I REALLY wanted to listen to this, but...

[Cabinetman]

The August 28, 2011 show sparked all sorts of personal interest. I have been fascinated with all things related to the moon for some years now and I absolutely devour any information I can find on the subject.
However I have to say I simply can't stand to listen to David Hatcher Childress in this setting. I find his voice moving up and down a few octaves when he speaks simply unbearable. It's like listening to Seinfeld argue with Costanza. He gets all out of breath and the high pitch 'whinyness' comes out.
DAVID TAKE A BREATH, CALM DOWN, SPEAK CLEARLY AND UNDER CONTROL. 2 hours of this? really? I'm saddened that I cannot listen to the entire podcast.

Otherwise love the show!

 

[grannysmith]

I've been tempted to post asking whether we were all just too embarrassed to talk about this show given the lack of a thread. Let's just forget about this one eh lads?

 

[trainedobserver]

I find his voice moving up and down a few octaves when he speaks simply unbearable. It's like listening to Seinfeld argue with Costanza. He gets all out of breath and the high pitch 'whinyness' comes out.

I thought he might be jogging in place or moving at a brisk walk or something. I was really hoping for a more focused and structured show. Don seemed to have prepared some notes and was hitting points he wanted to make. In contrast David seems unfocused and just repeating every moon theory he had ever heard about regardless if they had been discredited or not.

 

[Cabinetman]

I was really hoping for a more focused and structured show

This is what I was trying to say more or less, but would have worded it, '...was really hoping for a more focused and structured David Childress'.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate his passion for the subject. But with the way he was speaking it just seemed as if he was trying to convince me of all his talking points instead of well thought out informative conversation with the moderators. I'm extremely new to this 'genre' (if you will), and I try to soak up as much as I can mentally stand. That's why I was so disappointed to have to cut this cast short :frown:.
I'm hopeful we will see future shows on this subject.

 

[mike]

I enjoyed the show, yes i did notice Mr Childress's "enthusiasm" as conveyed by his voice, but the topic is one ive been interested in since reading secrets of our spaceship moon.

 

[Lauren Jones]

Don,

Do you believe Vito Saccheri's story?

 

[Decker]

Don,

Do you believe Vito Saccheri's story?

I have never seen anything that would cause me to think he lied to me. So, yes.

Decker

 

[sorryidonthaveacoolname]

The August 28, 2011 show sparked all sorts of personal interest. I have been fascinated with all things related to the moon for some years now and I absolutely devour any information I can find on the subject.
However I have to say I simply can't stand to listen to David Hatcher Childress in this setting. I find his voice moving up and down a few octaves when he speaks simply unbearable. It's like listening to Seinfeld argue with Costanza. He gets all out of breath and the high pitch 'whinyness' comes out.
DAVID TAKE A BREATH, CALM DOWN, SPEAK CLEARLY AND UNDER CONTROL. 2 hours of this? really? I'm saddened that I cannot listen to the entire podcast.

Otherwise love the show!

You obviously dont understand the man has a speech impediment and these are 'hiding' techniques...Not saying this is the case for sure but thats what it certainly sounds like to me as one who had an impediment.Besides,it's about the information,not the way it's delivered......

 

[trainedobserver]

You obviously dont understand the man has a speech impediment and these are 'hiding' techniques...Not saying this is the case for sure but thats what it certainly sounds like to me as one who had an impediment.Besides,it's about the information,not the way it's delivered......

I have had to opportunity to listen to the program a couple of times now, I drive a lot, what can I say? At any rate, before I read your comment I was already starting to feel that I may have been a little overly critical of David's delivery. The problem of rattling off every nonsensical Internet moon theory is still there though with Don having to pull him back and point out the absurdity of John Lear, the Apollo 20 video, etc., etc., etc.

Having said that, it sounds like David's book contains material from some otherwise pretty hard to find sources, so I'm going to buy David's book as a result of listening to the show. I hope that blunts my critical appraisal somewhat if he reads any of this.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

I have never seen anything that would cause me to think he lied to me. So, yes.
Decker

I find the Saccheri story believable for many reasons. One is that I have never heard him interviewed or referenced by anyone else. From the interview it sounds like he may been involved in MUFON. Don, do you know if he tried to really do anything with his story? Most of the time when people have something like this they make the rounds of MUFON chapters or UFO conferences giving talks on the subject. Did he ever do any of that? My impression is that he did not. I know there was some effort by MUFON to see the same photographs based on his story that was unsuccessful. That is something that could be expounded on in a subsequent moon episode. I guess I need to listen to that interview again, I think Saccheri talked about that briefly.

 

[ward]

Don,

Do you believe Vito Saccheri's story?

Lauren,

i had the honor of hearing the show Don did with Vito Saccheri live. This was the early 90's and i can tell you it was the best moment on radio I've ever heard. Dons show was carried on my local cable company. I still get goose bumps when he gets to the point where he finally gets to see the photos.
It was just a different time the internet was just a baby and UFO magazine and UFO'S Tonite! were the only real credible sources of UFO info at the time.

