• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

July 23, 2017 — Peter Robbins




Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
No, we didn't talk about the aftermath of the breakup of Peter Warren and his co-author and former friend, Larry Warren.

But we did discuss a variety of fascinating UFO-related issues, including the possible genesis of the Silence Group.

On this week's episode of After The Paracast, Greg Bishop joined me to talk about the Robbins/Warren matter and other issues.

After The Paracast is available exclusively to subscribers of The Paracast+.

For more information, please check here:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

You may also download a copy of Peter's statement about Larry Warren here:
 

Attachments

Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
Peter Robbins is a pleasant gentleman.
Yes, that is how I would describe him also. I feel he has real integrity and he's one of those people you just know you could meet and spend an enjoyable afternoon with that is never boring.
 

Greers Meeting Planner

Paranormal Adept
Nice guy but typical of the field & why it's treading water.

Too many assumptions, too many leaps towards conclusions. Too many seeing things through a humans in 2017 lens when trying to consider "alien" activity and agenda.

All this makes him a true believers guy and not really one that is going to help the UFO agnostics get to the source
 

ChrisJohnsen

Paranormal Adept
I never fail to enjoy a Peter Robbins conversation on any of the myriad podcasts I listen to. He's such an intelligent, thoughtful and articulate gentleman. I like his openness and honesty when it comes to many of the admittedly speculative opinions he holds. I tend to agree with him more often than not, or, at the very least, acknowledge his speculations have some merit in most cases. Where he does lose me is when he praises individuals like Stephen Bassett for essentially being a fanatical "true believer" (my words, not his). Whenever I think about Bassett and the interviews I've heard on recent podcasts where he's spewing his unhinged, and frankly, comical beliefs, I often recall one of my favorite lines from the HBO sketch comedy series, Mr. Show w/Bob & David, "Don't shit in my mouth and call it a sundae." Essentially, a more disgusting version of "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." That, to me, neatly sums up Bassett's BS. The fact that someone as seemingly level-headed and informed as Robbins could respect him is troubling, though probably a testament to just how nice of a man he (Robbins, not Bassett) really is.

Other than Rendlesham, which was avoided per the guest's insistence, I felt that there were some areas missed in the discussion. Per my questions submitted prior to the conversation, I would have loved it if Gene had ever-so-gently inquired about his subsequent feelings, post-Warren breakup, about Nick Pope, Robbins thoughts and stories about the controversial Wilhelm Reich, and perhaps revisiting some of his sister Helen's abduction experiences back in the day in NYC.

On a somewhat tangential note, a recent trend I've noticed, not just by guests visiting The Paracast but on several other paranormal podcasts as well, is guests seem to be throwing around the term "scientific" these days, as it relates to several researcher's efforts, when I don't see anything remotely "scientific" that could be attributed to that researcher's work. None are even scientists. That's not to imply their work isn't interesting, valid, or even credible, just that it is in no way "scientific," which by definition means "based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science." Robbins made a reference to, I think, Budd Hopkins' work being "scientific." What is "scientific" about the process of an art history major, painter, sculptor and self-taught hypnotist, interviewing alleged UFO abductees like he's a qualified psychotherapist? I'll save you the time, nothing! He suffers from the same sort of lack of scientific credibility as his protege, retired history professor David Jacobs. Anyway, it's something I've noticed many people saying when referring to a particular researcher's work when there is really nothing remotely scientific about their process. The word is just being misused in an attempt to add credibility to said researcher's efforts. I bring it up only because I think its misuse should be called out and questioned by hosts when they hear it being flagrantly used and with little evidence supporting the claim.
#EndRant

Again, an enjoyable episode. I was a little sad to see Gene handling host duties all by his lonesome but being the consummate professional he is, the conversation was well-handled. As for ATP, I always enjoy Greg Bishop's take on almost anything UFO and paranormal related. We both live in Los Angeles, I want to take him and Walter Bosley to lunch or dinner one of these days...
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
About Hopkins: I didn't want to get into THAT all over again. Robbins worked with and was a supporter of his. We've covered that ground over and over again. But I do want to revisit abductions in another way, as you probably know.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Well. I haven't been as impressed with Leir's claims as Robbins is. I removed an odd little lens shaped thing from the back of my neck last week that I could just as easily claim was an implant as the things I've seen in Leir's photos and videos. This thing actually looked even more like one, but I'm personally satisfied it was just a piece of naturally embedded keratin. None of the other analysis of Leir's stuff ( or any other implant claim for that matter ) has ever made me take a second look. If these claims were true IMO we'd know beyond any doubt by now without all the controversy and ambiguity.

