• 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!

Ted Phillips


It would be useful for a seasoned field investigator to first compare the hair to known types before going through the expense of having it properly and professionally analyzed. In the past he has followed a very scripted and precise evidence gathering methodology. He has always sought the help of scientists to analyze the samples collected and has been pretty good on separating it all from the 'this is proof of alien origin' stuff. Lets not trash the guys evidence without seeing and evaluating it first. SNIP

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ted is somehow working with Colm Kelleher (who is a micro-biologist). I don't know this for a fact, but I wouldn't be surprised. Ted dropped a loosely veiled hint about the interest of a computer scientists who is crunching his data, and he worked with Colm for several years.

FWIW: I've been reading this thread and I agree: Ted needs to follow through on his promise to post a website on the MW case. Anything short will give the moody skeptics around here more grist, skewers, charcoal and fuel for their grill(s). Having said this, I think the least we can do here at the Paracast is treat the man and his 40+ years of field work with respect. Ted does NOT go around seeking notoriety or promote himself or his work. He's the real deal. You at least owe him some respect and a tad of acknowledgment for his life's work.

But, if you don't agree--and you think you can do the Work better--go ahead and then get back to us in 40 years with your data and evidence. :)
 
So you don't find any of the other points made here dodgy at all? And no one should question this stuff, yeah?
Just on the face of it a lot was laughable: stuff you let slide by without even an raised eyebrow as you rushed to talk about dimensional portals and the like.
Now you are getting it! It's ALL dodgy! That's the point... We should ALL question "this stuff, " just don't throw the baby out...

As to what you consider laughable, the proof will never be in your pudding. Check out the crust, then sample the filling, for a change. Let Ted follow through with his promise of posting his data and/or visible evidence--then call out the other naysayers. If he doesn't--I'll help.

I think the Paracast is one place where the REAL nutrients of discovery are to be found--but you sometimes have to coax it out lest you scare it away. If you think I suck, that's OK, I'll get better. But you are right: In a perfect world, Ted's many years of work would be made available for peer review. IMO, he has amassed a veritable treasure trove of data that deserves scrutiny by science. I'd rather keep this emerging goal of discovery in mind rather than call the baby ugly while eagerly tossing it out w/ the bathwater...
 
Now you are getting it! It's ALL dodgy! That's the point... We should ALL question "this stuff, " just don't throw the baby out...

As to what you consider laughable, the proof will never be in your pudding. Check out the crust, then sample the filling, for a change. Let Ted follow through with his promise of posting his data and/or visible evidence--then call out the other naysayers. If he doesn't--I'll help.

I think the Paracast is one place where the REAL nutrients of discovery are to be found--but you sometimes have to coax it out lest you scare it away. If you think I suck, that's OK, I'll get better. But you are right: In a perfect world, Ted's many years of work would be made available for peer review. IMO, he has amassed a veritable treasure trove of data that deserves scrutiny by science. I'd rather keep this emerging goal of discovery in mind rather than call the baby ugly while eagerly tossing it out w/ the bathwater...

Chris, does Ted do his research for public consumption, or he is one of these researchers who does it primarily for his own information & enjoyment? My sense is the latter given the dearth of books and public speaking engagements.
 
Ted Phillips at about 30 min into the last show:

People will occasionally say : "Why don't you have more really sharp definition photographs ?" Well, you go out in the pitch black dark, out in the woods, and I don't care how many cameras you have, or people, the way these things seem to operate, it's a really difficult job. Now we have some really, I think, good photos and some great videos, considering the circumstances. I mean, it's not like going out to the county fair and taking night shots pictures.
I really can relate to this statement and I am eager to see his data when his website will be operational.
 
The last couple of pages have been what a forum like this should always be like. There's a lot of movement of opinion or qualifying perspectives. All too often people get attached to their views and don't get a chance to step back and look at those views from a new perspective.

I haven't made any comment about Ted Phillips, but this thread has altered my opinion in a good way.
 
One thing I have never understood, is that both NIDS and Ted have been studying their sites for any amount of time, and basically all we have heard is stories.... there has basically never been any evidence released. Ted talks about all the crazy things that have happened, and all the amazing scientists and vets that are on the case etc, but didnt he say he has been studying Marley woods for 12 years? 12 years and no evidence except a few grainy photos on his old website?
I have listened to basically all of teds podcasts on here, paratopia etc, and there always just some sort of excuse about how he has some greawt photo's but doesnt have the time or technology to put them up on the web. Yet at the same time he's telling us about all the many UFO books he is reading. Wouldn't you have thought that if you had spent 12 years studying something, you would use a little bit of the time that you spend reading books to show your amazing evidence to the world?

