Suggested Guests

[ondafritz]

Duly noted, but I disagree that it's "essential". This is an important topic, but NOT for this program. I appreciate that you value our approach, and I hope you appreciate that I am personally very interested in these topics, but I'm also deeply involved in electric guitars, synthesizers, graphics and animation software, and Radiohead. None of these are likely to be covered to any degree on The Paracast. That's the deal.

I understand your point. It would deviate too far from the format of the show.

But although I am a complete newbie to the world of computer video...

Audio is another story.
Electric and acoustic guitars and synths (with a Hammond and Fender Rhodes thrown in for good measure) and my little home studio are my passion. I invite you, or anyone for that matter, to visit www.myspace.com/ondafritzmusic and sample my music.
And the band I'm involved with is YES.

 

[Jersey John]

From David

Anyone who thinks that the US government isn't involved in some way in the events of 9.11 is simply in denial, or not really paying attention.

Spoken like a true cultist, especially coming from someone who demeans religion. Anyone who doesn't share your view--which is a good majority of Americans--can be dismissed as in denial or inattentive. And how exactly is that different from a cult which claims to be the exclusive route to salvation, which contends it is the exclusive holder of truth? You absolutely do not have compelling and irrefutable evidence of our government's involvement in 9/11 (unless, of course, you have something beyond the trash which exists only on the web and in newly-created "conspiracy journals"). You have only third rate "evidence" by third rate "experts", coupled with a political predisposition. And that, David, is simply not truth. What a disappointing and condescending statement from someone who credits himself with an "open mind".

 

[Rick Deckard]

From DavidSpoken like a true cultist, especially coming from someone who demeans religion. Anyone who doesn't share your view--which is a good majority of Americans--can be dismissed as in denial or inattentive. And how exactly is that different from a cult which claims to be the exclusive route to salvation, which contends it is the exclusive holder of truth? You absolutely do not have compelling and irrefutable evidence of our government's involvement in 9/11 (unless, of course, you have something beyond the trash which exists only on the web and in newly-created "conspiracy journals"). You have only third rate "evidence" by third rate "experts", coupled with a political predisposition. And that, David, is simply not truth. What a disappointing and condescending statement from someone who credits himself with an "open mind".

Ahhh - I recognize the language of a pseudo-skeptic when I see it. Do us all a favour and go back to sleep.

 

[Rick Deckard]

- Someday, I might be convinced to talk about my own thoughts about how these two different worlds interact, and then everyone will really think I've lost it.

Just do it. Get it off your chest. I doubt that you'd say anything that hasn't been said before - but if you do have something new, then great, I love new ideas.

 

[David Biedny]

From DavidSpoken like a true cultist, especially coming from someone who demeans religion. Anyone who doesn't share your view--which is a good majority of Americans--can be dismissed as in denial or inattentive. And how exactly is that different from a cult which claims to be the exclusive route to salvation, which contends it is the exclusive holder of truth? You absolutely do not have compelling and irrefutable evidence of our government's involvement in 9/11 (unless, of course, you have something beyond the trash which exists only on the web and in newly-created "conspiracy journals"). You have only third rate "evidence" by third rate "experts", coupled with a political predisposition. And that, David, is simply not truth. What a disappointing and condescending statement from someone who credits himself with an "open mind".

OK, so please humor me for a moment and let me ask you something:

The morning of that terrible day, when planes were slamming into buildings, how do you feel about the fact that Bush didn't get up and do his job while this country was under attack? What are your thoughts about his sitting in a classroom for almost 9 minutes after being told this fact? Do you think this was appropriate behavior for the command in chief? You're completely comfortable with this? The hell with all the other "evidence", we're talking about facts here, not anything a revisionist could get ahold of and tweak into nonsense. Orwell knew what was coming, that's pretty clear at this point. We're there, nothing in 1984 is fiction anymore. Nothing.

You feel that the Iraq "war" is justified? You're comfortable with the way that the US is seen around the rest of the civilized world? Do you have a current passport? Speak more than one language? What's your stance on the use of depleted uranium munitions? How do you feel about the fact that about half of our naval fleet is currently stationed around Iran? Do you think that Valerie Plame was an unimportant desk clerk for the CIA? I could go on for many pages. The list of crimes of the current administration is rather long at this point. Not an opinion, this statement is a FACT. I'm not a democrat, or republicon, I'm someone who knows what corporate feudalism and fascism smell like, what the crooks are willing to do to hold onto their power. I'm not a child who thinks that his parent are flawless demigods, I'm an adult who knows that mom and dad go to bed and screw each other senseless without trying to wake up the kids.

