• 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!

February 26, 2017 — Jim Marrs

Forums New posts
Gene Steinberg said:
I'm not at all certain this is the result of Marrs' appearance on The Paracast. We have been among the top-seven streaming shows at GCN's site for several months.

Look who we're behind as we occupy the number two slot on Sunday evening, February 26:

Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 7.13.35 PM.png
Click to expand...
You've finally surpassed The Paul Parent Garden Club Show. Well done, Gene and Chris!
 
I just finished listening to the Marrs episode and thought I'd share a few quick thoughts. First of all, I'm sorry to hear that Chris is still struggling with that nasty respiratory stuff. Please take care of yourself and I hope you feel better soon. Secondly, the episode was nowhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be. I totally agree with marduk's earlier comments that Marrs' career started off strong but he has seemed to have long since "lost the plot," a la Howe, Strieber, etc. Gene did a masterful job steering the episode and keeping the ultra-right wing, "InfoWars" craziness that Marrs is prone to spit out these days to a bare minimum. He did manage to sneak in his trademark "Barack Hussein Obama" slur and a reference to the "Hillary gave away our Uranium" ridiculousness before Gene deftly nudged him to move on. Noticed and appreciated Gene.

I was rather surprised at Marrs extolling the virtues, at length, of L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" sci-fi tome. It seemed so incongruous to the conversation at hand. I loved sci-fi novels as a kid and I read BE when it first came out in 1982 and the 17yo me quite liked it. The movie, conversely, was simply terrible (and I've watched it twice to make sure). The audiobook he describes sounds rather amazing, and it's not surprising that it is such a production given the involvement of Scientology. I'm sure they poured a ton of their member's money into the creation of the audiobook so it can be used as a centerpiece of their founder's literary canon. The fact that Galaxy Press (Scientology-owned) has, indeed, hired Marrs to shill for the re-issued book and audiobook is rather surprising. I don't necessarily want to criticize anyone who is out there trying to make an honest living but Scientology is not an organization that any non-members should be associating themselves with for reasons I won't go into here in any detail. I wish I had known about his association with Scientology's Galaxy Press prior to the episode, as I would have submitted a question inquiring about his association with the controversial "religion." Oh well, perhaps when he's back in 2024...
 
I think the guests on the Paracast are generally of high quality. I remember in the first couple of years that Paracast had hoaxers and fraudsters on periodically. That hasn't happened for a long time. This is a speculative field so I expect a lot of speculation. As long as the guests have some knowledge of the subject and are honestly looking to find the truth, they would potentially qualify to come on the Paracast, in my opinion. Obviously, if they're interesting, that helps.
 
I was surprised to hear Jim Marrs bring up L. Ron Hubbard's name. I read some of Hubbard's novels back in the day. I always thought he was a third rate writer. Scientology is a matter best not to be brought up.
 
ChrisJohnsen said:
I just finished listening to the Marrs episode and thought I'd share a few quick thoughts. First of all, I'm sorry to hear that Chris is still struggling with that nasty respiratory stuff. Please take care of yourself and I hope you feel better soon. Secondly, the episode was nowhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be. I totally agree with marduk's earlier comments that Marrs' career started off strong but he has seemed to have long since "lost the plot," a la Howe, Strieber, etc. Gene did a masterful job steering the episode and keeping the ultra-right wing, "InfoWars" craziness that Marrs is prone to spit out these days to a bare minimum. He did manage to sneak in his trademark "Barack Hussein Obama" slur and a reference to the "Hillary gave away our Uranium" ridiculousness before Gene deftly nudged him to move on. Noticed and appreciated Gene.

