• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

August 12, 2018 — Dr. Richard Bonenfant with J. Randall Murphy



Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
#1
Whether you believe cattle mutilations to be Earth-based or they have a connection with UFOs, you'll enjoy this episode.

It sparked some fascinating discussions between Randall and me on After The Paracast this weekend.

After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+. For more information about our premium subscription service, please check: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
#2
Richard seemed very intelligent. But as with crop circles, virtually all, if not all, cattle mutilations that fall into the "high strangeness category, are almost certainly dome by humans. I'm sure that a large number of the mutilations are due to predation.
 
Last edited:

kanakaris

Paranormal Adept
#4
Very good episode and guest.Too bad about the sound quality.What i found striking is that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as Mad Cow Disease, the result is of feeding cows with blood, bone, and other unwanted flesh from animals that are probably infected. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, BSE spread within the United Kingdom and then to other countries through the practice of using rendered bovine origin proteins as an ingredient in cow feed. This reminds me of a quote that Rudolf Steiner wrote more than 90 years ago : "If an ox were to consume meat directly," he declared, "the ox would go crazy."
 

Frank F. Kling

Paranormal Novice
#6
Richard seemed very intelligent. But as with crop circles, virtually all, if not all, cattle mutilations that fall into the "high strangeness category, are almost certainly dome by humans. I'm sure that a large number of the mutilations are due to predation.
What facts do you have to support your opinion that all muts. are done by humans? In terms of predation, do you really think farmers and ranchers are incapable of recognizing a predator kill? Such arrogance and hubris. I grew up on a farm in Missouri when the neighboring community of Elsberry was plagued with UFO sightings and cattle mutilations in 1978. The farming community and the sheriff's department and TV reporters for ABC from St. Louis knew ET entities were responsible for this outbreak (
)
. And Dr. Bonenfant's theory why the muts, are occurring makes perfect sense. P.S. if as you claim humans are responsible for the thousands of worldwide mutilations, why has law enforcement been unable to make an arrest?
 

Frank F. Kling

Paranormal Novice
#7
Found the show enjoyable and rather ignore noisy negatives. Instead keep an open mind.
Thank you, blowfish, for a voice of reason. If you are interested in exploring further, check out this interview conducted by a Montana physician named Richard O'Connor with two Montana retired sheriffs regarding their decades-long investigation into muts.
. While growing up on a farm in Missouri, in 1978 the neighboring community of Elsberry was plagued with UFO sightings and cattle mutilations. The farming community and the sheriff's department and TV reporters for ABC from St. Louis knew ET entities were responsible for this outbreak. Interesting compilation of news stories:
 

Frank F. Kling

Paranormal Novice
#8
After listening to Randall’s critique of Dr. Bonenfant on after The Paracast, I felt compelled to post a reply. Firstly, in terms of predation, do you honestly believe farmers and ranchers who have spent a lifetime in the field of animal husbandry and many have graduated with a BS degree in agriculture, are incapable of differentiating a predator kill? Then Randall stated that Dr. Bonenfant relied almost exclusively on Linda Moulton Howe’s fieldwork. Patently false. If Randall had read Dr. Bonenfant’s White Paper treatment on the subject, then he would know that a variety of sources have been used. Although, I am baffled by why you believe Ms. Howe’s field work is deficient. Ms. Howe is the original researcher to break this story in the late 1970s and her HBO documentary on mutilations received numerous awards. Then there’s the subject of Chris O'Brien. What exactly qualifies Mr. O’brien as the definitive source on this subject? Since you brought up credentials, what are Mr. O’brien’s qualifications in terms of higher educational degrees and/or professional work experience?

I’m sure there is much more, but after five minutes of listening to Chris O'Brien's initiated smear campaign, I stopped listening. Mr. O’brien has a tendency to attack other researchers who disagree with his conclusions.
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
#9
Maybe if you'd read my book w/ its hundreds and hundreds of case histories that show the probable involvement of humans i.e., classic mutes (NOT "muts") killed w/ firearms, every chemical substance you can think of showing up in blood work ups, every type of tranquilizer, barbiturate, nicotides, blood thinners—even mescaline in one AR case... Linda et al only talk about the 4-5% of cases that support their theory. I am intellectually honest and look at ALL cases (the majority being unusual appearing scavenger action.) Out of 200 cases that I personally investigated, around 40 were real cases done w/ sharp instruments w/ intelligence and out of those, 7 or 8 that were "high-strange." Do the math.

