George Noory Sucks! - The Definitive Compendium

[136 or 142]

Only the best for his "Lady in Red".  Sorry, whoever wrote that sappy song.

Chris DeBurg or something like that. I kind of like that song.

[Gyoza Girl]

Yeah, the sick homo and pedo is nothing new in politics or society despite Hollywood etc trying to mainstream it (look to the Catholic Church, BBC celebrities, Hollywood, etc.) Not to mention, due to the Art Bell controversy, the Franklin stuff. Sickos cover up their stuff, and, in some cases, people help them do so. But often people don't even know about the pervert amongst them. Nothing new, it is sad and horrible but the LBGYWQ types would likely say, at least when the movement was associated with the NAMBLA types, that "no damage done."
ps: as much as I enjoy your stuff, send/post to politics thread or start threads there. Not hard.
-GNS

Hello Albrecht, that was my fault, I'm afraid. I'm new here; I didn't know there was a politics section. I was just commenting on something that I thought was unfair and pining for the days of the Fairness Doctrine. I don't go into a snit when someone calls Hillary Clinton a liar, corrupt, abrasive, greedy, etc. I don't agree, but those are opinions and one can make a case for them. I just objected to George Noory's guest accusing her of orchestrating a reign of terror involving breaking into people's houses, killing their pets and vandalizing their cars without any proof. Sorry if my comment was not appropriate for this thread.

[Falkie2013]

THE ANNOUNCEMENT at the beginning of the program.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpiXg-yK0s4

The first video and audio will be done on Monday for broadcast on... Friday the 13th, May 2016 !

[Yorkshire pud]

THE ANNOUNCEMENT at the beginning of the program.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpiXg-yK0s4

The first video and audio will be done on Monday for broadcast on... Friday the 13th, May 2016 !

Will Noory be watching this one Senda?



https://youtu.be/NktpZxMNkDE

[Falkie2013]

Will Noory be watching this one Senda?



https://youtu.be/NktpZxMNkDE

George has seen all my videos and we have long ago resolved any issues we may have had.
I know you won't be able to see them because you gouged out your eyes with pencils over the thought of seeing and hearing me on Coast every month.

[NoMoreNoory]

"Provococation" !!
(Joorch describing the Russian jet barrel-rolling the US jet)
He had a good long think about it, too, implying some uncertainty, but out it came, uncorrected.
And this is the second time I've heard him say it.

[zeebo]

"Provococation" !!
(Joorch describing the Russian jet barrel-rolling the US jet)
He had a good long think about it, too, implying some uncertainty, but out it came, uncorrected.
And this is the second time I've heard him say it.

Haha he relied on Noory Precedence to verify he was right.

[Yorkshire pud]

George has seen all my videos and we have long ago resolved any issues we may have had.
I know you won't be able to see them because you gouged out your eyes with pencils over the thought of seeing and hearing me on Coast every month.

I don't listen to C2C whether your burping, masticating, slurping, farting outbreaks of Aaahhhh, uuhhh, oooooo, nmmmm, are on the show or not. It makes no difference to me; but my my, haven't you been bought for very little? Remember the good old days when you imagined Noory at the Great Wall of China? Remind us again what you wanted him to do there.

[michio]

"Provococation" !!
(Joorch describing the Russian jet barrel-rolling the US jet)
He had a good long think about it, too, implying some uncertainty, but out it came, uncorrected.
And this is the second time I've heard him say it.

The relentless butcher of the English language continues to say "cantapulted."  The professional word mangler does not care about correcting himself or respecting his audience.

[Beelzebubbelah]

At one time marathon swimmers used to coat their bodies in grease to ward off hypothermia.
THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF NICK DANGER
(flashback starts) Catherwood (the butler)- Don't say it Nancy I know its been hard but I wanted to give you the swellest honeymoon a girl has ever had...we're going to Greece!
Nancy- And swim the English Channel?
Catherwood- No no to ancient Greece where burning Sappho lubbed and sang and stroked the wine dark sea in the temple by the wah da do dah.
Nancy- What?