I mean, give me a break. It's not like I have to read conspiracy materials on the web to know that when not a SINGLE FRIKKING FIGHTER was scrambled for an hour and a half AFTER it was known that more than a couple of airliners were hijacked, that something seriously suspect was at play. Jersey John, if you are one of this blind patriotic fools who feels that you government is working in your best interests, I really pity you. I have never, ever claimed to be the holder of absolute truth. I'm an independent, thinking person, one who looks at the situation from all angles, and who has arrived at some core personal truths about the state of this country, and world. I'm not concerned with convincing you of anything - I could give a damn what your beliefs are - but know that when the crap really, truly hits the fan, it will be the religious right and NeoConNazi scum who sold this country out for a handful of shekels. History will be a harsh judge of the fall of the US empire, your thoughts and opinions - as well as mine - lost in the sands of time.

 

[BrandonD]

Folks,

I'll add some thoughts to this thread:

- Anyone who thinks that the US government isn't involved in some way in the events of 9.11 is simply in denial, or not really paying attention. To what extent, I'm not sure we'll ever know, but at the least, the Neocons let it go down to further the PNAC agenda. Recent rumblings about another staged event have me extremely nervous - if one looks at the recent legislation being pushed by the criminals in charge of the US government, it's pretty clear that they are setting up a nasty situation and will subsequently attempt an overt overthrow of what's left of the government, and a total destruction of the US Constitution. All the pieces are in place, and again, if you think this is a paranoid opinion, you haven't been paying attention.

- There is indeed a section on these forums devoted to conspiracy theories, but in no way does that suggest that political conspiracies will ever be covered in the radio portion of the show.

- Someday, I might be convinced to talk about my own thoughts about how these two different worlds interact, and then everyone will really think I've lost it.

Carry on.

I completely agree. It is total insanity not to recognize the writing on the wall. The majority of the US is in a blatant state of denial, like the family of the father who is cheating on his wife. He comes home at 3 in the morning, reaking of perfume, lipstick on his collar, and the wife and kids say "Poor dad's had a late night working at the office again. What a hard worker."

As for the thoughts on how the two worlds interact, I'll throw in my vote also. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I have a handful of strange ideas myself, so you'll still have at least one listener afterwards.

 

[BrandonD]

From DavidSpoken like a true cultist, especially coming from someone who demeans religion. Anyone who doesn't share your view--which is a good majority of Americans--can be dismissed as in denial or inattentive. And how exactly is that different from a cult which claims to be the exclusive route to salvation, which contends it is the exclusive holder of truth? You absolutely do not have compelling and irrefutable evidence of our government's involvement in 9/11 (unless, of course, you have something beyond the trash which exists only on the web and in newly-created "conspiracy journals"). You have only third rate "evidence" by third rate "experts", coupled with a political predisposition. And that, David, is simply not truth. What a disappointing and condescending statement from someone who credits himself with an "open mind".

You can't be serious. The administration BLOCKED an independent investigation. The administration DISPOSED OF the evidence at the crime scene. The administration ALLOWED the Bin Laden family to leave the country when all other planes in the entire country were grounded. The administration is NOT EVEN LOOKING FOR BIN LADEN. Bush has actually said the words, "I truly am not that concerned about him".

As I said before, the husband is coming home at 3, he's drunk, his pants are unbuttoned and there's lipstick on his collar. If you choose to be the blind supportive wife and argue that he's been working late at the office that's certainly your infantile prerogrative.

 

[Rick Deckard]

You can't be serious.

You're right, he isn't being serious - he's being provocative. Ignore him.

 

[Rob]

In light of the recent comments on the Paracast and the Larry King Roswell roundtable, why not try for Michael Shermer as a possible guest? Assuming he'd be willing, I'd like to hear what he has to say about multiple witness sightings (like David's), Dr Lear (and his supposed implants as being material proof) and some of the accounts in Greer's Disclosure Project (assuming he is aware of these).

Sure, he's a skeptic, but honestly what else can you be? To be a skeptic only means that you're using your brain correctly, but I do agree with what David commented on during the Larry King show that Shermer did say some pretty dumb stuff. Heck, at least it would make for a spirited episode where you guys could maybe open up the subject field outside of the paranormal based circular topics for a time and explore skeptical thought in a more larger sense.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Sure, he's a skeptic, but honestly what else can you be? To be a skeptic only means that you're using your brain correctly, but I do agree with what David commented on during the Larry King show that Shermer did say some pretty dumb stuff. Heck, at least it would make for a spirited episode where you guys could maybe open up the subject field outside of the paranormal based circular topics for a time and explore skeptical thought in a more larger sense.

Shermer *is not* a skeptic - his mind is made up; in *his* world there is nothing to the UFO phenomena that can't be explained by the 'mundane'. That's *not* skepticism - he's either blinkered, intellectually dishonest or worse still, pushing someone else's agenda.

You'll find lot's a true-skeptics on this forum who are prepared to question the official version of reality *as well as* the alternatives - true-skeptics occupy the 'middle ground'. Shermer is not prepared to do that. He doesn't question the 'official story', he defends it. He is a pseudo-skeptic.

 

[Rob]

So, "ufology" requires a different sort of skepticism in order for you to earn the status *true-skeptic*? That doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying that the scientific method of enquiry isn't suitable when studying ufo phenomenen. If you're using psuedo-scientific methods and make any conclusions, you could then be labelled a psuedo-skeptic.