As far as my background... I was given instructions (and field protocols) by (and had a working relationship with) several veterinarians, two veterinarian pathologists, a hematologist, a NM state trooper, two microbiologists and worked closely w/ four county sheriffs. I have been a consultant for seven county sheriffs and a Native American law enforcement department of public safety. Listen to last week's interview I had w/ John Greenwald maybe you'll learn something...

For the record, I'm not a veterinarian pathologist nor have I ever claimed to be an expert, but I know one hell of a lot more about this subject than you do. I also am an open-minded and fair team player who does not go around looking for data to support a foregone conclusion. I DO NOT attack other researchers, I simply call into question their intellectual honesty and lack of ability to work w/ others who don't agree w/ their conclusions. The proof is in the data Mr. Troll, not in our opinions or calcified beliefs around the subject.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#10
Maybe if you'd read my book w/ its hundreds and hundreds of case histories that show the probable involvement of humans i.e., classic mutes (NOT "muts") killed w/ firearms, every chemical substance you can think of showing up in blood work ups, every type of tranquilizer, barbiturate, nicotides, blood thinners—even mescaline in one AR case... Linda et al only talk about the 4-5% of cases that support their theory. I am intellectually honest and look at ALL cases (the majority being unusual appearing scavenger action.) Out of 200 cases that I personally investigated, around 40 were real cases done w/ sharp instruments w/ intelligence and out of those, 7 or 8 that were "high-strange." Do the math.

As far as my background... I was given instructions (and field protocols) by (and had a working relationship with) several veterinarians, two veterinarian pathologists, a hematologist, a NM state trooper, two microbiologists and worked closely w/ four county sheriffs. I have been a consultant for seven county sheriffs and a Native American law enforcement department of public safety. Listen to last week's interview I had w/ John Greenwald maybe you'll learn something...

For the record, I'm not a veterinarian pathologist nor have I ever claimed to be an expert, but I know one hell of a lot more about this subject than you do. I also am an open-minded and fair team player who does not go around looking for data to support a foregone conclusion. I DO NOT attack other researchers, I simply call into question their intellectual honesty and lack of ability to work w/ others who don't agree w/ their conclusions. The proof is in the data Mr. Troll, not in our opinions or calcified beliefs around the subject.
Thanks for your input Chris. We really missed you during this one.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#11
After listening to Randall’s critique of Dr. Bonenfant on after The Paracast, I felt compelled to post a reply. Firstly, in terms of predation, do you honestly believe farmers and ranchers who have spent a lifetime in the field of animal husbandry and many have graduated with a BS degree in agriculture, are incapable of differentiating a predator kill? Then Randall stated that Dr. Bonenfant relied almost exclusively on Linda Moulton Howe’s fieldwork. Patently false.
Thanks for the comments and for listening to ATP. I admit that I'm out of my depth on this subject and deferred to Chris' views because I trust his ability as a researcher. You should also recall that I said Bonenfant relied "mainly" ( not "exclusively" ) on LMH, which simply implies a larger portion than others. For that I was again deferring to Chris' position, and it also seemed to be substantiated by the blog post here: Significant Observations Relating to Animal Mutilations, Expanded & Revised, By Richard Bonenfant, Ph.D.: HybridsRising.com in which LMH is credited for over 30% of the content compared to the others which are cited just over 5% percent each.

That being said, during the interview it was apparent that Bonenfant had also read a number of other sources, and that is one of the things that impressed me.
So admittedly, when I said "mainly", it might be the case that if all his work were added up that the percentages could be different. Hopefully you'll forgive me as I'm still getting used to doing these interviews. I'll make more of an effort in the future to better substantiate such comments before making them. Can you please provide a link to the white paper you mentioned?
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#12
 
Last edited:

