one-click audio download HERE
The full Paracast episode is posted HERE. And, the article in Open Minds is linked HERE.
______________________________________________________
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
The Paracast comments on the recent Open Minds article
My pal Red Pill Junkie contacted me the other day and told me that the hosts of The Paracast had mentioned my Open Minds article during their Aug 3rd show. It was interesting to hear them talk about it, I feel they got my intentions wrong, but it was good to hear their musings. They also got their guest, Stanton Friedman, to comment on the article. Again, I feel they missed the gist of what I was trying to explore. I felt I was simply reporting what several abduction researchers had concluded.
So, I did a rather long-winded (26 minute) reply along with the commentary by the hosts, Christopher O'Brien and Gene Sterinberg along with Stanton Friedman himself.
The full Paracast episode is posted HERE. And, the article in Open Minds is linked HERE.
The full Paracast episode is posted HERE. And, the article in Open Minds is linked HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I feel you did a fine reply to the Paracast's critique -- and in using that work I'm not implying they were offensive toward you Mike; maaaybe Chris' 'checking his rear-end' gag was a bit out of line, but since I myself have done similar jokes in the past, I ain't gonna cast the 1st stone.
Couple of things:
* I agree with you that the idea of witnesses of UFOs at close range having the potential to being abductees has been previously brought out in both the literature & documentaries. A member at The Daily rail mentioned some TV documentary in which that same idea was raised by a "seasoned UFO researcher" --no idea who that is, or even the title of the docu.
* Once again, we come back to everyone's personal concept of what abductions entail, and their possible purpose. The Paracast hosts & the forum members are very skeptical of the stereotypical interpretation of the abduction experience as the gathering of genetic material by an expeditionary (or invasive) group of Extraterrestrial scientists --and to be frank, so am I, and I know you are too-- and later on in that same episode Stanton Friedman mused that maybe the aliens carrying out the abductions were the extraterrestrial version of the school student dissecting a frog to pass a Biology test.
In some comments I myself made in the Paracast forum, I mentioned the notion of interpreting the abduction experience as some sort of shamanic initiation; much to my regret, some of the forum members were very dismissive of such ideas.
In any case, I feel this has been a positive experience, Mike. It's proof that you are getting more notoriety in the field, and as such the logical consequence is that more people are going to challenge your posts & ideas; but you have proven yourself quite capable of handling the backlash --and you also should feel fortunate if it always presents itself in such a mature manner ;)
More importantly, you're opening a much-needed discussion into aspects of the phenomenon that have remain neglected for far too long. You say it's impossible to really know with any certainty the actual percentage of individuals that might have had a more personal interaction with the phenomenon, out of those who have had a close-range encounter with an unambiguous UFO --and let's not forget, those who actual go out to REPORT the sighting are but a FRACTION of the actual sightings-- and yet I ask: Could we come up with some methodologies to refine those percentage numbers?
I don't know the answer to that, but I know this much: We surely will NEVER find anything new if we stick asking the same old questions, and keep doing things the way we have in the last 40-50 years.
*in using that word. Sorry for the typo
No "backlash" just commenting on the difficulty we have addressing the so-called "abduction" phenomenon. Much to his credit, Mike is applying some new thinking to a mystery sorely in need of some fresh analysis. This topic is a highly complex subject that defies all simplistic "1sizefitsall" approaches. I would think the Mike and RPJ would agree... Asd rto the sore butt jokes, hey—it's a radio show. We try and crack as many wisecracks, but jokes as we can (yikes :)
I feel like i droned on and on and on in that short little audio report. I just wanted to get my point across.
I was being purposely provocative with that article, in the sense that the reporting on the Open Minds site is quite conservative, rarely dipping into the really weird stuff.
Curiously, it has received a huge amount of views.
My sense is that the reporting done by Roger Marsh on that site (where he posts interesting sighting cases from the MUFON database) might imply abduction cases.
Roger is selecting the "most interesting" cases, and that might be a form of "leaning" towards cases where an abduction might have occurred.
My gut is telling me that a lot of the UFO sighting reports on Open Minds are covering abduction events. What "a lot" might mean I can't really say.
As for me Mike, my admiration for you is second to none..well maybe second to RPJ. After all it was your interview with Chris a few years back that allowed me to "get it" when it came to matters of synchronicity, a matter that is very close to my heart.
And while i did distinguish between the messanger and the message, i found the messsage to be very questionable. I think that we first have to ascertain what constitutes a sighting and what is being sighted before we can start crunching some numbers on how many people may be contactees/.
Waiting for your return on the Paracast
Wade
Seconding Wade's sentiment --and thanks, vato :)
And I'm also waiting for Chris' return on the Hidden Experience audio conversations ;)
And I will second THAT^^^^
Hello Mike, I haven't listened to the interview yet but will do so very soon. But I did read your article,(which was great) which inspired me to comment on my own sightings and missing time, etc. and my personal musings on abductions. I did message you on fb and sent you a link, but here it is again:
'Mike Clelland: 'The possible unsettling implications of UFO sightings': does this mean me?"
http://www.binnallofamerica.com/2014/08/01/mike-clelland-possible-unsettling-implications-ufo-sightings-mean/
I'm not sure just when the idea that you were speaking of "close" sightings entered the picture, but I certainly didn't get that idea until more recent responses than my last. I can't say I've had close sightings which may account for the fact I had no missing time. In each of the sightings I measured the length of what I saw, try to judge the distance from the ground, accounted for our time before and after, etc. I was very clinical and not feeling threatened. So I guess one would have to be very careful about descriptions as to how close one might have to be for a close encounter. I was mistaken easily when "close" wasn't mentioned or that I missed it altogether.
Forgot to mention, however, that an owl flew low over my head with talons ready to snatch a dove in one of my trees. It flew so low that my dog thought he might catch it by jumping up. I rarely see owls, but this happened on the day you posted your response to the paracast.
I also listened to this episode and was planning to get in touch with Mike. But family stuff happened and as is so often the case the email or blog comment never got any further than my head:). However, as is also often the case RPJ did it for me - so hooray for RPJ and his tireless enthusiasm and insight.
I thought the Paracast's response was fairly measured and the discussion around general points was OK. However, if you are going to name the author and discuss an article it's probably best if everyone has read it:).
In general I think the link between sightings and abduction experiences is well worth exploring. I saw an idea recently that a person could see an object in the sky that they were personally unable to identify (despite the fact that it was actually in no way anomalous). The challenge to their world view that experience created could then be sufficient to open them up to other "genuinely" high strange experiences. To them there would be a link, despite the fact that the original object they saw was just a weather balloon.
Thanks, gheron :) And THAT is an interesting concept. It reminds me of how some people change after a life-altering experience, like surviving a fatal car accident or something. The whole 'my life flashed before my eyes' thing?
I think that 'challenge to your worldview' happened to me, the first time I experienced a lucid dream. I was reading Castañeda, and when Don Juan was explaining to him some of the techniques to attain lucidity --seeing your hands in the dream time, for example-- I consciously decided that I wanted to give it a try.
Not long after that, BOOM. I'm in a dream and watching my hands, and I attain lucidity. It didn't last very long, but for me it was the first time in my life, when I realized that the stuff I read in books had SOME basis in reality.
It was the 1st step into becoming a Red Pill Junkie ;)
Post a Comment