Rosemary Ellen Guiley

[Muadib]

So I guess what you're saying here, Muadib, is that the Paracast has it's share of pet guests for the show? One's that don't fall under the same scrutiny as others?

Please understand I'm not trying to be short here, just clarifying you're beef with the episode.

J.

I don't know if I would use the term "pet guests" My point is that the level of scrutiny applied to the guests is not consistent across the board, some are given preferential treatment based on their relationship to one of the hosts, and in fact, anyone on the forum who dares question or disagree with one of these guests is immediately teed off on by said host. You can see the bias in this very thread where one of the hosts states that this particular researcher is taking us to a whole new level of paranormal understanding, yet she's basically just using the unexplained (Djinn/Demons) to explain the unexplained. Whether she's applying it to one case or all of the cases is irrelevant to me, it simply doesn't work and it doesn't increase our understanding of anything besides our own biases and maybe our understanding of folklore. This has been done before and it adds nothing but more questions in my personal opinion, and beyond my personal opinion it's been done since the beginning of Ufology and has yet to provide any tangible results. Nevermind the insults and contempt aimed at so called "armchair" researchers, which make up 99% of the audience I would wager, the only two forum members that I'm aware of who are involved in investigations are yourself and Ufology, yet that doesn't seem to matter unless we're disagreeing with a certain hosts conclusions.

Keep in mind though, that as far as scrutiny and the paranormal goes, the Paracast is one of the few shows out there that applies any scrutiny at all, which is why I still listen and enjoy the show very much, even when I strongly disagree with the conclusions of the guest and/or hosts.

 

[mike]

There are billions of stars in the galaxy, and billions of galaxys in the universe

Almost all the stars in the Universe are collected together into galaxies. They can be small dwarf galaxies, with just 10 million or so stars, or they can be monstrous irregular galaxies with 10 trillion stars or more. Our own Milky Way galaxy seems to contain about 200 billion stars; and we’re actually about average number of stars.

So an average galaxy contains between 1011 and 1012 stars. In other words, galaxies, on average have between 100 billion and 1 trillion numbers of stars.

Now, how many galaxies are there? Astronomers estimate that there are approximately 100 billion to 1 trillion galaxies in the Universe. So if you multiply those two numbers together, you get between 1022 and 1024 stars in the Universe. How many stars? There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe. That’s a large number of stars.


Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/#ixzz2NvtH3GrE

The Enigma has a far more logical answer IMHO in that reality, than it does in a simple

"Djinn" hypothesis

It is more likely that Djinn is just one of a multitude of labels that have been created to explain the enigma than the reverse, which seems to me Rosemarys premise

To me its more likely that UFO's are ET craft that some people have labeled Djinn, than it is Djinn are what some people are calling UFO's

I wonder if these paranormal forum skeptics have a little cyber club that they attend late at night to pump each other up and maybe engage in some kind of weird cyber circle jerk to pictures of ETs and cute little faeries? Naw, that's TOO weird, but I just can't fathom their motivations

If any of you guys mention the dartboard, you're outta the club......Oh shiiiiii

 

[mike]

Lets look at what we do know.
Our sun is a star, it has planets orbiting it, one of which has intelligent life that creates external energy sources and tools. It creates machines and mechanical transport. It likes to explore both its terrestrial and non terrestrial environment.

We know this model is duplicated in regards to suns/stars and planets a gazillion fold.

To me the balance of probability favours the inclusion of the last factor (intelligent life, like ours) in that model.

So for the sake of argument lets assume some of them are visiting us, using structured mechanical transports just like we do only more advanced.

Are the labels created by ancient humans who thought the stars were the ancestors campfires....

Labels like chariots of the gods, angels,demons, spirits,Djinn...... Useful ?

Of course not, they are no more a useful description of such craft, as campfires in the sky are for stars.
We've updated our labels for those pretty points of light in the night sky, and as a result understand them better.

So yes i find it offputting when someone tries to make the enigma fit old and outdated labels, you may as well try and convince me the milky way is the massed campfires of the dead.......

 

[SRL+]

 

[mike]

Spielberg’s most successful alien film, E.T., was also an Oval Office favourite.

Incumbent this time was Ronald Reagan, who, like both Carter and Spielberg, was also known to be keenly interested in UFOs. During a private screening of E.T. at the White House in 1982 in which Reagan and Spielberg were seated together, the President is reported to have leaned over to his guest and whispered: “You know, there aren’t six people in this room who know how true this really is.”

Spielberg related this story to Hollywood television producer Jamie Shandera shortly after the screening.

Despite having had numerous opportunities over the years to refute the Reagan incident, Spielberg has yet to do so.

Spielberg's Saucer Secrets | Presidential UFO

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

So I guess what you're saying here, Muadib, is that the Paracast has it's share of pet guests for the show? One's that don't fall under the same scrutiny as others?

