Ted Phillips

[The Pair of Cats]

Yeah, that sums it up nicely. Thanks!

Yes your bias is easily and nicely summed up, no problem

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Yes your bias is easily and nicely summed up, no problem

I guess you didn't watch the video trainedobserver posted last time. I'll post it again to explain to you how I feel about this stuff. I am not biased. If he were to show something that proved it to me that there was a good theory there, you know, like evolution and all those awesome fossils that prove it, or like the lab experiments that point to quantum mechanics I would happily accept it.
Anyway, please take the 10 minutes to watch this video:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T69TOuqaqXI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[satcomer]

It's not that he is blocking other investigators, but the people who live in that area who don't want to see it become fodder for reality TV. At least that's the explanation. Let's see what happens when more material is publicized.

This is a sad reason why I feel that the UFO circles need to get the crazies out. The Reality TV mindset would does more harm to investigations then the old style skeptical crazies.

 

[tyder001]

No Gene. The problem is that "scientists" aren't involved. As we all should know by now, there is no such thing as the paranormal so therefore Ted Phillips is wasting his time and has been for a number of years. He should just disregard all of the evidence he has collected and just give up. As we all should.
Now if he was a "scientist", or had a mate who is one, he would have quickly debunked himself and this would've been all over, red rover.

LOL! Perfect. Buh the bye they have to be the "right" scientist. Otherwise we will search until we find that they happened to be in the same room in 1995 with a person who lived near a person who knew a person who was kin to a person that listened to Coast To Coast one night when Steven Greer was the guest. So, that is why "they" think there could be something there. But, "real scientist" know better. Also, they have to pass the legitimacy test of a crazy ole magician who calls young boys on the phone and has no college degree of his own. Yep! We got standards!

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I focused in on the evidence claimed instead of all the blah blah about how respected Phillips is, etc.

. . . .

To me, his self-importatnt ("a modern-day Inidiana Jones") claims don't jibe with his lackluster lack of evidence after 12 years (I also watched several video presentations with Phillips that are equally light on tangible evidence).

To Phillips' credit, at least he made a claim that contained evidence at all, unlike a large selection of guests who pontificate endlessly with uncheckable, unsupported and unchallenged assertions.

. . . .

Lance "Modern-Day Robert Redford/Doc Savage" Moody

Three points:

(i) who is saying that anyone should get a free pass or less scrutiny because they are "respected"? I honestly don't see anyone making that claim on this Forum. Ultimately everyone needs to provide support in some form, even if it is supporting testimony from another credible source.

(ii) if Phillips doesn't produce what he claims he supposedly has, then he loses credibility, simple enough. No need for the drama. I personally am willing to give his young nephew a few weeks to put together the website and see what he produces. If he doesn't produce what he claims he has, then everyone collectively can reassesses his prior statements, and the weight of the rest of his evidence weakens. That doesn't mean that there may not be other rigorous field investigators who are worth listening to, however (e.g., Phil Imbrogno or Jacques Vallee').

(iii) why are you being so nasty? I listened to the interview and didn't hear anything which I found offensive in Phillips' statements (he actually sounds like a nice guy), yet you claim that Phillips has made "self important ('a modern-day Inidiana [sic] Jones') claims" and you smartly call yourself "Lance 'Modern-Day Robert Redford/Doc Savage' Moody".

Honest question: if you find this field almost entirely nonsense, which may not be an irrational perspective, then why don't you do something else with your time? How about your job or your family? Take up a hobby that is less irritating? How about doing some charity work? At the end of the day this is merely a website forum about UFOs, so I wouldn't take all this too seriously (unless people are being defrauded out of their money).

 

[Ron Collins]

Hasn't anyone learned by now - The game is played as follows:

1) Incredible accounts of fantastic pictures and videos of a "compelling new case" are mentioned somewhere like ATS. Perhaps a few low-res phone cam images are included, with "better and clearer" examples coming soon.
2) Temporary interest is generated in the UFO community, including a sharp spike in blog posts and forum threads. Strieber, Howe and Rense latch on in support of the case.
3) Technical delays, NDAs, "sensitivities to the participants" and "awaiting lab results" and/or "the lab [suspiciously] lost the samples" are typically cited as to the reason no further hard evidence is immediately forthcoming or that real people's names are not given.
4) At some point the full "evidence" might eventually posted, but soon proves to be underwhelming/inconclusive at best, and laughable at worst.
5) After several months of the topic being debated on various forums, interest wanes and the community moves on.
6) The UFO community urgently waits for the next explosive case to make the rounds.
7) go to step 1 (rinse and repeat)

* Alternately, the pictures and video are released right away, but quickly prove to be intentional hoaxes (ie Drone Photos/Caret, Serpo, etc)

Yes, I have to admit this is unfortunately the typical scenario. But, Ted Phillips has never done it. I am not yet too cynical to dismiss him out of hand. Remember, this is a guy that is a recluse paranormal investigator. He is uncomfortable on stage or in large groups of people, soft spoken, and has always been honest. He has written 2 books (1983, 2000) in 40 years and neither are in print and he didnt even push them on his previous website. So, precisely what is his motivation for B.S.? He isn't getting wads of cash for book deals or speaking engagement and to my knowledge he isn't trying to sell the metatron harmonizer.

