Poll

John B. Wells looks like:

A Vulcan
97 (26.4%)
Hank's Japanese half-brother, "Junichero," in King of the Hill eps. 6ABE20-21  
57 (15.5%)
A stoner sufer named "Tracker," who mentored Sean Penn & Keanu Reeves
47 (12.8%)
Frankenstein's Monster
101 (27.4%)
One of those faces on the Sgt. Pepper album (2nd row from the top. Face #5)
66 (17.9%)

Total Members Voted: 245

Author John B. Wells  (Read 802886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #180 on: October 10, 2011, 10:08:24 PM »
If it means anything, I listened on and off.  In his opening statement he urged people not to take sides in the occupy wall street protest.  He is apparently worried that somebody will use the protesters for their own purposes.

After that he rambled for awhile and took a few calls.  During that circus I turned him off and watched an episode of Columbo.  I turned it back on for 10 minutes and decided that it just wasn't worth my time and read for awhile.  I find more and more often I am finding something better (and more interesting) to do than tune in to C2C. 

I believe it to be possible that Wells smokes a couple of ounces prior to getting in the chair and turning on the mike.  He is not necessarily BAD, just not somebody that I would want to listen to very often.  He provides a nice change from Noory, but is probably on because he does not upstage the "main" host in terms of hosting style...

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #181 on: October 11, 2011, 01:52:51 PM »
I thought that John Welles blew.  He's got a deep sexy voice, like a Caucasian Barry White, but that's the only positive.  Welles is so right-wing, he's like Noory on steroids, crack, angel dust, and meth simultaneously.  I'll give him credit, however, his far, far right wing paranoia complemented Baker's far left-wing paranoia.  I'm pretty damned lefty.  So lefty that I think that Obama's a moderate conservative.  But Baker has gotten me beat so much that he offends even this Kucinich Democrat.  Both Welles and Baker kind of tip-toed around 9/11 "truthism."  On this 10th anniversary, I found it rather tasteless. 

Mind you, I thought that the Truthers might be onto something before the failure of the Iraq War.  I fucking hate the Bush Administration, etc., and I thought that Cheney was evil enough to orchestrate something like 9/11.  Then the Bushies successively let Afghanistan go outta control, instigated and botched the Iraq War, and then allowed fellow Americans to rot and die after Katrina.  I suddenly realized that the Bush Administration could barely organize a luncheon for five, let alone a plot as complex, ingenious and mendacious as 9/11.  (Not that I think well of the Obama organization, but that's a different story).  I therefore find it sickening and, yes, unpatriotic to even intimate that the Bushies orchestrated 9/11.  They were just too incompetent to prevent it. 

I also take issue with Baker's comments about Libya.  Now I think that Obama acted unconstitutionally when he didn't consult Congress about US involvement in Libya.  I *do* think that NATO was correct in helping the Libyan rebels, however.  I've kept in contact with Libyan rebels on Twitter, and the night before NATO attacked, people in Benghazi were being shot by Gaddafi's soldiers.  It was obvious that a massacre was going to occur.  A Twitter friend of mine in Libya who was running a rebel internet radio station was deliberately killed by Gaddafi forces the night before NATO struck.  For Baker to suggest that the US instigated the Libyan uprising is insulting and racist.  Baker seems to infer that the Libyan Arabs are too fucking stupid to protest their own kleptocratic, psychotic government, and can easily fall under the sway of white Christian US imperialists. 

Even if you are against US involvement in Libya (and I can understand why you might be), to suggest that the Libyan rebels started their uprising on a dime pursuant to US command is racist and ignorant.
The 2 guys leading the rebels came from our prison in Cuba Gitmo. They were captured in Afgan war fighting for the enemy. Now they work for us. Syria is next. Got friends in U.S. mil already in turkey preparing for syria.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #182 on: October 11, 2011, 02:14:06 PM »
Morphia a question. How can we find Art's 09/11/01 show? I was working private security that night and listened a little bit. That was also the night I listened live on the radio when NYPD took down a van load of terrs on the George Washington bridge. In front of a fox radio reporter. on the air.  the reporter was at the back door of the van and saw explovsives and weapons. It was a big name I just cant remember who. My work partener was sitting next to me and heard it too. Nothing in the news after that. This was before art came on the air. I was in South Carolina .
 But I would like to listen to that show again. I rejoined Streamlink and am listening to Art's program with Stan Lunev from sept 1998


Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #183 on: October 11, 2011, 03:19:54 PM »
How can we find Art's 09/11/01 show?
wasn't that show just replayed last month for the anniversary of 9/11 on the Saturday Somewhere in Time replays?
might be in the streamlink archive for Somewhere in Time for September 2011.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #184 on: October 11, 2011, 06:50:35 PM »
Thanks for the tip Morgus. I searched the archives and listened to it this afternoon.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #185 on: October 18, 2011, 08:10:29 PM »
John Welles is in love with the sound of his over produced voice. He just sounds like he's smoked way too much hash, and struggles to say something so profound that we'll all be blown away. Reminds me of the old FM progressive rock jocks of the 70's, "yea man" bla bla bla. He sucks.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #186 on: October 21, 2011, 07:22:36 PM »
For anyone interested, Alex Jones interviewed John B. Wells on his Thursday, Oct. 20 show.  You'll get insight into some of his opinions.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #187 on: October 22, 2011, 02:24:33 PM »
I actually listened to the John B. Wells interview on Alex Jones' show last night, or at least as much of it as I can stomach. I was incredibly amused when he complained about scanning Coast forums and seeing himself "criticized" for being a right-wing fundamentalist Christian and proudly owned up to the labels (qualifying it with "if loving America makes me right wing and loving Jesus makes me a fundamentalist then I guess I'm a right wing fundamentalist"). It warms my black little heart to think that it might have been my own posts that contributed to such a reaction. Ah, John, you're a crackup.

(cross-posting this in Jones/Wells threads)

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #188 on: October 22, 2011, 03:48:17 PM »
Thanks for the info, CoastCanuck.  I listened to as much of the interview as I could take, but why did none of it surprise me?  I guess this is why I don't care all that much for Wells.

morphiaflow must have listened to more of it than I did, though, because I didn't hear the part about the right-wing fundamentalist thing.  Maybe I'll go back and look for that part . . . if I'm feeling particularly masochistic :P

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #189 on: October 29, 2011, 06:42:16 AM »
Who or what the fuck is Winter Laake?

He was on a while back with George "babycakes" Noory, who, if my memory serves me right, was surprised to learn that the guy was a full blown satanist. He sounds so much like Jack Nicholson, it's uncanny. Interesting guy, in spite of the whole "satan is ruler of the world, master of the universe" thing. A decent show by Wells.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #190 on: October 29, 2011, 11:23:42 PM »
I caught about an hour and a half of last night's show. It was excellent, I think! Winter Laake seems like he'd be fun to have a drink with.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #191 on: October 30, 2011, 05:10:03 AM »
Bellybuttons and opinions, everbody's got 'em.

My opinion is that Wells works hard to emulate Marlon Brando in "The Wild One."
 

As for the Satan Guy, I think my bellybutton turned itself inside out.  Blech ...  :P

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #192 on: October 30, 2011, 05:18:38 PM »
Bellybuttons and opinions, everbody's got 'em.

My opinion is that Wells works hard to emulate Marlon Brando in "The Wild One."
 

As for the Satan Guy, I think my bellybutton turned itself inside out.  Blech ...  :P

Winter Laake was a pretty interesting individual, I thought. Though for some reason I kept thinking that the Harlot Satanic chick was going to call in and raise some hell for good measure. Wonder if George Snoory would ever have her on. hmm...

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #193 on: October 31, 2011, 06:10:08 PM »
I don't think I can take any more of Welles.  He's worse than Noory.  Noory doesn't seem to know anything.  Welles doesn't seem to even suspect anything.  Last night, guest Marzulli kept harping on Darwinism (natural selection) being "merely" a theory.  Welles never challenged.  Yep.  Just a theory.  Like the Theory of Pi?  Like the Theory of Electromagnetism? Like the Theory of Relativity?  I hate it when dogmatics are given a pass for misrepresenting the meaning of the word "theory" as somehow lacking in fact or truth; intentionally picked from the bottom of the list in the dictionary. The old Art Bell would have dismantled Marzulli's misuse of the word to give credence to his own...ummm...theory.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #194 on: October 31, 2011, 06:35:20 PM »
Last night's show was the absolute lowest point Coast has ever sunk in my opinion. I listened to exactly one half hour of it on the drive home from a friend's. In that half hour, we got all the usual tropes--aliens are demons, mark of the beast, end times are coming, blah blah blah--and then Wells, dispensing with ANY notion of objectivity, just comes out and says: this is what I believe, and I have this forum to share these beliefs, whether the audience likes it or not. And then he goes on to say that the overwhelming majority of instant feedback he was getting showed that 98 percent of the audience agreed with him.