I'm not knocking him here, or saying that he doesnt have any evidence, but its just so frustrating that we never get to see any of it.
 
Just remember that the photo he has promised of the 500lb. White Wolfthing is a clear daylight photo, which is why I focused in on it.

I am well aware of how bad night shots can be. On Phillps' old site he has a photo of his so-called light-balls. The shot shows standard dust with flash (to the unbeliever, anyway) just like any of the millions of similar shots that are currently in vogue amongst the undiscriminating. I knew exactly what to expect when he described those.

But a clear daylight photo of a huge animal is different.

You are absolutely right about the daylight humanoid picture, that should give us a clear cut on his credibility.

But my post was just about what I wrote in it... night shots of a supposedly intelligent luminous phenomenon. And how I can relate to it because I have been in the same situation for 4 months in 2008 with poor results, although my shots are clearly not "orbs". It seems that I'll have the opportunity to give it another try in a couple of weeks as I'll be going at my own "secret location" 8) for a couple of months.

So no need to apologize in advance for it. Save that for later.

Lance
What apologies ? Are you talking to me ? You seem very emotional when it comes to refute points that threaten your world view. Don't worry, nobody will change your mind if you don't want to. In the meantime, some have moved on and are exploring other possibilities.:)
 
One thing I have never understood, is that both NIDS and Ted have been studying their sites for any amount of time, and basically all we have heard is stories.... there has basically never been any evidence released. Ted talks about all the crazy things that have happened, and all the amazing scientists and vets that are on the case etc, but didnt he say he has been studying Marley woods for 12 years? 12 years and no evidence except a few grainy photos on his old website?
I have listened to basically all of teds podcasts on here, paratopia etc, and there always just some sort of excuse about how he has some greawt photo's but doesnt have the time or technology to put them up on the web. Yet at the same time he's telling us about all the many UFO books he is reading. Wouldn't you have thought that if you had spent 12 years studying something, you would use a little bit of the time that you spend reading books to show your amazing evidence to the world?

I'm not knocking him here, or saying that he doesnt have any evidence, but its just so frustrating that we never get to see any of it.

The more I read long threads like this and listen to the people investigating strange places like MW or the Skinwalker Ranch the more I tend to lean to Chris O'Brien's trickster theories. Either all these people are some combo of fools/liars/crazy, which does not seem to the case for ALL of these witnesses, especially since there seems to be circumstantial evidence in some cases.... OR..... the phenomenon (in at least one of the many cases) is deliberately deceiving us as individuals and collectively. It's a giant tease. Not sure what this means philosophically....

I mean take the example Ted had where he sees this "being" on his security monitor, he goes to investigate more closely and nothing. He returns to the monitor and the being appears again. Repeat. Later nothing shows on his recorded video. Is he insane? Is he lying? Is there a meaningful difference between mass hallucinations in otherwise sane people and something authentically paranormal (whatever that means)? However it affects Ted, the phenomenon wins because we sit here on forums debating the insanity and driving ourselves insane. There are other instances of this kind of trickery recounted in MW, Skinwalker Ranch, UFO cases, abductions, etc.

Evidence? Evidence!? Ha! I suspect most of us will tire of this subject and in 50 years, in whatever replaces internet forums in that time, a new crop of people will be having the same arguments about evidence and proof.

That is unless we become part of the SINGULARITY and merge with or surpass (no longer succumb to its ways) whatever is behind this phenomenon. ;-)
 
Now you are getting it! It's ALL dodgy! That's the point... We should ALL question "this stuff, " just don't throw the baby out...

As to what you consider laughable, the proof will never be in your pudding. Check out the crust, then sample the filling, for a change. Let Ted follow through with his promise of posting his data and/or visible evidence--then call out the other naysayers. If he doesn't--I'll help.

I think the Paracast is one place where the REAL nutrients of discovery are to be found--but you sometimes have to coax it out lest you scare it away. If you think I suck, that's OK, I'll get better. But you are right: In a perfect world, Ted's many years of work would be made available for peer review. IMO, he has amassed a veritable treasure trove of data that deserves scrutiny by science. I'd rather keep this emerging goal of discovery in mind rather than call the baby ugly while eagerly tossing it out w/ the bathwater...
By your words I can only conclude that you may have fallen into the worst fallacy trap possible.

Jacques Vallee elaborated on this in his book Revalations. The trap is called "Spurious Data Sequencing" It entails someone making a remarkable claim and promising verification. When that promise is not kept you should by all rights disregard that person. But you won't.

