• 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!

Bill Chalker - Oct 11, 2009

Forums New posts
I taught the Audio was fine in this interview, but last weeks interview with Ray, the audio was terrible for me.It strange, since i believe Ray has a home in America? and Bill is resident in Sydney Australia, so naturally, you would think, the audio would be better on Ray Stanford end of the line.I never had any problems understanding other nations speaking the English language. I have been lucky to have met people from other nations like Spain, Germany, France, Brazil, Australia, the far east and others, some had little English and others from this countries were fluent in English, and i have found sometimes, with people who where from non English speaking countries, at times you would not even now they where not native English speakers, unless they told you themselves.Every country has there own unique accent when they speak English, it mixed with the native tongue. I am mistaken above, the only country, i ever had trouble understanding, was when that person who spoke English was a Scottish person. It so hard, and i ponder about it sometimes, like Scotland is only across the water a few hundred miles away, and my culture has a history with the Scottish people, But when they speak English, it very hard to understand, what is being said weird.
 
I took Codeine, and another drug for a week and half, after i had an Dental operation, never once had side effects, like the ones mentioned in this thread. Well the only thing my doctor said is, i advise you not to drive, if you take both drugs at the same time.
 
Gene and David, great interview!
Good to finally hear Bill Chalker, very interesting guest. I had read a lot about the Kelly Cahill case in the nineties but then the reporting of it seemed to dry up. I noted that Kelly had gone to the US on a speaking tour, i believe and after that she seemed to go quiet.
Bill's explanation about the group investigating the case would explain the lack of follow up and info release about the case.
Thanks again guys!!!
 
I enjoyed the podcast but was frustrated by one aspect of the hair sample. In response to David's question, Bill mentions the biochemists would not put their names on the DNA results. This is a significant setback in my opinion because it casts doubt on the credibility. I'm not criticizing Bill, I think he did the best he could under the circumstances. In fact he found very competent individuals to work on the sample and that is important. However, it really doesn't advance the field if no one is brave enough to stand behind their work. It seems like this has been a recurring theme in regards to Paranormal events. I can't help but feel disappointed when money and reputations are worth more than advancing human understanding. I thought the foundation of scientific research is to reveal truth without personal bias. Whatever happened to pride in one's work and taking a stand? Galileo would be pissed. Apologies if I sound terribly idealistic ;)
 
I don't think it's fair for anyone who has not had to make those kinds of decisions to criticize those who have chosen not to wreck their careers for what might be some kind of "advancement" for humankind. I have a huge amount of respect for people like John Mack, who have stood up and proclaimed their findings and then fought to keep their jobs. I seriously doubt that I would have the guts to do that, and it's pretty obvious that most people in his position do not. One does not have to dig very far into the history of the paranormal in order to find examples of people with Mack's courage, but who ended up in a much different situation. Google "James E McDonald" for an example of someone whose career and personal life suffered from just the kind of thing you advocate. There are others too, of course, and some have very sad stories. The careers of archaeologists who failed to toe the party line have been ruined, too, along with people in any number of other disciplines. I don't like it any better than anyone else does, but if you end up losing your job over some UFO case or whatever, then you don't get to do any science at all.

As I recall from the interview with Bill Chalker, there was a well known biologist who went on record as supporting the work and conclusions of the anonymous scientists. That's good enough for me. Actually, I don't have any trouble taking the word of an investigator like Chalker when he describes the kind of people he got to do the research. If some other researcher who did not seem to be trustworthy said the same thing, then that's a different matter. We all know there are too many of those.
 
Double Nought Spy

You make good points and I am actually in agreement with what you are saying. The main point I wanted to make is that I respect professional fortitude. I understand the circumstances these people are in. At the end of the day they still have to pay bills and get their kids through school. I just think the public perception of this topic suffers when people are afraid to speak out. I'm not criticizing Bill Chalker's integrity and the biochemists don't have to live by my code of ethics. However, I do think I can say that one path is the safe one and the other one takes cajones. People have the right to choose either one and still be a respected professional, but I have more admiration for the ones that choose the latter. I just think it's a shame to have something tangible that won't get the consideration it deserves.
 
fencejumper said:
Double Nought Spy

I just think it's a shame to have something tangible that won't get the consideration it deserves.
Click to expand...

