• 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!

May 18th Show

valiens

Skilled Investigator
Wow, creepy personal Twilight Zone moment...a little while ago I posted a thread at ATS, where I barely ever post, asking, If 'Nam & the Kennedy assassination had never happened, would we still trust the government/military complex today?

And now I'm listening to Dave talk about that very thing.
 
valiens said:
Wow, creepy personal Twilight Zone moment...a little while ago I posted a thread at ATS, where I barely ever post, asking, If 'Nam & the Kennedy assassination had never happened, would we still trust the government/military complex today?

And now I'm listening to Dave talk about that very thing.


Creepier: I remember the Kennedy assassination very well, and I think a lot of our trust in government died with it. The ongoing conspiracy theories don't help, and whether he was done in by the CIA, Johnson, the Mafia, or a combination of those three and some others doesn't matter. We were never the same.
 
Gene, had that one-two punch not happened ('Nam/JFK) do you think Nixon would have done the trick or do you think he'd just be a bump in the road?

I tend to think that we'd have kept that blind faith that even though we don't totally trust these people, some of them are looking out for us right up until Bush, Jr. What say you?

Also, I have a quick Bush anecdote that probably doesn't deserve to be its own thread, which is this:

One of my roommates is good family friends with the head of a disabled veterans organization in Mass. This year he and his colleagues (all disabled vets) were invited to meet Bush at the White House. When Bush entered the room, the first words out of his mouth were, "Oh look, it's the leader of the free world! Everyone's scared of me!" and he gesticulated that "Ooooh, a ghost!" finger wiggle people do for some reason.

This was met with crickets. He didn't know these men; they weren't cronies. They were strangers and vets and not only didn't find it funny, one surmises, COULD NOT FIND THAT FUNNY.

As my roommate said, he's cracking like OJ under the weight of his crimes.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The ongoing conspiracy theories don't help...

No, what didn't help was the ridiculous way the whole episode was handled before and after the shooting and the unbelievable way that the prime suspect was handled. That's not incompetence, that's the public execution of a 'patsy'.
 
Rick Deckard said:
Gene Steinberg said:
The ongoing conspiracy theories don't help...

No, what didn't help was the ridiculous way the whole episode was handled before and after the shooting and the unbelievable way that the prime suspect was handled. That's not incompetence, that's the public execution of a 'patsy'.

The better to product the main beneficiary -- Lyndon Baines Johnson? :D
 
valiens said:
Wow, creepy personal Twilight Zone moment...a little while ago I posted a thread at ATS, where I barely ever post, asking, If 'Nam & the Kennedy assassination had never happened, would we still trust the government/military complex today?

And now I'm listening to Dave talk about that very thing.

Yeh, I often have that happen. David is one of the only people that says what I often think. Besides a few comedians.
 
i enjoyed the show, and i hope you guys continue to enjoy making it.
i look forward to it every week

Thanks for a great listen


respect and regards
mike
 
I'm listening to the show now and something jumps out at me that I have a problem with. During the discussion of the crash retreival where alleged alien bodies were recovered in Brazil, A.J. has a little too much specific information about the USAF consulate supply aircraft that carried the bodies out of Brazil via Panama to China Lake. You then cut to a break, and didn't really challenge how exactly he pieced together all of this information - his sources, etc - all he refers to are a few doctors who allegedly handled the bodies before the topic changes to the break in of his office. Also interesting was the coincidence that they got a jump on this investigation because it happened right near the home of a contributor to his magazine.

When somebody has a story like that, he really needs hard questioning, because it is just not very easily believed, and I'm not really inclined to take him seriously.
 
Montclair04 said:
I'm listening to the show now and something jumps out at me that I have a problem with. During the discussion of the crash retreival where alleged alien bodies were recovered in Brazil, A.J. has a little too much specific information about the USAF consulate supply aircraft that carried the bodies out of Brazil via Panama to China Lake. You then cut to a break, and didn't really challenge how exactly he pieced together all of this information - his sources, etc - all he refers to are a few doctors who allegedly handled the bodies before the topic changes to the break in of his office. Also interesting was the coincidence that they got a jump on this investigation because it happened right near the home of a contributor to his magazine.

When somebody has a story like that, he really needs hard questioning, because it is just not very easily believed, and I'm not really inclined to take him seriously.

Unfortunately, we really didn't have a chance to cover all the ground we wanted to cover, since A.J. wasn't available to do a second hour. Maybe some other time.
 
That's fair - Don't get me wrong, the reason that I listen to the show every week is that you generally don't put up with the grand stories that some guests weave and you do require them to be accountable.

By the way that may have been the fastest reply to a post ever! Have a good week -
 
Montclair04 said:
That's fair - Don't get me wrong, the reason that I listen to the show every week is that you generally don't put up with the grand stories that some guests weave and you do require them to be accountable.

