• 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!

Credible vs. Clown list needed


Not absolutely sure of the original OP's question as to whether it was directed generally at the field of paranormal etc or more aimed at researchers in the field. If so Art Bell and George Noory come out as they are not researchers. Not sure if David and Gene are included as researchers also - I would perhaps classify them as commentators with expertise in certain areas.

Also, as one member pointed out, some of the researchers actually "started" off quite well and did good quality research and publications but then turned "bad" shall we say for various reasons e.g. money, caught up in the general shit that goes on etc. My namesake is a good example - inital work good to very good but turned sour and extreme in the late 1990's/early 2000.
 
A list endorsed by the Paracast would be interesting. Everyone is going to have their own favorites and least favs.

I would echo what others have said in this thread on Art Bell. He is a broadcaster.

Think baseball broadcasters inducted into the Hall of Fame. Most are not known for actually playing but contributed much to the game. Noory no, Art yes.

I would put George Knapp in the credible list as well.
 
Any credible list for me, i.e. reasonably smart people who are honest and who are seeking the truth, would include:

Greg Bishop
Nick Redfern
Mac Tonnies
Jacques Vallee
Stanton Friedman
Kevin Randle
Richard Hall
Jerome Clark
Rob Swiatek
Royce Myers III
Nick Pope
Greg Taylor
Tim Binnall
David Biedny
Gene Steinberg
Jim Moseley
Chris Styles
Don Ledger
Brad Sparks
Chris Rutkowski
Peter Robbins
Bruce Maccabee
Martin Jasek
Don Ecker
Joel Carpenter
Dr. David Clarke
Jenny Randles
Dr. Michael Swords
Dr. Mark Rodegheir
the late Carl Sagan
the late Karl Pflock
Dr. Peter Sturrock


What about:

David M. Jacobs
the late John Mack
Budd Hopkins
Derrel W. Sims
Bill Chalker
Frank Feschino
the late Bob Pratt
Philip J. Imbrogno
the late Karla Turner
the late Phil Schneider

(not sure about the credibility of the last two...opinions?)
 
What about:

David M. Jacobs
the late John Mack
Budd Hopkins
Derrel W. Sims
Bill Chalker
Frank Feschino
the late Bob Pratt
Philip J. Imbrogno
the late Karla Turner
the late Phil Schneider

(not sure about the credibility of the last two...opinions?)



Jacob's admits not knowing what he was doing when he first started out. He's since pigeon holed and skewed evidence to fit a "threat" style picture I think.

Mack has been duped, gave a crappy disingenuous cop out, makes cases out of what could easily be dreams and bought into Carlos Diaz's case.

Phil has a tall story but came up real short on evidence. I wasn't impressed with his case, but would have to go back in read up on it for more details.

I recall reading Paul thinks Budd has done the most damage to ufology, or was it abductions? He has issues on the use of hypnosis. He can give the details on that. Budd is one of my favorite researchers, though I prefer his earlier days to him now.
 
This is all familiar to me. This is a modern mythical narrative that has been developing for years. If putting fear of 4th density reptillians into humanity's collective head is what it takes to make them stop acting like violent, self-centered apes, then let the meme spread I say. It's no more irrational than worshipping a person who walks on water or believing that an epileptic donkey herder is the sole mouthpiece of God.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
 
If putting fear of 4th density reptillians into humanity's collective head is what it takes to make them stop acting like violent, self-centered apes, then let the meme spread I say.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">


Aaahh...I would agree with promoting peace, love and selfless behavior, but I don't think he needs to lampoon the study of UFO's (unintentionally) in order to do that...if that is, indeed, all he is trying to do with this stuff...!?
 
That is just ridiculous! It reminds me of William Cooper's Behold a Pale Horse, but way more delusional (if that is possible). It doesn't seem that Dolan has any regard for credibility of the UFO field as much as he a just a player in the game who will speak to anyone or believe anything people present to him. I don't think you can have it both ways, you either have credibility or you don't.
 