Well put. Physical evidence of abduction-type experiences is scarce as hens' teeth, and to have any equivocation (real or imagined) about an analysis is indeed unfortunate.
 
My chimes added to the song...

I just went to iTunes and wrote a positive review for this PodCast. I read some of the negative ones, too, and agree with Gene that some of them look staged by, I'm sure, some of their enemies. Most of the negative ones were way off base, though some of them I agreed with a point or two they were far too harsh in the actual star-rating. I threw my voice in there to counter some of the BS attacks.

Regarding the sexual attack/abduction, I don't believe Mr. Chalker understood where David was coming from in his questioning. If I were a firm believer in this experience, I would certainly say that the two aliens in question were there for a sexual experience or encounter, even if the victim wasn't. On that note, from a skeptical view, I really need some of those drugs if I'm going to start hallucinating about hot aliens in my bedroom, especially if I wake up with trace evidence on my penis. The only thing that would really tick me off is the memory loss. I would be violently upset about that.

I've read a post or two (or eight) criticizing the biochemists that Mr. Chalker got his results from. To me this is an understandable, if unfortunate reality in paranormal research, whether it's UFO's, ghosts, or cryptids. Yes, praise for the scientists who make such discoveries and trumpet their results to the world, but sympathy and understanding to those who do not want to step into that limelight and risk job, family, and friends. Of course it sheds a serious light of doubt on the results and findings, but in the end, I guess, we're just forced to trust the "front man", in this case Mr. Chalker. From what I heard, he seems extremely credible and trustworthy.

Sound quality - yeah, for me it really sucked. It was terrible, for some reason. Gene sounded great, David was a bit tinny, but Bill was horrible. I could barely understand him in some places. I chalked (no pun) it up to Bill being in Australia.

Over all, another fine episode. Thank you Bill, Gene, and David.
 
I thought Bill was a good guest. I appreciate his efforts to investigate the Khoury case, as well as others that he discussed on this episode.
 
Thanks for doing this episode Gene & David, was great to hear a fellow aussie on and backed up my beliefs of where Chalker stands and that is, discovering some truths.
 
I just finished listening the episode. Once again I wonder how our brains works, suddenly while listening the second part of the episode I realized that I could understand Bill's English quite well, I managed to get use to its features quite quickly :)

Now I would really want to hear Bill again on other episode with more info about Chinese cases and as soon as his has a new info from the further Alien DNA investigation it will be fascinating to know what stuff he managed to digg up.

Speaking of China, obviously The Great China FireWall works and it is hard to get a picture of what's going on in a country with 1/5 of the Earth population in terms of the UFO phenomena. I mean we all have been waiting for more direct evidence, more physical, tangible stuff to analyze, but meanwhile there might be such evidence in China but we have no a slightest idea about it.
 
I was thinking today in my mind, about what David said to Bill in relation to the two female beings , and rather or not Peter, thought that this was a sexual act or not that took place. Well for me, i think if you find a hair on your penis, something must have happened, like why, would it be there in the first place unless some type of sexual contact happened? You can come up with a whole series of scenarios, for why he, peter can not remember how it got there, lost memory of the experience, a possibility,maybe?

Bill said also during the interview, the human blonde looking being, three times with force pushed peters head towards her nipple, and according to Peter,he bite it and swallowed it. Suddenly, he got a coughing fit, the women disappeared and this cough fit lasted a few days.

According to peter too, just after these women vanished, he had a strong urge to go the toilet, and it was painful for him to urinate, and this is when he, peter saw the blonde hair on his penis.

I think, when you have a case like this, nothing makes sense to me, what the fuck are we dealing with, seriously? It like the twilight zone or something. Peter bites a bit of the nipple, and not a scream or a yell from the women, not a single drop of blood, and what we know from the DNA according to Bill, these two women had genetics similar to us human beings.If this case is to be believed, this two women in my opinion, are not human, and i can be positive in that statement. Now, if the whole case, is total bullshit, then, everything i said here does not matter, but if not, and this case is a genuine encounter, Then you have the ask... why is there no other traces of other DNA in the hair sample only, but the rare human DNA.. Have these aliens no DNA or does it not show up on a test? i am bit ignorant of the whole DNA Process.. So anyone with an answer?
 