By the way that may have been the fastest reply to a post ever! Have a good week -

We do our best -- to be fast that is. At least when we can.
 
Good show, but despite David's proclamation that his buddy called it much ado about nothing, I'm still not convinced that what goes on at the yearly Bohemian Grove is entirely innocent. Frankly, if you don't like the way things have gone in America since the assassination of JFK, the first place you'll want to look is at the many clandestine power circles out there. The secret meetings that go on in such places as the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, these so-called "policy-oriented discussion groups". Why is there such little interest in these groups? What are they hiding? Why exactly are they hiding? Why are they so afraid of the media?

Maybe people like David's friend are invited to the Grove, exposed to the lighthearted shit that goes on then sent away declaring the normalcy of the whole thing, essentially used as positive-spin mouthpieces. Now I know that sounds a bit paranoid, but one has to wonder. Maybe some people think games like this is cool for our elected leaders, but not me. Take a look. Is this a respectable way for world leaders to act?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/bestvintage/photogallery_02.html

And yes, the concept of the "Cremation of Care" is exactly what your cynical side thinks it is: It's a way for all the big boys to get together and rid themselves of the guilt involved in making the decisions and taking the actions they do to gain and retain their power. EXAMPLE: You recently attacked and occupied an Arab country and killed 100,000 innocent people. Chill, you can just wash away the stains at the Grove. Burn baby, burn.

Skull and Bones: In the last election two members of the Skull and Bones went head to head, ultimately giving us the wonderful experience of George W. Bush. And some people don't see anything too strange about that. WTF? Even if you had the most rudimentary knowledge of the Skull and Bones you would find that very, very bizarre and somewhat disturbing. The oaths they take in that society are extremely serious. For anyone who wants to learn more, I highly recommend reading "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power" by Alexandra Robbins. And please, do yourself a favor and ignore the shitty review on Amazon. It's bullshit. The book is very good. It's probably some of the Bonesmen giving the bad reviews. As they say, "Yours in Bones". Fuckers.

One other thing: Let's not forget that much of the secrecy in the UFO area follows the same pattern of deception as one finds in the secret societies. There's clearly a pattern here.

As far as the A. J. Gevaerd half of the show, great stuff there. I'm very, very interested in the Varginha Case and I hope you can get him back to ask more questions on that. He strikes me as an interesting guy, and I'd like to hear more about his involvement in the case. A couple of aspects of the sighting really stand out. First, the fact that they were able to get on site so quickly after the initial events of the sighting is incredible serendipitous. With the activities so fresh, it must have given the investigators a particularly lucid set of witnesses to deal with. Secondly, it is fascinating that there are so many types of witnesses, and such a high number in a small city. Many of the witnesses are military, and a military cop even died after holding one of the injured beings. That is weird.

I'll have to check out his book on the event. In the meantime, here's an interesting page on the case:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/varginhanew.html
 
Good show, shame AJ couldn't stick around although I don't object to an episode of "shop talk" every now and again.

One thing that really began to grate on me (and yes, I AM being a pedantic douche about this but whatever) is that David consitently reffered to it as "the Camelot Project". It's "Project Camelot". If you're gonna take someone to task, particularily over a concept such as "due diligence" you should at least have made the minimal effort to learn their damn name. I can assure you'd it would bug me just as much to hear someone like Horn refer to this show as "the Paranormalcast" or something.

Speaking of same, what do you think the odds are of having Ryan and Cassidy back on the show at some point and perhaps asking them why the hell their seemingly ground-breaking series of globe-trotting interviews rapidly devolved into this circus of sideshow freaks and loons?

Sub-note: That Green guy who claimed Kennedy wanted to pick up his daughter is also a hardcore Meier supporter and claims to have ongoing pleiadean contacts of his own, so that's that.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
After Project Serpo and all that nonsense we're not so inclined to have them back.

Good call.

Bill Hamilton not going to get criticized by anyone? He's part of that Camelot bs, no? And a Friend of Bill Cooper, when he was alive.
 
CapnG said:
One thing that really began to grate on me (and yes, I AM being a pedantic douche about this but whatever) is that David consitently reffered to it as "the Camelot Project". It's "Project Camelot". If you're gonna take someone to task, particularily over a concept such as "due diligence" you should at least have made the minimal effort to learn their damn name. I can assure you'd it would bug me just as much to hear someone like Horn refer to this show as "the Paranormalcast" or something.

You mean "Projecto Spamaloto"? Yeah, I guess I screwed that up.

How about I never mention the fucking thing again, that work for ya?

dB
 
David Biedny said:
How about I never mention the fucking thing again, that work for ya?

Do what you like man, it's your show.

One other point you brought up which I found interesting is the deification of Ronald Reagan. Given the contrast between then and now, it makes me wonder how the Bush era will be discussed in 20 years or so...

