Dec 7 Show

[Noanswers]

I can see some of the negative reactions to the guest, but that said, he did come through as who has spent decades thinking about these issues and looking at more than just the theory de jour. Everyone in this "field" comes off as being dogmatic, just hit Vallee with some of David Jacobs' claims as to what abducitons represent and see how resistant one of Ufologys most open thinkers reacts.

 

[Gareth]

The best thing to come out of this show for me was finding out about his book which I had never heard of. Ill try to track down some copies I think.

 

[dorkbot]

Excellent show. Hopefully he will become a regular guest. His apparition experience seemed to have some elements in common with Shuck variant of the Black Dog category of apparitions although most of those accounts seem to be much more physically defined than what he described.

He speaks of these phenomena as mutually exclusive, but there's no reason to assume that. If the experience-based events take place in something akin to another dimension, then it's surely possible that beings can transition from that other dimension, which isn't quite "real" from our perspective, to this one that we are familiar with.

This is pretty close to my line of thinking as in relation to Mr. Clark's comments regarding the abduction phenomena. It seems pretty clear to me that these people are experiencing these events but I am entirely unconvinced that they are occurring in exactly the same physically real space/time in which I make sandwiches. I do lean towards the idea that they are indeed connected to the ufo phenomena as it seems there is a long term pattern emerging that strongly suggests this.

Then arises the immediate question, as was brought up on the show, about how abductees show up afterwards in our normal reality/dimension with physical trace evidence, marks, pants on backwards etc. This would seem to suggest that the events are real in a physical sense that we are accustomed to. My impression of Mr. Clarke's view is that it must be one or the other and although I can't offer an explanation I think it is too early to come to that conclusion. This is one of those areas where I think we need to keep two seemingly conflicting ideas alive at the same time until we know more.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Jerry tells us he had a great time, and appreciated our responsible, informed approach to asking questions.

So, yes, I do have high hopes he'll be back.

We were, by the way, friends as teenagers.

 

[Shannon]

I'm glad to hear that he'll be back! I think this was a really interesting show and I'm going to listen to it again.

What really struck me was the idea that (in Jerome's case the creature on the porch, and David's encounter with the woman) these things might really be representing a feeling or an idea as opposed to representing an actual person or being. Wow-I'm going to apply this to some of my own experiences...great show I hope you guys will discuss this idea further.

 

[Gareth]

I'm glad to hear that he'll be back! I think this was a really interesting show and I'm going to listen to it again.

What really struck me was the idea that (in Jerome's case the creature on the porch, and David's encounter with the woman) these things might really be representing a feeling or an idea as opposed to representing an actual person or being. Wow-I'm going to apply this to some of my own experiences...great show I hope you guys will discuss this idea further.

For me the theory that an emotion can materialise as a young woman with period clothing just doesnt hold up. My world view is able to encompass the idea of an emotion as a spirit but this girl seemed to be waiting at the bus and had period clothes.

Now I wasnt there and I dont want anyone to think Im challenging Davids theory or anything. I could I even have a clue not being there? I just wanted to get my opinion out there.

Maybe the feeling David got while watching this apparition was sadness over lost youth due to this sould being taken so early. I guess well never know.

 

[wicro]

I thoroughly enjoyed the show, and agree with quite a bit of Jerome's analysis of the nature of UFOs. However I would not be so bold as to assert the statement that some Rader/ Visual cases must be extrateristial in origin. Human perception and memory ,even within the best cases, would not allow me draw that conclusion. Like Robert Anton Wilson I would rather assign a probability that this would be the case. Certainly some cases do suggest a reasonably high probability, but surely not 100%.

I have some sympathy on his comment on Roswell, from being a 'believer' during the 80's I have come to the conclusion that there is little in this event. I especially thought Jerome's comment that a completely unrelated 'truth' that neither sides of the debate have thought of, lies have considered is at the heart of this 'mystery' . However I feel it is probably a much more mundane origin. I am reminded of a R.A.W book, I forgot which, were he suggests that that the inconsistency of the Kennedy assassination were caused by every governmental department trying to distance themselves from Oswald(be they KGB,CIA or Mafia), and that the lone 'nut' theory does actually make sense in that paranoid climate, something I had never even thought about, so convinced I was that there was a 'conspiracy'

As for the relative truthfulness of key witness to the Roswell event, then I have nothing better to go on than the assertion of the truthfulness by others, having had no contact with for instance Jesse Marcel Jr, although I would have to say that he sounds genuine in his belief.