Thats nothing new David.

This is what we were all talking about in the other Rich Dolan thread a while ago. Knight is Dolans friend, which is how I justified his statements in my own head.

If he wrote the book himself it would be another thing altogether.

Heres the whole thing:

Signs of the Times News for Fri, 08 May 2009

It's sad but true that most people don't like inconvenient realities to upset their pleasant illusions and prejudices. I see this all the time in my own daily interactions with people. Once someone reaches a point in his or her life when they feel they "understand" the world well enough - often around the age of thirty - they spend the rest of their life filling in the blanks of what they think they already know. It's a tendency that usually becomes more extreme over time. Ideas and worldviews seem to harden in tandem with the arteries.

The friends people make, television shows they watch, the internet sites they visit - the very world they create for themselves - all of these usually support the circumscribed worldview they themselves have adopted.

Obviously, it's the same with books. It's a rare book that has the ability to truly change one's mind about the world. Rarest of all are those gems with the ability to change one's life.

Laura Knight-Jadczyk's The High Strangeness of Dimensions, Densities, and the Process of Alien Abduction is such a book.

It follows that such a book can only be written by those rarest of thinkers, someone possessing profound insights, freedom from convention, and the utter fearlessness necessary to tear down illusions and stare down the face of the abyss. Laura Knight-Jadczyk is such a person.

I believe that Laura understands, better than probably anyone you will ever know, just how dire is the plight of our civilization - the plight of our species. She also understands that to change one's life, one must be willing to fight.

"Fight what?" one might ask. The answer may seem strange within the context of our post-post-post modern 21st century setting, but it is ... to fight evil.

Crazy? No. Not at all.

The High Strangeness of Dimensions, Densities, and the Process of Alien Abduction is a book that lays out provocatively and passionately the hidden slavery of the human race. The problem is that this situation is so far removed from what most people have come to accept about their world, that Knight-Jadczyk's analysis and information will meet with tremendous resistance. Calling this book a "new paradigm" is a gross understatement. Understanding it will require most readers to discard nearly everything they think they know about how the world works. I realize this is a significant claim, and I do not make it lightly.

My problem in reviewing this book is amplified by how much of its information was obtained, and therein lies the core controversy surrounding Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Because for more than a decade, she has obtained information - lots and lots of information - from a group of people she calls "the C's": short for Cassiopaeans. In other words, this is information that has been gathered in sessions using a Ouija board and planchette, over and over, year after year.

This is not an easy thing for me to comment on. When my own work focuses so extensively on open source documentation, "proven" data that brooks no argument from established sources, when I have spent my public career with the meticulous caution of a historian to make a careful and reasoned argument on the UFO cover-up, delving into the world of "channeled" information can make me decidedly uncomfortable.

But here is why I feel what the Cs are genuine. In the first place, I have had the pleasure of knowing Laura, of spending time with her in deep conversation, as well as with many people who belong to her global salon, the Signs of the Times (SOTT). In other words, I don't just think that Laura is honest - I know she is. I know that she is a down-to-earth mother of five, who just happens to be brilliant and totally relentless. I have been fortunate indeed to meet many extraordinary people in my life, but even among these people, Laura is special.

So, yes, there is a personal connection here, one of friendship, and a detached reader might wonder if my own judgment is clouded in this review.

But the real issue, as I see it, when reviewing the content of this book, is twofold. First, how can we be sure that the communications from "The Cassiopaeans" are genuine; and second, is there inherent value in those communications?

To answer the first question, all I can say is that her channeled information is not the first, and will certainly not be the last. My attitude on most claimed channeled information usually ranges from extreme caution, to skepticism, to outright disbelief. But I cannot say that all such information is bunk or must be dismissed out of hand. My own research into the history of Remote Viewing (RV) has convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt that there is another dimension to our existence other than the straightforward material one. There is something more. Call it non-local, call it spiritual, it does not matter. There is an important aspect to our existence that conventional minds and "official culture" do not recognize.


