax recommendation. Doubt David will go for it.

A JFK show would be good, so long as they deal with the new experiments done by all sorts of specialists which prove Oswald did it (alone). Without punching holes in the new experiments done around the anniversary, there just isn't a conspiracy case any more. Unless you hide your head in the sand from the results etc. Or you could throw out a conspiracy card, saying that all the different teams of specialist are part of the conspiracy. And not provide one ounce of evidence for it. Just imagining that they could be in on it, is good enough to conclude they are for some people.

Don was just on. He's leaving the field. So he says at least. Probably true. For awhile at least. I guess they could have him back on to talk about cupcakes.

Bible = ZZZzzzzzzz


""Illluminati""

No please.

Stitchin isn't honest? His conclusions are probably off, but he can be trusted I thought. I stopped following him once I looked into it enough to see that he's jumping to conclusions, so maybe I've missed some dirt in more recent years.


Here's my recommendation. George Bush and Kal Korff.

 

[musictomyears]

3rd Tier-

Leonard Horowitz - Emerging Viruses
Alex Jones - Conspiracy

Generally good choices in your post - but Alex Jones for "3rd Tier"..? He is more influential than all the other suggested guests combined, and then some.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Good luck with the moon landing hoax recommendation. Doubt David will go for it.

I think that would be a *very interesting* show - let's see the arguments played out. No disrespect to David B, but I get the impression that he doesn't trust the 'powers that be' on a lot of things (neither do I) so I was surprised by his *absolute rejection* of the *possibility* that they could be lying about the moon landings...

 

[pixelsmith]

David is probably reacting as i did for many years. I was a moon landing believer for many years because i saw them do it live on tv. Since then i believe there needs to be some investigating. there seems to be more evidence in support of them NOT landing.

i need someone explain the lack of dust on the lander feet, dust was kicked up by walking astronauts and rover wheels, why didnt the jet blast stir up even a single dust particle or leave a crater? an astronaut can leave an impression in the soft sand by gently stepping in it but a massive jet engine landing leaves nothing?!? pure BS. doesnt take a genius to see a problem here.

i need someone to explain the fill in light on photos and other anomalies regarding shadow direction. yes David will say the moon surface reflects. yes light colored surfaces reflect but not that much. no way. not a chance.

there are many other things that i need explained to me as well but they are too numerous to type them all.

 

[Rick Deckard]

there are many other things that i need explained to me as well but they are too numerous to type them all.

Yeah, I remember a question about footprints - if an environment is totally lacking *any* surface moisture, is it possible to leave a footprint in the dirt no matter how fine it is? The implication being that you need moisture for particles to retain the form of an imprint. I dunno what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.

 

[Rick Deckard]

A JFK show would be good, so long as they deal with the new experiments done by all sorts of specialists which prove Oswald did it (alone). Without punching holes in the new experiments done around the anniversary, there just isn't a conspiracy case any more. Unless you hide your head in the sand from the results etc. Or you could throw out a conspiracy card, saying that all the different teams of specialist are part of the conspiracy. And not provide one ounce of evidence for it. Just imagining that they could be in on it, is good enough to conclude they are for some people.

Have you got a link for the police interview with Oswald, I'd be interested to read it. Wait...they didn't put it on record...those 'incompetent fools'...

...and whose bright idea was it to parade him in front of public crowd only hours after his arrest...those 'incompetent fools' again...

...and would you believe it, those 'incompetent fools' have lost the presidents brain.

Jeez, I feel sorry for the people of America - it appears to be run by 'incompetent fools'...

...who managed to develop and deploy an atom bomb (twice) and land a man on the moon.

 

[CapnG]

E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession as to the reality of the Kennedy assisination being a government op kinda throws doubt on any official anylisis, IMO:

fHZl91gN63g

As for guests, don't bother with Jones. Between his show and C2C his exposure is plentiful. I like the Paracast for it's ability to seek out lesser known guests or ones who are at least not SO overexposed as on some shows.

 

[truthseeker]

You guys ever heard of William Lyne?
I heard him on another show that deals with alternative energy and was really impressed by the research that he had done. He's written several books on Tesla and delves into the mind-blowing, futuristic inventions that he was working on. He purports that UFOs were man-made vehicles using exotic propulsion systems that were around since the turn of the 20th century. How US government hushed it all up and started disinformation campaign about Alien Visitors to cover up what was really going on... Just intresting stuff, another view point as to what maybe going on.

 

[Mogwa]

The only person on the list who deals in anything remotely resembling the paranormal is Heiser. I don't get it.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

You guys ever heard of William Lyne?
I heard him on another show that deals with alternative energy and was really impressed by the research that he had done. He's written several books on Tesla and delves into the mind-blowing, futuristic inventions that he was working on. He purports that UFOs were man-made vehicles using exotic propulsion systems that were around since the turn of the 20th century. How US government hushed it all up and started disinformation campaign about Alien Visitors to cover up what was really going on... Just intresting stuff, another view point as to what maybe going on.

Pity that nifty technology is only used to spoke us into thinking grey guys are running around giving people anal probes etc.

What's his take on why the government bends over backwards to make the public think aliens aren't visiting? Reverse psychology?

