Questions for David Hatcher Childress

[Gene Steinberg]

We plan on return visits in the near future, partly to discuss his new book, "Yetis, Sasquatch and Hairy Giants," and partly to discuss some of the issues David raised during his first appearance on The Paracast.

I know you listeners have questions, and here's where you can post them. As usual, we never guarantee that we can ask everything, or that you'll like the response, but here's your chance to be part of the show.

 

[Kandinsky]

It's an awkward question and one that would need to be phrased in a respectful way. I'm curious to know how a man who's made his name in the study of history has managed to evade so many facts. Simply asking him what has been the most recent academic research paper he's read might be too aggressive?

I'm genuinely curious to know what insight enables him to ignore the evidence of so many researchers and academics.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

David has eagerly agreed to address some of the controversial points he made during his first visit to the Paracast. "The harder the questions, the better."
He said that he would welcome the opportunity to respond to your submitted questions, etc. and address specific points concerning his research.

 

[justcurious]

It's not really a question because I know the answer, but it is a point where his seriousness can be evaluated (not positively).

In the first show, when talking about vimanas, he mentioned the Vaimanika Shastra as being an "ancient Sanskrit text".This text exists but it's a "channelled" scam from the 1920'. It is not ancient at all, and just fantasise from the truly ancient Mahâbhârata where the vimanas are originally mentioned .

In other words, it is Sci-fi and has been exposed as a scam by the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in the 70'. I have been living 7 years in Bangalore and was a habitué of this institute and have personally discussed the matter with my friends there.

I suggest that you verify what I say and then ask him about it : Vaimanika Shastra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, to anybody interested in vimanas, I advise to turn away from any website that mention the Vaimanika Shastra as its source. Only the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahâbhârata, and some Jain literature are truly ancient texts where flying vehicles are mentioned in India.

Also I think it is highly symbolical material and should not be read literally. But this is a point of view, on the other hand what I said about the Vaimanika Shastra scam is a fact.

 

[Kandinsky]

In the first show, when talking about vimanas, he mentioned the Vaimanika Shastra as being an "ancient Sanskrit text".This text exists but it's a "channelled" scam from the 1920'. It is not ancient at all, and just fantasise from the truly ancient Mahâbhârata where the vimanas are originally mentioned .

It's almost like a secret. The fringe websites, authors and alternative historians have created such a web of reality about these things that few people know the fraud behind them.

I've got a couple of images of the channelled Vimanas (hopefully they'll upload). Prepare to marvel at the 'advanced technology' as conceived by an early 20th Century hoaxer...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That's not a question, however.

 

[J.T.]

In all seriousness, I'd be interested in hearing some stories of his adventures looking for lost cities and civilizations. More about how he mounts his expeditions than what he thinks about the moon -- I realize this is the paracast, but giant snakes and high adventure rarely fails to entertain. If the discussion is more grounded in fact than hypothesis, he should have plenty of worthwhile material to share.

 

[xLordSummerislex]

He was very specific about the propulsion system of the vimanas, has anyone tried to replicate such a technology? I admit my knowlegde of physics is basic, but none of what he was saying was ringing any bells with that regard.

 

[rhcball]

I would love it if you could ask if he and everyone at Adventures Unlimited have any intention of ever hiring an even mildly competent editor. As an author, I'd be completely disgusted if my books went out riddled with errors, as every AUP book I've read seems to be.

Sorry if this isn't very 'paranormal.'

 

[trainedobserver]

Ask him about the Bob Heironimus business and what he thinks of that.

 

[TClaeys]

I was disappointed in this interview. I mean, the guy seems like a nice guy OK. But the fact that he was able to go on and on spewing nonsense without any type of useful information that supports his ideas perhaps just shows the lack of critical questioning that the Paracast has been known for. You don't have to be rude or anything, but the show seemed to be just like some other shows where a guest is able to go on and just talk whatever crap he wants to talk about.

So, I don't even know where to begin. But the moon, .... where does he get his evidence that the moon is older than the Earth?? How does he reasonably explain his thinking the moon is hollow and is host to aliens?? He says NASA says, ... really where?? Because I'm reading that the Earth and Moon are basically the same age and the moon isn't hollow.

Sure, strange things happen like the seismic sounds NASA originally heard from the moon. Suprises are good because they lead to different questions and ultimately better foundations for truth and explanations. But a lot of times these things get somehow twisted into apparent support for just plain wacky ideas. It's amazing. And Christopher calls him something like the hallmark of alternative archeology, .... what??

