Questions for Linda Moulton Howe

[Gene Steinberg]

Too skinny for my taste.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Hmm.... seems more like questions about LMH to me... or her work, to be more specific.

Since we're asking questions about her--instead of submitting questions for her--has anyone here read her book, or seen her early videos? Strange/Alien Harvest? If so, thoughts?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Hmm.... seems more like questions about LMH to me... or her work, to be more specific.

Since we're asking questions about her--instead of submitting questions for her--has anyone here read her book, or seen her early videos? Strange/Alien Harvest? If so, thoughts?

I saw Strange Harvest when I was a kid. I recall liking it back then, but I was around 12 I guess. Hard to say what I'd think of it now. I might see if it's on Youtube sometime to refresh my memory.

 

[schticknz]

Heads up folks ... LMH is on Binnall etc etc this week. Go here for interview: http://www.binnallofamerica.com/audio3.html

I'm sure Binall was muchly "psyched" for this. Haven't listened to it yet ... just downloading it.

Anyway ... lets rock'n'roll etc etc and oh carry on with the LMH thread.

schtick

ps as regards KMH myself ... she does seem to be a bit of a volatile or gullible person as regards the stories she follows. I really don't what to make of her apart from a nicely decorative coat rack

 

[Gil Bavel]

I really don't what to make of her apart from a nicely decorative coat rack

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________
LMFAO!!! Ha ha ha, that's hilarious. "Dude, she's got a really nice (coat) rack!

 

[Loose Leaf Tea]

Jesus wept.

I've just finished listening to that "Banal of America" interview with Linda Moulten-Why and it's a riot.
She's snippy and irritable throughout, paranoid in the extreme and her self-aggrandising and ballsy lack of modesty is a sight to be-hear. Is this her true self? If so, it's far removed from Cosy Linda she presents on "Toast 'n Tache" and on Whitley's "Into the Basement with the Kids and the Guns" show.

And another thing...this was my first exposure to that Tim Banal guy. Is he for real? What's with the silly, faux-Ed Murrow voice and the fact that he doesn't so much interview his guests as interrupt them occasionally with an, "Oh, Wow!" or an, "Awesome!"
Couldn't BELIEVE some of the interesting guests he's already "interviewed".
Ah, I see he's just aligned himself with Toast. He's become George's gimp or something so I've a horrid feeling he'll be the Tache's replacement when the old fart dies.
Not that I care. Why am I talking about this crap?
Who are you people? What's going on here?

Time for my meds....

 

[Gil Bavel]

Jesus wept.

I've just finished listening to that "Banal of America" interview with Linda Moulten-Why and it's a riot.
She's snippy and irritable throughout, paranoid in the extreme and her self-aggrandising and ballsy lack of modesty is a sight to be-hear. Is this her true self? If so, it's far removed from Cosy Linda she presents on "Toast 'n Tache" and on Whitley's "Into the Basement with the Kids and the Guns" show.

And another thing...this was my first exposure to that Tim Banal guy. Is he for real? What's with the silly, faux-Ed Murrow voice and the fact that he doesn't so much interview his guests as interrupt them occasionally with an, "Oh, Wow!" or an, "Awesome!"
Couldn't BELIEVE some of the interesting guests he's already "interviewed".
Ah, I see he's just aligned himself with Toast. He's become George's gimp or something so I've a horrid feeling he'll be the Tache's replacement when the old fart dies.
Not that I care. Why am I talking about this crap?
Who are you people? What's going on here?

Time for my meds....

It's times like this I really, really miss Art.

I mean, Ian Punnet has become a Deacon? Jesus Christ!

George Noory is more banal than Binnall. This was the first I'd ever listened to him, and will probably be the last.

I can't believe that George Knapp is the only person affiliated with Coast that I'll listen to now.

Ghost-to-Ghost would be okay, except I'm usually busy on Halloween.

