• 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!

Questions for Linda Moulton Howe

Forums New posts
Frootloop

Frootloop

Nutball
I noticed that LMH has already been suggested as a possible future guest in the "suggested guest" thread. Just a couple of questions to begin with :)

Does the "newsworthyness" of an investigated story ever take priority over its apparent authenticity or the credibility of evidence available at hand?

Linda basically brought the "Drone" case to the fore during the summer of 2007. Did she at any stage during her investigations consider that this may be an elaborate hoax? Linda did have contact with "Isaac" and other witnesses during the investigation. Did she at any stage have reason to doubt witness credibility or the authenticity of the CARET documents put forward by "Isaac"?
 
Frootloop said:
I noticed that LMH has already been suggested as a possible future guest in the "suggested guest" thread. Just a couple of questions to begin with :)

Does the "newsworthyness" of an investigated story ever take priority over its apparent authenticity or the credibility of evidence available at hand?

Linda basically brought the "Drone" case to the fore during the summer of 2007. Did she at any stage during her investigations consider that this may be an elaborate hoax? Linda did have contact with "Isaac" and other witnesses during the investigation. Did she at any stage have reason to doubt witness credibility or the authenticity of the CARET documents put forward by "Isaac"?
Click to expand...

Our reputation precedes us, so I don't know if she would be willing to come on the show or not, but we'll keep your questions in mind just in case.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Frootloop said:
I noticed that LMH has already been suggested as a possible future guest in the "suggested guest" thread. Just a couple of questions to begin with :)

Does the "newsworthyness" of an investigated story ever take priority over its apparent authenticity or the credibility of evidence available at hand?

Linda basically brought the "Drone" case to the fore during the summer of 2007. Did she at any stage during her investigations consider that this may be an elaborate hoax? Linda did have contact with "Isaac" and other witnesses during the investigation. Did she at any stage have reason to doubt witness credibility or the authenticity of the CARET documents put forward by "Isaac"?
Click to expand...

Our reputation precedes us, so I don't know if she would be willing to come on the show or not, but we'll keep your questions in mind just in case.
Click to expand...

lol - who knows.... heck, maybe she could even bring Whitley Strieber with her for good measure ;) - but if you do get him on the show, best do it before 2012.... apparently, its all change then :eek: ;) (or was it this september, or perhaps august? :confused: )
 
Here'a question for LMH:

WTF?!?

:D

Really though I would like to hear her speak about her criteria for evaluating a sources credibility.

-todd.
 
Frootloop, the first question you posed has already answered itself; of course it does in her opinion. I'm quite fond of alot of her cases & investigations but she's gone downhill in the last couple of years, and fast.

For Linda, it seems that if we can speculate over anything; it's worthy of being seriously investigated. Now thats actually not such a bad motive for doing your research, however it is bad when you cannot speculate over whether or not you're being lied to, or suckered into presenting a case as 'fact' & worthy of a front page feature on your local newspaper; I feel that Linda get's suckered into matters far too easily.

As you stated, the drone case. If i'm wrong & it's real & the photo's are of a genuine anomaly that actually appeared in the sky (I don't know how it could be real though) than i'll admit to defeat. But it just makes you look silly when you push a story such as the drones, & IMHO that is all it is; a story.

Goody.
 
I'll put $100 into the pool that LMH won't come on the show.

She is just TOO COOL.
 
tommyball said:
Here'a question for LMH:

WTF?!?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that! My other question would probably be "How do you sleep at night?" but the answer is probably "On a pile of money...."
 
CapnG said:
tommyball said:
Here'a question for LMH:

WTF?!?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that! My other question would probably be "How do you sleep at night?" but the answer is probably "On a pile of money...."
Click to expand...

Probably had to have her bed lowered or her roof extended due to her purse.

Yeah, WTF?!?
 
Question for her:

In her opinion, what is the strongest piece(s) of evidence to support the idea that the "drone" photos might be representative of something real, and not an elaborate hoax?