I'm also not sure I'd characterize Hopkins or any other abduction researcher as making a "scientific" contribution. That doesn't mean I don't think there's value in their contributions, but hypnotic regression remains contentious. Mack is somewhat of an exception but I'd call him more of an academic than a "scientist". So I dunno. I totally agree with his view that there's a cover-up over alien visitation, but then he also seemed to think the Walton case is the real deal. I'm getting to the point where I'm wondering if there's anybody out there who doesn't stretch their belief system as far as their wishful thinking will allow?
 

ChrisJohnsen

Paranormal Adept
About Hopkins: I didn't want to get into THAT all over again. Robbins worked with and was a supporter of his. We've covered that ground over and over again. But I do want to revisit abductions in another way, as you probably know.
I'll assume you were directing part of your post to me, so I'll point out that at no time did I say I wish you had talked about Budd Hopkins. I agree with you, been there, done that, and they were super close for decades. I respect that and don't think we'll get any new revelations, let alone criticisms, there. My mentioning Hopkins in my previous post was only to illustrate my point that I see a troubling trend of guests using the word "scientific" when discussing some researchers work when no such term is remotely appropriate.
 

ChrisJohnsen

Paranormal Adept
Well. I haven't been as impressed with Leir's claims as Robbins is. I removed an odd little lens shaped thing from the back of my neck last week that I could just as easily claim was an implant as the things I've seen in Leir's photos and videos. This thing actually looked even more like one, but I'm personally satisfied it was just a piece of naturally embedded keratin. None of the other analysis of Leir's stuff ( or any other implant claim for that matter ) has ever made me take a second look. If these claims were true IMO we'd know beyond any doubt by now without all the controversy and ambiguity.

I'm also not sure I'd characterize Hopkins or any other abduction researcher as making a "scientific" contribution. That doesn't mean I don't think there's value in their contributions, but hypnotic regression remains contentious. Mack is somewhat of an exception but I'd call him more of an academic than a "scientist". So I dunno. I totally agree with his view that there's a cover-up over alien visitation, but then he also seemed to think the Walton case is the real deal. I'm getting to the point where I'm wondering if there's anybody out there who doesn't stretch their belief system as far as their wishful thinking will allow?
I'm with you, Randall. Dr. Leir's claims always seemed like a reach. I'm not aware of any definitive proof that the asymmetrical little foreign items he's removed from his patients were anything but weird anomalies. They certainly don't look "high tech" or "designed" in any way and no evidence was ever shown that I've seen that they had any sort of functional purpose to explain why they would have been implanted into humans in the first place, let alone by aliens.

Referring to Leir's work on alleged "alien implants" as "scientific" simply because he's a doctor and a foot surgeon, is stretching it. What relevance did his medical training lend to the actual research claiming that these anomalies removed from people were "alien implants?" What medical tests were done on the removed "implants" that shed any light on what they were and what their function was? Again, none that I'm aware of. I'd love to be directed to some actual verifiable evidence. Oh, right, this is ufology. Verifiable evidence has proven to be elusive and in short supply.
 

Banshee O'Night

Paranormal Novice
Read Mr. Robbins letter online. It seems clear, not simply because of Mr. Robbins' statements, but from other sources, that Mr. Warren did falsely represent himself, but the tragedy of that falsehood is that he will continue to appear reported in other people's literature about the UFO field as a legitimate witness when it appears he was not. Especially tragic when he attached to one of the more interesting UFO events of the 20th century.

The problem with UFO literature, as well as conventional historical texts, is that no one basically goes back and curates past works in print to help separate the ones most based on credible evidence and investigation efforts. Maybe Chris O'Brien might consider publishing a list of those he deems most credible about the UFO field, and even those he questions but points out the places in the books they veer off in his opinion, but are otherwise worthwhile?
 


Top