An interesting metric for this sort of thing is comedy. Search around for some Carlin from the early 80s and you'll find alot of the political discourse is identical to what we've been hearing over the past 8 years, just mentally swap out the word "communist" for "terrorist" and the majority of it can be applied as is. Scary!
 
I thought AJ was a good guest and I wish he had more time. I think both Gene and David have a lot of CLASS for offering AJ help with getting the stories out there via a server. Hopefully he takes the offer up and gets that info out there.

Now, for the majority of what I want to reply about.

Some of the comments David made I take a difference on. In particular his statements about “Bohemian Grove” and also in regards to Noam Chomsky.

Let me be clear that I find it a secondary issue the deep “conspiracy” about the events that take place each year deep in the woods in California. I don’t find the IMPORTANT points to look at the events to be that these are “devil worshiping ghouls” rather then to be a platform for the most influential human beings on earth to discuss how to “run the world” in an unofficial manner. Do I find it “odd” that they put on druid costumes and burn “effigies” of humans to a giants 40 foot owl that represents “Moloch”, a deity of the devil? Yeah, I do. It’s fucking weird. If they do it for “fun” or they worship the devil doesn’t concern me though.

What concerns me is this is this meeting is a place that decisions are made and polices are discussed without any legal process. The debate of “law” the various direction that this country goes in is done though our congress. It’s flat out ILLEGAL, it’s TREASON for elected officials of the US government to meet and discuss US policy with anyone from another country. It’s espionage under the Logan Act. It’s known that official US leaders go there and also that international leaders along with high level business leaders attend the Grove. While the question about the majority of attendees “burn babies to the devil” or whatever nonsense is used to somehow to mineralize that those attending are setting polices in an treasonous, illegal manner. It’s a crime scene IMO.

You mentioned that your “friend” attends. Does your friend sit with George Schultz and set US policy? Did your friend sit in on the discussion on the “Manhattan Project” that is accepted as being decided at the Grove? The conspiracy of it being a devil worshiping event to a “boys will be boys” week of debauchery are wide in spectrum. What the Bohemian Grove meetings are to the general observer there is a free-for-all fun fest of drugs, alcohol, and sex. What it really is though is a means for illegal meetings that discuss not only US policy but global policy as well.

As for Noam Chomsky, I just have to say this. I have “Hegemony or Survival” and “Failed States” on my bookshelf. I’ve read them and at the time found them fascinating. Here is my problem. It’s been shortly brought up here previously but I’ll directly address it. As brilliant, lucid, and intelligent as Noam is why does it FAIL on addressing the BIG ISSUE?

9/11. I don’t “take people to task” if they disagree with me on 9/11 if they are “regular” folks. When I say regular I mean specially those who have not personally taken the time to READ the 9/11 Commission Report. I just see it as we disagree. I hold Noam to a different intellectual standard. I feel, for the proper reasons.

As someone who has addressed his personal concerns over the 9/11 events, regardless of you detailed views, how are you comfortable calling someone your “hero” who speaks the same rhetoric as the general public about 9/11? Isn’t that are serious conflict of interest?

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, Noam Chomsky is a “LEFT GATE-KEEPER” that talks about important issues but leaves you at the steps of the more important views. I am not claiming he is “CIA” or anything like that. Just that his 9/11 views are downright insulting and ignorant for a man of his intelligence. He should KNOW better. To say it was just the “Neo-Con bunglers” mismanaging and failing to protect the country deeply insults me. To make outrageous comments like “If the (US) government did it what would it matter?” to me shows he has lost some common sense at best. As a former supporter of his work I find him to be a limited hang out now. I just don’t know how someone who questions the 9/11 events can call him a hero. It makes no practical sense.
 
cottonzway said:
treasonous, illegal ... a crime

After spending quite a bit of time on this board, I feel I know where your head is at regarding this issue cotton, so I really don't feel I need to point this out but I'm going to anyway just for it's own sake.

Regarding Bohemian Grove, here's the problem: You're applying the laws that govern us to the higher-ups. It doesn't work that way and you know it. There are two worlds at play: the world we think we live in and the world as it actually is. In the world you think we live in, concepts like treason and crime are concrete and immutable. In the real world these are quaint notions dreamt of by fools and the actual decisions are made by people we probably never see that effect our lives in ways in which we have no say and no recourse.

Bohemian Grove is an Orwellian frat-house where the party elite gather to whoop it up and laugh at the proles. And while we know that various policies are admittedly discussed there, we also know it's not the only time and place where they are.

One final note, I have not been able to find any details anywhere that point to the statue being that of Molech, a deity depicted as a sort of minotaur in every piece of documentation I've seen thus far. It seems to be a confabulation concocted entirely by Alex Jones.
 
Back
Top