 

[Decker]

I find the Saccheri story believable for many reasons. One is that I have never heard him interviewed or referenced by anyone else. From the interview it sounds like he may been involved in MUFON. Don, do you know if he tried to really do anything with his story? Most of the time when people have something like this they make the rounds of MUFON chapters or UFO conferences giving talks on the subject. Did he ever do any of that? My impression is that he did not. I know there was some effort by MUFON to see the same photographs based on his story that was unsuccessful. That is something that could be expounded on in a subsequent moon episode. I guess I need to listen to that interview again, I think Saccheri talked about that briefly.

Observer, you need to go to the DMR forum and read thru the thread there. Yes, Vito tried to work with the MUFON Houston people to "retrace" the steps he and Lester took with NASA back in "79". They started the process then somebody in the MUFON org. shot their mouth off and derailed the process. In other words, I believe someone published what they were trying to do which tipped off the NASA people. Vito got pissed and pulled out. I believe you can read about it in the thread I referenced.

Decker

 

[owlman]

I own a copy of David's book Extra Terrestrial Archaeology and its a fine read with some thought-provoking photos. Now I'm not gonna be the only one to say this, but who else is still waiting for Don's book ;-) ( sorry Don, I know you busy brother )

 

[bbridges]

Vito's story details the obstacle course the NASA boys ran him through, ultimately revealing that Langley was strictly managing access to the lunar photos. It appears in the telling that their eventual access was a result of their producing the copy of Someone Else Is on the Moon that they had with them. At the time, Langley may have been caught with their pants down around their snow white ankles. Fearing that refusing to follow through on public access to the photos at that point could lead to a broader backlash, they chose to let them proceed. As I've said before,NASA's refusal to release the high resolution photos from numerous lunar photographic surveys is probably the strongest point of attack for those of us seeking some real evidence of hidden truths. How to accomplish this is the harder question. With a higher and more recognized public presence, Leslie Kean might be a place to start. A high quality documentary aired presenting the evidence available, supported by the the story-even though 'anecdotal'-told by Vito on Don's show could draw the wider interest of the general public and open that can of worms in a way that would put real pressure on Langley and NASA. They have been whistling past the graveyard on this stuff for a long time, waiting-and perhaps hoping that no one notices this point of vulnerability. Some of you out there may have some 'creative'(a nod to Christopher O'Brien's recent thread) ideas on an effective strategy here. "If there is nothing to hide, why are you going to so much trouble to hide it?" Any takers?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Enjoyed the Mr Vitio's show very much as nothing would surprise me if that was just the tip of the iceberg regarding HD images of many parts of the solar system planets which would be great for all who seek a higher knowledge of learning. Instead the shit mostly likely gaining dust in someones vault? Hell you folks in the US have paid for it ! Maybe China, India etc might drop the ball and give its people a higher knowledge of the MOON in HD close ups .

Don any chance of Rich, yourself and Mr Vitio etc coming on the Paracast extra when it comes around maybe called secret "Moon "space program shows etc ?

 

[Terjarv]

I'm not sure where the negative feedback for this show is coming from. Don Ecker did an excellent job exhibiting his expertise on lunar phenomena and yea I know the negativity is directed at David Hatcher Childress but all the complaints are a bit surprising. Come on people, have you seen him on Ancient Aliens or read any of his books? This is a well known paranormal celebrity and I knew exactly what I was getting myself into when I saw his name for that particular week's episode. Childress's viewpoints and conclusions were as predictable as the sun coming up the morning...and I don't mind listening to them even though I completely disagree. This is a PARANORMAL PODCAST, not the Science Magazine podcast or NPR so don't get too surprised when it gets a little woo woo around here.

 

[Decker]

Let me jump in here and comment on Terjarv's remarks.

I have always been in an odd spot when it comes to the UFO/Paranormal/Odd Stuff topics that I have been involved in. In many ways I am at a disadvantage because I am not a scientist or physics instructor. What I am is a medically retired criminal investigator that has an insatiable appetite for the weird and unusual. I had a couple of (in my opinion) astounding UFO sightings and at one point decided to find out what they were.

The other thing is, I have never fit into the niche I found myself when I started digging into this swamp. The skeptics (read debunkers in many cases) really found me a pain in the ass because I always pointed out the flaw in their explanations. Ask Jim Oberg, Mike Shermer, or Phil Klass (before he died) or Curtis Peebles or Joe Nickle or Robert Shaeffer. For example on LKL with Oberg, he was reduced to the ad hominem because he could not refute my argument concerning STS 48. Klass ended up screaming profanity before he hung up. Sherman ask me if I would consider his invite to debate skeptics under his Skeptic magazine forums, and when I said you bet ... nobody wanted to debate me.

The same with the UFO believers ... I was persona non grata (and still am) because I exposed their frequent "flavor of the week" in UFO Magazine in a series of exposes. My thing was .. I wanted to get to the truth of what ever it was. To me, the truth was always more exciting that the truck loads of BS that were being hauled in. The Bill Coopers, George Greens, Sean Mortons, John Lears, the Guy Kirkwoods, etc. etc. etc.

