March 22nd / interview with Mike C!

[orange]

Thank you.

 

[Apocalypto]

Two people awake, in the middle of the sex act. That's not strange? Maybe I'm getting old.

Gene, I didn't say it wasn't strange. But paranormal? Big leap there. And you're not old, you're just seasoned.

 

[mike]

Yes, that is indeed the video I mentioned.

And I want to state, for the record, that this episode of the show is one of my absolutely personal favorites, as I consider Mike C to be one of the most honest, sincere and intelligent people I've ever met. He's as reasonable and level-headed a person as you could possibly hope for as a witness to strangeness, and I personally find his stories and experiences to be highly compelling and fascinating. I totally relate to his frustrations and concerns in discussing these matters with strangers, and I want to publicly thank him for his courage and determination in sharing his thoughts with us on this show. Mike, in Yiddish, you're what we refer to as a mensch. Thanks for taking the time to come on this show, we're thrilled that you've done so, and I'm proud to call you friend.

dB

Again, i dont want to upset anyone, particularly Mr Biedny, but the comparative observations ive made are i think important.

if Mr Basset had related the completely fabricated memory of Dolores Cannon saying something she never said story, you would have been all over it, and the implications. issues of sanity and non credibility................

But in the interests of friendship and diplomacy, you sweep that under the rug.............

which is what you ripped into Mr Basset for.

that sort of "inconsistancy" which is to put it kindly, is not a valuable tool for the task.

heres another example

I did find the friend who saw the coffee can shaped object with me. And he doesn't remember the event, but he implied that his mother did.

these things are only happening in Mikes head, the video of the Dolores Cannon lecture and her own memory, constitute scientific proof of such.

and where hard data is missing as in the Bud Hopkins confirmation and the friends mother, the word "implied" keeps popping up.

i understand hes your friend, i understand that you have hitched your wagon to his so to speak, and that because of that relationship you choose to overlook some of the glaring examples that are of concern to others like me in regards to sanity and non credibility.

but from my pov, you are doing the same thing you accuse Mr Basset of, in pretty much similar circumstances. (both you and Mr Basset are presenters....)

its only human to be angry at first as you read this, but actually the greater implications are a good thing not a bad thing.
i hope that you eventually see that aspect

as always

Respect and Regards
m

 

[David Biedny]

Mike C. Has not made any claims to "know" what he's going through, he's just asking honest questions and is full of self-doubt about the topics (an attitude I can totally relate to, as I largely share it). Bassett claims to know just about everything about everything, and he's an asshole in his presentation, condescending and largely lacking critical thinking skills. So Mike, I'm not sure why you're trying to equate or compare Mike C. to Bassett, I think that it's a useless - and irrelevant - exercise.

dB

 

[mike]

Mike C. Has not made any claims to "know" what he's going through, he's just asking honest questions and is full of self-doubt about the topics (an attitude I can totally relate to, as I largely share it). Bassett claims to know just about everything about everything, and he's an asshole in his presentation, condescending and largely lacking critical thinking skills. So Mike, I'm not sure why you're trying to equate or compare Mike C. to Bassett, I think that it's a useless - and irrelevant - exercise.

dB

no Mate, i was comparing you to Mr Basset, as presenters................

and for claritys sake, i'll reiterate the specifics


the Dolores cannon lecture.

the video of the lecture and the memory of the speaker do not match Mr Clellands memory.

i dont think hallucination would be the correct clinical term. as i understand it delusion is a better word.

i contend that were Mr Basset to "present" a guest where the simplest explaination for what they are "experiencing" is simple common garden variety delusions, you would be critical of that.

in fact you were critical of that on the show you did with him, and his explaination was that some things have to be "overlooked" for diplomacy and even freindships sakes.
and you were critical of that too.

but youve just done the same thing with this recent show.

my problem is in trying to relate this to you you may choose to see it as a "critisism" of you, but from my pov its not ,its an "observation" of a greater picture, one best described as "its all relative"

just as some of Mr Bassets guests show "red flags" to you, so has your guest done so to me, and reading other forum posts others as well.

there is an old adage about "TRUE" words said in jest....

and i'll quote your guest from another forum, the first words in his OP

Sorry is this seems like a weird ego thing (and it is)

you have (through no real fault of your own) presented an ego centric delusional guest, in the same way and for the same reasons Mr Basset has.......its a two parter and you tick both boxes

again not a direct criticism, rather an observation of the greater "its all relative" picture

 

[Stagger]

Yes, that is indeed the video I mentioned.

BTW: this seems to be the original blog post (apparently by Mr. Vodniza himself or his team)

http://astronomia.universiablogs.net/desde-pasto-se-fotografia-asteroide-clasificado-como-potencialmente-peligroso/

They also link to the full video on spaceweather.com (a large gif, actually). The object is at about at 65-70% of the diagonal.
With my rudimentary Spanish I could not spot any mentions of asteroid-dodging objects.
They do mention that there are only four reports in the whole world concerning the asteroid itself.