I was rather surprised at Marrs extolling the virtues, at length, of L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth" sci-fi tome. It seemed so incongruous to the conversation at hand. I loved sci-fi novels as a kid and I read BE when it first came out in 1982 and the 17yo me quite liked it. The movie, conversely, was simply terrible (and I've watched it twice to make sure). The audiobook he describes sounds rather amazing, and it's not surprising that it is such a production given the involvement of Scientology. I'm sure they poured a ton of their member's money into the creation of the audiobook so it can be used as a centerpiece of their founder's literary canon. The fact that Galaxy Press (Scientology-owned) has, indeed, hired Marrs to shill for the re-issued book and audiobook is rather surprising. I don't necessarily want to criticize anyone who is out there trying to make an honest living but Scientology is not an organization that any non-members should be associating themselves with for reasons I won't go into here in any detail. I wish I had known about his association with Scientology's Galaxy Press prior to the episode, as I would have submitted a question inquiring about his association with the controversial "religion." Oh well, perhaps when he's back in 2024...
Click to expand...


Whatever Jim Marrs' political persuasion I never got the idea that he in any way supports Scientology - the religion/cult thing? I did hear Jim rave about that particular book, and others from Hubbard but I think he was separating the written works of the man from the crazy religion he started. I could be wrong of course!
 
In the overall scheme of things it makes very little difference. However, as someone who considers himself a "journalist," and who claims to currently be "ashamed" at his profession, it's my opinion that Mr. Marrs should adhere to the principles of transparency and integrity. He should know better and should have revealed upfront that he's being paid to talk about something, as any guest should, rather than making it sound like a completely organic and spontaneous part of the discussion. A simple "By the way, I'm working with Galaxy Press to highlight the amazing new re-issue of Battlefield Earth, yada, yada, yada." Straightforward and to the point. Integrity maintained. The project gets its exposure and he earned his paycheck.

Joshua Warren was questioned by you (Gene) about his relationship to the Radionics Box manufacturer he was recommending and he claimed he had no interest or stake in any sales (even though he also offered them for sale on his website). So clearly those kind of relationships are on your radar.

Again, no big deal, it's Jim Marrs' reputation and has no impact on any of us. It's simply unfortunate he doesn't hold himself to higher standards, that's all.
 
Also, regarding the quality of guests on the show, it's a weekly show, which means 52 shows and approximately 45-50 guest spots a year need to be filled. Add to that the show has been on for more than 10 years, so roughly 500 guests over that time period. Not all of them are going to be "home runs." Year over year, if you look at the guests The Paracast has had on the show and compare their quality against any other show in the same genre and I think The Paracast holds up rather well. I have listened, or currently listen, to several other types of these shows, that I will refrain from mentioning by name, via podcast. So I've done a broad sampling of the current offerings. I've also tried, and failed, to replace The Paracast on several occasions based on some of my own issues that I have had with the hosts and the show. I have yet to find a suitable and more interesting option. So I pony up my subscription money and make my thoughts known in the forum for Gene and Chris to ignore or address when I have something to say.

Is the show perfect? No. Could more be done for paying subscribers? Yes. Is it insulting, as a paying subscriber, to hear Chris O'Brien say he's only giving about 25% effort to the show because there's no money in it for him? Yes (Oct 23 ATP episode). I'm doing my part, paying my hard earned money to subscribe, so that's not something I appreciate hearing. I sympathize with his frustration and financial grievances but maybe greater effort would equal greater reward over time, as opposed to giving less effort yet expecting more? That's a decision only Gene and Chris can make. Could ATP benefit from better preparation and content, as opposed to the frequent 30 minute stream-of-consciousness BS sessions? Yes. Would offering a higher standard of well-prepared and exclusive content on ATP entice more subscribers? Quite possibly. One of the factors in bringing me back this year after Chris's 10/23 ATP comments was the addition of the Paul Kimball content. Now that's "adding value" and I value and appreciate that so I vote with my wallet to re-subscribe. Other shows are making the effort and making a living. Talk to Micah Hanks (Gralien X). Talk to the MU guys (MU Plus Extension), etc.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the show. I just thought I would share mine.
 
