July 11 2010 - Co-host roundtable

[Paul Kimball]

I figured a thread about the actual show, as opposed to complaining about the ads or the format, would be useful.

By the way, apropos of the incident I related about Ghost Cases and the Algonquin Hotel, this week's episode of My Ghost Story on A & E Biography is the one that has Holly Stevens on it, along with the footage I discussed. Saturday evening, 10 pm EST.

 

[Michael Allen]

I figured a thread about the actual show, as opposed to complaining about the ads or the format, would be useful.

By the way, apropos of the incident I related about Ghost Cases and the Algonquin Hotel, this week's episode of My Ghost Story on A & E Biography is the one that has Holly Stevens on it, along with the footage I discussed. Saturday evening, 10 pm EST.

The ads seemed targeted to a particular audience.

Overall a good discussion--I fell asleep listening around hour 2 and had to rewind this morning.

Question for Paul:
Do you think the number of monitoring devices present in your ghost hunting affects the actual phenomena? I recall Knapp saying something to the effect that the NIDS team at the "Skinwalker" ranch (can't remember the exact quote from Knapp on the show) actually regretted the inclusion of so many tracking cameras and devices on the premises. IF this is truly a phenomena that responds to human presence, one might also expect it to be aware of the devices used to monitor it. Some of the wildest ghosts may be "camera shy."

Article for the Trickster Impersonator:

An interesting paper discussing the paradoxical avatar of Vishnu teaching others deceit and trickery while preaching against it:

Chicago Scholarly Review

Question for Chris O'Brien

Michio Kaku (in 1997) once said the best way for a class 2 civilization to explore the galaxy would be to send thousands of small little "von neuman" replicating probes. Given that your proposition concerning our own genetic memory / collective unconscious preparing our species for the next stage of evolution (leaving our planet)--what if the "von neuman" replicating probes were really just carbon biomechanical bipedal entities--with the replicators being our DNA.

So in effect, our existence along with the anomalous phenomenon would be the actual methodology...we are now sending signals back into space. Perhaps SETI is just the final capstone to a program initiated by a type II civilization coaxing self-replicating biomechanical matter to send back signals.

In essence, we may be simultaneously the trickster and the trickster's programming revealing itself to itself.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Question for Paul:
Do you think the number of monitoring devices present in your ghost hunting affects the actual phenomena? I recall Knapp saying something to the effect that the NIDS team at the "Skinwalker" ranch (can't remember the exact quote from Knapp on the show) actually regretted the inclusion of so many tracking cameras and devices on the premises. IF this is truly a phenomena that responds to human presence, one might also expect it to be aware of the devices used to monitor it. Some of the wildest ghosts may be "camera shy."

An interesting question. One of the first things you realize as a documentary maker is that as soon as you train your camera on something, you alter what is going to happen (unless it's a hidden camera). Sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's not, but complete objectivity doesn't exist under those circumstances. People change when a camera is on them.

I mention this because if ghosts are the spirits of the dead, then one might well expect the same reaction when cameras and audio recording equipment are involved. In the case of the "orb" that Holly "experienced" perhaps it was "performing" specifically because the camera was there.

Or perhaps it really was just a piece of dust flying in a straight line to the window where the bride jumped, followed by Holly looking behind her in that same direction?

To answer your question, yes, I think the presence of any equipment might have an effect on the phenomenon, if there really is one... but I think the presence of people asking the ghosts out on dates might have the same effect.

 

[Michael Allen]

An interesting question. One of the first things you realize as a documentary maker is that as soon as you train your camera on something, you alter what is going to happen (unless it's a hidden camera). Sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's not, but complete objectivity doesn't exist under those circumstances. People change when a camera is on them.

I mention this because if ghosts are the spirits of the dead, then one might well expect the same reaction when cameras and audio recording equipment are involved. In the case of the "orb" that Holly "experienced" perhaps it was "performing" specifically because the camera was there.

Or perhaps it really was just a piece of dust flying in a straight line to the window where the bride jumped, followed by Holly looking behind her in that same direction?

To answer your question, yes, I think the presence of any equipment might have an effect on the phenomenon, if there really is one... but I think the presence of people asking the ghosts out on dates might have the same effect.

