• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

David Hatcher Childress Returns to the Paracast


Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
After almost a four-year absence, David Childress returns to the Paracast. A self-proclaimed "diffusionist" archaeologist, David is the author of nearly 40 books and has traveled all over the world to investigate and research ancient megalithic sites. One of the more recognizable personalities on TV, David has been a "star" of the popular (and controversial) show Ancient Aliens since its inception. Since his last appearance on the Paracast he has written several books including Vimanas: Flying Machines of the Ancients, The Enigma of Cranial Deformation (w/ Brian Foerster). and a soon-to-be released book on the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia.

We will be taping Thursday morning at 10 A.M. MT so please post your QUESTIONS here!
 
  1. Do you believe that homo sapiens were genetically engineered by extra-terrestrials (as in Zecharia Sitchin)?
  2. Do you believe that the occupants of the UFOs of the last 60 years and the "ancient aliens" of old are one and the same?
  3. What is your opinion of the control system hypothesis of Jaques Vallee and his contention that the ET Hypothesis can't adequately explain the UFO phenomenon?
  4. Do you believe there were ancient human civilizations millions of years ago (well before they should have been according to mainstream archaeology)?
  5. What is your primary disagreement with mainstream archaeology and how do your ideas differ from those of Graham Hancock and Michael Cremo?
Thank you!
 
1. What evidence have you seen that strongly suggests and convinces you that Earth was visited in the past by extraterrestrials/ancient aliens?

2. Do you concur with Graham Hancock's thesis that there is a lost civilization in humanity's past responsible for constructing the pyramids of Giza and other monuments around the world?

3. What are some of the most exciting discoveries in the fields of archeology and ufology over the past few years that intrigued you the most?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I got a question:

What good is a big Berkey water filter?

Thanks!
get one!

My question: One site that has always interested me, I have yet to visit, Thoughts on American Stonehenge- who really built it and what reason?, Also any thoughts that the celtic druids could of possibly came over to America at all at any point?
 
Just FYI: We're moving the recording session to Friday from 9 AM until 11 AM MT. So you have more time, and I have less.
 
Hello, good sir. Well, well, what a serendipitous day. Glad to have you back.
  1. Göbekli Tepe, what are your thoughts on it?
  2. What is the strangest thing that has ever happened to you while on an ancient archeological site?
  3. What is the most irrefutable evidence that the so called "ancient aliens" once visited Earth?

Have a good one brother!

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos had this to say about David.... :p

fbz_12afbbe82f0eaa81a22db7c50c18f71f.jpg
 
I don’t have any questions for DHC, but I do have a (hopefully) constructive suggestion for Gene and Chris: Please put DHC’s feet to the fire, but in the respectful and decent way for which you are known.

DHC, the two times I’ve heard him, had an overwhelming impression on me of a mind that has little in the way of rigorous analytical equipment. He scores points for his curiosity, his willingness to go out on a limb, and his breadth of self-sought experience. And he seems like an alright guy personally.

However, Childress strikes me as the epitome of the credulous paranormalist, the easy believer rarely sobered by careful sifting of evidence, and more entranced by the siren song of the fantastic. Occam’s Razor isn’t a blade in his pocket. But Harry Potter’s wand is. DHC symbolizes what much mainstream science and skepticism believes is ‘the problem’ with the entire field of the paranormal.

For what it’s worth, and I know others agree, if the field of UFO research is to gain more serious attention, some housecleaning is in order. It would be redundant to rehearse the mockery of serious investigation made by some popular TV programs, and some authors and personalities in the field. The serious side of UFO research and discourse is trying to paddle its way out of this swamp, but the countercurrent is strong. It is encouraging to hear the Greers of the world called to account on The Paracast. I just wonder if the hatches couldn’t be battened down a little tighter still.

As always, many thanks for the great work you put into this operation.
 
David, if you believe the Ancient Alien hypothesis that alien races came to earth, left traces of their technology and culture and then suddenly left this planet, why couldn't you also say that these aliens in fact never left at all. Perhaps they went underground, so to speak. What are your thoughts?
 