What evidence is there for levitating large blocks stones? It seems like if science doesn't know what the actual answer is it ends up being explained by, ... well, ..magic. Electricity and flying vehicles?? Really? Any evidence for that kind of stuff?? Electrical wires, plugs, transformers, light bulbs, LEDS, anything that might be run by electricity?? Anything?? And please don't give me the Baghdad battery as the ultimate proof.

I guess what I would like is something more than a researcher spewing his "ideas". Because as far as I can tell his ideas are pretty unfounded. And if he is the best in what he does, then IMO it doesn't look good for all these alternative theories.

I'm sorry I'm in bashing mode here, I don't dislike the guy. But you would hope the "gold" standard for paranormal radio would hold his feet to the fire a little. Hopefully the next show will be more revealing.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I was disappointed in this interview. I mean, the guy seems like a nice guy OK. But the fact that he was able to go on and on spewing nonsense without any type of useful information that supports his ideas perhaps just shows the lack of critical questioning that the Paracast has been known for. You don't have to be rude or anything, but the show seemed to be just like some other shows where a guest is able to go on and just talk whatever crap he wants to talk about.

So, I don't even know where to begin. But the moon, .... where does he get his evidence that the moon is older than the Earth?? How does he reasonably explain his thinking the moon is hollow and is host to aliens?? He says NASA says, ... really where?? Because I'm reading that the Earth and Moon are basically the same age and the moon isn't hollow.

Sure, strange things happen like the seismic sounds NASA originally heard from the moon. Suprises are good because they lead to different questions and ultimately better foundations for truth and explanations. But a lot of times these things get somehow twisted into apparent support for just plain wacky ideas. It's amazing. And Christopher calls him something like the hallmark of alternative archeology, .... what??

What evidence is there for levitating large blocks stones? It seems like if science doesn't know what the actual answer is it ends up being explained by, ... well, ..magic. Electricity and flying vehicles?? Really? Any evidence for that kind of stuff?? Electrical wires, plugs, transformers, light bulbs, LEDS, anything that might be run by electricity?? Anything?? And please don't give me the Baghdad battery as the ultimate proof.

I guess what I would like is something more than a researcher spewing his "ideas". Because as far as I can tell his ideas are pretty unfounded. And if he is the best in what he does, then IMO it doesn't look good for all these alternative theories.

The baby (you have thrown out) is flopping on the ground soaked from its bath wondering what it did, or you didn't do. Try doing a bit of reading and some of your own IN-DEPTH research before slagging the messenger and his sound-bites. If we had gone into anal minutia mode and had David spell out every single detail, source and attribution, the show would have bogged down into a tedious pool of geekiness that would not have covered the width and breadth of the info we addressed. If you are so interested in the subject: DO MORE RESEARCH. David has actually gone to these sites all around the world (some of them many times); he has written quite a number of excellent, thought-provoking books on these subjects, plus, he's published a bunch more titles by other authors on these subjects. Do I agree with him 100% NO, do I respect his amazing researching talent, infomed opinions and field experience? YES!

I promise, next time we have him on we'll stick to a single topic and I'll grill, roast and baste his work and opinions--just for you... You can take the show home in a doggy-bag with special sauce. Hopefully, this approach won't bog the show down to far into the land of adversarial minutia...but maybe you (and some others) will be pleased!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The baby (you have thrown out) is flopping on the ground soaked from its bath wondering what it did, or you didn't do. Try doing a bit of reading and some of your own IN-DEPTH research before slagging the messenger and his sound-bites. If we had gone into anal minutia mode and had David spell out every single detail, source and attribution, the show would have bogged down into a tedious pool of geekiness that would not have covered the width and breadth of the info we addressed. If you are so interested in the subject: DO MORE RESEARCH. David has actually gone to these sites all around the world (some of them many times); he has written quite a number of excellent, thought-provoking books on these subjects, plus, he's published a bunch more titles by other authors on these subjects. Do I agree with him 100% NO, do I respect his amazing researching talent, infomed opinions and field experience? YES!

I promise, next time we have him on we'll stick to a single topic and I'll grill, roast and baste his work and opinions--just for you... You can take the show home in a doggy-bag with special sauce. Hopefully, this approach won't bog the show down to far into the land of adversarial minutia...but maybe you (and some others) will be pleased!