27:50 GN- Do those Citronella candles work?
GR- Ya they do. They'll work. Anything that's smoky will work. As far as putting stuff on your skin...motor oil...mineral oil...any kind of noxious oil type material on your skin will repel a mosquito.
28:33 GN- Does chlorine kill the eggs?
GR- Chlorine will kill the eggs. Back in the old days you poured motor oil on top of the water. That was the end of the mosquitos larva when they hatched they got into the motor oil and it killed them. Of course environmentally we don't do that anymore.

I'm not going to hold a grudge against the doctor. Now I'm going to grease and swim the Columbia River.

============================================
Allo!
with you yet am i.
Not to resist this un-attributed qvote here.
Not is it marked at end,but only the empty linee feed.
to point out am i that,"Nick Danger,3rd Eye"is an skit from "Radio Free Oz/Fire-Sign Theatre"issued on record.
The rest of skit is pretty far out,also..
Yust setting record streight.
The R.Ossman?member moved to Mercer's island and performed in local radio until his only son died hikeing in Cascades,i believe.
Group continued to re-form for many years tours as"Fighting Clowns",i think.
Any up-dated data from fans appreciated...
"B_B"
PS:i freaked out when L.M.Howe? came out of closet as an "Steiner Groupie"cum spiritualist via story of tete-a-tete with straight man George Heynek...(sp.)
PPS:No Logo:
[7VF]

[PB the Deplorable]

Noory also announced that Senda will be appearing on C2C once a month to comment on current events, because he has his finger on the pulse of America...

George Noory said that?  Well, it's settled then, what higher praise could one receive?

[Oliver Kloseoff]

Beelzebubbelah,
Firesign Theater has two surviving members. The group founder Peter Bergman died in 2012 and Phil Austin passed on at Fox Island last year. David Ossman's son died near Mt. Ranier in 2008. David lives on Whidbey Island. Phillip Proctor remains funny and productive at planetproctor.com. I saw the group perform at the Paramount in about 1995 or so. A fine show and a lively crowd.

[zeebo]

PS:i freaked out when L.M.Howe? came out of closet as an "Steiner Groupie"cum spiritualist via story of tete-a-tete with straight man George Heynek...(sp.)

I did not see that one coming either.  Good LMH show last nite imho, good variety of topics.

[pate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZBj1HFiJuQ

Not Sure?

[Falkie2013]

I don't listen to C2C whether your burping, masticating, slurping, farting outbreaks of Aaahhhh, uuhhh, oooooo, nmmmm, are on the show or not. It makes no difference to me; but my my, haven't you been bought for very little? Remember the good old days when you imagined Noory at the Great Wall of China? Remind us again what you wanted him to do there.

I can imagine you there too.
Plummeting to your death after tripping on the crumbling rubble.

[Jackstar]

I can imagine you there too.

You're an idiot and I'm glad you never answered my question.

Fuck off and die.

[Jackstar]

I came to insult Snoory and Ed Dames, but insulting Falkie has satisfied the majority of my baser desires.

The rest of you who swallow this ersatz pablum deserve a painful death.

PRAISE LW

[136 or 142]

John Curtis says without presenting any evidence that the protests in California against Trump have been organized by the Clinton and Sanders campaign and later says "I'm just reporting facts." 

He says they are doing this because "The Clinton campaign is scared to death of facing Donald Trump."  Leaving aside the obvious question of why would the Sanders campaign assist the Clinton campaign in organizing these protests, while the Clinton campaign has acknowledged that they are somewhat nervous of facing Donald Trump because he's so unpredictable, all mainstream Democratic candidates are generally most leery of facing centrist Republicans who can compete for the votes of independent moderates. That was the case in 2012 when the Obama campaign has said that they only candidate they were concerned the Republicans could nominate who they thought could beat Obama was John Huntsman.  So, it's likely that the Clinton campaign would have feared John Kasich the most.  This is also frequently the case in U.S Senate races. The most famous example of that is in the last U.S Senate election in Missouri, incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill, who had middling approval ratings in this Republican leaning state put out advertising during the Republican Primary to help the most extreme Republican running defeat his more moderate opponent.  Claire McCaskill was reelected.

