Do you think people who listen believe what they hear

[Guy]

I know that not every story is totally nuts.   Do you think most people who listen to the show know that the more extreme guests (Strieber, Lear, Jones, Quayle, Dames) are either mentally ill or/and just selling a story/product?

It freaks me out to think that people may hear some of this stuff and be nodding their heads in agreement or thinking that the show is really attempting to put out real information.  I think a lot of people are pretty gullible and really do believe some of this paranoid stuff.

I have heard George's shows on and off for a few years, but have not heard very many of Art Bell's shows.    I can see even from the few shows I have heard that Art was willing to "question" or "disagree" with guests and I think that was good.     But honestly, his friendship and support for Strieber and Dame makes me wonder if he knows they are just sensationalists or if he honestly believes them, meaning he has his own mental issues?   Or do you think Art Bell just knows they are "good entertainment," sort of like a freak show at an old county fair?

I am not intending to insult anyone here, but just really wondering about all this.

[Yorkshire pud]

Good question. Without having a survey that specifically targets the audience of any show (TV or radio) it's difficult to ascertain, if a few/ many/ most actually believe what they're being told is true, when all common sense and contrary evidence suggests otherwise. There's a school of thought that says alien life on earth believers are simply subscribing to a different religion than the established ones.


If you think about it, there isn't that big a leap from some multi millionaire evangelist on TV wanting you to tap in your card number, and some pseudo science charlatan on the radio, pushing his/her latest book/ dvd/ conference/ cruise; the topic of which can be any variation on aliens/ super elements that no one has heard of/ scientific principle that no scientist has heard of/ mysterious planets about to kill the Earth/ comets that are really space ships/ pyramids and apartments on Mars..the list goes on...If there is some wacko theory that 'they' don't wish you to know about, someone somewhere is or has thought of a way too make money from the hard of thinking. It's very sad, and the protagonists (together with TV religious evangelists) should be dropped into the sea tied to a concrete block...


Not that I have any strong feelings about them or anything.

[Juan]

If you think about it, there isn't that big a leap from some multi millionaire evangelist on TV wanting you to tap in your card number, and some pseudo science charlatan on the radio, pushing his/her latest book/ dvd/ conference/ cruise;

Amen.

[Histronic Fop]

My grandmother listened to radio preachers all night long on XERF back in the day.  Same diff, I think.

[Morgus]

Or do you think Art Bell just knows they are "good entertainment," sort of like a freak show at an old county fair?

Art Bell often said on his show that it was just for 'entertainment' and he was only a talk show host that let his guests speak their mind and he didn't get confrontational with them because that might make the guest uncomfortable and limit how much he would say on the air. He let the audience decide about the guest and their info he said.
Like most media, he probably had the regular guests including Dames, Hoagland, and Strieber on very often because they were audience favorites and produced higher ratings.

[Guy]

I thought the reason people liked Art Bell so much was because he did question the guests?

I have not heard very many old Art Bell shows.   Most of what I heard from him was after he lost his wife and remarried.

So on the old shows does he actually seem to doubt people like Strieber?

[onan]

Art believes in quite a bit of whif and poof. He, by his own admission has a wide and varied spirituality belief system. He bought whole heartedly into ghost evp's. He had a fear, which he lableled as responsibility, that having his audience all think the same thing at the same time could have severe consequences. I do believe he bought into Ed Dames and perhaps still does. He for a long time gave full credence to hoagland. Art often spoke of his out of body experience and his precognition of his parked car being hit.


All that being said, Art was/is able to converse with others and interview at the same time. Art made it fun to think about the extraordinary to impossible. All that is gone now. Noory has turned the fantastic into a third grader's report.


I like to believe that the people still listening don't neccessarily believe everything completely, but rather are still hoping for some magic.

[Morgus]

So on the old shows does he actually seem to doubt people like Strieber?

not that I remember.
Art let the guests tell their story and didn't confront them in order to let them speak their mind completely and let the audience decide about them.
The only time I recall Art spoke out against a guest and his topic was David John Oates and Reverse Speech, years after he had him on the show a lot of times when Oates turned against Art on some other radio show and made unsubstantiated claims about him. Art had to resort to legal action against him too.

[Guy]

The Oates story brings up an interesting issue.    Some of these guests are not the ones you might want turning against you.   

I did hear the Steve Quayle show where he bailed out after Ian Punnet wanted to argue a little.    I thought it was too bad the network made (?) Ian Punnet apologize.   I do remember Ian Punnet also giving Jim Marrs some guff about the "transamerican highway" and Marrs got upset quickly and Punnet backed off.