However, we should not forgot experiment within psychology going back to the early seventies by the likes of Loftus and Palmer, to show how fallible the human memory system is. A cursory glance at any book on cognitive psychology will show a wealth of studies that point to memory far from being like a 'hard drive' is much more fluid and subject to revision, and can easily be changed by suggestion and expectation.

From a particularly crass example form my own history, I'm the youngest child of four. My elder sibling managed to convince me at a early age, that I saw Santa Claus passing in front of the moon one night. The strange thing is, I still have a clear memory of this obviously false memory, that I cant distinguish from other 'real' memories I have of the time.

I therefore would have to er on caution in making any absolute claims on the authenticity of this event (though I personally feel that nothing extraterristial is involved) ( That's Roswell not Santa Claus by the way)

 

[Koji K.]

I haven't finished the show yet, about half way through, but wanted to say thanks for bringing Jerome Clark on, I am greatly enjoying hearing his views and think the discussion is of very high quality. A couple of thoughts I had-

Regarding ascribing intentions to the phenomena, I agree with Clark's apparent views on this in that we have to be very careful here. There's a lot of work done in the fields of psychology and philosophy of mind raising serious problems with ascribing intentions even between one human being and another. In light of this, it seems very very risky to try to do so with something as "alien" (as in, "not us") as UFO and other paranormal phenomena.

Also, I was interested to hear David bring up the Pascagoula abduction case. I was reminded of reading a channeling account (known as the "Ra Material") where the purported entity being channeled was asked specifically about why the Pascagoula morphology was so different from standard accounts. The response was along the lines of the fact that Pascagoula represented a visit by actual, "flesh and blood" aliens (or robot probes or what have you), rather than the more experiential, "high strangeness," type of experience (or, what the "Ra entity" considered to be higher-level entities manifesting themselves). Not to endorse this account in any way, it just occured to me while hearing about Pascagoula on the show.

Looking forward to finishing the show- Keep up the good work Gene and Dave!

 

[Shannon]

I see your point and I don't think that it could be considered a catch all explanation for every ghostly-type experience that people have. It was just a point that I hadn't thought of before and since many of these experiences seem to really connect to people on a deeply personal level I don't think that they can be ruled out entirely that the experiencer doesn't sort of take part in the phenomena. I hope that made sense.

On the flip side though-I think that some things are of that residual nature like a tape playback. I guess none of it fits nicely in a neat little package.

 

[macavity]

Great show, great guest (one of the best - if not the best - in both cases). Surprised to see the somewhat lukewarm reception from some quarters but Jerry's standpoint on a lot of issues mirrors my own very closely so I suppose I'm inclined to give him extra brownie points

 

[Brian Now]

I liked this show. It was like a return to classic Paracast.
Obviously, Clark made a few absolute statements that rub many of us the wrong way but he was still a great guest.
I agree with him about things like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster (assuming there's anything there to begin with) not being what they seem. And speaking of that, I wonder what a lot of the researchers on these cryptids believe about interdimensional origins, etc. I wonder if they mostly believe these are real animals with breeding populations. I bet Aaron LeClair will know.

Anyway, I wanted to ask everyone if I missed something when Jerome was telling his story about the quadriped at his front door. He said everytime it got up and left it was in shadow. I understood that to mean the animal was moving under shadows in the yard, not that it was itself a shadow. So I don't really see the strangeness of this story at all.

 

[subject x]

Another good show. J. Clark had some interesting ideas to share, whether you agree with him or not. He's obviously spent a lot of time thinking about these things, and is definitely not some nutjob. Good guest, good interview.

As an aside, my fabulous girlfriend Tammy heard Gene talking and said "Who's that? He sounds sexy!" So the sore throat isn't all bad.

 

[7 String]

Gene get better! I feel for you man,,, that crap is going around here in Nashville and so far I've dodged the bullet. I'm prepared however with Nyquil in the event I'm sticken.

Gene and Dave, great show Jerome has got to be one of the most No Bullshit and well informed people you've ever had on the show. The work he has done is bar none one of the greatest, most meaningful efforts ever put forth by an individual. His work will one day surely one day be reconized as one of the most informative studies ever conducted. It will probably become a baseline of study for future scientific investigation.

Truly one of my favorite shows, great work welcome back!

~A ♪

 

[Brian Now]

As an aside, my fabulous girlfriend Tammy heard Gene talking and said "Who's that? He sounds sexy!" So the sore throat isn't all bad.

Thats funny because I was thinking something similar while listening to the episode. I bet Gene would be running from droves of ladies if he could affect that voice everyday!