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Does Vallees give interviews?

I'd love to hear more about why he dropped out of ufology (I think he said he stopped learning anything new) and what he thinks about the current state of the field, especially considering that some of the new guys like Redfern and Tonnies have reintroduced a lot of his theories and ideas.

 

[nikki630]

Has anyone suggested Travis Walton as a guest ?

And more generally, it would be great to hear more 'experiencers' that have what seem to be credible stories

 

[tommyball]

Has anyone suggested Travis Walton as a guest ?

And more generally, it would be great to hear more 'experiencers' that have what seem to be credible stories

He's been on C2C a few times and each time its brought up that he dislikes doing interviews. Still, I think he'd be a great guest here.

His is a very compelling abduction case.

-todd.

 

[Rick Deckard]

So, "ufology" requires a different sort of skepticism in order for you to earn the status *true-skeptic*? That doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying that the scientific method of enquiry isn't suitable when studying ufo phenomenen. If you're using psuedo-scientific methods and make any conclusions, you could then be labelled a psuedo-skeptic.

No, you are way off the mark - I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that pseudo-skeptics like Shermer do not even apply the 'accepted' scientific methods to the UFO phenomena. The 'explanations' that they push require a bigger leap of faith than the ETH.

BTW, are you saying that the current scientific method of enquiry is perfectly capable of explaining all UFO phenomena? If so, how do you know that and why do cases in government files remain 'unexplained' if science already equips them with all the answers?

 

[nikki630]

He's been on C2C a few times and each time its brought up that he dislikes doing interviews. Still, I think he'd be a great guest here.

His is a very compelling abduction case.

-todd.

Hi Todd -- I suspected as much. You almost never hear him speak, and his web site is pretty sparse, pretty much just links to other web sites. Still -- it would be great if Gene and David asked him -- nudge nudge wink wink -- know what I mean

 

[neuromancer]

i have never heard travis b4! but his abduction was profiled in the Discovery Documentary series on UFOs, Great Balls of Fire! There was a huge controversy surrounding his lie detector test rite, and that he was kinda high just b4 the event itself? neway wud be gud to hear his side!

 

[Poi]

He's actually a great interview, but he is of the reluctant variety. Shame too.

 

[Rob]

So, "ufology" requires a different sort of skepticism in order for you to earn the status *true-skeptic*? That doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying that the scientific method of enquiry isn't suitable when studying ufo phenomenen. If you're using psuedo-scientific methods and make any conclusions, you could then be labelled a psuedo-skeptic.

No, you are way off the mark - I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that pseudo-skeptics like Shermer do not even apply the 'accepted' scientific methods to the UFO phenomena. The 'explanations' that they push require a bigger leap of faith than the ETH.

BTW, are you saying that the current scientific method of enquiry is perfectly capable of explaining all UFO phenomena? If so, how do you know that and why do cases in government files remain 'unexplained' if science already equips them with all the answers?

I don't see how Shermer doesn't apply the scientific method to ufology - all he asks for is physical tangible evidence to study; an object or an alien body. That's all anyone who is SERIOUSLY interested in researching the field can ask for. Without actual objects all you have is subjective entertainment. Whilst its fun for a while to listen to stories of sightings, abductions or whatever, without something confirmed and corroborated by using "the scientific method" as coming from an intelligent extra-terrestrial origin, well...

BTW, I'm not saying that the current scientific method of inquiry has perfectly explained all UFO phenomena. That is exactly my point and why I thought it a good idea that Shermer would make a good guest. I am aware that he isn't a scientist himself, but that doesn't exclude him from understanding what science is and does. All I'm saying is that the scientific method, when employed correctly, is all we've got to honestly examine supernatural or paranormal claims. I can't help it if you don't want to hear the results.

 

[Rick Deckard]

BTW, I'm not saying that the current scientific method of inquiry has perfectly explained all UFO phenomena. That is exactly my point and why I thought it a good idea that Shermer would make a good guest. I am aware that he isn't a scientist himself, but that doesn't exclude him from understanding what science is and does. All I'm saying is that the scientific method, when employed correctly, is all we've got to honestly examine supernatural or paranormal claims. I can't help it if you don't want to hear the results.

Wow, what can I say? I really never expected to have a discussion with one of Shermer's 'cheer-leaders'. Do you agree with him when he states that trained pilots are no better observers than ordinary civilians?

Tell me, why does Shermer poke fun at those that consider the ETH to be a perfectly rational *possibility* to explain some UFOs? Is that part of the standard scientific method, to ridicule those that offer a hypothesis that you can't/won't accept even though you can't categorically rule it out?

Why is it unscientific to consider the possibility that some UFOs may be craft flown by an ETI? Isn't science about exploring possibilities? At what point can you rule out the ETH? An absence of proof is not proof of absence - isn't that a key rule of the scientific method?

There's nothing scientific in Shermer's approach - he's already ruled out the ETH.