I thought it might be interesting to check a site remotely by using a low profile device such as a LADS (Laser audio surveillance device) targeted at windows (a eavesdropping method via measuring vibrations in the glass)--Assuming one could properly hide the beam from being "seen" by the apparition.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

It was a fine launch program for introducing Gene and the co-hosts to the new radio audience.

But the Paracast has always been its strongest, I feel, when it focused on one or two topics/stories, going in depth into those, featuring guests who have researched the particular phenomena, and the hosts "cross-examined" those "experts". I'm really looking forward to the next episode! Continued good luck! I'll be spreading the word around this area.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I definitely disagree with just about everything Christopher O'Brien has to say, his methods, and his conclusions. It seems rather undisciplined and lazy that virtually anything that happens is attributed by him to the "Trickster," making an already dubious theory worthless. But then maybe I'm working for the Trickster, too?

I have never, ever said anywhere the "virtually anything that happens" is due to a trickster force/energy/manifestation et. al., rather, I've attempted to illustrate the tricksterish nature of the phenomena and remind us that there is something "closed system" going on that has yet to be addressed by the research community (let alone defined) . We are dealing with a highly complex, multifarious scenario and IMO some kind of "trickster" force seems to be involved in countless examples/manifestations of (so-called) paranormal phenomena. Even though you seem to choose not to, I'm sure you can grasp this concept, no?

btw: Its OK if you think I suck Lance, I appreciate you playing trickster in this thread—I'll thank you sometime in your next incarnation as a returning armchair pontificator...

 

[tyder001]

It's funny how "personal perspective" clouds ones judgement on issues. For instance I have been thinking for some time now that this place has been "over-ran" by atheist maquarading as skeptics. That everytime one "dares" to say they "believe" or have "expereinced" a "devine" or "spiritual" or "paranormal" encounter they are "set upon" by the mob yelling "That's not Science!"

Yet Lance belives (it appears) that everytime he or other non-believers in the paranormal speak they are attacked by irrational sky god beliveing, paranormal loving massess who close their rational minds and shout down the rational explanations that the "bad man" with the "truth" gives.

So, I guess perspecitive is everything. I am aware of my own bias and freely admit it. But that doesn't mean I'm fully awake and correct everytime I voice my opinion. It just seems funny because if you take what Lance thinks and turn it around I have the same opinion in reverse. I will say this however. It is called the "Paracast" and if Gene and some of the others didn't at least "entertain" the possibiltiy of the paranormal they would be wasting their time and everyone else's time on here. My question is this (and no I'm not turning hypocrite I still believe in free speech and non-censorship unless bodily harm or slander is going on.) I will defend the right of Lance or Openmindedman or anybody else to come here and debate. But, I do wonder why you bother if your minds made up and it's all rubbish. Just seems like a waste of time in that case. But that's just my .2 cents worth.

Peace.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Question for Chris O'Brien

Michio Kaku (in 1997) once said the best way for a class 2 civilization to explore the galaxy would be to send thousands of small little "von neuman" replicating probes. Given that your proposition concerning our own genetic memory / collective unconscious preparing our species for the next stage of evolution (leaving our planet)--what if the "von neuman" replicating probes were really just carbon biomechanical bipedal entities--with the replicators being our DNA.

So in effect, our existence along with the anomalous phenomenon would be the actual methodology...we are now sending signals back into space. Perhaps SETI is just the final capstone to a program initiated by a type II civilization coaxing self-replicating biomechanical matter to send back signals.

In essence, we may be simultaneously the trickster and the trickster's programming revealing itself to itself.

Excellent point! This is pretty much what I have surmised, that the "trickster" force (for lack of a better, more accurate term) is a collective manifestation of our own self-generated program or imperative to trick us off-planet to seed the universe. As for the alien nano scenario, this reminds me of Terence McKenna's suggestion that mushrooms, especially psylicybin,—the spores from which can survive the radiation and vacuum of space for perhaps millions of years—may have been seeded into our closed-system to help jumpstart the development of human consciousness. There are so many creative theories out there that never receive the proper amount of discussion because most of us are too busy looking for humanoid-appearing "aliens" from other planets. Or as McKenna called them: Pro bono proctologists from other planets. Sometimes creative thinkers in this field are forced to feel like Gallileo under house arrest.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It's funny how "personal perspective" clouds ones judgement on issues. For instance I have been thinking for some time now that this place has been "over-ran" by atheist maquarading as skeptics. That everytime one "dares" to say they "believe" or have "expereinced" a "devine" or "spiritual" or "paranormal" encounter they are "set upon" by the mob yelling "That's not Science!"