LG

 

[David Biedny]

Mike,

There's an old saying - opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

You're certainly entitled to yours. Cheers.

dB

 

[mike]

Mike,

There's an old saying - opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

You're certainly entitled to yours. Cheers.

dB

and as they say one mans meat is another mans poison, or perhaps in this case one mans signal, is another mans noise.

its all relative.......

with that in mind, one must be careful not to demand any more integrity from others in the field, than that which one themselves brings to the table.

as you say this is therapy for you, which is why ive taken the time to point out a pattern to you.
i think its significant, and i think you might have otherwise have missed it, due to your placement within that pattern itself.

Cheers Mate

 

[Schuyler]

there is an old adage about "TRUE" words said in jest....

I believe the phrase is "Kidding on the square.' At least, that's how I have heard it.

-Another neutral post brought to you by Schuyler and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.-

 

[NNN]

Mike, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word delusion. I respectfully suggest that you look it up in a decent dictionary.

Mr Clelland may have suffered a mental aberration (in the example you call delusional) but, frankly, the phenomenon of remembering something significantly inaccurately is relatively common amongst the sane population. I have had many disagreements with people because of this. Some of these aberrations are more elaborate than others.

Suggesting that Mr Clelland's experience obviously has no paranormal significance is, I think, just a shot in the dark.

Here's another one:

Who knows what an advanced culture would use telepathic computers for? They might simply want to hint that they exist.

 

[mike]

I believe the phrase is "Kidding on the square.' At least, that's how I have heard it.

-Another neutral post brought to you by Schuyler and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.-

ive honestly never heard the expression kidding on the square before, my reference was to

Many a true word is spoken in jest

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/truer

 

[skunkape]

Good show, guys.
I have experienced a wide range of intense paranormal phenomena.
I have awakened in the middle of sleep-shtupping.
Is there a connection? Who knows?
Here's a fun case.
The girl who woke up on a crane - Times Online

 

[mike]

Mike, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word delusion. I respectfully suggest that you look it up in a decent dictionary.

Mr Clelland may have suffered a mental aberration (in the example you call delusional) but, frankly, the phenomenon of remembering something significantly inaccurately is relatively common amongst the sane population. I have had many disagreements with people because of this. Some of these aberrations are more elaborate than others.

Suggesting that Mr Clelland's experience obviously has no paranormal significance is, I think, just a shot in the dark.

Here's another one:

Who knows what an advanced culture would use telepathic computers for? They might simply want to hint that they exist.

ive said it before , the use of the word delusion is not an insult, anymore than the use of the word influenza is.

we are just machines, machines break, there is no shame in that being the reality. nor am i insisting that is the reality, but rather that i see the posibility as a likely one from my pov, all the clues are there for me, and others if you read the discussions on another forum about this case.

my understanding of hallucination is they are jarring and dont fit with the background reality, where as a delusion slots in nice and quiet, and is sometimes not even recognised by the person involved, sometimes they get a clue later ,like the video in this case.

as i understand the discussions both here and at paratopia, there is a question now as to whether this "event" as described on the show was a "telepathic download" from sources unseen, or a delusion. one of which is documented in the medical journals as a common enough human thing to do. the other.....not so much

the only reason im disecting this at all, is because Mr Clelland has expressed a sense of anxiety, and worry over this matter.

this is about the raw data presented not the personalitys

if its not telepathic downloads, and is instead just garden variety delusions then thats the good news not the bad news

theres treatment for the latter

 

[NNN]

Mike, I understand the points you are trying to get across.

However, since Mr Clelland seems to be perfectly well aware that his extra memory may simply be an aberration of the mind then he is not delusional; he would have suffered an illusion.

Pay attention this time!

 

[mike]

Mike, I understand the points you are trying to get across.

However, since Mr Clelland seems to be perfectly well aware that his extra memory may simply be an aberration of the mind then he is not delusional; he would have suffered an illusion.

Pay attention this time!

if you read this thread
http://paratopia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=radio&action=display&thread=179&page=1

Mr Clelland is well aware of the possibility its a simple medical disorder, but has decided its not.
thats classic textbook, the delusional personality doesnt think its delusional, so things like the video evidence confuse them.
so instead its telepathic comunication, and abductions. thats a more "comfortable" internal reconciliation than the other possibility up for consideration

there is no shame in being an abductee is there ? i mean its not your fault its happening, so the affects it has on your "real" life are not your fault either.

but if i can get just one thing across its this

the same applys if its just a bit of dodgy mental chemistry

there is no shame in either case

understanding that gives you the freedom to embrace the appropriate reality , and in doing so hopefully find solutions

illusions are something a magician performs on stage

 

[NNN]

Mike, you say, "Mr Clelland is well aware of the possibility its a simple medical disorder, but has decided its not."

I don't see where you got this from but I may have missed it.

Mr Clelland has stated that he has concluded that the extra memory is from his imagination.

However, he is continuing to wonder whether the sense of wierdness that he finds is or is not indicative of something out of the ordinary: I repeat, this is not delusional. It is simply maintaining curiosoty with an open mind.