"because he has now become a source of adventure and privileged information for you and you are afraid to be cut off from his data stream if you offend him" - Jacques Vallee, Revelations p. 86.

There is no reason to worry about scaring away anyone making verifiable claims. anyone with real information. No need to be polite or gentle coaxing to maintain "this emerging goal of discovery."
 
Folks, I just heard from Ted Phillips, and he says he hopes to have the site up within the next day. I've asked him to set up an "Under Construction" sign in the meantime, so I can post the address.
 
Noooooo! Not the dreaded "Under Construction" sign! :( I've seen this before! It's a horrible spiral downward. First, you come to a site and it says "Coming Soon" (maybe the only phrase that's even worse than under construction) A comprehensive site on Ruta Begas and Squash!

So, being one of only 15 people on the whole planet who actually "likes" Ruba Begas and Squash you come back day after day....:p..after day....No change. And then, And Then, AND THEN...the most hateful words of all:
This Domain Name Is For Sale! :(...It's over! You believed and you suffered! You kept coming Back! And for What? I'll Tell ya for what! HEARTBREAK!

Oh the Humanity!

:cool:
 
By your words I can only conclude that you may have fallen into the worst fallacy trap possible. Jacques Vallee elaborated on this in his book Revalations [sic]. The trap is called "Spurious Data Sequencing" It entails someone making a remarkable claim and promising verification. When that promise is not kept you should by all rights disregard that person. But you won't.
Ahh, but I said I would! Re-read my posts. Nobody gets a pass from me after making incredible claims--FWIW: I don't "believe" any of this stuff, I go out there and ascertain the data for myself. Just give the guy time to make good on his claims and then you can continue to woof if he doesn't, and I'll help lead the pack of howlers... Fair enough?
 
Ahh, but I said I would! Re-read my posts. Nobody gets a pass from me after making incredible claims--FWIW: I don't "believe" any of this stuff, I go out there and ascertain the data for myself. Just give the guy time to make good on his claims and then you can continue to woof if he doesn't, and I'll help lead the pack of howlers... Fair enough?
How long does it take to post a photograph on the internet? If you claim to have one you show me now. If not, go away and stay away.

My main point of disagreement with you was your contention that a harsh stance of "put up or shut up" would scare people away. It won't if they genuinely have something to offer.

I won't be in that pack of howlers if it comes to that. I will simply move on. I'll reconsider my stance if Mr. Phillips makes good, however. I'm not for crucifying anyone. I've seen this kind of thing before as I'm sure you have and other forum members have. These situations just don't ever seem to end well. If the worst comes to pass then Mr. Phillips will just be another in a long line of folks in this topic I won't be giving any credence to. I hope it doesn't, but if it does oh well.
 
Just remember that the photo he has promised of the 500lb. White Wolfthing is a clear daylight photo, which is why I focused in on it.

But a clear daylight photo of a huge animal is different.

So no need to apologize in advance for it. Save that for later.

Lance

Lance, here's your picture : clear daylight all-right !

hector.jpg

You owe someone an apology.
 
Hello Paracastians!

Just wanted to mention that another week has gone by without super respected, word as good as gold, cream-of-the-crop paranormal researcher Ted Phillips delivering the clear daylight photo of the 500lb. Wolflike being that he promised he would put on his website.

I AM SO EXCITED!

Many folks have chimed in that it is hard to put up a web site, which may be true but that doesn't seem to be a problem here since his new site has been up for more than a week.

He sets a high standard for paranormal research as a "Modern-Day Indiana Jones" (which someone--can't remember who--called him) demonstrating the full rigor and effortless honesty that are hallmarks of the field!

Excelsior!

And I'll be sure to post here again next week.

Lance

Lance, some people may get annoyed at your sarcasm towards someone that's out there getting dirty and doing the work, unlike those armchair researchers :). However, I agree with you that it is frustrating that it's been 3 weeks now and nothing. I'm pretty sure that he has nothing that proves anything conclusive that "Marley Woods" is some sort of nexus of the universe. It was an entertaining episode, we can all agree on that.
 
Lance, some people may get annoyed at your sarcasm towards someone that's out there getting dirty and doing the work, unlike those armchair researchers :). However, I agree with you that it is frustrating that it's been 3 weeks now and nothing. I'm pretty sure that he has nothing that proves anything conclusive that "Marley Woods" is some sort of nexus of the universe. It was an entertaining episode, we can all agree on that.


Maybe the authorities are entering the mist? Waiting and patience is a virtue:)
 
Back
Top