The Clinton campaign is also likely more worried about Ted Cruz than Donald Trump because while Ted Cruz has very high unfavorable ratings in the polls, he is much more competitive in current polling against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump is.

So, by process of elimination, of the three remaining Republicans it's most likely Donald Trump who they fear the least, though it could be Ted Cruz.  In any political environment where the opposing candidate is likely to get at least 45% of the vote, it makes sense to take all opponents seriously.  However, Donald Trump has alienated so many women, Latinos (voter registration among Latinos is at a record high) and even some religious voters (Donald Trump trails Hillary Clinton in current polling in Utah) that he would have to get an unprecedented level of support from his voter base in order to defeat Hillary Clinton.  And prior to what some here believe, Donald Trump is extremely unpopular with younger voters.

In regards to John Curtis assertion that "Trump will get the votes of the 'Reagan Democrats.' The line of Democrats in response is this:  "you know what we call Reagan Democrats?  Republicans." (Most of them haven't voted Democratic at the Presidential level since at least 1996.)

This is the view among political insiders regarding the chances of Donald Trump, and it's almost certainly the view, more or less, of her campaign team:

Swing State Insiders See Clinton Crushing Trump

April 29, 2016By Taegan Goddard66 Comments
Politico: “Republicans are only slightly more bullish on Trump’s prospects than Democrats: More than three-quarters of GOP insiders expect Clinton to best the Republican front-runner in a general-election contest in their respective states. Among Democrats, the belief is nearly universal: 99 percent of surveyed said will Clinton will beat Trump.”

“In three of the biggest swing statesâ€"Ohio, Pennsylvania and Floridaâ€"Republicans were particularly downbeat about the prospect of a Trump-Clinton contest.”

Other ridiculous comments by Curtis include his assertion that Donald Trump would somehow end Congressional gridlock. Obviously I can't predict what would happen under a Trump Administration (though neither can he) but generally when a candidate is opposed by so many in his own party and by virtually everybody in the opposing party, the only way a candidate like that can get their legislation passed is by running on a detailed platform and after getting elected saying "I have a mandate."  Trump's policy proposals that aren't outright ridiculous are vague at best. 

The only fact worth reporting about John Curtis is that his head is totally up Donald Trump's ass. 

Albrecht" "This belongs in politics!"

Me: "if Noory is going to put people on his show to discuss politics, then this is the appropriate forum."

[Mind Flayer Monk]

John Curtis says without presenting any evidence that the protests in California against Trump have been organized by the Clinton and Sanders campaign and later says "I'm just reporting facts." 

He says they are doing this because "The Clinton campaign is scared to death of facing Donald Trump." 

Bill Clinton drives a Miata. I knew it all along.

[136 or 142]

I liked some parts of the skeptical guest, but there were times when he had essentially used the same arguments of what he claimed to be against:

On the Civil War ghosts, he essentially said "Science says that this is impossible so the sightings must all be wrong."  Well, no, it could be that the current science is wrong (or, more likely, incomplete.)

He also alleged that all the sightings must be people mistakenly reporting their dreams.  Most people I know are able to distinguish when they've dreamed something and when they've seen something when they're awake.  I know this can get blurred when people are put under hypnosis, but that isn't the case here.

On 'Near Death Experiences' he claimed that this is nothing more than what occurs with dreams.  I don't doubt his sincerity on this, but the term 'near death experience' really is inaccurate and that allows him to get away with his claim.  Near death experiences should actually be referred to as 'brain death experiences.'  Under the current science there is no possibility for dreams because there is no brain activity.  Of course, this doesn't mean that near  brain death experiences are proof of an afterlife, but it does show that his explanation for them is false, under the current science.

So, either the current science must always be right and civil war ghosts can't be real, or the current science is not always right and brain death experiences are nothing more than dreams. 