…Childress strikes me as the epitome of the credulous paranormalist, the easy believer rarely sobered by careful sifting of evidence, and more entranced by the siren song of the fantastic. Occam’s Razor isn’t a blade in his pocket. But Harry Potter’s wand is. DHC symbolizes what much mainstream science and skepticism believes is ‘the problem’ with the entire field of the paranormal…
Which of his books have you read? He's written around three dozen…
 
Question:

Klaus Dona has highlighted some very interesting items and among them are a pyramid with eye on top, that glows under black light. The pyramid I think has some ancient writing on it. There is also a carving in which a human figure holds an object on his right hand in front of his stomach and places his left hand on top - drawn rays are seen to either come out or enter the human's eyes. What do you think may be the ultimate origin of the image of a pyramid with an eye on top and what might be the significance of holding sacred/powerful objets in the manner I just described (it is repeated in other artefacts).
 
1) As an archaeologist, how do you respond to anthropologists, like Kenneth Feder (author of The Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology), who say your support for the Grand Canyon Lost Civilization theory is lacking in evidence, and is more like a religion; as opposed to a science-based hypothesis?
2) Likewise, your theories on the literal reality of Vimanas have been called a fundamentalist reading of material which was written, more so, as allegorical myth for the advancement of spiritual understanding, and less so as a factual account of warring gods. What are your thoughts on this, and/or the practice of supporting historical theories with religious texts in general?
Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Which of his books have you read? He's written around three dozen…
I don’t agree with the implied dual premises of your question—that any valid assessment of the man’s thought must come strictly through reading his books. And also, that quantity has anything to do with quality. And, I’m doubtful as a general rule that reading someone’s writing is a necessary or even the most important way to gauge the quality of their thinking.

I don’t present the following as anything definitive, but I think it accurately captures my overall impression and the impression of many others. It’s from an amazon review of Lost Cities of Ancient Lemuria and the Pacific:

“A truly, deeply stupid book. Written as part travelogue, part 'investigation' into apparent archaeological anomalies in the South Pacific, the book fails in both areas. Childress seems to have been exactly the sort of traveler who has given American tourists such a bad name: culturally insensitive and just plain dumb. His 'insights' into archaeology and culture are trite beyond description; he displays no critical skills when examining 'evidence' and displays a delight in sensation over facts. The usual suspects get interviewed; Rex Gilroy, the Antipodean version of von Daniken, for example. This book is definitely from the school of 'thinking' that finds ordinary archaeology- all that hard scientific stuff and all that annoying ivory tower university educated analysis- far too unsensational. [In fact, this is what Childress essentially said in an interview at the Chicago Reader.] So much more fun if space aliens had done everything for us, and archaeology is just a matter of ordinary blokes running around like Indiana Jones manques having adventures and finding lost temples and God knows what. Read at your peril.”

I’ve heard several hours of him speaking, which seemed quite enough to make a solid first impression. This was followed up by online research of various claims he’s made.

It’s not that I don’t think he can tell an interesting story. It’s not that he can’t add color, description, and novel information to his subjects of interest. He may or may not help keep open a sense of wider possibilities in the face of academic conservatism. He’s more traveled than most people and has had a wide variety of experiences.

But, in my view, if one is looking for rationally and empirically vetted claims that produce significant and valid new knowledge in his respective fields, he’s not someone I’d normally pay any attention to. I’ve seen way too many questionable or dubious DHC claims for comfort. It’s not hyperbole in the least to characterize his lack of reasoning as appalling.

I don’t think he’s deliberately careless. It’s just that he gives every appearance of never having learned critical thinking skills. He’s engaged in ‘pseudo-inquiry’, which “seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition or propositions determined in advance.” (p. 189 in Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate, by Susan Haack).
 
However, Childress strikes me as the epitome of the credulous paranormalist, the easy believer rarely sobered by careful sifting of evidence, and more entranced by the siren song of the fantastic. Occam’s Razor isn’t a blade in his pocket. But Harry Potter’s wand is. DHC symbolizes what much mainstream science and skepticism believes is ‘the problem’ with the entire field of the paranormal.

I couldn't agree more. Even among the geniuses on AA he stands out. His interpretation of things/places like Markawasi and the Carnac stones are especially laughable and every sentence he uttered in AA got debunked in the AA debunked feature on youtube. Making a career out of pointing out people's inability to prove a negative is just dumb. Yeah, I can't prove aliens didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, guess it's a 50/50 then. I would have no problem writing books if I didn't have to do any real research. I could call it "Alien Technology of Atlantis " and compare all the gizmos Plato described to modern technology and if that doesn't fill a book I could include Cayce quotes.
Ps.
"some people say"
 
Mr. Childress,

In your work on vimanas, you draw heavily on the Vaimanika Shastra, a work psychically channeled and written down in the post-World War I years. What are your reasons for treating it as a genuinely ancient text?