I am all for calling B.S. when it shows itself but in this case it is undeserving. Now if his evidence is crap and he never gets the information online and continues to talk about how it is just a few weeks away then I will change my tune. Or if he comes out with some legal B.S. about how he cant show the images and video then I will throw him directly under the bus. Until then lets just wait a couple weeks. Whats the problem with that?

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Yes, I have to admit this is unfortunately the typical scenario. But, Ted Phillips has never done it. I am not yet too cynical to dismiss him out of hand. Remember, this is a guy that is a recluse paranormal investigator. He is uncomfortable on stage or in large groups of people, soft spoken, and has always been honest. He has written 2 books (1983, 2000) in 40 years and neither are in print and he didnt even push them on his previous website. So, precisely what is his motivation for B.S.? He isn't getting wads of cash for book deals or speaking engagement and to my knowledge he isn't trying to sell the metatron harmonizer.

I am all for calling B.S. when it shows itself but in this case it is undeserving. Now if his evidence is crap and he never gets the information online and continues to talk about how it is just a few weeks away then I will change my tune. Or if he comes out with some legal B.S. about how he cant show the images and video then I will throw him directly under the bus. Until then lets just wait a couple weeks. Whats the problem with that?

I wasn't targeting him specifically.. just commenting on the typical silliness that I see time and time again.

Not saying I would throw Phillips into the outright faker/hoaxster category.. but let's just say I'm not holding my breath that anything forthcoming will be of significance. Seemed like a nice enough guy in the podcast, but that has no bearing on the validity of any evidence for his claims. One can be well-intentioned and "honest" yet still be misguided, foolish, sloppy etc.

 

[Ron Collins]

That could be one reason, but if things are so astoundingly strange in that area, why hasn't word gotten out to the government. Or is that beyond them. That's what I find funny - the government has access to extra-terrestrial technology, they know aliens are coming, etc, but they don't know about "Marley Woods." I just find it funny that the paranormal "theories" are so much like religions - if one is true, then the other ones are mostly false. Not so with science - there are competing hypothesis, but once one is proven, it has to become accepted unless proven wrong. I like that type of logic a lot more.

I think physicists would disagree. Quantum Mechanics is accepted and testable and yet contradicts the also accepted and testable Cosmological model. Enter string theory and M theory and a few less prominent ones that try to explain how its all the same but those are still theory with no peer reviewed laboratory analytics to back them up. We just don't know enough yet to convincingly bridge the gigantic chasm between the two.

So, one could draw a parallel between seemingly related/unrelated paranormal phenomenon. Proclaiming widespread mutual exclusivity in these matters is just not supported when you look at the breadth of the data. Yes, the data can be circumstantial and I know you lend far less credence to the testimonial mosaic than I do, but a large amount information exists for each of these topics. The data still needs to be sorted, sifted, tested and proven. Just like the problems facing physicists in their hunt for a unification theory.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

You're right - we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I think your approach is symptomatic of almost everything that is wrong with paranormal investigation. This should not be taken as me saying that there is no merit from "in the field" investigation - but your views are symbolic of the raising of the "field investigator" to a status above anyone else - something you usually hear from "field investigators" as their last line of defence when challenged as to their work, i.e. something along the lines of: "well, when you get out there and do it, then maybe your views will be equal to mine." I've heard that more than once, including on the Paracast, and it's ridiculous. What matters is the evidence, not the viewpoint of the person who collected it.

One final note: the worst way to assess credibility is from personal interaction, which is purely subjective. Stan Friedman thought Gerald Anderson was credible based largely on personal interaction (and a will to believe); ditto Kevin Randle with Frank Kaufmann for many years. I could go on, because it's a long list. It was only when their records were checked, and cracks showed in their stories that had nothing to do with an assessment of credibility based on personal interaction, that they were discovered for the liars that they really were.