Yeah, there are some pet guests on the Paracast, the Jacques Vallee's, Stanton Friedmen, Brad Steigers, (the late) Jim Mosely, Nick Refern, (even) "Mr. Creepo" himself Tim Beckley . These are the people that have spent decades personally investigating the events, myths, rumors and hoaxes, writing books, giving lectures, networking w/ other investigators and walking-the-walk. If you want to mistakenly misinterpret our deference to our pioneers and unsung heros, yeah, we have pet guests. Rosemary has written 56 books and nine encyclopedias. Hello? She has been a field investigator for over 30 years and has investigated hundreds of cases around the country. She is matter-of-fact and to the point and I think we should all at least listen to her discuss her case histories, insights and opinions about any number of topics. She has earned our respect as an prodigious author/researcher and (for me) as a fellow field investigator.

@ Angelo: Your reminder about my view of "field investigators" is getting old. Its like a veteran of military combat attempting to explain to a non-veteran what they've learned from combat. I give much more weight to what Rosemary and others w/ years of research and field experience have to say about any paranormal mystery than a 30 year old anonymous arm-chair pundit/naysayer who has already made up their mind that this is all a bunch of bullshit. That's my opinion and I'm comfortably stuck w/ it. Is that a problem Angelo? I think not...but if it is, its a personal problem...

 

[Muadib]

You can keep saying that I think this is all a bunch of bullshit, but it doesn't make you any more right. My views are quite clear, I don't think it's all bullshit, but I do think Djinn/Demons are bullshit, and I also think that people who make claims and then refuse to provide evidence are also full of shit, until proven otherwise. It's typical that you'd just generalize whatever you think my POV and experience with this field is, just like it's typical for you to do nothing but appeal to imagined authority whenever someone disagrees with you.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Chris, I'll remind you every time because it's insulting to people. And seriously, your analogy is WAY off. You need to learn to take criticism a little better.

Keep in mind, that same person you give so much credit to was just a few years ago writing books with a guy that completely fabricated his background - something that was only discovered (all from an armchair) because a skeptic actually took the time to look into it.

56 books and 9 encyclopaedias? Are you making that up? With all the field work that's been done, one would think that there would be a lot more to show than just anecdotes.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

In this realm, there are no experts, only people w/ more experience who work harder at the task of discovery then others. If you think my comment was meant for you, that's your business. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Nothing is ever solved by sitting on your opinion. If you ain't a part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And there is a remedy for that.

 

[Muadib]

Chris, I'll remind you every time because it's insulting to people. And seriously, your analogy is WAY off. You need to learn to take criticism a little better.

Keep in mind, that same person you give so much credit to was just a few years ago writing books with a guy that completely fabricated his background - something that was only discovered (all from an armchair) because a skeptic actually took the time to look into it.

56 books and 9 encyclopaedias? Are you making that up? With all the field work that's been done, one would think that there would be a lot more to show than just anecdotes.

I believe I also once heard her vigorously endorsing the Billy Meier case to David Biedny on an older episode of the Paracast as well, I guess we should defer to her vast experience in that case as opposed to looking at the evidence and making a decision based on it. It's okay though, the elite paranormal investigator Chris O'Brien has given her his coveted seal of approval, so I guess we should take whatever comes out of her mouth as gospel. Have mercy on a poor unbeliever.

 

[dyingsun]

I see where everyone is coming from, a more productive way of conversation perhaps?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

In this realm, there are no experts, only people w/ more experience who work harder at the task of discovery then others. If you think my comment was meant for you, that's your business. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Nothing is ever solved by sitting on your opinion. If you ain't a part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And there is a remedy for that.

Chris. your comment said "@Angelo." How can I not think it was meant for me?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I see were everyone is coming from, a more productive way of conversation perhaps?

I think we're getting somewhere - people seem to be behaving, although Chris can always ban us if he wishes.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris. your comment said "@Angelo." How can I not think it was meant for me?

No dude, the first part of the comment, the second part was an example of a 30 yr old geeky armchair know-it-all whiner. I'm fairly certain you're older than 30 (?) If not, my apologies...

We all have favorites we value in our lives. I'm very selective who mine are—especially when discussing a working, first-hand knowledge "the paranormal." So what! Go ahead: sue me.

 

[Muadib]

Chris. your comment said "@Angelo." How can I not think it was meant for me?

I think that one was meant for me, or maybe he meant some other exactly 30 year old implied skeptical member of the forums who posted in this thread, silly me again!

 

[Muadib]

No dude, the first part of the comment, the second part was an example of a 30 yr old geeky armchair know-it-all whiner. I'm fairly certain you're older than 30 (?) If not, my apologies...

We all have favorites we value in our lives. I'm very selective who mine are—especially when discussing a working, first-hand knowledge "the paranormal." So what! Go ahead: sue me.

How many insults are you going to toss out there? When do you get banned for acting like an ass?