 

[Ankhes]

David is probably reacting as i did for many years. I was a moon landing believer for many years because i saw them do it live on tv. Since then i believe there needs to be some investigating. there seems to be more evidence in support of them NOT landing.

i need someone explain the lack of dust on the lander feet, dust was kicked up by walking astronauts and rover wheels, why didnt the jet blast stir up even a single dust particle or leave a crater? an astronaut can leave an impression in the soft sand by gently stepping in it but a massive jet engine landing leaves nothing?!? pure BS. doesnt take a genius to see a problem here.

i need someone to explain the fill in light on photos and other anomalies regarding shadow direction. yes David will say the moon surface reflects. yes light colored surfaces reflect but not that much. no way. not a chance.

there are many other things that i need explained to me as well but they are too numerous to type them all.

Try this for a start - pretty decent stuff here.
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV

 

[Aaron LeClair]

David is probably reacting as i did for many years. I was a moon landing believer for many years because i saw them do it live on tv. Since then i believe there needs to be some investigating. there seems to be more evidence in support of them NOT landing.

i need someone explain the lack of dust on the lander feet, dust was kicked up by walking astronauts and rover wheels, why didnt the jet blast stir up even a single dust particle or leave a crater? an astronaut can leave an impression in the soft sand by gently stepping in it but a massive jet engine landing leaves nothing?!? pure BS. doesnt take a genius to see a problem here.

i need someone to explain the fill in light on photos and other anomalies regarding shadow direction. yes David will say the moon surface reflects. yes light colored surfaces reflect but not that much. no way. not a chance.

there are many other things that i need explained to me as well but they are too numerous to type them all.

Pixel. It's been dealt with in the Moon Landing thread. See the links I provided there for details.

 

[mkotschi]

Just to add to the suggestions, Dean Radin and or Edgar Mitchell would be extremely interesting guests to have on.

 

[pixelsmith]

i forgot about the MAGIC MOON DUST and its magic reflective properties. IMO pure BS. but i give you points for being a good sheeple leclair.

 

[BrandonD]

Pixel. It's been dealt with in the Moon Landing thread. See the links I provided there for details.

I think that the approach being made by the bad astronomy website regarding the moon controversy is totally incorrect. They are trying to individually tackle the pieces of evidence being put forth supporting the argument that we did NOT land on the moon. Despite what people may think, the burden of proof is in fact on those who claim that the moon landing DID occur. If a person holds back their patriotic fervor for 2 seconds they will see that this makes logical sense.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that we landed on the moon? This is what I would like to know, and it is something that none of the websites address because they consider it "self-evident", which it is not. The fact that lots of people believe something does not make it true. The fact that something was seen on television does not make it true.

This subject is actually low on my list of subjects of interest, but it fires me up to see people in this forum behaving towards those who take the "moon hoax" subject seriously the exact same way that ordinary joes behave towards people who take the ufo subject seriously.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I think that the approach being made by the bad astronomy website regarding the moon controversy is totally incorrect. They are trying to individually tackle the pieces of evidence being put forth supporting the argument that we did NOT land on the moon. Despite what people may think, the burden of proof is in fact on those who claim that the moon landing DID occur. If a person holds back their patriotic fervor for 2 seconds they will see that this makes logical sense.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that we landed on the moon? This is what I would like to know, and it is something that none of the websites address because they consider it "self-evident", which it is not. The fact that lots of people believe something does not make it true. The fact that something was seen on television does not make it true.

This subject is actually low on my list of subjects of interest, but it fires me up to see people in this forum behaving towards those who take the "moon hoax" subject seriously the exact same way that ordinary joes behave towards people who take the ufo subject seriously.

Good post. Well said.

 

[cottonzway]

Only ask Jim Fetzer on if you want to hear about "Space Beams" and "No Planes" bull****! He either lost his mind or is being paid to sound like a clown.

 

[Casual Paracast Listener]

Well, Just to clear something for the "It did happen exactly the way they said it did happen" people.

Well the "No it did not happen this way" people are not there to say "It did not happen at all", They are just saying "Well it did not happen that way"

Alright so to be serious about it now...

The issue here is not to say that mankind did not get to the moon! As yes The USSR did go/land on the moon with their unmanned LUNA missions, USA did as well afterwards with thier unmanned Ranger/Surveyor & Pioneer i think but not so sure about Pioneer...

Anyway the problem is with the manned Apollo program "The 1969 Apollo 11" specifically and not so specifically but as for the cultural impact of the "The 1969 Apollo 11" I would not take it against any one who may find this subject to be ridiculous, As personally i thought "It did happen exactly the way they said it did happen" till i did listen to Bart Sibrel, Did some research afterwards and oh oh... Something is wrong here flag started waving.

So just listen to Bart Sibrel and/or other people on that side, checkout the documentation from both sides and make up your own mind given you like to check it out in the first place.

But regardless it is going to be a good show at least compared to the most of them so far episodes which i did not generally like except for the ones that i have noted.

Oh and @ cottonzway: Well i do not know about Space Beams and There were no planes, I know of course about No Pentagon plane but where did you hear/read that?

Any way my choice for Jim Fetzer was mainly for JFK as this what i listen to him talking about and discussing as for 9.11 he does discuss that as well but i do not remember anything about "Space Beams" & no WTC jets, I will re-listen to his 9.11 interview again sometime to check it out

Personally i can not wait for a Bart Sibrel Paracast episode then a Jim Fetzer on JFK episode.