Richard Dolan

Taken in that context, when I read the incredibly rich, detailed - and logical - statements coming from "the C's," I find it unlikely that Laura (or anyone, for that matter) could convincingly fake them. In the first place, the process for obtaining this information is from a Ouija board, with several people touching the planchette, and one person in charge of recording the letters, which come in at a furious pace. I have learned enough about the process of using the Ouija, and known enough people who have described this experience to me in detail, that I am satisfied something real is going on in that process. Moreover, the "dialogue" between Laura and the Cs also frequently includes other members of the channeling session who are present. Frequently the transcripts record very active discussions that include the comments and questions of many people in attendance.

I am inclined to think that the C's are real. Yet, we all must recognize that their existence does not pass the test of scientific evidence. We can take their existence as, let us say, an interesting working hypothesis.

But it is the message of the Cassiopaeans that really matters. What they tell us is that the world we live in is an illusion not unlike that of the movie, The Matrix. The human race is being manipulated physically and spiritually by a race of beings that we know as the Reptilians, whom Laura refers as "The Lizzies" (her down-to-earth way of stripping them of their terror and putting them in their place). They can manipulate time with ease, they control "the Greys," and they live in what is known as the Fourth Density.

What is a density? I confess I don't quite understand the physics, and I am not sure that physics is the right path here in any case. But animals live in the second density, and we humans live in the third. It is, therefore, more of a state of consciousness than, say, a "dimension" of existence. The Reptilians are able to manipulate and control us in just the way that we can control cattle. But simply because the Reptilians live in a state of consciousness that is higher than ours does not mean they are ethical. They are, in fact, what we would refer to as pretty evil. They exist in what is called a "Service to Self" (STS) state of being. Humanity also exists in STS. There are other beings, however, such as the Cs, who live in a "Service to Others" (STO) state of being (and incidentally on the Sixth Density).

But the Reptilians can indeed do many things by virtue of being Fourth Density. For one, they can "appear" into our reality at will, in essentially any guise or form. They "need" us as food, both psychically/spiritually and physically. They have farmed us throughout our very existence. They have shaped our religious and political systems. Indeed, in many crucial ways, they have "made" us in their own image. Breaking free of their oppressive control is humanity's paramount task if it is ever to achieve true personal and spiritual liberation.

Incidentally, the abduction process comes into play here as one of several mechanisms by which "the Lizzies" control us. Using their creations, the Greys, to conduct most of the abductions, these events seldom occur in our Third Density reality. Instead, they take place in the Fourth Density, which effectively means it occurs in a timeless, spiritual realm. Yet while in the Fourth Density, life seems just as physical to us as always, and the return to Third Density is like the process whereby one copies and pastes a file back to one's hard drive. That is, the changes (and implants) that occur in the Fourth Density reality are effectively copied to one's Third Density body.

This is certainly a lot to take, and merely scratches the surface. Reading the book is really the only way to grasp it all.

I should point out that not all of this book deals with the Cassiopaeans, although this is its core. But there is a great deal of trenchant analysis by Knight-Jadczyk throughout, something that her readers have come to expect over the years.

The overall message of the book is grim. But the situation is not hopeless. I am very much taken by the motto of the C's, stated several times in the book: "knowledge protects; ignorance endangers."

No matter what the final truth is regarding the existence of the C's, or the Reptilians, or any other entities, I think all of us could use this as a personal motto. We live in a very dangerous world, far more dangerous, far worse, than most people realize. Yet, there is a way to safety, and it lies in understanding the nature of the reality in which we exist. This is hard work, but easily worth the effort.

I am also grateful to Laura Knight-Jadczyk for her courage in facing some of the most difficult issues human beings can face. She is a shining light in a world of darkness.