I'm interested... is it the photos themselves, the "believability" of the people behind the photos, the stories behind the photos, secret sources?

No need to pick apart any of the peripheral weaknesses of the drone case, go straight for what is considered the strongest point.
 
BrandonD said:
Question for her:

In her opinion, what is the strongest piece(s) of evidence to support the idea that the "drone" photos might be representative of something real, and not an elaborate hoax?

I'm interested... is it the photos themselves, the "believability" of the people behind the photos, the stories behind the photos, secret sources?

No need to pick apart any of the peripheral weaknesses of the drone case, go straight for what is considered the strongest point.
Click to expand...

Both Whitley & Howe have said before that the stongest aspect of the case was not really the photos; but that they found 'Chad' & that other witness to be incredibly convincing. I think it's the 'Why would somebody hoax something like this?' that's got Linda screwed.

After all, she 'IS' just a reporter.

Goody.
 
Goody said:
BrandonD said:
Question for her:

In her opinion, what is the strongest piece(s) of evidence to support the idea that the "drone" photos might be representative of something real, and not an elaborate hoax?

I'm interested... is it the photos themselves, the "believability" of the people behind the photos, the stories behind the photos, secret sources?

No need to pick apart any of the peripheral weaknesses of the drone case, go straight for what is considered the strongest point.
Click to expand...

Both Whitley & Howe have said before that the stongest aspect of the case was not really the photos; but that they found 'Chad' & that other witness to be incredibly convincing. I think it's the 'Why would somebody hoax something like this?' that's got Linda screwed.

After all, she 'IS' just a reporter.

Goody.
Click to expand...

It's what I call OJ logic. Some people dismissed evidence that OJ committed a double murder on the bases of he doing it outside his children's home. That said it made no sense. "Why would who do it outside his children's home where they could have seen it, or heard it!?" People do things that make little sense all the time. This includes hoaxing. Sad some don't realize the reality of it. Hoaxes are a proven fact, but with some, you get the impression that they live in a world where everyone is honest 24/7.
 
My question for Linda is.

"have you established a contact within the intelligence community and or someone who knows what is the truth, that you might not reveal but that has told you things about what is really going on????
 
Howe tends to believe in anything. The "Chad" pictures were obvious fakes and have since been proven to be so... Yet she still follows the story as if it's real. Not a credible contributor to this field.
 
This drone business has me vexed. Expert opinion has dismissed the photos as CGI composites and that's all well and good; it's great that there are people who can spot the fakes. But LMH has been interviewing a variety of eyewitnesses recently who, to my soft and trusting ears, sound quite credible. Most of those eyewitnesses have chosen anonymity, so they're not after fame and fortune.
So what if the photographs are deliberate fakes designed to discredit further interest in whatever-the-hell is flying around out there?
That would be my question to LMH.
 
She's gullible and hangs out with a few weirdos. That face on mars freak for one.
 
With all her flaws, I'd still like to hear from LMH. She is one of the few writers who go out into the field to report on the paranormal. She has a long history in Ufology and has met with a lot of important witnesses and researchers.

She rarely gets challenged during her appearances on C2C and Dreamland, and I think it would be interesting to hear how she responds to tough, but fair, questioning.
 
If nothing else, her cattle mutilation work was groundbreaking. She was reporting on the REAL cattle mutilations and going to scientists and laboratories to get the "cutting edge" results before anyone else even thought of it.

Of late, she has been flaky. But she's sold a lot of magazines. Toothpaste, whatever. She used to be a producer for NBC in Colorado. She was a bona fide journalist at one time.
 
Question I'd ask LMH: When are you going to get a new tape recorder for interviews? It sounds like she still uses one of those old tape to tape reel machines you could buy in the 70's for $20.95 and hold in one hand. She could use a technology update since so many of her interviews sound like they took place behind the "iron curtain" back in the 50's.
 
Back
Top