Being an Aussie myself, and somewhat used to many accents from around the globe - I had no problem. Other shows have much "crappier" audio, so I would think it was possibly the tech. regardless or not of some people not understanding our accent, the information and the researcher was interesting.
There are many other paranormal happenings down here too. Bill has touched on many of them over time also. Thanks fer the interview. Great to hear an Aussie telling it true.:D
 
Irishseekers said:
I think, when you have a case like this, nothing makes sense to me, what the fuck are we dealing with, seriously? It like the twilight zone or something. Peter bites a bit of the nipple, and not a scream or a yell from the women, not a single drop of blood, and what we know from the DNA according to Bill, these two women had genetics similar to us human beings.If this case is to be believed, this two women in my opinion, are not human, and i can be positive in that statement. Now, if the whole case, is total bullshit, then, everything i said here does not matter, but if not, and this case is a genuine encounter, Then you have the ask... why is there no other traces of other DNA in the hair sample only, but the rare human DNA.. Have these aliens no DNA or does it not show up on a test? i am bit ignorant of the whole DNA Process.. So anyone with an answer?
Click to expand...

I think there's a very large chunk of the story that's missing.
 
Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but I rather enjoy any English accent other than my own, which is American TV Broadcaster Common (really). The only English accent I can't understand is Scottish. I went to a conference in Sweden a few years ago on telecommunications. The content was in English from people all over the world: Egypt, France, South Africa, etc. The only person I simply could not understand was from Scotland.
 
Irishseekers said:
I think, when you have a case like this, nothing makes sense to me, what the fuck are we dealing with, seriously? It like the twilight zone or something. Peter bites a bit of the nipple, and not a scream or a yell from the women, not a single drop of blood, and what we know from the DNA according to Bill, these two women had genetics similar to us human beings.If this case is to be believed, this two women in my opinion, are not human, and i can be positive in that statement. Now, if the whole case, is total bullshit, then, everything i said here does not matter, but if not, and this case is a genuine encounter, Then you have the ask... why is there no other traces of other DNA in the hair sample only, but the rare human DNA.. Have these aliens no DNA or does it not show up on a test? i am bit ignorant of the whole DNA Process.. So anyone with an answer?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what we are dealing with here. On the surface there seems to be a lack off finesse, empathy and understanding. Even in those bizarre cases where there's a sexual element. If you take the "believer" approach one could argue that the women were human-alien hybrids trying to sort out sexuality and maybe create further offspring. It might explain the way they're going about their business which from our perspective is just bizarre.
It's a bit reminiscent of the Antonio Villas Boas story;
Wikimedia

Like another poster said, I also think there's a chunck missing of Peter Khoury's episode. What I don't understand is if this account is true, why do they bumble around the way they do? Shoot, if you're an alien woman with all the girly-bits in the right places it wouldn't be that hard to bring the bee to the flower. They don't even have to use force if they play it smart. With a little understanding of how our (or men's) psyche work, no one would know about sexual oriented abductions. There would just be some outlandish kinky stories in Playboy magazine.

With the DNA results I'm equally baffled and don't know what to make of it. It might be that they are already related, genetic wise. But your guess is as good as mine.
 
Regarding the issue of 'alien DNA' it seems to me that if 'aliens have DNA' then they aren't 'aliens' at all. I know there are those in the UFO field who don't have a problem with it. Even in the movie "ET" there is a seminal line, "He's got DNA!" Well, I do have a problem with it. I can understand how general characteristics such as bipedal walking could be a natural form of reaction to gravity, meaning the hominid form, roughly, could be prevalent in the Universe, the forelegs evolving into 'hands' with opposable thumbs, leading to civilization.

But I don't buy the idea that a completely alien life form born on a completely different ecosystem would develop the same exact form of replication, including the exact same four amino acids tied together in helical form with exactly the same number of genes to transmit heredity. After several courses in applied statistics I still don't know how to compute the odds for this, but they are, if you will excuse the term, astronomically high against this possibility. Can we exclude the possibility altogether? Nope. That's not how statistics works, but for all practical purposes, it's impossible.