Nyet Nikovo

Paranormal Novice
#13
I thoroughly enjoy the Paracast, yet rarely jump into the fray here. Some guests are merely entertaining, others both entertaining and informed. I found Dr. Bonenfant to be a wonderful guest, and hope you will have him back in the future. Rational, articulate, seemingly able to back up his assertions with data, citations, and specific incidents. His soft-spoken nature, in the case of the show's topics, served as a bonus for concentrating on the substance vs style. With regard to NDE's, the listener was treated to a battle of hypotheses, neither of which can be definitively proven. As I listened to the intellectual tennis match between Randall and the Dr, several themes kept coming to mind. Randall's point about subjective memory and/or the lack of an observer in the necessary frame of reference echoed Kant, that without the aid of a non-human observer, we are faced with the inability to ultimately distinguish truly objective reality from any added artifacts that occur because of the physiology and mechanics of the brain and memory. Kant, Heisenberg, and Kierkegaard do all seem to come crashing together at a brick wall of epistemology. Dr. Bonenfant's postulating about non-locality and the mind as a mechanism linking our consciousness to a different quantum state was fascinating, and echoes some current thinking on the very nature of consciousness (quantum vibrations in microtubules, Penrose and Hameroff 2014). And ultimately, for both sides of the discussion, I was reminded (as is the case for so much of what the Paracast delves in to) that the lack of proof of does not constitute disproof.
 
#14
Randall, you are being disingenuous. Regarding your first source, there is no mention in the article that this was classified as an animal mut. case. The information states, "The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office has charged a man for stealing a cow that was slaughtered on New Year's Eve." Your second source is an editorial. Your third source, occurring in the early 1900s, falls far outside the time period in question. Is this the best you can do to prove human involvement?
 
#15
Maybe if you'd read my book w/ its hundreds and hundreds of case histories that show the probable involvement of humans i.e., classic mutes (NOT "muts") killed w/ firearms, every chemical substance you can think of showing up in blood work ups, every type of tranquilizer, barbiturate, nicotides, blood thinners—even mescaline in one AR case... Linda et al only talk about the 4-5% of cases that support their theory. I am intellectually honest and look at ALL cases (the majority being unusual appearing scavenger action.) Out of 200 cases that I personally investigated, around 40 were real cases done w/ sharp instruments w/ intelligence and out of those, 7 or 8 that were "high-strange." Do the math.

As far as my background... I was given instructions (and field protocols) by (and had a working relationship with) several veterinarians, two veterinarian pathologists, a hematologist, a NM state trooper, two microbiologists and worked closely w/ four county sheriffs. I have been a consultant for seven county sheriffs and a Native American law enforcement department of public safety. Listen to last week's interview I had w/ John Greenwald maybe you'll learn something...