And the predictions show on New Years--I can't stand to listen to these idiots blather on about what they think is going to happen in the following year because they "had a dream about it".

Erg...

 

[schticknz]

I really don't what to make of her apart from a nicely decorative coat rack

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________
LMFAO!!! Ha ha ha, that's hilarious. "Dude, she's got a really nice (coat) rack!

I'm afraid I'm too much of a gentleman to make a comment about that (schtick quickly goes to another room and does a quick google image search ...)

As for Tim Binnnnnnallll ... I really liked him for a while but he kind of grinds you down with his not particular indepth questioning style, repetitions of "awesome" and such like, and of course being "psyched" about everything and anything.

[Oh look Tim ... there's a badger ... Tim: Awwessome]

I think the straw that broke the camels back for me was when he said (on a couple of occasions) that he was more interested in the personalities rather than the phenomena ... which is totally bizarre. How on earth can anyone be more interested in the "personalities" when you have UFOs and other phenomena going on around your ears?

It just beggars belief to me.

Anyway, I'll continue listening to him on and off when he has a guest that is really interesting ... like Jacques Vallee who is the last guest on this "season". I am currently girding my loins for TB to be excessively "psyched" beyond all decency (make sure you know where the kleenex is, Tim ... you know it makes sense )

 

[tommyball]

I'd like to know why, in 2008, she feels necessary to announce her site as "www. ..."

I don't know what browser she uses, but you don't have to type those w's in anymore.

Picky I know, but it annoys me nonetheless.

 

[Lone Gunman]

First, I would ask her about being a rude bitch and how she justifies 100 percent of all her work to be legit science.

Secondly, I would ask her how Richard Doty was able to rope-a-dope someone like her with her hard news background so easily (She couldn't explain this to Binnall and quickly changed the topic).

Thirdly, why in the last 20 plus years since then, has she not followed up on Doty and the despicable piece of shit informant he is. At the very least, you'd think you'd track down someone who intentionally submarined you and a thousand-dollar documentary HBO project, while sullying your reputation. Ask why she hasn't tracked him down and exposed him, and better yet, found out who in the govt' paid him and why.

 

[Gil Bavel]

First, I would ask her about being a rude bitch and how she justifies 100 percent of all her work to be legit science.

Secondly, I would ask her how Richard Doty was able to rope-a-dope someone like her with her hard news background so easily (She couldn't explain this to Binnall and quickly changed the topic).

Thirdly, why in the last 20 plus years since then, has she not followed up on Doty and the despicable piece of shit informant he is. At the very least, you'd think you'd track down someone who intentionally submarined you and a thousand-dollar documentary HBO project, while sullying your reputation. Ask why she hasn't tracked him down and exposed him, and better yet, found out who in the govt' paid him and why.

Oh, I don't know... maybe because he could have her killed?

As I recall, he worked for AFOSI District 70 (Headquarters, Weisbaden, West Germany) where he performed duties as a counterespionage specialist.

That's top-secret security clearance.

However, this guy is a serious piece of work. He admits to having been a disinfo agent. And:

"In 1986, I was involved in a sensitive operation where I

attempted to perform certain duties which would enable our

team to trap possible foreign agents working against the

interests of the United States. My supervisors, however, seen

my actions as being unauthorized. Therefore, I was asked to

leave AFOSI, which I did voluntarily."


He also claims to have been one of the guys (Falcon) in the

UFO-Cover-up Live show that was seen by everyone in the

UFO community to be disinformation, and pretty lousy disinformation at that.

If I were LMH, I would have stopped paying attention to this loser, too.

 

[Gil Bavel]

First, I would ask her about being a rude bitch and how she justifies 100 percent of all her work to be legit science.

Secondly, I would ask her how Richard Doty was able to rope-a-dope someone like her with her hard news background so easily (She couldn't explain this to Binnall and quickly changed the topic).