There's no need to get so defensive about TClaeys valid criticisms. The whole get out there an do the research stuff is getting extremely old, rather quickly. Most of us here do not have time to go to these sites to see for ourselves, which is why we rely on other people to provide is with information. That argument needs to die, and quick. I got through several art history paper using information I found in libraries and online without traveling to Italy or France. It's possible to do excellent research without leaving your city.
To me it seems like Childress is going against the grain of what "non-alternative" archeologists are telling us, just to grab some attention from people that are looking for a good story. With regards to his informed opinions: why is it that other people that have informed opinions (say, like NASA scientists) completely invalidate everything he says about the moon, using one example.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

The whole get out there an do the research stuff is getting extremely old, rather quickly. Most of us here do not have time to go to these sites to see for ourselves, which is why we rely on other people to provide is with information. That argument needs to die, and quick.

Where did I say anyone had to go anywhere except a library or Amazon? I didn't! Just because DHC has been to most of these sites and done the leg-work doesn't mean you (or anyone else) has to travel around the world for 30+ years like he has.

If you re-read my post I said "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH," read books, become informed, do the digging on the net, whatever it takes etc. Frankly, I wouldn't wish the field on most people. Even if they had the time, $ and motivation A) They couldn't hack it, B) They don't have the expertise to do it properly, C) You need a rather well-honed "bedside manner," (which many here do not possess) C) yada D) yada E) I could expand this list , if you want...

In short: IMO: Its advisable to not dog a man's many years of indepth research and fieldwork (and their informed opinion based on that work) with only cursory/casual knowledge of the subject matter....

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Where did I say anyone had to go anywhere except a library or Amazon? I didn't! Just because DHC has been to most of these sites and done the leg-work doesn't mean you (or anyone else) has to travel around the world for 30+ years like he has.

If you re-read my post I said "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH," read books, become informed, do the digging on the net, whatever it takes etc. Frankly, I wouldn't wish the field on most people. Even if they had the time, $ and motivation A) They couldn't hack it, B) They don't have the expertise to do it properly, C) You need a rather well-honed "bedside manner," (which many here do not possess) C) yada D) yada E) I could expand this list , if you want...

In short: IMO: Its advisable to not dog a man's many years of indepth research and fieldwork (and their informed opinion based on that work) with only cursory/casual knowledge of the subject matter....

Sorry about that Chris. I re-read what you wrote and I did misread it. You said Childress has gone to the sites, and you asked us to do our own research. My brain mixed the two together and voila, I gathered you were saying that the only valid opinion is one of someone that has actually been to a place he or she is talking about (at least on Earth). I made quite a jump in logic there, something I often blame others for doing. It just goes to show how easy it is for that to happen.

I don't agree with many (if any) of his conclusions, but it is admirable that he goes out there and sees things for himself.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

I know---I did that for Ted Phillips and look where that got us?
Haven't heard you say much about Ted lately, Chris.

That whole Ted Phillips thing is annoying. He talks about all this evidence he has of something strange going on there but no one gets to see it. It would be astounding if he could prove it and he would drastically change my way of thinking about this stuff.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The thing with Phillips is to remember that he said he had a daylight photo of a 500 pound wolf-man-ape thing and Gene, God bless him, got Phillips to agree to post it "in a week or two". This interrupted the endless chatter about portals and half materializations that rounded out the rest of the show.

It is 4 weeks later now, I think.

Here is how Christopher referred to Phillips:

"One of the people that I modeled my approach after... One of the more important figures in the history of UFO investigation... A true pioneer.. The real deal."

Reminds me of how he describes Childress.

Lance

Childress is only speculating about stuff, he writes books about it, and people buy them. I tell if he even believes the stuff he writes, but it would make for crappy fiction, so he publishes it as non-fiction.
Phillips on the other hand genuinely believes in what he's doing, but he's shown nothing to prove it to naysayers like us. I'll gladly accept it if he can present a RAW image of a white dog monster. I say RAW because we'll know for a fact that it isn't 'shopped.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Here is how Christopher referred to Phillips: "One of the people that I modeled my approach after... One of the more important figures in the history of UFO investigation... A true pioneer.. The real deal." Reminds me of how he describes Childress.

I never said that I modeled my approach after DHC's. You remind me of a wanna be, kinder, gentler, slicker Phil Klass, so what?

Lance's posts got me to thinking, so I did a little digging. Here is a bit of background on Mr. Moody our open-minded sceptic: This suggests to me what his real agenda is...