Finally, he said that it doesn't make sense to believe that a 'God' created the universe (and once again Noory went all pretentious in bringing it up, calling it 'The God question.") because the logic behind the God in the Bible doesn't make sense.  (He mentioned that dinosaurs existed for millions of years before God suddenly realized "I think I'd rather have humans than dinosaurs.")

But, there is no reason to believe that if there is a creator of the Universe, that it has to be the God of the Bible, any more than it has to be the Supreme Being in any other religion or spiritual practice.  A creator of the Universe is nothing more than that.

His claim that there is no need for any creator because 'the Universe could simply be eternal' also made no sense to me. 

It reminded me of the joke that economists like to tell about their own profession: 

Three people are on a deserted island, and one of them is an economist. 

The first person says: "How will we survive, we have nothing to eat."

The second person replies: "We have all these tin cans filled with food."

The first person says "But, we have no way to open those cans."

The economist responds "Gentleman, I have the solution.  We'll just assume we have a can opener."

Similarly, the guest can assume that the universe can simply be eternal all he wants as a way to explain that it didn't need to be created, but he has no evidence for it, and, as far as I'm concerned, the idea that an eternal universe needed nothing to come into existence makes no sense to me.  (I realize that if the universe is eternal it wouldn't have 'come into existence') but I think my point is clear even if I haven't explained it very well.

[albrecht]

Hello Albrecht, that was my fault, I'm afraid. I'm new here; I didn't know there was a politics section. I was just commenting on something that I thought was unfair and pining for the days of the Fairness Doctrine. I don't go into a snit when someone calls Hillary Clinton a liar, corrupt, abrasive, greedy, etc. I don't agree, but those are opinions and one can make a case for them. I just objected to George Noory's guest accusing her of orchestrating a reign of terror involving breaking into people's houses, killing their pets and vandalizing their cars without any proof. Sorry if my comment was not appropriate for this thread.

No need to apologize, this is BG. I'm just trying not to derail the Norry Sucks thread, that much. Every other thread though, that is the BG way often. Be well, post often.

[Robert]

I liked some parts of the skeptical guest, but there were times when he had essentially used the same arguments of what he claimed to be against:

I noticed, you noticed, and we would've said something about that if we were emceeing.  I'm pretty sure Mr. Bell would've, I'm less confident Wade would've, but no way Noory was going to.  Noory derailed the discussion instead, and turned it more into a program about himself.

Although I think it likely Noory just wasn't paying enough att'n & thinking about it, what do you suppose the chances are he did notice but has decided that being confrontational is bad form?

[The Nabob]

George Snoory is the most incompetent fool ever to host a radio snow.  Only Girl Noory (Heather Wade) Is that bad. Heather Needs speech therapy to correct her inability to pronounce "st" correctly.  It's Extraterrestrial...NOT Extratreashtial.  Likewise its instrument...NOT inshtrument . She sounds like a ill begotten hillbilly!!!!  It's laughable. Heather sucks!!!!

[albrecht]

Norry is clueless. He compared the legend of a still extant Moa in NZ to "our thunderbirds." As most schoolboy knows the Moa was an actual bird (several species of it some of which was quite tall,) that was FLIGHTLESS, and extirpated by the natives a long time ago. (Think Dodo like in appearance. That we killed off.) A FLIGHTLESS bird compared to the tradition of the Thunderbird- a large, condor or pterodactyl, FLYING bird (depending on tradition or "experiencer") that looks completely different!

It was sort of amusing when the guest shut down poor Jan with his comment after she ranted that she doesn't use doctors ("that might explain some things" under his breath.) Normally it is Norry who picks on her. But obviously is elderly so I don't like picking on her.
-GNS

ps: caller "Keith" layed into George, and Art, saying C2C would be nothing if guests and hosts were as honest as the skeptic guest.

[ziznak]

"he's gawt hissth thingurr on the pulthhh of amerikaa"

[aldousburbank]

PRAISE LW

Lawrence Welk?

[albrecht]

Lawrence Welk?