Richard M. Dolan is author of UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup (Hampton Roads, 2002). He speaks at conferences around the world and has appeared on numerous television and radio programs. Visit his website at http://keyholepublishing.com
Im not saying Richs friendship with the author justifies it, but for me it takes away some of the woo woo.
 
Thats nothing new David.

This is what we were all talking about in the other Rich Dolan thread a while ago. Knight is Dolans friend, which is how I justified his statements in my own head.

If he wrote the book himself it would be another thing altogether.

Endorsing crap is around as bad as creating it imo.
 
I completely agree. I just think his prior friendship with the author complicates the matter. We all know that Rich is a nice guy, and really diplomatic.

Gareth,

I've met Alfred Webre. Nice guy. Michael Salla. Nice guy. Glenn Dennis. Nice guy. And so forth.

On the other hand, Brad Sparks, who is one of the best researchers of the past 25 years, can be highly strung and quite confrontational when discussing his research. Robert Todd, who did fine work, was by all accounts an ass of the highest order.

Being a nice guy is worth bupkus when it comes to credibility.

Besides, you can be critical of a friend's work and still be their friend. I've been critical of both Nick and Greg's work in the past, and certainly don't agree all the time with Mac Tonnies. God knows Stan Friedman and I butt heads - very publicly - more often than not. We all still manage to be friends... because real friends respect honesty.

A person who would sell out / compromise his credibility to endorse something he doesn't believe in had none in the first place... and is arguably worse than a person who really believes in the far our crazy stuff.

Paul
 

Damn it!!!

I'm still just a tender foot when it comes to all of this stuff, and the thing that has frustrated me more than anything else during this short journey of mine is that, as soon as I come across someone whom I think I can finally let down my guard with and trust in, shortly thereafter I learn something that reveals him to be merely another dead end. Now I can add Mr. Dolan to that list :(

This experience seems to be teaching me that maybe the best one can hope for is not to find the unimpeachable source, but rather to find a trustworthy friend to accompany you on the unpredictable journey of discovery.

The search goes on ...

xfiles-flashlight.jpg
 
Gareth,

I've met Alfred Webre. Nice guy. Michael Salla. Nice guy. Glenn Dennis. Nice guy. And so forth.

On the other hand, Brad Sparks, who is one of the best researchers of the past 25 years, can be highly strung and quite confrontational when discussing his research. Robert Todd, who did fine work, was by all accounts an ass of the highest order.

Being a nice guy is worth bupkus when it comes to credibility.

Besides, you can be critical of a friend's work and still be their friend. I've been critical of both Nick and Greg's work in the past, and certainly don't agree all the time with Mac Tonnies. God knows Stan Friedman and I butt heads - very publicly - more often then not. We all still manage to be friends... because real friends respect honesty.

A person who would sell out / compromise his credibility to endorse something he doesn't believe in had none in the first place... and is arguably worse than a person who really believes in the far our crazy stuff.

Paul

I see your point. Maybe Im just making excuses because I dont want to believe that Rich Dolan buys into all that stuff.

Id really like to hear him questioned about it.
 
I see your point. Maybe Im just making excuses because I dont want to believe that Rich Dolan buys into all that stuff.

Id really like to hear him questioned about it.

It's hard to have heroes and remain objective unless you admire the objectivity in your heroes. Rich seems to have shown bias. Many people in this field have pros and cons. Besides those who believe in shape shifting reptillians, I'm pretty sure most if not all known ufologists are human, and therefore not perfect:)
 
It's hard to have heroes and remain objective unless you admire the objectivity in your heroes. Rich seems to have shown bias. Many people in this field have pros and cons. Besides those who believe in shape shifting reptillians, I'm pretty sure most if not all known ufologists are human, and therefore not perfect:)

Implying no human is perfect?

You mustnt have heard of <strike>Jessica Biel</strike>. First ever perfect human, and is in the Guinness record book for that achievement.

edit, Ive made a terrible mistake. I meant Scarlett Johannson...

scarlett_johansson.jpg
 
Back
Top