There are also those who figure the explanation is in pre-contact, i.e.: We were seeded here by an alien race and are actually from somewhere else, and/or that the human race is much older than we suppose. The evidence for our longer tenure on Earth is usually anecdotal and consists of mysterious and unexplainable artifacts found by a guy who told a guy who told another guy, but the actual artifacts themselves, unearthed in 1850, have gone missing, but there is this here newspaper article written about it, so it must be true and here's the proof. This is the Cremo/von Daniken approach to research. Even if you tabulate thousands of mysterious artifacts, if you can't come up with any today, they're still missing.

The fact is, from everything we have ever learned about our origins, we are from here. We evolved on earth and Homo sapiens is no more than a couple hundred thousand years old. The genus Homo (upright walking), including aferensis, is about three million years old. (OOPS! My mistake. Australopithecus are NOT the genus Homo, they're Australopithecus. Duh! but they are considered hominid/hominim.) That's the time frame we are working with. Prior to that were some sort of apes, monkey like creatures without tails. Do we know everything? Of course not. Do we still espouse untruths? Probably. But in the final analysis it doesn't matter if Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus or the marginally earlier Homo ergastus. (BTW, we've got Neanderthal DNA now. From what we've learned so far, they were way different than us--distant cousins, not close ones.)

We evolved from an ape like creature, probably in a more complex way than we have delineated, and the fact is, there is not one whit of evidence to the contrary. Everything we've discovered amounts to filling in pieces of the general puzzle that we already have the outlines of. This includes fossil evidence, stratigraphic evidence, and dating technologies. Then along comes genetics, completely different in every respect to anthropology, and verifies everything we've discovered. None of these techniques has thrown up a red flag. Every one of them fits. We are all Africans. No matter what came before and how widespread it was, all of us, every last one of us, came out of Africa 150,000-250,000 years ago. Genetics has traced to the very tribe of Bushman we came from, which is still there today. If there were any other hominins (new term for hominid--same thing) already out of Africa at the time of this migration (there probably were), our ancestors wiped them out as they expanded into the rest of the world.

The thing is, we get confused in matters of scale. There is plenty of time within the Homo sapiens species as we know it for there to have been ancient civilizations, whether it was a pre-Egyptian 'higher' civilization with some odd technology or an 'Atlantis' that has now disappeared. I am firmly convinced, for example, that there was a near-Renaissance era culture on the shores of India 12,000 years ago which disappeared when the sea level rose 60 feet after an ice dam broke by Hudson Bay. We were coming off an ice age. It all fits. It also acounts for the flood stories and ancient Vedic texts. This is all well-within the time frame of Homo sapiens. You needn't stretch anything.

If there is time for a star traveling civilization from here within these parameters, I don't know. I kind of doubt it. There is no evidence of infrastructure to support it. If it did happen it would have to be based on entirely different technologies. As for humans contemporaneous with dinosaurs as shown by footprints. OK, WHAT footprints? Where are they? Where can I see them? Show them to me in situ, undisturbed, with provenance. This "he told a guy who told a guy" stuff does not cut it.

We don't want to get too far afield here because any sentence here is fodder for another argument and thread. The issue for purposes here is that we are from here and have not been 'seeded,' therefore if 'aliens' have DNA like ours, they are from here, not from out there. They could very well have 'tweaked' us genetically. The brain size of Homo sapiens developed very rapidly and 'off the curve' of other primates. You could view that as a tweak--or a positive feedback loop.

IF we can get hold of this elusive DNA of 'hybrids' and take a look at it, IF this idea can be confirmed absolutely by the technology we already have in place to do it, then the conclusion must be that the 'aliens' are, in some way, us. Whether the answer lies in some sort of inter dimensional aspect of reality we don't quite get yet, some sort of mind-boggling seemingly impossible time travel, or whether the answer is even more bizarre than that, we simply do not know yet.

But so far, 'alien DNA' is as elusive as implants or the skeleton of a giant seen by a guy in a cave who told a guy who told a guy.....
 