Now, with the Moon, once again another example of the truth being more interesting and exciting that the BS. On The Paracast show, when Gene and Chris proposed that I wanted to get Jim Sylvan on with me to discuss this mystery. I tried to get ahold of him but he was still (as I found out later) avoiding any public exposure because of his day job. He wanted no publicity about his "dirty little secret" ... of what in hell is on the Moon. Chris works with Childress and asked him to come on. I had very little contact with Childress in years past, and after we started doing the show I was actually kind of blind-sided by his apparent accepting of what I consider to be bull shit sources. Hey, I, like it or not, do have a reputation for a "no BS" when it comes to investigating or discussing these topics.

The inclusion by Childress of "research" by the likes of a John Lear (The Living Moon) or Fred Steckling (water and air on the Moon) in my opinion, makes the research I do seem like more hokey bull shit that the Skeptics love to point at when they diss these topics. Terjarv is wrong when he suggests that "woo-woo" is expected or accepted because this is The Paracast. I think most forum users here are way beyond that mindset. I might be wrong but I also think most users here that "know" me, also know that this type of "research" is something I do not accept or will accept. Like I said earlier .. I was a criminal investigator and bull shit simply offends me. My wife tells me that is why I very seldom get asked to speak at Paranormal functions .. because I am a "hard ass". Okay, I accept that, that is the price of my doing business. But the fact is (once again in my opinion) there are unexplained artifacts on the Moon, NASA (or some in NASA) must be aware of this and have hidden it. As a matter of fact yesterday I was contacted by a former Naval photographer (served from 1955 - 1975 or so) who worked in photo-intelligence and had an incident where these facts were proved to him in the 1960's. I am speaking to him now.

The mainstream public will never accept any of this until the BS is weeded out. I happen to think the BS will never be weeded out. So, there is the burr under the saddle. It is a tough one, eh?

Decker

PS But ... then ... I am just a simple guy and I could be all wet.

 

[Terjarv]

I agree with a lot of what you said but disagree that I argue we should "accept" B.S. conclusions. I was commenting on peoples surprise and astonishment about Childress's conclusions as I thought it was completely predictable. I don't believe we should accept these things but I do think we shouldn't be surprised when we encounter them. You are right, the B.S. will never be weeded out and there is B.S. in every field but it is attracted to the paranormal like stink on shit.

I was shocked when Imbrogno faked his credentials (call me gullible), but I was not not shocked to hear Childress's comments on this show. In regards to your statement on encountering "woo woo" on the paracast, I disagree as well. This is not a normal radio show, it is a show on the paranormal. We listen to discussions about UFOS, cryptology, alternate dimensions, crystal skulls, crop circles, ghosts, and many more....all of which have no basis in real hard scientific evidence. Despite the fact that there is no quantifiable evidence, people come to conclusions on these topics to sell books and sometimes even promote their unsubstantiated paradigm on said topic. A field like this will naturally attract people who are a little "out there" so we shouldn't be surprised when one starts blowing the woo smoke in our face. I'm not saying we should like it and I don't blame people such as yourself for getting mad.

In the end, accepting someone's conclusions is very different than expecting them....I look forward to the next lunar roundtable.

 

[mattdeacon]

I had a conversation with my 3 year old son today. It went something like this:

ME: "I listened to a radio show today where a man said he had an amazing photo of the moon but said he wouldn't show anyone."
SON: "Why?"
ME: "I don't know."

Shame on you, Don Ecker. To sit on such an incredible photo for FOURTEEN years is outrageous. One of the strands of the show essentially criticised NASA for being a secretive organisation and not releasing any photos of this nature. How are you any different in this instance?

Kudos to you for finding such a photo in the first place, and also for damping down Mr Hatcher-Childress's wild speculations, but with your action (or inaction in this case), you have become part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.

At best, this smacks of hypocrisy. At worst, it shows contempt for your fellow truth-seekers.

Shit, sir, or get off the pot.

Respectfully yours

Matt Deacon.

PS - My son also said that if he had a magic torch, he would make my penis disappear, so actually I don't think his words can be trusted.

 

[Decker]

I had a conversation with my 3 year old son today. It went something like this:

ME: "I listened to a radio show today where a man said he had an amazing photo of the moon but said he wouldn't show anyone."
SON: "Why?"
ME: "I don't know."

Shame on you, Don Ecker. To sit on such an incredible photo for FOURTEEN years is outrageous. One of the strands of the show essentially criticised NASA for being a secretive organisation and not releasing any photos of this nature. How are you any different in this instance?

Kudos to you for finding such a photo in the first place, and also for damping down Mr Hatcher-Childress's wild speculations, but with your action (or inaction in this case), you have become part of the problem instead of being part of the solution.

At best, this smacks of hypocrisy. At worst, it shows contempt for your fellow truth-seekers.

Shit, sir, or get off the pot.

Respectfully yours

Matt Deacon.

Okay, feel better now that you got that off your chest? Good.

Decker

 

[mattdeacon]

Yes. Much better. That was winding me up all afternoon, and as soon as i posted that reply, I turned to my better half and said "Oooh, that feels good to get off my chest!!"