-
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!
Phillip Coppens
- Thread starter wwkirk
- Start date
trilithium
"I Wish I Knew"
What a great guest, I thoroughly enjoyed this show. A very intelligent man with some great ideas and insight, I hope you bring him back again!
toxicsurf
Skilled Investigator
I'll third that. A very good show this past Sunday. I think Coppens has a fine balance of beliefs based on evidence and skepticism. I've already listened to it twice and know it'll take another couple listens to absorb it all. I almost feel like taking notes so I can look up some of the stuff he talked about. Maybe I should just get the book...
Digital Trickster
Paranormal Maven
I really enjoyed the show too.He was very interesting to listen to and i agree it was nice that he is open to hear others opinions and doesnt become hostile when they are given.I hope you have him on again in the the future and maybe you can get David Hatcher Childress on with him i would love to hear Coppens views on Davids beliefs on the subject.I already have my money on Coppens to come out on top in that debate if you can make it happen.Thanks again for another great show guys !
We like Philip. So I'm quite sure he'll be back.
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
Philip is incredibly intelligent and articulate when explaining his alternative views on ancient history, while at the same time not being dogmatic about it.
Also, a rule of thumb I have to judge Paracast guests is whether they show a healthy amount of humor —Fundamentalists are usually so full of themselves there's no room left for the Lulz— so Philip certainly passed the test
A round table between Coppens, Childress, and some other more skeptic guests would make for a pretty memorable show. But I think it would have to center on a very specific subject, since with ancient History you can only explore so many topics.
How about a show focused on the Great Pyramid?
Also, a rule of thumb I have to judge Paracast guests is whether they show a healthy amount of humor —Fundamentalists are usually so full of themselves there's no room left for the Lulz— so Philip certainly passed the test
A round table between Coppens, Childress, and some other more skeptic guests would make for a pretty memorable show. But I think it would have to center on a very specific subject, since with ancient History you can only explore so many topics.
How about a show focused on the Great Pyramid?
trilithium
"I Wish I Knew"
Agreed toxicsurf, I feel a need to listen again & take notes. I too should just buy the book, (Audio). I can't read anymore, I just fall asleep.
inc0gneato
Skilled Investigator
I also thought this was a terrific show! Already on second listen, will probably listen again after that too... Never heard of Geopolymers, sounds like an interesting idea. I agree with the other poster's that it was nice to hear him just come out and call something BS if he didn't think it was valid, and being able to tell he is an open minded investigator. I too may have to buy the book.
campbell71
Skilled Investigator
This is the first show I re-listened too for a long time. Coppens open mindedness made for a refreshing change from some recent guests. His attitude was fantastic and his unwillingness to resort to name calling/ hysterical fingerpointing meant, for me anyway, the show was able to flow well and not get bogged down with pointless repitition. Good effort all round.
ps - What chance you are able to get someone from Russia or China on for their perspective. Considering their governments' love of secrets it would make for an interesting show...?
ps - What chance you are able to get someone from Russia or China on for their perspective. Considering their governments' love of secrets it would make for an interesting show...?
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
Coppens comes across as a sharp critical thinker who does his homework before launching an argument. His observation that our very own civilization is already beginning to doubt and mythologize the Ap0llo moon program hit home with me. Good guest and would like to see him back. 
wbrojab
Paranormal Entered Apprentice
The show with Phillip Coppens was a lesson in tar-brushing for me. Or rather; a lesson in why I shouldn't use the same tar brush on everybody. As much as I am an Ancient Alien Theory enthusiast; I get so put off of the whole thing by the show Ancient Aliens -- which Phillip often appears on.
I watch that show, as an enthusiast should, but so often get dismayed by, Eric VonDanniken (one of my childhood heroes--I actually got to speak with him about his books -- very briefly -- as a teen, not long after the publishing of Gold of the Gods), the follicly-endowed Georgiou and the Paracast's good friend David Childress. With their: 'I put it in the form of a question so I take no responsibility for what you think preceded the question mark', the 'I don't know therefore aliens', and the '....' well, I'm not quite sure what he is on about most of the time, commentaries (respectively). (Not to mention that I have no idea what on Earth Noory is doing on there? -- borderline prostitution, I think).