I've never forgiven Congress for making it a "controversy" about a museum in his hometown. Especially with all the spending on other projects- certainly light-hearted polka, waltzes, and "champagne music" are worth a museum- especially on the desolate prairies. Not everyone can travel to Branson or California to reminiscence. I don't donate to my local PBS since they stopped re-runs.
-GNS

[ziznak]

Lawrence Welk?

nice to see you around here... i know you been back on for a bit but... just sayin...

BRAISE LAWRENCE WELK!!!

[NoMoreNoory]

The relentless butcher of the English language continues to say "cantapulted."  The professional word mangler does not care about correcting himself or respecting his audience.

Very impressively, though he did manage to say 'catechism classes' last night instead of his usual 'cataclysm classes'. He's obviously been reading these pages and practicing hard. For, like, eight hours a day, maybe.

[NoMoreNoory]

I liked some parts of the skeptical guest, but there were times when he had essentially used the same arguments of what he claimed to be against:

On the Civil War ghosts, he essentially said "Science says that this is impossible so the sightings must all be wrong."  Well, no, it could be that the current science is wrong (or, more likely, incomplete.)

He also alleged that all the sightings must be people mistakenly reporting their dreams.  Most people I know are able to distinguish when they've dreamed something and when they've seen something when they're awake.  I know this can get blurred when people are put under hypnosis, but that isn't the case here.

On 'Near Death Experiences' he claimed that this is nothing more than what occurs with dreams.  I don't doubt his sincerity on this, but the term 'near death experience' really is inaccurate and that allows him to get away with his claim.  Near death experiences should actually be referred to as 'brain death experiences.'  Under the current science there is no possibility for dreams because there is no brain activity.  Of course, this doesn't mean that near  brain death experiences are proof of an afterlife, but it does show that his explanation for them is false, under the current science.

So, either the current science must always be right and civil war ghosts can't be real, or the current science is not always right and brain death experiences are nothing more than dreams. 

Finally, he said that it doesn't make sense to believe that a 'God' created the universe (and once again Noory went all pretentious in bringing it up, calling it 'The God question.") because the logic behind the God in the Bible doesn't make sense.  (He mentioned that dinosaurs existed for millions of years before God suddenly realized "I think I'd rather have humans than dinosaurs.")

But, there is no reason to believe that if there is a creator of the Universe, that it has to be the God of the Bible, any more than it has to be the Supreme Being in any other religion or spiritual practice.  A creator of the Universe is nothing more than that.

His claim that there is no need for any creator because 'the Universe could simply be eternal' also made no sense to me. 

It reminded me of the joke that economists like to tell about their own profession: 

Three people are on a deserted island, and one of them is an economist. 

The first person says: "How will we survive, we have nothing to eat."

The second person replies: "We have all these tin cans filled with food."

The first person says "But, we have no way to open those cans."

The economist responds "Gentleman, I have the solution.  We'll just assume we have a can opener."

Similarly, the guest can assume that the universe can simply be eternal all he wants as a way to explain that it didn't need to be created, but he has no evidence for it, and, as far as I'm concerned, the idea that an eternal universe needed nothing to come into existence makes no sense to me.  (I realize that if the universe is eternal it wouldn't have 'come into existence') but I think my point is clear even if I haven't explained it very well.

To be fair, I think Nickell did also say that a belief in The Big Bang, evolution etc does not necessarily exclude a creator, but I think Noory was talking over him.
I liked his emphasis on 'The Argument From Ignorance' - 'We saw a bright light in the sky. We don't know what it was. It must be an alien space craft' - and it's a principle that at least one C2C presenter would do well to take to heart. But then he does everything from ignorance as it is.
Nickell's point about dreams was confusing and not well thought out, but it reminded me how many alien abductions seem to begin and end in the bedroom. I've always thought that any abduction story that begins 'I was lying in bed....', 'I woke up and saw...' etc (and it's an awful lot of them) have to be immediately disregarded as dreams or hypnogogic/hypnopompic visions.