My take on the field investigator vs armchair researcher is this: I do place the field investigator more highly but I think that quite a bit can be learned from reading books, reports, articles, etc. It's fairly irritating when you raise a point you feel is valid and the field investigator you're talking to just shrugs it off without really addressing it and mumbles something like, "You should spend more time in the field and less time questioning those who are." Imo a good point is a good point, regardless of where it originated from. At least the so-called armchair guys do attempt to educate themselves about the subject before discussing it. It can be a lot worse, y'all could find yourself questioned by someone like Seth Shostak, who won't even do any reading let alone field research. I'd personally be fine with Seth if he was willing to first graduate himself at least to the chair before debating the subject over and over again on national television.

On a personal note, I'd love to do field research on this topic. But I lack something that is needed; money. It doesn't help matters that I appear to live in a paranormal dead zone. I never hear anything about something strange happening around here. No UFOs, no ghosts, no much of anything. Sure, I've heard a few stories of things that are alleged to have happened a long time ago. I've been told of a mysterious van popping up at different places a few decades ago. Supposedly it had dishes and tinted windows and no markings. And there was suppose to have been some UFO sightings at the time. One I've heard from someone close to me involved a saucer hovering over a dog which zipped away immediately after being discovered. Someone has also told me about a saucer landing in their backyard when she was a kid, but she's a bit of a flake so I don't know what to make of that one. And we've had a few Bigfoot sightings. Again, these come from a long time ago. I know a woman who says Bigfoot walked out in front of her car. She got interviewed by a local news crew about it. After I saw the report I contacted her and asked her about it (Does that count as investigation? Hell, I don't know.). Probably the biggest paranormal story to ever hit this area occurred in the late 70s. There was a rash of Bigfoot sightings and the press dubbed it The Chicken Coop Monster, ha ha. A lot of these reports were made by the Cayton family and I know them pretty well. One of them in particular told me quite a few bizarre stories about rocks being thrown at the house that would turn corners and were hot when picked up. She also told me about large cats accompanying the creature. I was pretty skeptical about her stories at the time but I'm more accepting of a paranormal outlook now. Hmm, maybe I should bring it up to her again.

But that's pretty much it. Flippin' nothing happens around here anymore to "investigate" even if I was willing to.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think physicists would disagree. Quantum Mechanics is accepted and testable and yet contradicts the also accepted and testable Cosmological model. Enter string theory and M theory and a few less prominent ones that try to explain how its all the same but those are still theory with no peer reviewed laboratory analytics to back them up. We just don't know enough yet to convincingly bridge the gigantic chasm between the two.

So, one could draw a parallel between seemingly related/unrelated paranormal phenomenon. Proclaiming widespread mutual exclusivity in these matters is just not supported when you look at the breadth of the data. Yes, the data can be circumstantial and I know you lend far less credence to the testimonial mosaic than I do, but a large amount information exists for each of these topics. The data still needs to be sorted, sifted, tested and proven. Just like the problems facing physicists in their hunt for a unification theory.

The difference is all those are being tested in a lab, with actual results. This is why there continues to be the search for a unified theory of physics.

@Phil

Did you watch the video I posted? Can you see where I'm coming from?

 

[xLordSummerislex]

I found this episode interesting, but as most other folk have been saying, I will have to reserve judgement until I see the evidence presented, especially the photo of the upright bear/wolf thing. I remember hearing about the hairs off these creatures- would there be anyway of DNA testing them, or can that only be done if the hair has certain structures and/or is the cost prohibitive?

 

[Paul Kimball]

If you believe that Phillips, Imbrogno or others systemically slant the facts to fit a pre-existing belief, then please kindly say so for all our benefit.

Yes, in the same way that cops tend to view people they arrest as guilty. I'm not saying it's conscious, but I absolutely believe it happens, and far more often than people want to admit. That's why multiple sources of information are critical, that can be cross-referenced with other sources, and then examined and interpreted by others not involved in the actual investigation. It's also why the "Marley Woods" case, and others like it, is in my opinion worthless - its anonymous, and can't be checked by independent investigators or researchers.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

In this, there must be balance. You must balance the documentation that's already out there and presented, filtering it, of course since much of the data (books, websites, documentaries, TV shows, etc...) is BS, with genuine experience. I've always believed this. I disagree with Kimball when he disregards the field investigator off-hand. I disagree with the field investigator when he disregards book-researchers (arm chair investigators as we're calling them here) out of some arrogant view of being more experienced. Both must merge to be effective. A genuine investigator reads the (valid) studies of those who have gone before him, then go out in the field to test new theories, learn to identify hoaxers, and attempt to have experiences themselves in order to gain a full understanding, not just from the perspective of researcher, but from the perspective of witness as well.

In the end we have a clear evolution of a true paranormal investigator (please note, when I say paranormal I am referring to ghosts, UFO's, psychic phenomena, and more. Holy Shit! I'm repeating the Fate Magazine commercial from the show!! Fate has been reporting on news of the strange and unknown....damn it!!). That evolution should be as follows...arm-chair research, field investigations, retire and write a book/do a documentary on your work. Of course, each step bleeds into the other, and you can and should always back-track to check your work and the work of others. What does this sound like? Well, scientists follow this timeline often.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I am not yet too cynical to dismiss him out of hand.

I don't dismiss him out of hand, either - far from it. But his work is repeatedly misrepresented by ufologists as some sort of Holy Grail of hard evidence, when it is anything but, and Phillips has played into that over the years.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

I disagree with Kimball when he disregards the field investigator off-hand..

Sweet Jebus, does anyone around here actually read what I write? Honestly...

For clarity, I never said I disregard field investigators out of hand.

Man...

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Sweet Jebus,

Man...

LOL!! Jebus? As in THE Jebus...Son of Gosh?

Okay, you don't disregard the field investigator, you just look down on them. Considering what you claim to have witnessed during your ghost hunting program, Paul, I'm surprised you don't give the field investigator a little more credit. Experience does speak volumes whereas anybody can sit on the sidelines and criticize. I think that's where the field investigator takes offense to the people that sit back and make opinionated claims based on the work of others, but don't bother going out and actually looking for themselves! It's like the weatherman who makes the claim that there will be no rain today, but refuses to look out the window where a thunderstorm is going on. Such ignorance can be...insulting if done disrespectfully.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Many thanks for the links you provided above, Paul. Very interesting and, sadly, pretty much what I expected.

I am reminded of Phillips' description of how he scientifically examined the hairs he found: he got hair from his own dog (and other dogs) and compared them to the 400lb. White Wolf-Bear-Ape and confirmed that they did not match! These are the lofty heights of paranormal field research to which a pitiful armchair investigator like me can only hope to rise.

Lance

Yeah.....ya know, that really raised red flags for me, too. I was even yelling in my car, "You're not a biologist, Ted!!" while driving down the road.

 

[Ron Collins]

I don't dismiss him out of hand, either - far from it. But his work is repeatedly misrepresented by ufologists as some sort of Holy Grail of hard evidence, when it is anything but, and Phillips has played into that over the years.

Like I said earlier in the thread, if this is your main issue with him then I agree others do tend to elevate him and try to use his research as validation for their alien visitation theories. Obviously that is absurd as his research has yielded no strong proof for alien visitation. However, I think he has done a good job investigating physical trace cases and has had scientists analyze many of the samples he has collected. I have never heard a professional investigator rip him for his techniques and procedures. In fact I have heard several trained criminal investigators comment that his process seems to be consistent with a forensic investigative methodology. I think the only thing (and in my opinion it is a big one) that his research has shown this far is that some of these UAP's/UFO's/Saucers/wharever are tangible, structured, nuts and bolts craft.

 

[Paul Kimball]

LOL!! Jebus? As in THE Jebus...Son of Gosh?

Okay, you don't disregard the field investigator, you just look down on them.

Again, you completely misrepresent or misunderstand what I wrote. I don't look down on them - I just don't exalt them the way most people in "ufology" seem to. Indeed, the use of the terms "field investigator" and "armchair researcher" are not-so-subtle ways of elevating one at the expense of the other (well, not-so-subtle for the real world; within "ufology" I guess stuff like that passes for nuance).

Everyone has a role to play. I know what those roles are; it's a shame that others don't get it, and why it's important.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Again, you completely misrepresent or misunderstand what I wrote. I don't look down on them - I just don't exalt them the way most people in "ufology" seem to. Indeed, the use of the terms "field investigator" and "armchair researcher" are not-so-subtle ways of elevating one at the expense of the other (well, not-so-subtle for the real world; within "ufology" I guess stuff like that passes for nuance).

Everyone has a role to play. I know what those roles are; it's a shame that others don't get it, and why it's important.

Yeah, whether someone is a field investigator or more of an academic doesn't matter to me as much as their common sense, sanity, honesty, knowledge, and intelligence. I mean, does Jerome Clark do field research? I don't know for sure but I can't recall ever hearing that he does. If most of what he does comes from being a book worm that's just fine with me because the end result is a hell of a lot better than many of the field guys out there. I'd take Clark over a tool like Chuck Zukowski, Mr. Star team, any day of the week.

 

[justcurious]

Ted Phillips keeps saying that he wants to protect the privacy of the Marley Woods residents but I'm afraid he has said too much already... I listened to the last show, then dowloaded his two previous appearances on The Paracast and my screen-name being unimaginative but accurate, I couldn't help but try to find the location on Google Earth.

This an aerial photo of one of the Marley Woods sites released by Ted.




Here's how the site looks in Goolge earth today. I have cropped it and made it black and white.