You (and The Clueless One) seem to be saying that Mr Clelland is in denial; frankly, this is over-egging the pudding.

P.S. I hope you (MikeC) don't mind being talked about as if you aren't in the room!

 

[mikec]

Over-egging the pudding! I like that...

You must REALLY be the guy from the Avengers, right?

Okay - I think the Delores Cannon story has gotten more "egg" than the "Pudding" deserves.

I pretty much said it was my imagination, and I guess I implied that it was funny, and sort of magical - and I ended up meeting David, and the whole thing ended up as something sorta neat. That's as deep as I wanna get!

Mike C!

 

[NNN]

Right, I'm going to admit, now, that I have had some bizarre experiences. The average psychiactric doctor would put them all down to illness.

While I fully see that my mind has clearly gone astray hear and there I still have some niggling doubts about certain occurrences.

I have no beliefs associated with those occurrences so there is no delusion. I feel curiosity: putting it simply, I don't want to have dismissed something for what it is not.

People often say/imply that the presence of mental illness in a person makes them a non-credible witness. This is a ridiculous assumption. Such people's testimony should be greeted with caution. However, most of them are capable of being right(otherwise they could not function within society).

Maybe my niggling doubts about some of my experiences are born of boredom. If they are, at least I'm not so bored!

 

[mike]

I'm on anti-depression medication again after being off for a bunch of years.

and again even though im quoting Mr Clelland , the greater observation im trying to make is not at a personal level.

had that statement or any of the others matters raised been attributable to lets say Mr Basset......

its funny im not seeing a Mr Clelland is a reptoid thread.

Mr Biedny is a "conflicted" individual in this matter, on the one hand he states MikeC is his friend, but at the tail end of the Basset interview, asserts that hes not in this to make friends..........

there are so many threads here where guests are torn new ones after the show is aired, why should the data in this case be assesed to a different standard ?

because hes a friend ?

thats the argument Mr Basset used to justify some of his own guests...... reread the threads about that show...

the usual filters that have been applied to previous guests have been suspended in this case.

im certain that if say Ms Harris or Messers Horn or Basset had related an experience where they "imagined" a false memory, they would have received a very different response from both the host and the forum members for it, than this guest has.

if bob lazar were to offer a story of an experience only to post later in regards to the other witness

I did find the friend who saw the coffee can shaped object with me. And he doesn't remember the event, but he implied that his mother did. But on that event I have a pencil drawing done that same night. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->

the point that would be leapt on, would be the fact that the other witness doesnt recall it, and that any other data is "implied"

moving the goalposts for the sake of freindship is a human thing to do, but if your going to indulge in the practise you have to be willing to cut some slack when others do the same.

the standards we set for ourselfs, are the benchmarks for those we can demand of others

 

[BrandonD]

I'd like to add something about this whole discussion that's going on regarding Mike C's credibility (this one turned out long, so be warned):

For those of us who've reached the basic conclusion that paranormal phenomena cannot all be dismissed as delusions and hoaxes, this means that *something* is definitely going on that is beyond our current understanding.

So if something is going on that is beyond our current understanding, this means that we cannot dismiss testimony for the reason that we don't understand how it is possible.

Yes, in our current picture of the world one cannot hear someone say something in a lecture, and then later watch a video of the lecture and the words are missing. According to our picture of the world, that could only be explained as a "delusion".

But in our current picture of the world beings do not pass through solid walls and speak to us with telepathy. Objects do not take off from a standstill to an instantaneous incredible speed. And yet people are witnessing these things again and again and again.

What I am saying is: In this field, almost EVERYTHING is strange and difficult to believe. But nevertheless something is happening and it won't go away. We need to stop carelessly discarding testimony because we don't understand it. We are all essentially talking monkeys and we shouldn't think so highly of our mental models of the world.

These paranormal phenomena (and my personal experience) tell me that there is something incorrect at the fundamental basis of our assumptions about ourselves and the world. So we shouldn't take what we imagine to "know" for granted.

Now with all that said, I still think the veracity of testimony is definitely something worth trying to find. But since it's very difficult to judge the story on the content alone, information about the teller of the story is essential.

The 3 most important questions for "experiencers" in my opinion:

1) Does the person claim to have "the answers"?

2) Does the person display any of the psychological characteristics of someone who tells stories or seeks public attention?

3) Does the person have something to sell?

These 3 questions are equally important (or more important in my opinion) as the content of the story itself.

If the person checks out for all 3, then there's still that darned "delusion" excuse, which is basically another one of those "terms that essentially mean nothing", all of which help to keep our talking-monkey world intact.

So then there's question 4:

4) Does this person come off as an intelligent and critical thinker?

If a person checks out for 4 as well, then you can be sure that if this person has decided to come forward with his story, then he has probably already considered all the tidy mundane explanations for his experience, and yet he STILL thinks there is something more to it.

I don't necessarily consider myself a great judge of character, but in my opinion Mike C passed my checklist, so I'd say his testimony is worth listening to.

Just throwin out stuff to consider.