For the record, I'm not a veterinarian pathologist nor have I ever claimed to be an expert, but I know one hell of a lot more about this subject than you do. I also am an open-minded and fair team player who does not go around looking for data to support a foregone conclusion. I DO NOT attack other researchers, I simply call into question their intellectual honesty and lack of ability to work w/ others who don't agree w/ their conclusions. The proof is in the data Mr. Troll, not in our opinions or calcified beliefs around the subject.
You do not attack other researchers. Utter bullshit. This statement alone proves you are dishonest. There is lots of evidence that you do. Example, regarding the YouTube video I posted above, Dr. Richard O'Connor's interview with two Montana sheriffs, you wrote a number of self-serving and inappropriate statements in the comment section concerning Dr. O'Connor and the two sheriffs. Rightfully so, the public forcefully rejected your commentary.
Save the "Mr. Troll" and your other word garbage for someone who cares what you say. By the way, you are right about one thing, I would never buy your book.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#16
Randall, you are being disingenuous. Regarding your first source, there is no mention in the article that this was classified as an animal mut. case. The information states, "The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office has charged a man for stealing a cow that was slaughtered on New Year's Eve." Your second source is an editorial. Your third source, occurring in the early 1900s, falls far outside the time period in question. Is this the best you can do to prove human involvement?
I posted the links purely for interest's sake and made no particular claim about them, therefore there's nothing disingenuous about the post.
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
#17
You do not attack other researchers. Utter bullshit. This statement alone proves you are dishonest. There is lots of evidence that you do. Example, regarding the YouTube video I posted above, Dr. Richard O'Connor's interview with two Montana sheriffs, you wrote a number of self-serving and inappropriate statements in the comment section concerning Dr. O'Connor and the two sheriffs. Rightfully so, the public forcefully rejected your commentary.
Save the "Mr. Troll" and your other word garbage for someone who cares what you say. By the way, you are right about one thing, I would never buy your book.
My comments were pointing out that the interviewer (he didn't rate the term "researcher") was leading the witnesses, putting words in their mouth, plain and simple...go back and re-read my remarks. The interviewer's obvious lack of experience glaringly showed why being objective and neutral is so important when interviewing witnesses of unusual events. As someone who has interviewed thousands of people, I simply pointed this out. I never wrote anything about the two sheriffs, (I highly respect and admire the work of Wolverton and his colleague and say so in my book) my remarks were solely about the embarrassingly amateurish way the interview was conducted, Mr Troll.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#18
You do not attack other researchers. Utter bullshit.
I reviewed @Christopher O'Brien's post as well as his comments on the video you posted and all of them are well within tolerance. Yours on the other hand are pushing the red line.
This statement alone proves you are dishonest.
It does no such thing.
There is lots of evidence that you do. Example, regarding the YouTube video I posted above, Dr. Richard O'Connor's interview with two Montana sheriffs, you wrote a number of self-serving and inappropriate statements in the comment section concerning Dr. O'Connor and the two sheriffs. Rightfully so, the public forcefully rejected your commentary.
Actually it looks to me like Chris has more thumbs up and positive responses than most.
Save the "Mr. Troll" and your other word garbage for someone who cares what you say. By the way, you are right about one thing, I would never buy your book.
Accusing someone of being a troll when they're not is a form of trolling and right now IMO that's what you're doing. Please address the actual content rather than the person making the post.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#19
I thoroughly enjoy the Paracast, yet rarely jump into the fray here. Some guests are merely entertaining, others both entertaining and informed. I found Dr. Bonenfant to be a wonderful guest, and hope you will have him back in the future. Rational, articulate, seemingly able to back up his assertions with data, citations, and specific incidents. His soft-spoken nature, in the case of the show's topics, served as a bonus for concentrating on the substance vs style. With regard to NDE's, the listener was treated to a battle of hypotheses, neither of which can be definitively proven. As I listened to the intellectual tennis match between Randall and the Dr, several themes kept coming to mind. Randall's point about subjective memory and/or the lack of an observer in the necessary frame of reference echoed Kant, that without the aid of a non-human observer, we are faced with the inability to ultimately distinguish truly objective reality from any added artifacts that occur because of the physiology and mechanics of the brain and memory. Kant, Heisenberg, and Kierkegaard do all seem to come crashing together at a brick wall of epistemology. Dr. Bonenfant's postulating about non-locality and the mind as a mechanism linking our consciousness to a different quantum state was fascinating, and echoes some current thinking on the very nature of consciousness (quantum vibrations in microtubules, Penrose and Hameroff 2014). And ultimately, for both sides of the discussion, I was reminded (as is the case for so much of what the Paracast delves in to) that the lack of proof of does not constitute disproof.
Good post and all fair comment. We were able to discuss the issues in a friendly and constructive point/counterpoint way. That IMO is how good discourse on contentious topics should go, and I'm glad it made it more entertaining for you. I actually wish we had more time to deal with the NDE segment, but you know how it goes. As I always say when it comes to proof: Proof is simply evidence that is sufficient to justify belief in a claim. With respect to experiential phenomena that makes it very subjective. It's far less subjective however, when logic is applied to evidence that is common ( or agreeable ) to all sides, and that is what I tend to base my analyses on.
 
Last edited:

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
#20
Notice how when I presented evidence of obvious human involvement in the mute mystery, Frank went off the rails...well, you can't notice because Randall deleted our posts. This is a perfect example of why I dislike this field of study. The people who have their minds made up, when presented w/ cold, hard facts that refute their thinking, resort to personal attacks and completely ignore the facts that have been presented. I wouldn't try and argue w/ Ray Stanford about dinosaur tracks and if someone wants to debate me on the mutes, fasten yer seatbelt because (whether you like it or not) I've forgotten more about the subject than you could ever possibly know! I ain't blowing my horn, just stating the facts, no matter how much they may shatter your illusions around the subject, Frank.
 

Top