TerraX said:
I'm not sure what we are dealing with here. On the surface there seems to be a lack off finesse, empathy and understanding. Even in those bizarre cases where there's a sexual element. If you take the "believer" approach one could argue that the women were human-alien hybrids trying to sort out sexuality and maybe create further offspring. It might explain the way they're going about their business which from our perspective is just bizarre.
It's a bit reminiscent of the Antonio Villas Boas story;
Wikimedia

Like another poster said, I also think there's a chunck missing of Peter Khoury's episode. What I don't understand is if this account is true, why do they bumble around the way they do? Shoot, if you're an alien woman with all the girly-bits in the right places it wouldn't be that hard to bring the bee to the flower. They don't even have to use force if they play it smart. With a little understanding of how our (or men's) psyche work, no one would know about sexual oriented abductions. There would just be some outlandish kinky stories in Playboy magazine.

With the DNA results I'm equally baffled and don't know what to make of it. It might be that they are already related, genetic wise. But your guess is as good as mine.
Click to expand...

As for for why, These Nordics want sex during these abductions or some other type of sexual experience, with the person, is anyone's guess, we have the story,that they are creating hybrids for some unknown reason, but if they have been around forever longer than us, surely they would have created enough hybrids by now. It a puzzle.

As to the DNA.. I Believe Peter is from the Lebanon, and i have seen his Wife in a picture she is white, but she has brown hair and he has black hair. We have two different types of DNA in the one hair sample, i think it is impossible to find someone today, who would have rare Basque/Gaelic DNA and a rare Asian/mongol DNA in the same hair. Maybe thousands of years ago, with the travelling of the people from Spain to Asia. But since the Hair claimed by Bill and Peter was Blonde also, that is another aspect of the case that is very strange.
 
Schuyler said:
Regarding the issue of 'alien DNA' it seems to me that if 'aliens have DNA' then they aren't 'aliens' at all. I know there are those in the UFO field who don't have a problem with it. Even in the movie "ET" there is a seminal line, "He's got DNA!" Well, I do have a problem with it. I can understand how general characteristics such as bipedal walking could be a natural form of reaction to gravity, meaning the hominid form, roughly, could be prevalent in the Universe, the forelegs evolving into 'hands' with opposable thumbs, leading to civilization.

But I don't buy the idea that a completely alien life form born on a completely different ecosystem would develop the same exact form of replication, including the exact same four amino acids tied together in helical form with exactly the same number of genes to transmit heredity. After several courses in applied statistics I still don't know how to compute the odds for this, but they are, if you will excuse the term, astronomically high against this possibility. Can we exclude the possibility altogether? Nope. That's not how statistics works, but for all practical purposes, it's impossible.

There are also those who figure the explanation is in pre-contact, i.e.: We were seeded here by an alien race and are actually from somewhere else, and/or that the human race is much older than we suppose. The evidence for our longer tenure on Earth is usually anecdotal and consists of mysterious and unexplainable artifacts found by a guy who told a guy who told another guy, but the actual artifacts themselves, unearthed in 1850, have gone missing, but there is this here newspaper article written about it, so it must be true and here's the proof. This is the Cremo/von Daniken approach to research. Even if you tabulate thousands of mysterious artifacts, if you can't come up with any today, they're still missing.

The fact is, from everything we have ever learned about our origins, we are from here. We evolved on earth and Homo sapiens is no more than a couple hundred thousand years old. The genus Homo (upright walking), including aferensis, is about three million years old. That's the time frame we are working with. Prior to that were some sort of apes, monkey like creatures without tails. Do we know everything? Of course not. Do we still espouse untruths? Probably. But in the final analysis it doesn't matter if Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus or the marginally earlier Homo ergastus. (BTW, we've got Neanderthal DNA now. From what we've learned so far, they were way different than us--distant cousins, not close ones.)