Yet Lance belives (it appears) that everytime he or other non-believers in the paranormal speak they are attacked by irrational sky god beliveing, paranormal loving massess who close their rational minds and shout down the rational explanations that the "bad man" with the "truth" gives.

So, I guess perspecitive is everything. I am aware of my own bias and freely admit it. But that doesn't mean I'm fully awake and correct everytime I voice my opinion. It just seems funny because if you take what Lance thinks and turn it around I have the same opinion in reverse. I will say this however. It is called the "Paracast" and if Gene and some of the others didn't at least "entertain" the possibiltiy of the paranormal they would be wasting their time and everyone else's time on here. My question is this (and no I'm not turning hypocrite I still believe in free speech and non-censorship unless bodily harm or slander is going on.) I will defend the right of Lance or Openmindedman or anybody else to come here and debate. But, I do wonder why you bother if your minds made up and it's all rubbish. Just seems like a waste of time in that case. But that's just my .2 cents worth.

Peace.

It really is all about perspective, and we heard that with this week's show. The four guests/co-hosts really laid their cards out on the table and showed that even though they don't agree on a certain things, common ground can always be found.
With regards to this forum being over-run by atheists and skeptics, I would hardly say so. There are definitely more skeptics on this forum that I would say are on any other paranormal forum. I used to be on other paranormal forums as a well (rarely posting), but I my belief in the paranormal dwindled as I embraced the skeptical mindset. I am still interested in the topic, though from a different angle than many on this forum. I'd have to say that I see pretty eye-to-eye with Lance on most stuff I've discussed in this forum. Rest assured that if a paranormal scenario is presented, I will always look for a more rational explanation before deeming it unexplained (never paranormal though). We all know that there's a lot of stuff that we don't know yet, which is probably what accounts for some of the things we deem paranormal.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

It's funny how "personal perspective" clouds ones judgement on issues. ... I guess perspecitive is everything. I am aware of my own bias and freely admit it.

Yes, and no matter where you go, prejudices and misunderstanding plague those on all sides of the issues: The Paracast Forums are no different.

I am open to rational discussions and debates about paranormal topics, but I am also a "true believer" in that I try very hard each day--and usually without much progress--to take my Catholic faith seriously, trying to truly live it. In certain settings, I can talk freely and openly about what's going on inside of me, and those who understand will respond with respect. In other settings, I find myself on the receiving end of truly mean-spirited, ignorant, condescending prejudice and hatred. As you said, "perspective is everything." But it's also a good reminder of how hard I need to work to keep my own prejudices and temper in check.

We're all works-in-progress, and it would be a great thing if we all helped each other along on the journey rather than see how hard we can make the other guy fall.

Anyway ....

 

[Will Penguin]

But I have heard you attribute most any topic of discussion to the "trickster" which makes the whole concept useless to my low-level way of thinking.

There's a significant difference between pointing out that many phenomenon have "trickster-ish" elements/phenomena associated with them and "attributing most any topic of discussion to the 'trickster'". If the latter is all you're getting from Mr. O'Brian's appearances, I'd suggest a more careful appraisal of his part in the discussion.

 

[Will Penguin]

So a phenomenon may have "trickster-ish" elements but have nothing to do with the Trickster "theory."

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, or what it has to do with my point... and without that understanding I can't really reply to your post.

 

[Ron Collins]

It's funny how "personal perspective" clouds ones judgement on issues. For instance I have been thinking for some time now that this place has been "over-ran" by atheist maquarading as skeptics. That everytime one "dares" to say they "believe" or have "expereinced" a "devine" or "spiritual" or "paranormal" encounter they are "set upon" by the mob yelling "That's not Science!"