What's scary is that I think he was probably telling the truth on that last point.

Contrast that to Knapp, last week, saying to a listener, "You're not going to read from the Bible, are you?"

I've speculated this before: Knapp--the only professional, objective, journalistically trained Coast host, and the only one (perhaps barring Ian) with any integfity--will soon be gone (probably without so much as a comment from anyone on or in C2C), and Wells will be installed as the permanent Sunday host. I'm putting a dollar on it right now.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #195 on: October 31, 2011, 06:42:00 PM »
Last night's show was the absolute lowest point to which Coast has ever sunk in my opinion. I listened for exactly one half hour on my drive home from a friend's. In that time, we got all the usual tropes--aliens are demons, mark of the beast, end times are coming, Revelations, blah blah blah--and then Wells, dispensing with ANY notion of objectivity or journalistic integrity, just comes out and says: I agree, this is what I believe, and I have this forum to share these beliefs, whether the audience likes it or not. And then he goes on to say that the overwhelming majority of instant feedback he was getting showed that 98 percent of the audience agreed with him.

What's scary is that I think he was probably telling the truth on that last point.

Contrast that to Knapp, last week, saying to a listener, "You're not going to read from the Bible, are you?" And Art's standard no-proseletyzing rule. Does anyone still want to pretend that Coast is ANYTHING but a tool and mouthpiece for the fringe religious and political right anymore?

I've speculated this before, now I'm SAYING it: Noory isn't going anywhere. Ian is well intentioned but he's not going to make waves. Knapp--the only professional, objective, journalistically trained Coast host, and the only one (perhaps barring Ian) with any integfity AND who has ties to Art Bell--will soon be gone (probably without so much as a comment from anyone in the C2C organization), and Wells will be installed as the permanent Sunday host. I'm putting a dollar on it right now.

Art, I still don't know whether you are coming back or not. But good gods, I wish with all my heart you would.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #196 on: October 31, 2011, 06:48:34 PM »
Welles is wildly inconsistent. How can you go from an interesting, engaging show on Friday to absolute crap two days later?

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #197 on: October 31, 2011, 06:58:01 PM »
does this mean MVD needs to snap up www.johnbwellssucks.com also?

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #198 on: October 31, 2011, 11:45:30 PM »
What a whiny douche last night's guest was. 'SEE? ITS THE INTERDIMENSIONAL WAR!!' What I would have given up to send that guy some phone spiders. Fear mongering at its worst. Noory couldn't have done it better himself.

Ick.

Re: Premeire.. Wells?
« Reply #199 on: November 01, 2011, 12:39:51 AM »
 Just joined to shout praises for John B. Wells.....the next Art Bell...so much like his style....even better.  Each time he does a show I have emailed him with a copy to Lisa.  Hope they get the message.   :o

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #200 on: November 01, 2011, 12:53:49 AM »
Last night, guest Marzulli kept harping on Darwinism (natural selection) being "merely" a theory.  Welles never challenged.  Yep.  Just a theory.  Like the Theory of Pi?  Like the Theory of Electromagnetism? Like the Theory of Relativity? 
I might be careful of tying that last one into a theory you want to remain correct...  They just shot neutrinos from CERN to Italy and it appears that they traveled faster than the speed of light.  While it is mentioned that it would not totally invalidate the theory, it is casting some doubt.

From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science/
Even if the OPERA results are confirmed by other scientists, they wouldn't totally invalidate Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, Stanford University's Strigari stressed. Those theories still explain a remarkable range of observed phenomena in the universe.

"I think it's long been understood that the theories we have today aren't the full answers," Strigari said.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html
Scientists agree if the results are confirmed, that it would force a fundamental rethink of the laws of physics.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #201 on: November 01, 2011, 01:08:52 AM »
They *MAY HAVE* just shot neutrinos from CERN to Italy and it appears that they traveled faster than the speed of light.  While it is mentioned that it would not totally invalidate the theory, it is casting some doubt.
^
Fixed that for you.

