ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Hm , do you think that was a sensible move on your part and its consequence?
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Ted Phillips
- Thread starter lancemoody
- Start date
Free episodes:
justcurious
Flying Kitchenettes
Obviously this kind of reactions had to be and was expected. I have no agreements with anybody to keep any location secret. Ted has. I have been careful not to show more than he has already disclosed when nothing bounds me to. The right question would be: is it a sensible move on his part to talk about how so much is happening at a secret location on every other radio shows and UFO websites in such a tempting manner and its consequences ? The answer is no, my move is the consequence, not the cause.
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Yes it is expected when a guest gives his good time and excellent research for all of us to enjoy! 'Posting the so called location' not only looks bad for paracast members but also threatens Mr Ted Phillips many years of hardwork and trust among the community. He already said he will give evidence of photographs during the last interview and why jump the gun?
justcurious
Flying Kitchenettes
Yes it is expected when a guest gives his good time and excellent research for all of us to enjoy! 'Posting the so called location' not only looks bad for paracast members but also threatens Mr Ted Phillips many years of hardwork and trust among the community. He already said he will give evidence of photographs during the last interview and why jump the gun?
I understand your reaction but, one last time, I didn't disclose anything that he had not... I just thought that he had said and posted enough for anybody interested to find the location. So I found it, I just posted the Google Earth picture which does not show more than the one he had posted on his website to show that it was possible. I even made it black and white not to give more data. I am certainly not the first to find it. If his trust in the community is threatened it's not by me, I worked from the informations he gave.
EDIT: Ok Blowfish, I blurred the pictures, including the one HE released... 8)
Better. Let's be respectful of the people who live in that area.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I know! We could make shit up!
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
jimbo83478
Paranormal Tyro
I understand the desire to find out more about that which we do not understand, but all this whining about seeing the photos or finding the location is ridiculous.
As Gene says, respect the people who live there. But also respect the field investigator's hard work - don't be an idiot and jeopardize his research. And - above all - respect the phenomenon. We don't know what this stuff is, and seeing a damn photograph or knowing the location won't get you any closer to the truth.
I'm with Bosley on this when he says not everyone is entitled to this information. Someone dedicates years of hard work and we say "gimme!" Forget it.
——————————————————————————————————
As Gene says, respect the people who live there. But also respect the field investigator's hard work - don't be an idiot and jeopardize his research. And - above all - respect the phenomenon. We don't know what this stuff is, and seeing a damn photograph or knowing the location won't get you any closer to the truth.
I'm with Bosley on this when he says not everyone is entitled to this information. Someone dedicates years of hard work and we say "gimme!" Forget it.
——————————————————————————————————
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I would have like to have heard Ted talk about the slovakia artifact investigation.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Well, if that's the case then I should not be called closed minded for not thinking that there's anything supernatural going on. It frustrates me when people go on the radio, make outrageous claims, and then get annoyed when we don't believe them. In this case though, I don't think that Mr. Philips is annoyed with people like me, but those that completely believe in "Marley Woods" seem to be up in arms when I say I prefer to see evidence before I believe hat there's some unknown force at work.
FletcherMunson
Skilled Investigator
While we're talking about agreements, maybe we could agree to this: Walter Bosley is not exactly the guy you want to bring up when making a point.
I enjoy these subjects as much as the next tin foil haberdasher. And, Bosley seems like a sincere fellow. But when an investigator/experiencer throws out a lot of spectacular claims and then shuts the door on the burden of proof by saying that some people (read: non-believers) aren't entitled to the information is more than a little suspect. And, he's probably not someone you'd want to pin an argument on in a pinch.
As far as Mr. Phillips goes, he also seems like a very nice guy who has amassed a ton of information. But, as the song goes, "it's not what you got, it's how you use it." Just divulging the fact that you have this information or recounting interesting cases that take place in secret locations doesn't have the punch it once did. We've been barked into the tent one too many times to feel entirely at ease with such a pitch.
That's one reason some of us are wringing hands, waiting impatiently for Mr. Phillips to virtually deliver his picture of the White Dog Marley-Squatch. We're wondering if Ted is just leading us into the next empty tent. Of course, he’s probably not doing that, but we’ve been wrong before.
We’ve also had extensive experience with the sorts of characters who operate from “secret locations” (cough, Cheney), so that aspect of Ted’s work falls on weary, skeptical ears.
(To be clear, I am not comparing Ted with Cheney or any other secretive, half-robotic bridge troll. I’m merely pointing out that this is the context and company in which poor Ted could find himself when invoking the secret location clause.)
Of course, the people of “Marley Woods” have every right to their privacy. To me, that’s one of the tougher issues in this case. Dealing with door-to-door peddlers is one thing, but having “self-styled” amateur Sculders and Mullies crawling all over your property searching for the hair of a giant dog constitutes an infestation that no one should have to deal with.
But bringing in other eyes and ears that are Ted Phillips-approved would go a long way to more accurately assess what’s actually happening in Marley Woods. Ted sounds like he’s really kind of upside-down in this case, now. And, if the issue is as dire for the ranchers in the area as he claims, then it might be time to widen the net a little and let in a few more fish—just to add a new perspective.
All that said, I look forward to seeing Ted’s website. And, I’m glad he has recovered fully from his stroke. Doing all of the things he’s been doing and dealing with that kind of setback is truly inspiring.
I enjoy these subjects as much as the next tin foil haberdasher. And, Bosley seems like a sincere fellow. But when an investigator/experiencer throws out a lot of spectacular claims and then shuts the door on the burden of proof by saying that some people (read: non-believers) aren't entitled to the information is more than a little suspect. And, he's probably not someone you'd want to pin an argument on in a pinch.
As far as Mr. Phillips goes, he also seems like a very nice guy who has amassed a ton of information. But, as the song goes, "it's not what you got, it's how you use it." Just divulging the fact that you have this information or recounting interesting cases that take place in secret locations doesn't have the punch it once did. We've been barked into the tent one too many times to feel entirely at ease with such a pitch.
That's one reason some of us are wringing hands, waiting impatiently for Mr. Phillips to virtually deliver his picture of the White Dog Marley-Squatch. We're wondering if Ted is just leading us into the next empty tent. Of course, he’s probably not doing that, but we’ve been wrong before.
We’ve also had extensive experience with the sorts of characters who operate from “secret locations” (cough, Cheney), so that aspect of Ted’s work falls on weary, skeptical ears.
(To be clear, I am not comparing Ted with Cheney or any other secretive, half-robotic bridge troll. I’m merely pointing out that this is the context and company in which poor Ted could find himself when invoking the secret location clause.)
Of course, the people of “Marley Woods” have every right to their privacy. To me, that’s one of the tougher issues in this case. Dealing with door-to-door peddlers is one thing, but having “self-styled” amateur Sculders and Mullies crawling all over your property searching for the hair of a giant dog constitutes an infestation that no one should have to deal with.
But bringing in other eyes and ears that are Ted Phillips-approved would go a long way to more accurately assess what’s actually happening in Marley Woods. Ted sounds like he’s really kind of upside-down in this case, now. And, if the issue is as dire for the ranchers in the area as he claims, then it might be time to widen the net a little and let in a few more fish—just to add a new perspective.
All that said, I look forward to seeing Ted’s website. And, I’m glad he has recovered fully from his stroke. Doing all of the things he’s been doing and dealing with that kind of setback is truly inspiring.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Dang. We're stuck with science I guess.
justcurious
Flying Kitchenettes
YOU are, for sure...! Dang
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
YOU are, for sure...! Dang
Where as you, unfettered by science, are free to just make stuff up!
justcurious
Flying Kitchenettes
Walter Bosley
Paranormal Adept
I would just like to comment that, speaking for myself, I wasn't bothered by someone not believing me, it was more the degree to which derision was expressed. It's one thing to not be believed, but to be publicly called a fraud and liar is a bit extreme. It took me by surprise because, though I'm used to people disagreeing with me and not believing everything I share, I had never experienced that venom before in any paranormal associated forum. But I got over it when I reminded myself that men have tried to kill me, so everything's relative
And no, you shouldn't be summarily labeled closed-minded just because you don't think something is paranormal. I'm with you there. I could be classified in the 'jerk' camp when it comes to UFOs because my position that the overwhelming majority of sightings are of human technology. The ET Religion folks just don't want to hear that. Same as the 'paranormal experiences always have a scientific explanation' don't want to hear some of my stuff. What goes around comes around, I suppose...
---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------
It depends on what you're talking about. Just because you may not accept some experiences I've brought up, doesn't mean that everything I know about AFOSI, for example, is now null and void. None of us can be considered without a single credibility flaw in every field of experience or endeavor in our lives. Essentially you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. HOWEVER, where debates in a forum such as this are concerned, I agree that using my opinions or opinions/positions of anyone who shares my social affliction in these circles is not going to help your argument. ( For the record, I will take my experiences over acceptance of them any day
)
FletcherMunson
Skilled Investigator
Your confidence in your experiences is admirable. And, I think you are absolutely right to point out your AFOSI knowledge as being valuable. It was not my intention to demean your professional background. That was a lack of clarity on my part.
And, in the interest of clarity, I am not saying that you are purposefully deceiving anyone or using your resume to bolster your claims. Of course, people will always make that credibility-by-association connection between your professional background and your experiences. But there’s nothing you can do about that, I suppose.
Frankly, though, I think your position that some people are not entitled to an investigator’s information (whether you intend it or not) borders on a religious attitude of exclusivity—which is never a positive road to follow. The more readily we accept such an attitude, the less we tend to demand of the experiencers making claims. And, the less we demand from such claimants, the more we veer into a belief system.
In the end, I suppose we all come to the Paracast with different expectations. Some listeners are satisfied with hearing about interesting experiences and cases without necessarily requiring evidence. Others are more focused on the evidentiary support that accompanies (or doesn’t accompany) a claim.
While I can appreciate perceptions and experiences, I would probably consider myself more in the latter camp. And, I feel as though anyone who cares enough to be curious about the subject deserves to assess any information or evidence that an investigator claims exists.
The Pair of Cats
a.k.a Philip Deane
Yes i watched you presented video, thank you. I tend to agree with most of it. But i didn't really need to watch it to know where you're "at".
You see you and i are much closer than you think in regards to the paranormal. I just don't agree with you in regards to the scientific aspect. That is to say " if science hasn't found an answer then the paranormal does not exist" or "unless science can find an answer then i don't believe in it". That's fine if you think that way, indeed, it is your right to do so. I have always maintained an individual's right to think what they want and have said it many times in my discourse with you.
I just don't agree with the way you think about this subject. And that does not make me either wrong or right about the subject.
But when you make statements regarding the veracity of forum contributors anecdotes or recollections you might find there are those here who will question you or you methods or indeed the way you think. As i did. And that is the right of others. When you make statements to the effect of "..there is no such thing as the paranormal!!!" then, on these forums you may receive some challenge to that. And there was.
As to science proving or disproving the paranormal, i wonder which branch of the sciences would be best suited to doing the investigation or would it take a combination of many. Would you need to throw in law enforcement officers or lawyers into that mix. (didn't Phil Imbrogno have such an investigative team?).
The trouble is getting scientists to get off their safe and cushy arses to get out there and do the work. They don't seem to want to touch the subject with a barge pole. And when they do (eg. NIDS) we hear absolutely nothing. They just have too much at stake what with their positions, the ridicule etc. (or in NIDS case the confidentiality.)
I hope that the science community does get off its collective backside and actively and conscientiously examines the paranormal. I really do. I have no problem with any scientific explanations to this phenomena. i am not against science in this regards . I just don't have a quasi religious belief that science will come through with all the answers. I believe that it is possible that there is a paranormal, a hidden realm and that the reams of evidence provided over the decades points to this and should not be so easily discounted.
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
I struggle with this hourly it seems. It's like I have a little scientist angel guy hovering over my right shoulder (lab coat, beakers, the whole 9 yards) whispering things like "Dammit man, you must have quantifiable data!". On the other side I have this tie-dyed philosopher saying "Science is a perception of reality. Perhaps there are other ways of perceiving it accurately!".
I want to follow the scientific path because it feels more tangible to me. Yet, I have the ability to trust the perceptions and observations of people. These can not always be scientifically validated but are often true in other aspects of life. The only thing that sets it apart is the apparent fantasticabilityness (I live in Texas so I can create a Bushism whenever I want. State Law!) of the subject matter.
The thing is that I will often demand 'proof' but understand that it is not always available. The thing I struggle with is in trying to accept that this is OK and I can add the information to the mosaic of evidence supporting or detracting from the phenomenon and see if I can still discern an image. While I think three is one there, I will be there first to say it isn't clear. I guess the real question is a personal one. What degree of clarity in that mosaics picture can you personally accept. To some it can be blurry. Like when I used to try and make out the hot chic on the scrambled adult channel from my parents 15 foot satellite dish. To others it needs to be a high resolution 20 megapixel image they can run countless photoshop tools on to ensure there was no foul play in making it. I think I am closer to the latter but definitely not that extreme.
Almost all scientists are specialists working on problems suggested by current theory in their fields. They aren't in the business of investigating every anomalous experience that comes along. Skepticism aside, most paranormal events aren't well-defined enough to attract the attention of any particular specialty. The rare exceptions (e.g. Bigfoot, which has been investigated by at least one anthropologist) get attention because they apparently do fall into some scientific category.