Personally, I am not atheist. I can envision a higher existence that this current one yet I can say categorically that I do not accept any major religious dogma as being the absolute embodiment of truth. I like science as it gives us either tangible answers or puts us on a path of discovery. Faith, in my opinion, stagnates and cripples progress. I like to approach things with a mostly skeptical view but unlike Lance and Angel I have no inherent problem with there being a "paranormal" angle to things.

Yet Lance belives (it appears) that everytime he or other non-believers in the paranormal speak they are attacked by irrational sky god believing, paranormal loving massess who close their rational minds and shout down the rational explanations that the "bad man" with the "truth" gives.

What? Shy and quiet Lance? Surely not. He's so tolerant and patient.

So, I guess perspecitive is everything. I am aware of my own bias and freely admit it. But that doesn't mean I'm fully awake and correct everytime I voice my opinion. It just seems funny because if you take what Lance thinks and turn it around I have the same opinion in reverse. I will say this however. It is called the "Paracast" and if Gene and some of the others didn't at least "entertain" the possibiltiy of the paranormal they would be wasting their time and everyone else's time on here. My question is this (and no I'm not turning hypocrite I still believe in free speech and non-censorship unless bodily harm or slander is going on.) I will defend the right of Lance or Openmindedman or anybody else to come here and debate. But, I do wonder why you bother if your minds made up and it's all rubbish. Just seems like a waste of time in that case. But that's just my .2 cents worth.

I am glad that Angel, Lance and even Openmindedman are here and active on the forum. I have definite conclusions that have been drawn through tons of research. Things like, the existence of UFO's and the evidence for there non-prosaic nature as well as other paranormal things. But I am happy to have those conclusions challenged intelligently. I think it is healthy to examine all sides of the issues we discuss and the ardent skeptics opinion, when presented respectfully(or at least not being deliberately nasty), is a large portion of these issues that need to be addressed. After all, there are plenty of places out there that sponsor collections of mutual ego strokers if that is what your after.

Of course, there is always the hope that both sides can approach the subject objectively and concede a prosaic conclusion when the facts suggest one and a non-prosaic one if that is what they indicate. Lets hope that can still happen.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

My original point was that Mr. O'Brien attributes so many things (virtually any topic that comes up,. it seems to me) to the Trickster that I find it impossible to see how the "theory" could have any value, being so broad and indistinct a concept that it can mean anything you want it to.

Have you read Stalking the Tricksters? Have you read any of my books? Have you ever investigated a single case out in-the-field? Have you read Keel, Vallee, Branden, Jung, Hansen, Hyde, Radin, et al., or any of the ground breaking, creative thinkers in the ufo/paranormal/trickster realm? Are you familiar with the width, breadth and scope of my investigative efforts in the San Luis Valley? Do you even know where the SLV is located? If you answered NO to any of these questions, unless you're psychic, how can you possibly comment or pontificate with authority on my work without having first done your homework?

 

[Michael Allen]

@ will



Then maybe I don't understand your point.

My original point (that I thought you were responding to) was that Mr. O'Brien attributes so many things (virtually any topic that comes up,. it seems to me) to the Trickster that I find it impossible to see how the "theory" could have any value, being so broad and indistinct a concept that it can mean anything you want it to.

I think you said there was some distinction between what I claimed and what Mr. O'Brein is actually doing (and left it at that).

I fail to see the distinction .

I also showed examples of what I think the whole thing is all about--which is basically nothing.

If you really want to discuss it then I hope you might appreciate the above clarification I (however clumsy) attempt above.

Lance

Lance, I think Vallee spent a considerable amount of time considering the deception hypothesis--I think of O'Brien's work as an exploration of such in the light of the San Luis Valley area of focus.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I definitely disagree with just about everything Christopher O'Brien has to say, his methods, and his conclusions. It seems rather undisciplined and lazy that virtually anything that happens is attributed by him to the "Trickster," making an already dubious theory worthless.

"Undiscipined and lazy". Since you seem to have not really studied his theory or indeed anything he has said properly then one could attribute that same description to your latest pontification.

[But then maybe I'm working for the Trickster, too?