So I always cast a skeptical eye -- let's say, more a jaundiced eye on anyone else on the show; including Phillip. He was such a good guest on the Paracast that my whole impression of him changed. He was very genuine and willing to discuss issues intelligently.
What stood out for me was his refuting of some of the still-used anchors of the Ancient Aliens theorists' assertions, more specifically his explanation of the Dendera Relief's light bulbs and Pakal's Mayan Rocket ship at Palenque. The TV series does include the views of skeptics but obviously not dissenting opinions by those who were otherwise proponents of the theory -- such as Phillip. His explanations sounded very well researched and did call into question any balance in theory and speculation on the Ancient Aliens show (I guess I shouldn't be totally surprised by that).
I'm also glad I don't have to read Sitchin -- as I keep promising myself to do so. I've tried in the past but always seem to get hung-up on a 3rd page.
By far, my favourite show on the Paracast to date (sans corny jokes). I would encourage Gene and Chris to invite him back.
I watch that show, as an enthusiast should, but so often get dismayed by, Eric VonDanniken (one of my childhood heroes--I actually got to speak with him about his books -- very briefly -- as a teen, not long after the publishing of Gold of the Gods), the follicly-endowed Georgiou and the Paracast's good friend David Childress. With their: 'I put it in the form of a question so I take no responsibility for what you think preceded the question mark', the 'I don't know therefore aliens', and the '....' well, I'm not quite sure what he is on about most of the time, commentaries (respectively). (Not to mention that I have no idea what on Earth Noory is doing on there? -- borderline prostitution, I think).
So I always cast a skeptical eye -- let's say, more a jaundiced eye on anyone else on the show; including Phillip. He was such a good guest on the Paracast that my whole impression of him changed. He was very genuine and willing to discuss issues intelligently.
What stood out for me was his refuting of some of the still-used anchors of the Ancient Aliens theorists' assertions, more specifically his explanation of the Dendera Relief's light bulbs and Pakal's Mayan Rocket ship at Palenque. The TV series does include the views of skeptics but obviously not dissenting opinions by those who were otherwise proponents of the theory -- such as Phillip. His explanations sounded very well researched and did call into question any balance in theory and speculation on the Ancient Aliens show (I guess I shouldn't be totally surprised by that).
I'm also glad I don't have to read Sitchin -- as I keep promising myself to do so. I've tried in the past but always seem to get hung-up on a 3rd page.
By far, my favourite show on the Paracast to date (sans corny jokes). I would encourage Gene and Chris to invite him back.
pong
Groupthink Must Die
I'm confused. At 110:42 in the show, Gene says, "Parenthetically, do you believe Richard Hoagland?" Philip says no. My question is: believe Hoagland about what? Are you implying, Gene, that Hoagland said we didn't go to the Moon? If so, you need to read Dark Mission, brush up on your Hoagland and listen to some good Hoagland interviews such as the ones with Mel Fabregas. My goodness, Richard Hoagland will be the FIRST person to tell you that we went to the Moon. Working with CBS and NASA, after all, he had a front-row seat. What he'll also tell you, however, is that he believes NASA has withheld information for 42 years regarding why we went to the Sea of Tranquility and what Neil and Buzz saw there.
This isn't the first time Hoagland has received a subtle put-down by the Paracast crew. Rather than just make fun of the man, why don't you engage him? Invite him on the show . . . put out the red carpet for him. The best person to explain Richard Hoagland to you is Richard Hoagland. NASA is a military organization, they are hiding data from the American people and we all owe Hoagland and his Enterprise Mission associates (Mike Bara, Ken Johnston, et al.) a debt of gratitude for being the first group of researchers to point out that secrecy pervades NASA, an organization that was staffed, at its inception, by Paperclip Nazis.
In earlier Paracast episodes, comments have been made about Hoagland's fringe UFO ideas and theories. Again, these are comments made by individuals who don't read and don't know Hoagland. Hoagland has never written or lectured about UFOs. He specializes, rather, in studying the history of NASA and looking for ways to scientifically prove his theories about the Moon, Mars and other objects in the Solar System.