How do you manage to write so many books on such a wide variety of subjects? You must have to put in a great deal of time researching each one.

Does Adventures Unlimited Press use proofreaders? I've read a good number of Joseph Farrell's books, and the typos and the occasional grammatical oddities make the experience a bit unpleasant.
 
After almost a four-year absence, David Childress returns to the Paracast. A self-proclaimed "diffusionist" archaeologist, David is the author of nearly 40 books and has traveled all over the world to investigate and research ancient megalithic sites. One of the more recognizable personalities on TV, David has been a "star" of the popular (and controversial) show Ancient Aliens since its inception. Since his last appearance on the Paracast he has written several books including Vimanas: Flying Machines of the Ancients, The Enigma of Cranial Deformation (w/ Brian Foerster). and a soon-to-be released book on the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia.

We will be taping Thursday morning at 10 A.M. MT so please post your QUESTIONS here!

Could you please ask Mr. Childress his thoughts on why the Oak Island Money Pit was built and if he knows of any future exploration of it? Thank you.
 
I couldn't agree more. Even among the geniuses on AA he stands out. His interpretation of things/places like Markawasi and the Carnac stones are especially laughable and every sentence he uttered in AA got debunked in the AA debunked feature on youtube. Making a career out of pointing out people's inability to prove a negative is just dumb. Yeah, I can't prove aliens didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, guess it's a 50/50 then. I would have no problem writing books if I didn't have to do any real research. I could call it "Alien Technology of Atlantis " and compare all the gizmos Plato described to modern technology and if that doesn't fill a book I could include Cayce quotes.
Ps."some people say"
...And your question was what?
 
Long-time listener, first-time questioner:

Question #1 - How can Chris O'Brien be a fan of chopped liver?! I cannot fathom this. Organ meats in any form are disgusting. (IMO) #Gout

Question #2 - Would DHC please share his opinion on what he considers the BEST example of Ancient Aliens interacting with our ancestors and/or constructing something that is assumed to be beyond human capabilities at that point in time?

Question #3 - Would DHC please list his favorite episodes of Ancient Aliens and why? In addition, if he had to recommend ONE episode of the series to a skeptic to make the case for Ancient Aliens, which one would it be?

Question #4 - At which season did Ancient Aliens "jump the shark," in his opinion? A bit of a "Hail Mary" as I don't actually expect a straightforward answer based on a conflict of interest/not biting the hand that feeds.

Those are my penetrating and hard-nosed question for the prolific author, adventurer and TV personality...
 
I couldn't agree more. Even among the geniuses on AA he stands out. His interpretation of things/places like Markawasi and the Carnac stones are especially laughable and every sentence he uttered in AA got debunked in the AA debunked feature on youtube. Making a career out of pointing out people's inability to prove a negative is just dumb. Yeah, I can't prove aliens didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, guess it's a 50/50 then. I would have no problem writing books if I didn't have to do any real research. I could call it "Alien Technology of Atlantis " and compare all the gizmos Plato described to modern technology and if that doesn't fill a book I could include Cayce quotes.
Ps.
"some people say"

I would not argue with any of these points. AA seemed a great idea initially but considering how many episodes they've managed to stretch out of things it could only be weak as hell.

Having said that, it was said on a different thread not long ago that guys like Von Danniken are worthy of some credit, if only for bringing to many peoples eyes for the first time, some of these mysterious ancient places and artefacts - I am one of those people. DHC is another who you may disagree with vehemently but I do give him credit for bringing lot's of interesting mysteries to the masses. I think Von Danniken has said himself that anything he has written is only one possible interpretation and if we view the work of DHC in the same light, i.e him not claiming to have the answer but just making suggestions that fire the imagination - in this light at the very least, he is a positive force.

And being quite a personable and amiable guy goes a long way to a person's overall character too.
 
,,,Question #1 - How can Chris O'Brien be a fan of chopped liver?! I cannot fathom this. Organ meats in any form are disgusting.
A "chopped liver specialist" refers to the feeling of being taken for granted, as in the expression, "What am I chopped liver?" Well, sometimes working for next to nothing—not even peanuts, prepping for and doing the show every week, booking guests, giving away free books and moderating this forum... well, sometimes it feels like I'm being taken for granted... you know, I've made maybe (?) around $100 the past year! Yeah, I'm a chopped liver specialist alright...
 
Back
Top