ChrisJohnsen said:
Also, regarding the quality of guests on the show, it's a weekly show, which means 52 shows and approximately 45-50 guest spots a year need to be filled. Add to that the show has been on for more than 10 years, so roughly 500 guests over that time period. Not all of them are going to be "home runs." Year over year, if you look at the guests The Paracast has had on the show and compare their quality against any other show in the same genre and I think The Paracast holds up rather well. I have listened, or currently listen, to several other types of these shows, that I will refrain from mentioning by name, via podcast. So I've done a broad sampling of the current offerings. I've also tried, and failed, to replace The Paracast on several occasions based on some of my own issues that I have had with the hosts and the show. I have yet to find a suitable and more interesting option. So I pony up my subscription money and make my thoughts known in the forum for Gene and Chris to ignore or address when I have something to say.

Is the show perfect? No. Could more be done for paying subscribers? Yes. Is it insulting, as a paying subscriber, to hear Chris O'Brien say he's only giving about 25% effort to the show because there's no money in it for him? Yes (Oct 23 ATP episode). I'm doing my part, paying my hard earned money to subscribe, so that's not something I appreciate hearing. I sympathize with his frustration and financial grievances but maybe greater effort would equal greater reward over time, as opposed to giving less effort yet expecting more? That's a decision only Gene and Chris can make. Could ATP benefit from better preparation and content, as opposed to the frequent 30 minute stream-of-consciousness BS sessions? Yes. Would offering a higher standard of well-prepared and exclusive content on ATP entice more subscribers? Quite possibly. One of the factors in bringing me back this year after Chris's 10/23 ATP comments was the addition of the Paul Kimball content. Now that's "adding value" and I value and appreciate that so I vote with my wallet to re-subscribe. Other shows are making the effort and making a living. Talk to Micah Hanks (Gralien X). Talk to the MU guys (MU Plus Extension), etc.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the show. I just thought I would share mine.
Click to expand...
This is the one paranormal podcast I listen to, with the odd Radio Mysterioso exception.
Because it's the only good one. And it has it's ups and downs, and I too sense Chris' frustration.

But it is ahead of everyone else by leaps and bounds in terms of critical thinking, quality guests, and interviewing skills.

Which is not to say it can't improve, but it is meant as a compliment.
 
marduk said:
This is the one paranormal podcast I listen to, with the odd Radio Mysterioso exception.
Because it's the only good one. And it has it's ups and downs, and I too sense Chris' frustration.

But it is ahead of everyone else by leaps and bounds in terms of critical thinking, quality guests, and interviewing skills.

Which is not to say it can't improve, but it is meant as a compliment.
Click to expand...
I concur. I did not mean to come off as overly critical of the show in my post and I left out all of the positive things (other than the guests) that you list, as my subscription says it all. I appreciate no ads, I appreciate the better sound quality. My main issue is with ATP. Regardless, while they work to improve things (I hope) I'm putting my money where my mouth is and supporting the show. I subsequently feel that gives me the right to share my unvarnished feelings about what's being offered.

I'm a regular listener to RM as well and very much appreciate and enjoy most of the guests Bishop has on his show. It's a more infrequent, laid-back and low-tech production, which I happily accept for someone doing it in their spare time for free. When I'm paying for something I have greater expectations.
 
ChrisJohnsen said:
I concur. I did not mean to come off as overly critical of the show in my post and I left out all of the positive things (other than the guests) that you list, as my subscription says it all. I appreciate no ads, I appreciate the better sound quality. My main issue is with ATP. Regardless, while they work to improve things (I hope) I'm putting my money where my mouth is and supporting the show. I subsequently feel that gives me the right to share my unvarnished feelings about what's being offered.

I'm a regular listener to RM as well and very much appreciate and enjoy most of the guests Bishop has on his show. It's a more infrequent, laid-back and low-tech production, which I happily accept for someone doing it in their spare time for free. When I'm paying for something I have greater expectations.
Click to expand...

You came across as downright nasty; almost as nasty as Goggs McKay.
 
Back
Top