Richard Hoagland
This isn't the first time Hoagland has received a subtle put-down by the Paracast crew. Rather than just make fun of the man, why don't you engage him? Invite him on the show . . . put out the red carpet for him. The best person to explain Richard Hoagland to you is Richard Hoagland. NASA is a military organization, they are hiding data from the American people and we all owe Hoagland and his Enterprise Mission associates (Mike Bara, Ken Johnston, et al.) a debt of gratitude for being the first group of researchers to point out that secrecy pervades NASA, an organization that was staffed, at its inception, by Paperclip Nazis.
In earlier Paracast episodes, comments have been made about Hoagland's fringe UFO ideas and theories. Again, these are comments made by individuals who don't read and don't know Hoagland. Hoagland has never written or lectured about UFOs. He specializes, rather, in studying the history of NASA and looking for ways to scientifically prove his theories about the Moon, Mars and other objects in the Solar System.
Richard Hoagland
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
I think Richard Hoagland has shared the fate of many researchers in this field —Linda Howe for example— that they make a very important contribution very early in their careers, but it all goes downhill after that.
With Hoagland, the case for a city on Mars and artifacts on the Moon were compelling, but then it started to deviate into 'formulas of hyperphysics', and now a visit to his Enterprise mission website is an embarrassment. Every single anomaly caught by the cameras placed on Mars (surface or orbital) is interpreted as an ancient Martian iPad or whatever; likewise with Linda Howe's acceptance of the infamous CARET drone pics.
Perhaps it's the need to come up with something new in order to maintain popularity? Maybe these researchers get 'targeted' and are fed with disinformation that confirms their beliefs but tarnish their early work?
Or maybe, it's the end result of peering too long inside the rabbit hole: eventually, you get all covered in rabbit s%$t :-/
With Hoagland, the case for a city on Mars and artifacts on the Moon were compelling, but then it started to deviate into 'formulas of hyperphysics', and now a visit to his Enterprise mission website is an embarrassment. Every single anomaly caught by the cameras placed on Mars (surface or orbital) is interpreted as an ancient Martian iPad or whatever; likewise with Linda Howe's acceptance of the infamous CARET drone pics.
Perhaps it's the need to come up with something new in order to maintain popularity? Maybe these researchers get 'targeted' and are fed with disinformation that confirms their beliefs but tarnish their early work?
Or maybe, it's the end result of peering too long inside the rabbit hole: eventually, you get all covered in rabbit s%$t :-/
I'm confused. At 110:42 in the show, Gene says, "Parenthetically, do you believe Richard Hoagland?" Philip says no. My question is: believe Hoagland about what? Are you implying, Gene, that Hoagland said we didn't go to the Moon? If so, you need to read Dark Mission, brush up on your Hoagland and listen to some good Hoagland interviews such as the ones with Mel Fabregas. My goodness, Richard Hoagland will be the FIRST person to tell you that we went to the Moon. Working with CBS and NASA, after all, he had a front-row seat. What he'll also tell you, however, is that he believes NASA has withheld information for 42 years regarding why we went to the Sea of Tranquility and what Neil and Buzz saw there.
This isn't the first time Hoagland has received a subtle put-down by the Paracast crew. Rather than just make fun of the man, why don't you engage him? Invite him on the show . . . put out the red carpet for him. The best person to explain Richard Hoagland to you is Richard Hoagland. NASA is a military organization, they are hiding data from the American people and we all owe Hoagland and his Enterprise Mission associates (Mike Bara, Ken Johnston, et al.) a debt of gratitude for being the first group of researchers to point out that secrecy pervades NASA, an organization that was staffed, at its inception, by Paperclip Nazis.
In earlier Paracast episodes, comments have been made about Hoagland's fringe UFO ideas and theories. Again, these are comments made by individuals who don't read and don't know Hoagland. Hoagland has never written or lectured about UFOs. He specializes, rather, in studying the history of NASA and looking for ways to scientifically prove his theories about the Moon, Mars and other objects in the Solar System.