Thirdly, why in the last 20 plus years since then, has she not followed up on Doty and the despicable piece of shit informant he is. At the very least, you'd think you'd track down someone who intentionally submarined you and a thousand-dollar documentary HBO project, while sullying your reputation. Ask why she hasn't tracked him down and exposed him, and better yet, found out who in the govt' paid him and why.

Oh, I don't know... maybe because he could have her killed?

As I recall, he worked for AFOSI District 70 (Headquarters, Weisbaden, West Germany) where he performed duties as a counterespionage specialist.

That's top-secret security clearance.

However, this guy is a serious piece of work. He admits to having been a disinfo agent. And:

"In 1986, I was involved in a sensitive operation where I

attempted to perform certain duties which would enable our

team to trap possible foreign agents working against the

interests of the United States. My supervisors, however, seen

my actions as being unauthorized. Therefore, I was asked to

leave AFOSI, which I did voluntarily."


He also claims to have been one of the guys (Falcon) in the

UFO-Cover-up Live show that was seen by everyone in the

UFO community to be disinformation, and pretty lousy disinformation at that.

If I were LMH, I would have stopped paying attention to this loser, too.

 

[taldwarf]

LMH recently did an interview, (a hr. of a 2 hr. show, (she's busy and has time restraints)) for UFO Undercover, 4th-5th down from top (Gene, pull this if it's frounded upon) :frown: http://paranormalradionetwork.org/ where I asked her in text, 'How she'd handle a hoaxing, if or when she discovered it, in the course of an investigation?' Don't know if this question was really aanswered.
She also discusses her drone theory FACTS.
So, G & D, these answers are what your in for and need to circumnavigate around...

 

[Gil Bavel]

I listened to this entire show. What the fuck was this?

I have a lot less to say about the Linda Multoun Howe interview than the interviewer.

How the fuck did this asshat get an interview with her in the first place? Or a show, for that matter? this is the problem today with blogs, and podcasts. Now any idiot with a microphone and a VIC-20 can start a podcast, the quality bar has been lowered significantly.

I think this link should be removed by the poster, for no other reason than to prevents the wasting of the time of our members. This genius makes Banal of America look like Dick Cavett.

He talks about the alien abduction phenomenon as if he's an authority, and he obviously isn't.

He's almost always completely wrong on almost every subject he talks about.

He uses NO qualifiers like "maybe" or "seems to". He just speaks from a position of seeming knowledge, and he knows nothing. He's guessing, and badly.

I hope he either stops altogether, or suspends his show while he takes a much-needed leave of absence while he gets a serious attitude adjustment from my large Norwegian friend, and a good dose of humility.

What this guy alleges he "won't talk about on the air" so outweighs what he will that it's obvious that he's a blowhard bag of hot air with nothing but hearsay and his own bullshit opinions to discuss.

After the LMH interview, he spent at lest as much time as he did with her talking about himself and his proclamations regarding the Greys.

What a colossal waste of time and bandwidth.

Go away so I can watch the Fireplace Channel. Or the Fishtank Network.

Next time, according to this episode, he's talking to Katharina Wilson. Doesn't anybody check up on what they're getting into anymore when they get booked on a show? Sorry, more like a second grad science fair project. Next time, build a crystal radio, kid.

 

[Rocketsauce]

I listened to this entire show. What the fuck was this?

I have a lot less to say about the Linda Multoun Howe interview than the interviewer.

How the fuck did this asshat get an interview with her in the first place? Or a show, for that matter? this is the problem today with blogs, and podcasts. Now any idiot with a microphone and a VIC-20 can start a podcast, the quality bar has been lowered significantly.

I think this link should be removed by the poster, for no other reason than to prevents the wasting of the time of our members. This genius makes Banal of America look like Dick Cavett.

He talks about the alien abduction phenomenon as if he's an authority, and he obviously isn't.

He's almost always completely wrong on almost every subject he talks about.