When you should be working on your manners.

Originally posted by Angel of Ioren.With regards to this forum being over-run by atheists and skeptics, I would hardly say so. There are definitely more skeptics on this forum that I would say are on any other paranormal forum.

I would say that the majority of posters on this forum are sceptical or sceptics. That's one of the things that make this such a great forum. The majority of these sceptics are also respectful towards guests and regular contributors, their theories and opinions alike.There are of course...exceptions!

Ok, now that I have gotten in some of my characteristic snarkiness, let ask you if it is possible in plain language to explain what the Trickster (as you define it) is?

 

[bonaventura]

My only field investigation was on the Otis T. Carr case. Over time I interviewed just about every person associated with the case and filmed interviews with several of them. I am quite sure that I am the leading (and possibly only) expert on Carr. By the way, I know your upcoming guest Childress has written about Carr (much of what he wrote was simply incorrect).

From the Long John Nebel show:

Norman Colton (PR man for Otis T. Carr): "The word is out, it's on the wing. The word is OTC!"

Panelist (Ben Isquith, I think): "That's a word?"

In a ufological world in which even Silas Newton can be rehabilitated, I guess it's no wonder that Otis T. Carr can be hailed as the true heir of Nicola Tesla.

bonaventura

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Which topic are we talking about here? the Trickster phenomenom or your apparent lack of any apparent ability to listen properly to what Chris O'Brien has to say on the subject? I have spent about 30 years studying the paranormal subject on a personal level. As for the trickster phenomenom described by Chris O'Brien (or Phil Imbrogno's study of the Djinn) , I probably heard about it at the same time as you did.

I find the subject interesting and a theory worthy of more study. I can't wait to get hold of his book and study it more. Apart from that, I make no specific pronouncements as to the veracity of Chris and the Trickster theory as you do.

I don't just take it as a given that Christopher O'Brien and his theory are the answers to the paranormal. I neither totally agree with him or disagree with him or the trickster hypothesis.

How much do I have to put into each topic before I am allowed to discuss it here in this scholarly forum

Maybe reading the book before making blanket pronouncements like:
"...It seems rather undisciplined and lazy that virtually anything that happens is attributed by him to the "Trickster," making an already dubious theory worthless. But then maybe I'm working for the Trickster, too?"
It would be great if, on this scolarly forum, you would discuss the subject in a scholarly fashion!

--is it when I am nodding my head to every word)?

Only if you're a bobble head doll or listening to heavy metal music

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I knew when you compared yourself to Galileo, that you must be a pretty big deal.

First off: I do not have the self-important arrogance to compare myself, personally, to Galileo, I was talking about people, like Galileo, who exercise creative thinking in any emerging, proto-scientific field.

While I have read an awful lot of stuff on the topic (including most of the authors you mention), perhaps you might list all the books one must read before discussing the Trickster?

Glad you asked: George Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal, Lewis Hyde's Trickster Makes This World, Paul Radin's The Trickster, Carl Jung's The Red Book (I managed to acquire a first edition/first printing),Vallee's Passport to Magonia, Robert Anton Wilson's Cosmic Trigger: Volume Two, W.Y. Evans-Wentz's The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries…I could add dozens of books that I used for my research, but that's a good sampling, since you asked. Then, consider Stalking the Tricksters...

As to your comment, "…everything Christopher O'Brien has to say, his methods, and his conclusions," [are] "rather undisciplined and lazy," well, maybe you are right: perhaps I need to go back to sound-bite school and re-learn how to pander to the lowest common denominator while making pithy sense to those of us who are already up2speed…
Naw…

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Can anyone estimate, even anecdotally, what ratio of close or medium distance bona fide UFO sightings have "high strangeness" of some sort associated with them? Is this a frequent, or infrequent, occurrence?

On a separate note, here is a view on UFOs from Tom Campbell, one of the founders of the Monroe Institute and a qualified physicist who currently works for NASA. Campbell has developed a theory of what we perceive as "reality" based upon his numerous out-of-body experiences, as well as mainstream science (principally quantum mechanics). Obviously, UFOs need to exist within the context of this larger system, so this is another perspective that approximates the inter-dimensional theory: