July 18, 2010 - David Hatcher Childress

[inuk2600]

There was quite a bit of starry-eyed dialog going on about ancient monoliths and how it was soooo impossible for simple humans to manage it themselves. Just take a look at this wiki page to see that people without advanced technology or heavy machinery can move the really big pieces if they set themselves to it, as for the level of precision, well that's just a matter of detail... List of largest monoliths in the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that the largest monolith - heavier than the Baalbek monolith was the Thunder Stone in St.Petersburg Russia. Excavation was started in 1768, which was well before the big steel/diesel engine prime movers of today. And yet they got it through marshy terrain on man power alone and also boated it across water, no crazy theories needed.

Childress asked why don't we build big with stone anymore? I guess stone is what people skilled themselves with back then, it's what they knew. They had obsessions back then just as we do now, and there were people among them that were perfectionists as well, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could work out efficient techniques.
Nowadays obviously we have other ways of building big. As for why it fell out of favor in later ancient history is probably because of socioeconomic reasons.

 

[justcurious]

There is one area of knowledge where I can tell you that David Hatcher C. really didn't do his homework. Everything he said about the Ramayana and ancient India was not only wrong but absolutely ridiculous! Actually this is very common, most things you will read on the internet about Indian texts, especially in mysteries related websites, is totally out of the picture.

I know that because I have been living (on and off but mostly) in India since 1980 and studied Hindu religion and mythology since then. My wife is Indian and has studied this from a very young age as well and is going for a Ph.D. in Sanskrit Studies. You must also be spotting inaccuracy in the media, on topics in which you are educated. But, for some reasons, of all the topics I have a reasonable grasp on, Indian history, mythology and religions are the most inaccurately presented in the western media. The one exception, possibly being... Ufology.

To come back to the guest, I'd say that this lack of seriousness in documentation always cast some serious doubts, in my mind, on any other things he has to say. If this guy is right on any bit of what he said, it is by sheer Statistical Luck.

I liked him and the show anyway, it was good entertainment.

 

[Ron Collins]

The forum on the other hand has become uber confrontational,

You need to look at the history of this forum in detail. It is decidedly not as confrontational as it once was. Yes, I agree that tensions are high at times, but this is inevitable when you have opposing sides arguing a point. I would urge everyone to start a discussion assuming a level of respect for all posters. But I am also a realist. I believe in giving members some leniency as long as the discussion is moving ahead and the posts contain merits content. Also, as long as it does not become a personal attack I understand there will be the occasional bouts of frustration, exasperation, and sarcasm displayed. It is a fine line but at times but when we perceive it is teetering on crossing the line either Angel, myself, or one of the other moderators step in and try to reel it back in. Perhaps what you are seeing is a more tolerant forum.

the zero tolerance for 'paranormal' discussion has dulled any debate.

I do not believe that is true. I can't speak for everyone but let me explain the difference from my perspective. I like discussing the paranormal when there is enough evidence to show something is paranormal. Otherwise its just Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Abject belief in the paranormal has never been what this show is about and certainly not what is discussed in the forum. You can discuss and debate freely here. Just be ready to support you point of view. Remember, this forum has ALWAYS called BS when applicable and done so with no apologies. I don't see that changing.

Also, just as an aside, you do realize you contradicted yourself in this post right? First you gripe because of a guy that tosses out paranormal related theory left and right hoping something will stick, express your disapproval that he may return as a guest, and then you gripe about zero tolerance for paranormal discussion. That made me chuckle a bit.

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

Childress asked why don't we build big with stone anymore?

This is not a very well thought out question and is a good example of where conspiratorial exuberances overshadows topical analytics. Unfortunately, this theme seems to permeate his overall presentation. To demonstrate, I will answer it in about 2 minutes.

Economy of material and availability of skill. There are many more materials that are easier to work with and require less skill. Modern advances like concrete and steel are quicker and more user friendly. Thus, with a decreased demand for the product so too has there been a decrease in the stone mason career path.

Construction timeframes are now in the 'years' not 'decades' range. Stone work for large structures would take exponentially longer to quarry, transport, and construct than a similarly useful structure made of modern materials.

Stone structures with usable cavities have a stackable limit restricting their height. Thus requiring a very large footprint per occupancy ratio. Sky scrapers by comparison have a very small footprint per occupancy ratio. This allows for denser and more compact cities making urban planning and organization easier.

I could go on. But you get the point.

 

[SLVA]

I thank you for your reply and I agree with the points you've made in it actually, I've not used the forum that long, so don't know what it was like. True.

You need to look at the history of this forum in detail. It is decidedly not as confrontational as it once was. Yes, I agree that tensions are high at times, but this is inevitable when you have opposing sides arguing a point. I would urge everyone to start a discussion assuming a level of respect for all posters. But I am also a realist. I believe in giving members some leniency as long as the discussion is moving ahead and the posts contain merits content. Also, as long as it does not become a personal attack I understand there will be the occasional bouts of frustration, exasperation, and sarcasm displayed. It is a fine line but at times but when we perceive it is teetering on crossing the line either Angel, myself, or one of the other moderators step in and try to reel it back in. Perhaps what you are seeing is a more tolerant forum.

Again fair point, maybe more tolerant, I can see it like that...

I do not believe that is true. I can't speak for everyone but let me explain the difference from my perspective. I like discussing the paranormal when there is enough evidence to show something is paranormal. Otherwise its just Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Abject belief in the paranormal has never been what this show is about and certainly not what is discussed in the forum. You can discuss and debate freely here. Just be ready to support you point of view. Remember, this forum has ALWAYS called BS when applicable and done so with no apologies. I don't see that changing.

...This next bit, you're right I did contradict myself, under the assumption that The Paracast show & forum are the same thing. I guess I was trying to say it seems they are not. To clarify, the radio show sounds more like Rob Simone with wack jobs allowed to take 3 hours of air time unchallenged. Why isn't some of the forum rationalism applied to a show claiming to be a gold standard of anything? That seems back to front to me.

Also, just as an aside, you do realize you contradicted yourself in this post right? First you gripe because of a guy that tosses out paranormal related theory left and right hoping something will stick, express your disapproval that he may return as a guest, and then you gripe about zero tolerance for paranormal discussion. That made me chuckle a bit.

 

[Kandinsky]

Note that the largest monolith - heavier than the Baalbek monolith was the Thunder Stone in St.Petersburg Russia. Excavation was started in 1768, which was well before the big steel/diesel engine prime movers of today. And yet they got it through marshy terrain on man power alone and also boated it across water, no crazy theories needed.

Childress asked why don't we build big with stone anymore? I guess stone is what people skilled themselves with back then, it's what they knew. They had obsessions back then just as we do now, and there were people among them that were perfectionists as well, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could work out efficient techniques.
Nowadays obviously we have other ways of building big. As for why it fell out of favor in later ancient history is probably because of socioeconomic reasons.

I hadn't seen the 'Thunder Stone' before so thanks for pointing it out. Not many people realise that the Romans moved obelisks some 1000 miles from Egypt to Rome across land and sea. One example is the Lateran Obelisk (Lateran Obelisk - Ancient Egyptians), but there are a few more examples.

In terms of why we don't build big with stone anymore? It's an inefficient use of energy, labour and resources. Bricks are more efficient and lighter. Imagine the hole in the ground it would leave to build a city like NY from rock and the weight of the buildings bearing down? Manufacturing bricks can take place in a location hundreds of miles from where they are used.

I guess there are still examples today, but truly monumental stonemasonry ended by the middle of the 20th Century.

 

[Paul Kimball]

To clarify, the radio show sounds more like Rob Simone with wack jobs allowed to take 3 hours of air time unchallenged. Why isn't some of the forum rationalism applied to a show claiming to be a gold standard of anything? That seems back to front to me.

Nick Pope. Dave Sadler. Steve Mera. Stan Friedman. Kevin Randle. Mike MacDonald. Paul Davids. Kathy Marden.

Those are the shows I've co-hosted, and none of those people are "wack jobs." So you didn't like the Childress episode. Neither did I, really. But you judge a show based on all of the episodes, not just one or two you don't like.

At least you do if you want to make an honest appraisal of its merits.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Nick Pope. Dave Sadler. Steve Mera. Stan Friedman. Kevin Randle.

Those are the shows I've co-hosted, and none of those men are "wack jobs." So you didn't like the Childress episode. Neither did I, really. But you judge a show based on all of the episodes, not just one or two you don't like.

At least you do if you want to make an honest appraisal of its merits.

Paul's got a great point. There aren't that many nutters that have appeared on the Paracast. I may not agree with a lot of the guests, but at least most of them have valid and interesting points. Not all of them though, and that's why the forum exists. Let your thoughts be known, just make sure to keep them civil.

 

[tyder001]

It's funny how perception colors our views and this forum is no exception. The "skeptics" are just sure the woo woo crowd is to powerful. The folks (like me) who think there truly is a spiritual side to the universe can sometime feel "ganged up" on by the "Everything has to be test tubed verified" crowd. Yet, for the most part we manage to co-exist. I've never seen enough evidence to be an athiest and ya know what? I never will. Why? Because (and I freely admit it) I don't wanna be. But also becaue I've had my own spiritual experiences that point me in another direction. There are others who are just as sure that atheism is the only logical response to the world. I'll never convince em otherwise. Why? Well, I don't want to for one thing. For another they have made up their minds and perhaps after some soul searching (no pun intended) they just can't logically follow anything that smacks (to them) of woo woo. Anyway, we all wake up in our own skin everyday and being honest with yourself is really all you can do.

But, I digress. I think the show should be re-named. It's not really a show about the "paranormal" (at least not that often) It appears (to me) to be a show about U.F.O.'s and nuts and bolts "are they out there?" O.k. I guess that is "paranormal" but I'd love to see some of the E.S.P. and N.D.E. and even EVP researchers on sometime. I'd love to have Paul Kimball or Greg Bishop hold (with respect of course) Rupert Sheldrake or Raymond Moody's feet to the fire. There is a study by a respected doctor (Don't ask for a link...google the AWARE Program) and I would love to see this kind of research covered at times. But, I understand the show makes it's living on the "outer space" question.

I honestly don't beleive in U.F.O.'s although I've seen something I can't explain and I have posted it in the experiences thread. I think we are "alone" in the universe as far as pyhsical "personages" are concerned. But, that puts me at the extreme skeptics table and they (trust me) don't want me. I'm not in line with the jimmie randi gang. But, anyway that's my two cents worth and I'll listen but so far I don't see any reason to think we are being visited by people from another planet.

 

[SLVA]

Thanks for your reply also dude. Yep fair point (again forum manners go a long way) Two of those better known names are also there just to sell books. Well researched yes, but a pitch all the same, I guess that's the only way the field interfaces with it's audience outside of going to a conference. I was a bit harsh, but then so is the response on here to a forum topic like crop formations for instance. Mean while on the show it's like Disney Land Free Masons and the Big Foot Nazi conspiracy.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It's funny how perception colors our views and this forum is no exception. The "skeptics" are just sure the woo woo crowd is to powerful. The folks (like me) who think there truly is a spiritual side to the universe can sometime feel "ganged up" on by the "Everything has to be test tubed verified" crowd. Yet, for the most part we manage to co-exist. I've never seen enough evidence to be an athiest and ya know what? I never will. Why? Because (and I freely admit it) I don't wanna be. But also becaue I've had my own spiritual experiences that point me in another direction. There are others who are just as sure that atheism is the only logical response to the world. I'll never convince em otherwise. Why? Well, I don't want to for one thing. For another they have made up their minds and perhaps after some soul searching (no pun intended) they just can't logically follow anything that smacks (to them) of woo woo. Anyway, we all wake up in our own skin everyday and being honest with yourself is really all you can do.

But, I digress. I think the show should be re-named. It's not really a show about the "paranormal" (at least not that often) It appears (to me) to be a show about U.F.O.'s and nuts and bolts "are they out there?" O.k. I guess that is "paranormal" but I'd love to see some of the E.S.P. and N.D.E. and even EVP researchers on sometime. I'd love to have Paul Kimball or Greg Bishop hold (with respect of course) Rupert Sheldrake or Raymond Moody's feet to the fire. There is a study by a respected doctor (Don't ask for a link...google the AWARE Program) and I would love to see this kind of research covered at times. But, I understand the show makes it's living on the "outer space" question.

I honestly don't beleive in U.F.O.'s although I've seen something I can't explain and I have posted it in the experiences thread. I think we are "alone" in the universe as far as pyhsical "personages" are concerned. But, that puts me at the extreme skeptics table and they (trust me) don't want me. I'm not in line with the jimmie randi gang. But, anyway that's my two cents worth and I'll listen but so far I don't see any reason to think we are being visited by people from another planet.

You really think that in the vastness that is the universe, we're the only advanced life forms?
And yes, you are definitely not in line with the "Randi gang" as that's not the consensus among most astronomers and cosmologists, who in your eyes are probably part of this horrible, godless group of skeptics.

 

[tyder001]

to your credit that's about as snarky as I've ever heard you get. But, you are correct that is what I do/don't believe.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

to your credit that's about as snarky as I've ever heard you get. But, you are correct that is what I do/don't believe.

I like you Tyder - I was in no way trying to be snarky with you. Sorry about that.

 

[tyder001]

I'm sorry to. As they say in Alabama "I didn't mean to get my panties in a wad."

Peace.

 

[Ron Collins]

...This next bit, you're right I did contradict myself, under the assumption that The Paracast show & forum are the same thing. I guess I was trying to say it seems they are not. To clarify, the radio show sounds more like Rob Simone with wack jobs allowed to take 3 hours of air time unchallenged. Why isn't some of the forum rationalism applied to a show claiming to be a gold standard of anything? That seems back to front to me.

I disagree. I'll let gene respond to this part if he likes.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

I think we are "alone" in the universe as far as pyhsical "personages" are concerned.

This absolutely astounds me. So you look at the vastness of the cosmos and think, "Yep, we are it!"? Seriously? I am honestly at a loss for words.

 

[tyder001]

I disagree. I'll let gene respond to this part if he likes.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------

While one of my pet peeves with this forum is the constant snide"remarks" about other shows from some posters I will say this. The Paracast has always held the guest it has to a high standard. However, if Gene didn't treat the guest with a certain amount of respect the show would die. You can't yell at every guest to show you the test tube results or produce documentation everytime they open their mouth. I think the Paracast does a good job of walking that line between "good host" and accountabiltiy.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------

I disagree. I'll let gene respond to this part if he likes.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------



This absolutely astounds me. So you look at the vastness of the cosmos and think, "Yep, we are it!"? Seriously? I am honestly at a loss for words.

I don't believe you are at a loss for werds! U R A purty good words person.

No honestly Ron I just think that we're it. I could be wrong. Maybe we will find out someday.

 

[Will Penguin]

You can't yell at every guest to show you the test tube results or produce documentation everytime they open their mouth. I think the Paracast does a good job of walking that line between "good host" and accountabiltiy.

You've touched upon a peeve of mine regarding some attitudes on this forum. Look, I'm all for scientific, rational exploration of what we call the "paranormal", as well as the UFO question. But you can't sepnd every minute of every episode yelling "But... THE PROOF! Can you privide EVIDENCE?!" It's fine to ask probing questions but at a certain point you've gotta have a dialog.

Look, it's up to US, as listeners, to decide how credible we find the guests, and to do additional research if we want to take it further. The hosts can only do so much before the show becomes a cross-examination rather than a radio show.

And besides, not everything has to be scientifically provable, or confirmed by five eye-witnesses who provide signed statements and video footage from three different angles, to be interesting. Things are what they are. I have no problem with speculation or anecdotes, because I recognize them to be just that.

 

[paraschtick]

I brought up the Moriori in my discussion with Paul.

Did you? Bugger ... sorry about that. Anyway, there is an ongoing debate in NZ about who owns the seashore. The Maori of course want it for themselves because they were here before the "pakeha" (the white people ... in my mind its a vaguely racist term) ... but of course they weren't the first ones here ... and noone really owns the seashore, so its all rather silly.

But they're forever getting vast amounts of money for having land taken away from them ... which they took from the moriori. So ... if someone can prove that say the Celts were here before anyone else I've got more claim to the land than anyone ... since I'm of Celtic blood ... and related to the Tudors (which is neither here nor there ) ... and well I could do with a couple of bob for doing nothing all day .

[Oh and of course, the Maori didn't actually do anything with their land when they had it ... but now the Europeans come along take it off them, use it for whatever ... crops, homes etc ... they want it back ... but of course with huge amounts of money for reparations/emotional damage etc ... hmmm no wonder some people over here get a bit p*ssed off about it all ]

 

[ArchieBedford]

In fact there is some very odd archaeological evidence that has been uncovered and remains unsatisfactorily explained. And there are a host of mysteries surrounding the presence of the moon beyond the fact that it is the same size as the sun when viewed from the earth (most recently, I read an excellent astronomy / physics article on why the moon could not have been created by a large celestial body colliding with the earth in the distant past).

Tom - do you have a reference or weblink for this please?

Cheers.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Archie, thanks for the note. I am currently in Tokyo, so I will need to do this from memory.

Regarding odd occurrences in archaeology, Michael Cremo (Forbidden Archaeology) has published quite extensively on the topic. Now, to be clear, I don't buy into everything Cremo says, but he does point to a number of discoveries that, if true, make one wonder. For example, evidently in Texas several decades ago researchers removed a heavy layer of rock/limestone when excavating and discovered what appear to be human footprints preserved right alongside dinosaur footprints. The mainstream has tried to argue that the footprints were not in fact human, but Cremo and others claim otherwise. Additionally, in the late 1800s evidently some figurines finely crafted out of metal were found embedded rock dated to be millions of years old (I believe this occurred in California). Miners working significantly below the Earth's surface uncovered the metal as part of a mining operation, and a well known professor at Harvard at the time seized upon the material as evidence that Darwin was in fact wrong. Cremo points to inter alia primary source materials, principally news articles in the local newspapers (San Francisco?), as evidence supporting his arguments. These are but two examples I recall.

Regarding the oddities surrounding the Moon, there is a book by Christopher Knight entitled Who Built the Moon? Again, I don't agree with his conclusions, but he does detail a whole bunch of facts that are quite odd (including a relationship between the English system of measurements and the Earth/Moon relationship, as deduced by an English engineer who was curious about some odd stone markers around the U.K.). While I haven't read the book, George Leonard wrote Somebody Else is on the Moon, in which he points to a number of NASA photographs as evidence that something very odd is happening there. Ingo Swann's Penetration details moon anomalies (which he investigated after he remote viewed a bunch of stuff on the far side). I will try to PM you with the article that argues against the creation of the Moon from the Earth due to a massive collision with a third celestial body -- it is sitting in my inbox at home.

All these researchers claim that these contrary facts get dismissed and covered up because they do not conform to the status quo of the time (ala' the observations that large celestial bodies can bend light, until Albert Einstein showed up on the scene).

Tom

 

[Kevin Daly]

Really? I thought somebody suggested that the guest implied the moon isn't rotating, just a few posts up.




Whether the rotation should be described with the adjectives like "odd," "peculiar," "weird," "unique" or not can be debated I guess. Myself, with limited knowledge of astrology and physics, tend to think it's pretty odd how evenly synchronized the rotation and orbit are. That doesn't mean it's "proof" for anything. Just a little odd.

That would be astronomy. Don't give Phil a heart attack with the other "a-" word, he seems a nice person if somewhat dogmatic.

I wasn't sure what Childress was saying about the Moon's rotation, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one since it's hard to describe. But I was annoyed by the fact that he seemed to make no attempt to inform himself of the generally accepted versions of things like the origin of the Moon (since Apollo the majority opinion has been that it's the result of a collision with a Mars-sized object, something that fits the soil samples and which has been mathematically modelled quite convincingly by all accounts), and likes to seize upon any attractively gee-whiz theory whether it's actually supported by any real evidence or not.