He uses NO qualifiers like "maybe" or "seems to". He just speaks from a position of seeming knowledge, and he knows nothing. He's guessing, and badly.

I hope he either stops altogether, or suspends his show while he takes a much-needed leave of absence while he gets a serious attitude adjustment from my large Norwegian friend, and a good dose of humility.

What this guy alleges he "won't talk about on the air" so outweighs what he will that it's obvious that he's a blowhard bag of hot air with nothing but hearsay and his own bullshit opinions to discuss.

After the LMH interview, he spent at lest as much time as he did with her talking about himself and his proclamations regarding the Greys.

What a colossal waste of time and bandwidth.

Go away so I can watch the Fireplace Channel. Or the Fishtank Network.

Next time, according to this episode, he's talking to Katharina Wilson. Doesn't anybody check up on what they're getting into anymore when they get booked on a show? Sorry, more like a second grad science fair project. Next time, build a crystal radio, kid.

Yes the paranormal network is low budget.
Yes the host (Joe Montaldo) talks as if his opinion is fact
Yes he appears like he knows more than he probably does
Yes he likes to talk about himself
Yes I think he is a crappy interviewer
Yes his methods are pseudo science

But................. I still regularly listen to his show because as far as I know he's the only person who appears to have personally researched or read through his organizations entire abductee files, which I think was around 10,000 people. That's a big sample base for this field.

So I'm always interested in hearing 'what patterns' he has found among such a large pool. Is a lot of this pool likely not credible? It's very possible. Are his research methods on par with a 5th grade science fair? Very likely. Does this change the fact he probably knows more about the patterns of abduction than most people? I'm not sure. This is why I listen to him, I think some of the patterns he has uncovered through his research may give some insight not available else where. As with anything in this field it is very hard to know what might be true verse what isn't.

I like to divide the UFO media into 2 categories. On one side I put the paracast and the mainstream media (including Billy Cox from Herald Tribune).

On the other side I put Exopolitics people which includes the Paranormal radio network. I would also put Coast to Coast, Jerry Pippen, and company into this category.

Even though the 2nd category has a lot of noise which on some level I think is unavoidable when it comes to constant speculation, I still think there is some potentially more in depth information then might be available elsewhere. Much of this in depth info could be totally wrong, but I"m willing to pay attention for that 5% that might be right on.

I also listened to the Howe interview, and one of the things I got out of it was that Howe likes to promote the shit out of her website! I think she tried to slip in earthfiles about 20 times.

Regarding the drones, it does appear her opinion on this is mostly based on her own interviews with people. Of course she won't disclosure who these people are so it's somewhat worthless. What she should say is, "Those pictures are probably bogus, but.............. I spoke with several credible people etc....... "

 

[Gil Bavel]

Yes the paranormal network is low budget.
Yes the host (Joe Montaldo) talks as if his opinion is fact
Yes he appears like he knows more than he probably does
Yes he likes to talk about himself
Yes I think he is a crappy interviewer
Yes his methods are pseudo science

But................. I still regularly listen to his show because as far as I know he's the only person who appears to have personally researched or read through his organizations entire abductee files, which I think was around 10,000 people. That's a big sample base for this field.

So I'm always interested in hearing 'what patterns' he has found among such a large pool. Is a lot of this pool likely not credible? It's very possible. Are his research methods on par with a 5th grade science fair? Very likely. Does this change the fact he probably knows more about the patterns of abduction than most people? I'm not sure. This is why I listen to him, I think some of the patterns he has uncovered through his research may give some insight not available else where. As with anything in this field it is very hard to know what might be true verse what isn't.

I like to divide the UFO media into 2 categories. On one side I put the paracast and the mainstream media (including Billy Cox from Herald Tribune).

On the other side I put Exopolitics people which includes the Paranormal radio network. I would also put Coast to Coast, Jerry Pippen, and company into this category.

The fact that you put the Paracast and mainstream media in the same category ends this conversation.

The fact that you continue to listen to this idiot even after admitting that "The host talks as if his opinion is fact, that he appears like he knows more than he probably does, that he likes to talk about himself, that you think he is a crappy interviewer and that his methods are pseudo science" ends this conversation.

The fact that you "still regularly listen to his show because as far as I know he's the only person who appears to have personally researched or read through his organizations entire abductee files" is ridiculous, and ends this conversation.

Apparently you don't listen to the Paracast much. It's an often-repeated fact that David reads every guest's book (watches their film, whatever) before they come on so that he can competently interview them and ask the correct questions.

Listen to what you like--but don't post it here, and expect us to like it when it's such obvious nonsense that you yourself admit it.

Oh and this: "He probably knows more about the patterns of abduction than most people"... is just outright rubbish. I'm sorry, you're way off base here. When he's up against Streiber, the Paracast, Howe herself, who had a podcast--I could mention many more, but that's enough--this is just a garbage response to a garbage post.

Sorry, but you've wasted my time and the time of anybody that ended up reading this and certainly anybody that listened to the show to which you posted a link.

 

[Rocketsauce]

The fact that you put the Paracast and mainstream media in the same category ends this conversation.

The fact that you continue to listen to this idiot even after admitting that "The host talks as if his opinion is fact, that he appears like he knows more than he probably does, that he likes to talk about himself, that you think he is a crappy interviewer and that his methods are pseudo science" ends this conversation.

The fact that you "still regularly listen to his show because as far as I know he's the only person who appears to have personally researched or read through his organizations entire abductee files" is ridiculous, and ends this conversation.

Apparently you don't listen to the Paracast much. It's an often-repeated fact that David reads every guest's book (watches their film, whatever) before they come on so that he can competently interview them and ask the correct questions.

Listen to what you like--but don't post it here, and expect us to like it when it's such obvious nonsense that you yourself admit it.

Oh and this: "He probably knows more about the patterns of abduction than most people"... is just outright rubbish. I'm sorry, you're way off base here. When he's up against Streiber, the Paracast, Howe herself, who had a podcast--I could mention many more, but that's enough--this is just a garbage response to a garbage post.

Sorry, but you've wasted my time and the time of anybody that ended up reading this and certainly anybody that listened to the show to which you posted a link.

I was going to write a long reply providing logical counter points to your post because I disagree with most of what you said about my opinions, but why waste any more of your precious time.................

 

[Rocketsauce]

The fact that you put the Paracast and mainstream media in the same category ends this conversation.

The fact that you continue to listen to this idiot even after admitting that "The host talks as if his opinion is fact, that he appears like he knows more than he probably does, that he likes to talk about himself, that you think he is a crappy interviewer and that his methods are pseudo science" ends this conversation.

The fact that you "still regularly listen to his show because as far as I know he's the only person who appears to have personally researched or read through his organizations entire abductee files" is ridiculous, and ends this conversation.

Apparently you don't listen to the Paracast much. It's an often-repeated fact that David reads every guest's book (watches their film, whatever) before they come on so that he can competently interview them and ask the correct questions.

Listen to what you like--but don't post it here, and expect us to like it when it's such obvious nonsense that you yourself admit it.

Oh and this: "He probably knows more about the patterns of abduction than most people"... is just outright rubbish. I'm sorry, you're way off base here. When he's up against Streiber, the Paracast, Howe herself, who had a podcast--I could mention many more, but that's enough--this is just a garbage response to a garbage post.

Sorry, but you've wasted my time and the time of anybody that ended up reading this and certainly anybody that listened to the show to which you posted a link.

I should point out I never posted the link, so you must not have done your research (sorry I just hate to bait you on that!)

I should point out I listen to the Paracast frequently and this actually has nothing to do with anything since I didn't start this post I just merely commented on Joe's show and what bit of value "I think" it has.