Richard Hoagland
Feel free to believe what you will, but the question on the table is whether Hoagland has it right, or has gone off the rails. Many of us feel he may not be off the rails, but he's certainly gone over the edge.
pong
Groupthink Must Die
As for "formulas of hyperphysics," or hyperdimensional theory, this is now mainstream. You can hardly pick up a physics journal without reading about extra dimensions, dark matter, torsion fields and zero-point energy. See Brian Greene and Michio Kaku. Hoagland's greatest contribution, though--in my opinion--was to alert the American people years ago that NASA is not the innocent, friendly and open science agency that we thought it was. Dark Mission was a best seller and deservedly so. Over and over, Hoagland and his associates have documented that NASA is obsessed with secrecy and goes to great lengths to censor astronauts, alter photographs, destroy documents and withhold information from the public that it deems "sensitive."
Regarding aerial drones in our skies, it's interesting to me that Linda Howe's reporting does not live-or-die on the veracity of the so-called CARET document or "photos" allegedly snapped in California. Linda has collected eyewitness reports from all over the country about small UFOs that seem to be technological in nature and sometimes fade in-and-out of view. Given all these reports, I think there's something to it.
Artyom
Paranormal Maven
I guess it was the first time when I recognized the guest by his voice and I thought that it had to be one of the Ancient Aliens documentary centeral guests-. I do like his ideas and his balance between being open minded and healthy skeptisim he demonstrates on that film and sure exposed on this episode as well. Gene and Chris thanks for bringing Phillip on!
. I do like his ideas and his balance between being open minded and healthy skeptisim he demonstrates on that film and sure exposed on this episode as well. Gene and Chris thanks for bringing Phillip on!
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I only just got around to listening to Coppens, and it's the first time I've heard anyone mention William Bramley. For those who haven't read his book, The Gods of Eden , by all means get it! it's a very interesting perspective on a variety of issues that involve a mystical history connected with alien intevention. It goes beyond Daniken and the typical exposé on the AAH. Also if you manage to find the hard cover version consider yourself lucky. It has some cool woodcut artwork and it is a real collector's item. Bramley might also make a very interesting guest.
I am on the fence regarding Hoagland. Like many other people, I first heard of him regarding Cydonia on Mars.
I found his mathematical/statistical analysis of artificiality of structures on Mars very compelling.
A lot of his stuff about the moon is as compelling.
But I agree with Gene in that it now seems Hoagland finds mathematical links between just about anything in the solar system. Nature and the universe are mathematical but that is not the same thing as Hoagland is implying regarding the relationships between very distinct things.
If you go to Enterprise Mission (his website) nowadays it seems that he is mixing what was very good work about the moon and mars, with unprovable conspiracy and politics.
Maybe Hoagland knows things that we don't. But I find it more likely that he has indeed got caught up in his own research and finds things that are not really there. This seems to be rampant in ufology and paranormal research.
But regarding having Hoagland as a guest on the Paracast, I say absolutely! It would be an interesting show for definite. Only Richard Hoagland can explain Richard Hoagland so it seems fair to me to extend him an invite and lets ask him the questions that concern us regarding his work? (Nod to 'PONG' in agreement).
Please Mr Paracast, can we please ask Richard Hoagland to come on the show?
I found his mathematical/statistical analysis of artificiality of structures on Mars very compelling.
A lot of his stuff about the moon is as compelling.
But I agree with Gene in that it now seems Hoagland finds mathematical links between just about anything in the solar system. Nature and the universe are mathematical but that is not the same thing as Hoagland is implying regarding the relationships between very distinct things.
If you go to Enterprise Mission (his website) nowadays it seems that he is mixing what was very good work about the moon and mars, with unprovable conspiracy and politics.
Maybe Hoagland knows things that we don't. But I find it more likely that he has indeed got caught up in his own research and finds things that are not really there. This seems to be rampant in ufology and paranormal research.
But regarding having Hoagland as a guest on the Paracast, I say absolutely! It would be an interesting show for definite. Only Richard Hoagland can explain Richard Hoagland so it seems fair to me to extend him an invite and lets ask him the questions that concern us regarding his work? (Nod to 'PONG' in agreement).
Please Mr Paracast, can we please ask Richard Hoagland to come on the show?