"The Association for Rational Thought (ART), the Cincinnati skeptics group, has two ongoing projects: the newsletter, which we publish quarterly (we have changed its name from the Association of Rational Thought News to Cincinnati Skeptic), and the Skeptical Blurbs program run by Lance Moody, our Media Resources Coordinator. We are assembling a file of short, clearly written summaries of what is reliably known about paranormal topics that turn up in the news, like ghosts, psychic powers, Satanism, and UFOs. Members write these blurbs for the areas they are particularly interested in. When one of the group sees or reads about a news item on a paranormal topic, he or she tells Lance, and he faxes the appropriate statement. Lance has also appeared as the token skeptic on a local-access cable-TV talk- show run by believing UFO “investigators.” Joe Gastright, our Investigations Officer, does an occasional investigation, but to my knowledge, he has done these solo. The group does not have an established investigations program." Figures.

This apparent agenda of rapid response debunking has nothing positive to offer these subjects. Period. They (the debunkers) have decided that these areas of research and study are all bullsh*t and they are making it their business to go after people in the field like junk-yard dogs. This is not my idea of "being part of the solution." This is friction producing and aggressive negativism, nothing more.

Your sarcastic manner and obvious agenda are getting old. Why don't you have psi-cops and /or ART assign you to another forum because you are becoming a real irritant to some around here. I know that this is the type of reaction you are seeking. This is a part of your agenda--passive/aggressive needling and baiting, and trying to get people to react, etc. so you can use their response as ammunition for more attacks, etc.

Here's what I'm going to do Lance: I am going to send you Ted's contact information. Why don't you start dogging him in person like you have been dogging him here. In the meantime I will give him a call myself and offer any and all help and assistance I can to get his data posted...NOT bitch, moan, insult and dog the man behind his back.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Yes, your "background" for me is correct. I am looking for the real evidence.

Dude, whatever you say. I don't believe you for one minute. If you were looking for "real evidence" you would have found it already. It is obvious to me that you have been assigned to this board to be an antagonistic provocatuer debunking everything that is posted that doesn't conform to your close-minded thinking. Get real. Be honest. You have already made up your mind 100% and no one or no thing will ever change this. Uhh except that morning when you wake up with a sore butt after a weird dream about some little grey dude holding a big glittering rod and a jar of smelly draconian jelly. :0

 

[tyder001]

FINALLY! I have known for sometime that the jimmy randi brigade is out in force. But, when I have mentioned it there was no answer or it was ignored. I have said before I don't go on jimmy randi dot com or richiedawkinsisgawd.cum. Reason? I'm honest. I don't think atheism is correct and I would add nothing to a discussion of it except to be a constant thorn or troll. I have seen this crap for quite a while here and it gets sickening. There was (at one time) several posters who would discuss the paranormal but most have fled the scene. Why not? Everytime you try to discuss something some "evangelical" skeptic jumps in. Now should there be skeptics? Hell Yeah! But a "skeptic" is somebody like Paul Kimball (who I disagree with on certain topics.) But he actually looks from an "agnostic" point of view and can at least "consider" things such as spirits and ESP and even aliens from space. But, when you get your marching orders from a "skeptical" (should read athiestic not skeptic) authority then you are not being honest. I kind of trace it back to a show where Gene and David fried the crap out of a "skeptic." I think the show and the forum got the "attention" of the jimmy randi brigade around that time.

 

[tyder001]

I hope you guys are happy. I just dropped 2 ranks in the Skeptic Corps! There goes the yacht.

But Tyder is correct. I was assigned here (Sector 8.2-234) after a disastrous showing by a skeptic on the program. My task was to shore up our disinfo campaign.

I had to hack in and change my Join date to years before that program--that was tough!
I also had to create dozens of false posts during the Michael Horn period to make it look like I had been here all along.
I also had to convince my good friend Jim Moseley that it was he who first told me about the program when he was on the very 1st one.

Was it worth it? I'll tell you after the court martial.

Lance

Well tell em to go easy on you. After all it's hard to work with us "skygawdbelievingufowatcherdummies" Just remember you don't have to be "ashamed" to drop the "skeptic" idiocy and just say flat out "I DON'T BELIEVE AND NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL PERIOD!" A little to forward but at least it's true. None of that silly "I'm a little skeptical" routine.

I will be glad to give you a picture of my tin foil hat so you can prove to the randi boyz that your A.O.K. After all, it ain't easy for a smart man like you to have to hang around with a bunch of skywatchers all day long.