I should point out that it is just my personal opinion that the paracast coverage of this is as credible as the coverage of any mainstream journalist. You admit yourself they do their homework, with this subject ignored by the mainstream why wouldn't you place the paracast on par with the more credible mainstream media? There are certain niche media groups that cover subjects that are ignored by the mainstream that put out great information, that is the only point I was making about the paracast is it's credibility.

I sometimes enjoy listening to Joe's show and am interested in what he says about the patterns of abductions regardless of character or research flaws there may be. I also realize Jon Mack, Bud Hopkins, David Jacobs and many others do abduction research.

Just like buttholes, everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that you didn't thoroughly read this thread to see I didn't suggest Linda Howe on the show. But since your opinion is my posts are waste of time, hopefully you don't even read this.

 

[Gil Bavel]

everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that you didn't thoroughly read this thread to see I didn't suggest Linda Howe on the show. But since your opinion is my posts are waste of time, hopefully you don't even read this.

It's your opinion I'm calling into question. I would think that would be obvious by now.

Screw LMH. This hasn't been about her for the last four posts. It's about your favorite radio show guy, and how crappy he is. When you yourself point out his inadequacies, I'm pretty sure the debate's over. I'm sorry if you think I've been too harsh on you, but you have to admit that it's your opinion that he's worth listening to.

I'll rescind my remark about thinking that the link should be taken down--free speech and all that--but it is a waste of time. I just wanted to prevent other members from getting distracted by this link and having to wade through this guy's bullshit. You're entitled to your opinion, I'd fight to the death for your right to have it, I just disagree, that's all.

 

[Rocketsauce]

It's your opinion I'm calling into question. I would think that would be obvious by now.

Screw LMH. This hasn't been about her for the last four posts. It's about your favorite radio show guy, and how crappy he is. When you yourself point out his inadequacies, I'm pretty sure the debate's over. I'm sorry if you think I've been too harsh on you, but you have to admit that it's your opinion that he's worth listening to.

I'll rescind my remark about thinking that the link should be taken down--free speech and all that--but it is a waste of time. I just wanted to prevent other members from getting distracted by this link and having to wade through this guy's bullshit. You're entitled to your opinion, I'd fight to the death for your right to have it, I just disagree, that's all.

At the end of the day, we all have opinions, which is cool and of course some opinions are more informed than others.

Unless you have some insider information on Joe and his research methods (which I would honestly be very interested in) or how his organization runs your opinion is based on listening to his show 1 time based on what you've written. It's totally cool for you to try and save message board readers the pain you went through by offering your opinion. So even though I'm sure we agree with much of what I wrote (Joe is not a great host etc...), the main point I was making and that you seem to disagree with is that Joe's experience interacting with abductees is worthless and if anything a waste of time. I've listened to a number of his shows and heard him interview Richard Dolan and many other very credible people (and non credible too!) and all of them, as far as I can tell, respect Joe for his large experience in working in the abduction field for better or worse since his organization has followed up with I believe over 10,000 cases, that is a lot of cases, even a schmuck IMO would find some patterns within that large a sample base.

This is fine and obviously we disagree and while my opinions might carry less weight to you because I see some value in Joe's work, what you have written in our exchange and your lack of attention to the fact I never posted this link, your assumptions that I don't listen to the paracast, that Joe Montaldo is my favorite radio show guy and that I think the paracast is mainstream media in addition to how you've gotten so defensive about this show, really in my mind gives your opinions much less weight.

Last time I spoke with myself (which is often )Joe Montaldo is a random low budget podcast that I periodically listen to, to further gain clues into what the abduction stuff might be about, so to say he's my favorite radio show guy IMO sounds like you are either assuming or being dare I say it, a little bit of a "dick".

Agreeing to disagree in a respectful tone is a valuable life skill, one of which I can't say I've been good at many many times, but I've significantly improved and I hope to continue to improve. I hope your campaign to save message board readers valuable time by not listening to Joe's show is a success of mass proportions, you are a true crusader