In all honesty I would not take the OPERA claims too seriously yet. There are a variety of reasons why the results could be skewed and the measurement made is incredibly tiny, as is the suggested effect - the particles were apparently shifted less than the pulse width. The OPERA group has just started a new run with a much more intense source that should give new results in the next few months, so there is something to look forward to.

I would love for it to be true and it's definite that we do NOT have all the answers yet by a long shot. I just don't think the OPERA group has the answers either, especially since the experiment itself is so complicated and difficult to analyze it is not as open-and-shut as many in the media would have you believe.

Just my $0.02

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #202 on: November 01, 2011, 02:50:24 AM »
Thanks AO.  You are correct- it really does need to be replicated and reviewed MUCH more before I go typing a conclusion to post to a board.  It really was just meant as a quick reminder that (at least for now) the theory of relativity is not beyond question.  As such it is not a good candidate to use in conjunction with the others to demonstrate that some scientific theories should no longer really be considered as theories unable to be toppled or added to.

I know exactly what he was trying to say and really just love to play the devils advocate.  If you told me the sky was blue I would either have to point out that it only appears blue to the naked eye due to Rayleigh scattering or that between night, clouds, sunrise and sunset the sky is only blue 30% of the time.  For some unknown reason, there are times that I just need to feed the part of me that must disagree with everything.  (Everything but the fact that Noory sucks... that one is just too hard to argue.)

I do believe that my post was pretty much correct.  They did shoot the neutrinos and I did put down that it ***appears*** that they arrived faster than they should have.  I could have done a better job explaining that it is only an appearance and that more work needs to be done (but the articles I linked to do explain that it is not a solid conclusion yet.)  I also probably should have linked to a site that explains it in more depth; I chose "consumer friendly" links that don't really even touch on the science or even explain the experiment very well.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #203 on: November 01, 2011, 03:26:50 AM »
Forget neutrinos! I think Wells has exceeded Ludicrous Speed all on his own.



Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #204 on: November 01, 2011, 06:10:22 AM »
Welles is wildly inconsistent...
My opinion is that Wells works hard to emulate Marlon Brando in "The Wild One..."
I don't think I can take any more of Welles...

     Interesting weekend. Winter Laake and L.A. Marzulli have both been on with George in the past, and yet with Wells they were more interesting.  Its almost like a "controlled experiment" proving how much George really sucks.  Having said that, Wells needs further studying.  He's good at stringing together a lot of cool jazzy words that sound great in the dead of night, but don't seem to really go anywhere.  Maybe the "caravan" is not about the destination.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #205 on: November 01, 2011, 10:48:52 AM »
Thanks AO.  You are correct- it really does need to be replicated and reviewed MUCH more before I go typing a conclusion to post to a board.  It really was just meant as a quick reminder that (at least for now) the theory of relativity is not beyond question.  As such it is not a good candidate to use in conjunction with the others to demonstrate that some scientific theories should no longer really be considered as theories unable to be toppled or added to.

My post was just a knee-jerk reaction but I really am getting tired of the justification of pretty much anything that points to the OPERA results as proof, and I've seen a metric buttload of that over the past few weeks (did you meet our resident time-traveler?).

To be honest I don't know one physicist that takes the result seriously, let alone as gospel. The number of posts on arXiv arguing about the methodology of the experiment supports this statement. It's just not a solid result to base an argument like "everything we know is wrong" or less generally, "Einstein was wrong" on. There are lots of better ways to argue that point. GR doesn't play nicely with quantum mechanics in strong gravitational fields for example, so there has to be some other theory that can be written down which includes both effects simultaneously. So our two pillars of understanding modern physics, GR and quantum mechanics, must *both* be incomplete in some fundamental way. So on one hand I agree with you. But quantum mechanics and GR are our two best tested theories and over the past 100 years and not one prediction of GR has been shown to be incorrect. Quantum mechanics may be even better tested, making predictions (ie, the magnetic moment of the electron) that have been measured to over 10 decimal places of accuracy!

That having been said... there's a rant coming on... you've been warned...

To me, the most interesting thing that your post brings up is this: when Einstein toppled Newton's theory of gravity with General Relativity, did it mean that all of Newton's methods were useless? No. In fact, if you calculate the weak field limit of GR using slow speeds and weak gravitational fields, then you find Newton's laws all pop back out. That's because Newton's physics works great in our day to day lives, but not so well when we extrapolate out to the larger universe and try to explain inspiralling neutron stars, the physics of black holes or the expansion of the universe at early times. However the old theory, the Newtonian view, is still all you *really* need to study mechanics on the surface of the Earth. But in the grand scheme of things, Einstein's theory makes new testable predictions and contains all that came before, inheriting the successes of Newton and building on them in new predictive ways that can be tested and used to make predictions of how the world should behave under certain circumstances.

So, it's like you said in your original post:
While it is mentioned that it would not totally invalidate the theory, it is casting some doubt.
It would be a long way from invalidating the theory, since the theory has seen so much success in a wide range of circumstances. It would mean that GR was in some way limited in it's applicability and just like with Newton, any good replacement has to keep GR as a special case just like GR keeps Newtonian results in weak fields and low velocity regimes. The success of Einstein has to be inherited by any future theory or else that theory does not describe the world correctly and therefore has to be junked.

So does that mean Einstein was wrong? Not really, it means that his ideas are good only within one arena of the world. The achievements of GR speak for themselves. The media tends to paint these issues with a broad brush, whether they're in science or politics or whatever, they're usually made out to be black-or-white, all-or-nothing. And that's rarely true. This business about super-luminal neutrinos is just like anything else. The implications of it are all shades of gray. But if it turns out to be true they certainly point toward something bigger and lead us in a direction by which we could expand our understanding of the universe. I do personally hope the OPERA result does turn out to be correct and sends us all back to the chalkboard. But when the chips fall at the end of the day, everything that has come before has to be accounted for and that means that you haven't seen the last of Einstein.

I do believe that my post was pretty much correct.  They did shoot the neutrinos and I did put down that it ***appears*** that they arrived faster than they should have. 
Yes. But, to throw another fly in the ointment: Astronomers observed the neutrino pulse from supernova 1987a to arrive at Earth on time assuming the speed of light is correct. No pulse was seen earlier that would lead to the "neutrino speed" OPERA is positing. That alone is enough for me to put a big "?" over all of the OPERA results.

I could have done a better job explaining that it is only an appearance and that more work needs to be done (but the articles I linked to do explain that it is not a solid conclusion yet.)  I also probably should have linked to a site that explains it in more depth; I chose "consumer friendly" links that don't really even touch on the science or even explain the experiment very well.
Nah, I'm not questioning your links or explanation - just being anal and probably displaying some OCD :). I've heard this argument in a lot of different places and the media was even waving the "Einstein was wrong" flags a while back. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of something potentially new but we just can't forget about what came before. For someone who's supposedly "wrong" Einstein sure has been right about a lot so far.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #206 on: November 01, 2011, 11:19:40 AM »
Sorry....I have to say...JBW...has a brain and seems to use it. You have to admit he lets the content through not his ego.....and like Art he asks questions within the frame of the content. I feel he has a better show then George hands down. :P

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #207 on: November 01, 2011, 03:09:49 PM »
I may in the minority but I actually rather like Wells. Admittedly I've only listened to one program with him as host but I thought he did a decent job. He's certainly no Art or Knapp but in my mind he's worlds better than Noory. Wells can actually coherently follow a thought pattern which is better than the other bullshit five nights a week with the Noron. Granted he seems to stray towards fear mongering but that's largely become the whole point of this incarnation of Coast... that and giving legitimacy to kooks and charlatans.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #208 on: November 01, 2011, 04:49:57 PM »
The slightly more polished turd is still a turd, and smells just as bad, if not worse.

Re: John B. Wells
« Reply #209 on: November 01, 2011, 05:53:44 PM »
This is probably a minority position, but so far, I like John B. Wells.  His shows have been interesting and he's done an alright job.   He's got that night time voice and his bumper music is good.  IMO, he can improve by staying on focus and fighting the ADD he admits to.  He should stop guests,  callers and himself quicker when the rambling starts.  And, if he can keep the breaks on time, that would help.  He's still a rookie host at C2C so hopefully he'll continue to improve.