 

[starise]

This is what I took away from the episode so far ( I haven't listened to the whole thing yet).

Rosemary has researched the subject and reported her findings...simples.

I am of the opinion that it's all in the labeling and the perception as to how the entities are described.

What is certain is that:

Something is happening across multiple cultures and in different ways but seems to be of the same or similar sources. The ways used to describe it differ with culture and geography.

To say nothing is happening is incorrect. To say it must be space aliens in the case of ET is not feasible.

Though I don't agree with Rosemary on all of her conclusions, I do think that her research into the subject sheds further light on these entities whatever you choose to call them.

Take any label and what it represents to you and you could get a distortion. The term demon seems to mean some kind of an impossible creature to some people, but we see evil spiritual activity by intelligent forces so what is that? The term Djinn is just another label IMO.

 

[Muadib]

This is what I took away from the episode so far ( I haven't listened to the whole thing yet).

Rosemary has researched the subject and reported her findings...simples.

I am of the opinion that it's all in the labeling and the perception as to how the entities are described.

What is certain is that:

Something is happening across multiple cultures and in different ways but seems to be of the same or similar sources. The ways used to describe it differ with culture and geography.

To say nothing is happening is incorrect. To say it must be space aliens in the case of ET is not feasible.

Though I don't agree with Rosemary on all of her conclusions, I do think that her research into the subject sheds further light on these entities whatever you choose to call them.

Take any label and what it represents to you and you could get a distortion. The term demon seems to mean some kind of an impossible creature to some people, but we see evil spiritual activity by intelligent forces so what is that? The term Djinn is just another label IMO.

Exactly and being yet another label, it does nothing to further our understanding. I wouldn't say that I think demons are an impossible creature, (who's to say what is truly possible?) just completely and utterly unproven. What you see as evil spiritual activity could be interpreted in any number of ways, labeling something does not make it so, especially when you can't provide any answers as to what these things actually are, besides opinion based on scripture that may or (more likely, imo) may not be true. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, who's to say that what we're seeing isn't technological or something else instead of spiritual? Who can really make that call with any certainty, at this point? Attaching an unexplained label to an unexplained subject doesn't help.

 

[mike]

How many insults are you going to toss out there? When do you get banned for acting like an ass?

Its a fair question Chris

The forum i moderate has a formal list of rules.
These are some of them

1: Remember the Human

2: Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life

3: Know where you are in cyberspace

4: Respect other people’s time and bandwidth

5: Make yourself look good online

6: Share expert knowledge

7: Help keep flame wars under control

8: Respect other people’s privacy

9: Don’t abuse your power

10: Be forgiving of other people’s mistakes

11: Refrain from posting messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or are otherwise of questionable content (if you have to ask, the answer is ‘No.’)


The Core Rules of Netiquette -- Excerpted from Netiquette by Virginia Shea -- Albion.com

Threatening to ban people whos opinion is contrary to yours, is an abuse of power and it doesnt make you look good.

If someone steps out of line send them a warning via PM, if they keep it up impose your ban.

But dont wave the ban hammer around as a means of forcing people to see things your way.

Like others ive heard Ro's data, and reject her conclusions

If thats a bannable offence then go ahead and kick us out

 

[mike]

Exactly and being yet another label, it does nothing to further our understanding. I wouldn't say that I think demons are an impossible creature, (who's to say what is truly possible?) just completely and utterly unproven. What you see as evil spiritual activity could be interpreted in any number of ways, labeling something does not make it so, especially when you can't provide any answers as to what these things actually are, besides opinion based on scripture that may or (more likely, imo) may not be true. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, who's to say that what we're seeing isn't technological or something else instead of spiritual? Who can really make that call with any certainty, at this point? Attaching an unexplained label to an unexplained subject doesn't help.

Indeed i personally think technological explanations are more likely to be correct

We do some pretty incredible things via technological rather than supernatural mechanisms

We can fly like birds, not as a result of supernatural mechanisms, but rather technological mechanisms
We can swim underwater to great depth like fish or whales.... Not by supernatural mechanisms but by technological ones
We can transplant organs and manipulate the very genes of life , again via technology not supernatural mechanisms

We went to the moon, via technological mechanisms not supernatural ones

(things that were not feasible, a scant few hundred years ago, but now are thanks to technology)

These models are beyond question, and imo they can help us model the bigger reality too.

Technology is a complex thing, how often have we heard Gene say take an iphone back 300 years and they wouldnt understand it, but would a supernatural explaination to fill that gap in understanding be a correct one ? of course not.

So too with the UFO question, that we dont yet fully understand the technology behind what we are seeing, is no excuse to settle for a supernatural answer.

And its not "settle" per se as much as it is to give up and fall back on a supernatural answer.

We can and should do better than that, i get thats its frustrating we dont yet have the answers, but science is catching up. Better to strive for a real answer, than be satisfied with a supernatural one for the sake of having one