We evolved from an ape like creature, probably in a more complex way than we have delineated, and the fact is, there is not one whit of evidence to the contrary. Everything we've discovered amounts to filling in pieces of the general puzzle that we already have the outlines of. This includes fossil evidence, stratigraphic evidence, and dating technologies. Then along comes genetics, completely different in every respect to anthropology, and verifies everything we've discovered. None of these techniques has thrown up a red flag. Every one of them fits. We are all Africans. No matter what came before and how widespread it was, all of us, every last one of us, came out of Africa 150,000-250,000 years ago. Genetics has traced to the very tribe of Bushman we came from, which is still there today. If there were any other hominins (new term for hominid--same thing) already out of Africa at the time of this migration (there probably were), our ancestors wiped them out as they expanded into the rest of the world.

The thing is, we get confused in matters of scale. There is plenty of time within the Homo sapiens species as we know it for there to have been ancient civilizations, whether it was a pre-Egyptian 'higher' civilization with some odd technology or an 'Atlantis' that has now disappeared. I am firmly convinced, for example, that there was a near-Renaissance era culture on the shores of India 12,000 years ago which disappeared when the sea level rose 60 feet after an ice dam broke by Hudson Bay. We were coming off an ice age. It all fits. It also acounts for the flood stories and ancient Vedic texts. This is all well-within the time frame of Homo sapiens. You needn't stretch anything.

If there is time for a star traveling civilization from here within these parameters, I don't know. I kind of doubt it. There is no evidence of infrastructure to support it. If it did happen it would have to be based on entirely different technologies. As for humans contemporaneous with dinosaurs as shown by footprints. OK, WHAT footprints? Where are they? Where can I see them? Show them to me in situ, undisturbed, with provenance. This "he told a guy who told a guy" stuff does not cut it.

We don't want to get too far afield here because any sentence here is fodder for another argument and thread. The issue for purposes here is that we are from here and have not been 'seeded,' therefore if 'aliens' have DNA like ours, they are from here, not from out there. They could very well have 'tweaked' us genetically. The brain size of Homo sapiens developed very rapidly and 'off the curve' of other primates. You could view that as a tweak--or a positive feedback loop.

IF we can get hold of this elusive DNA of 'hybrids' and take a look at it, IF this idea can be confirmed absolutely by the technology we already have in place to do it, then the conclusion must be that the 'aliens' are, in some way, us. Whether the answer lies in some sort of inter dimensional aspect of reality we don't quite get yet, some sort of mind-boggling seemingly impossible time travel, or whether the answer is even more bizarre than that, we simply do not know yet.

But so far, 'alien DNA' is as elusive as implants or the skeleton of a giant seen by a guy in a cave who told a guy who told a guy.....
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, and also agree that there is absolutely no evidence for Alien intervention in regards to aliens messing with our ancestors genetically. As for some unknown civilization in the past , and we simply just do not have evidence for such a civilization, i am with you there too, i think if an ice age happened on this planet in the distant past, any advanced race would have serious problems, trying to cope with such an occurrence, just think, if we had an ice age tomorrow, we be seriously screwed in many ways. It kind of a guessing game really, we have myth and folklore, which hints at something different, but myth and folklore will never be accepted as a true history, just because it makes no sense. Most myths and folklore have a supernatural content, so it is hard for people to accept this tales as anything other than superstitious story's from superstitious cultures, and your are also right, if you have nothing to show people that is different then the accepted view and is different from recorded history, word of mouth is not going to be accepted in the real world.

As for the flood,I do understand how this happened.. God? how did the flood happen really, did it occur from something happening on the Earth, an Asteroid hit? In itself this a myth or even a folklore tale, handed down. Have we evidence.


We can not dismiss anything, if we are true and honest, simply put, we do know everything or even understand what we are seeing in regards to the paranormal. There is something out there besides us humans, for me it far weirder than we think or care to believe, we always want to put everything into one box, and that is our first mistake.

As for prehistoric man being from Africa, and we can trace it back and prove that they were our first ancestors. I am unsure about that and do not mind be corrected on this point, i have a point of view on the subject, and here it is... seriously what can you really prove from a skull? It might sound simple, but it can not tell you how it lived, if it could speak, think, how it gathered food, even how technology advanced as species it was?

Million of years, not a single recorded book, to prove what we say is right, we think we know everything, that was going on during this period of the earth's history, just from a few skulls, and tools found in digs or in some unknown location around the world, which we happened to stumble across.
 
Back
Top