Funny how some of these people can not take it when someone does not simply sit back and let them run on.

[The Neverender]

I think it takes a certain level of discernment to be able to separate wheat from chaff... I first started listening to C2C over a year ago when i was having some insomnia issues... shortly after i bought the insider membership so i could download all the shows and see what i had been missing... If you have a closed mind to these topics than you dismiss everything and likely don't even turn on the show. So a listener already has some sort of interest or at least an open mind to approach this material. Now an intelligent person will, once he/she gets a handle on format/subject matter/etc., be able to evaluate the data independently and bring their own knowledge or some sort of scientific reasoning to decide if what is being said is utter crap. Now the issue is that in order for there to be people of above average intelligence there also has to be people of below average intelligence, who in this particular set of people are open to/interested in C2C style topics... so they likely have a much much higher threshold before the "This is utter Crap" alert starts going off. I imagine that this threshold is pushed even higher when the guest is well spoken, and give the trappings of legitimacy ie. Science Adviser, and head of the Enterprise Mission, former NASA employee and adviser  to Walter Cronkite, and not "This is bob and he uses crystals to talk to dogs"   

The first few shows i caught parts of scared the crap out of me, especially since there were some John Wells doom and gloom everyone is going to die in the coming *Insert global calamity here*, and someone talking about the alien bases in the bluffs of New Mexico.  Quickly i figured out what was going on and developed some guidelines for listening, generally i use the two crazy/mentally ill callers in a row rule, where, you guessed it, if two crazy callers get on the show back to back I turn it off or move to the next podcast.

Anyways before i ramble on any further... my point is that i think some people might have trouble looking past guest's titles and presentation skills, and miss the complete lack of real proof.     

[PB the Deplorable]

... my point is that i think some people might have trouble looking past guest's titles and presentation skills, and miss the complete lack of real proof.   

Heh, but isn't the complete lack of any real proof evidence that there is a cover up?

[ziznak]

I'm a consummate on the fencer.  I don't like to rule anything out or in without sufficient "proof."  If it's something I've seen with my own eyes or if it makes sense scientifically/logically I'll normally consider it proven until further evidence comes to light.  Although I put a lot of weight to whats proven scientifically I have to say on many occasions I'll say the science can be wrong.  Certain subjects like human origins and different scientifically accepted views of earths history I find to be as flimsy as some of the ancient aliens intervention stuff.  There's definitely a line somewhere in our history where shit just gets blurry both in the written history and the antropological.   

The thing that drew me to Art was his ability to remain open to anything and to entertain pretty much any idea that was thrown at him.  He made no stand with his callers and chose to go with them into whatever crazy story was being created/recounted.

  From the open minded to the delusional and easy lead I can see it attracting all types of listeners.  The only problem I really have is the fact that many guests seem to get too much protection from callers that may argue against whats being said.  It's kinda rare to hear somebody get through that says the guest is totally wrong and this is why.  For an open minded listener this may not be a problem but the delusional and easily lead will come away from a show totally swayed towards shit like alien structures on the moon and the return of Nibiru... 

[Yorkshire pud]

I think it takes a certain level of discernment to be able to separate wheat from chaff... I first started listening to C2C over a year ago when i was having some insomnia issues... shortly after i bought the insider membership so i could download all the shows and see what i had been missing... If you have a closed mind to these topics than you dismiss everything and likely don't even turn on the show. So a listener already has some sort of interest or at least an open mind to approach this material. Now an intelligent person will, once he/she gets a handle on format/subject matter/etc., be able to evaluate the data independently and bring their own knowledge or some sort of scientific reasoning to decide if what is being said is utter crap. Now the issue is that in order for there to be people of above average intelligence there also has to be people of below average intelligence, who in this particular set of people are open to/interested in C2C style topics... so they likely have a much much higher threshold before the "This is utter Crap" alert starts going off. I imagine that this threshold is pushed even higher when the guest is well spoken, and give the trappings of legitimacy ie. Science Adviser, and head of the Enterprise Mission, former NASA employee and adviser  to Walter Cronkite, and not "This is bob and he uses crystals to talk to dogs"   

The first few shows i caught parts of scared the crap out of me, especially since there were some John Wells doom and gloom everyone is going to die in the coming *Insert global calamity here*, and someone talking about the alien bases in the bluffs of New Mexico.  Quickly i figured out what was going on and developed some guidelines for listening, generally i use the two crazy/mentally ill callers in a row rule, where, you guessed it, if two crazy callers get on the show back to back I turn it off or move to the next podcast.

Anyways before i ramble on any further... my point is that i think some people might have trouble looking past guest's titles and presentation skills, and miss the complete lack of real proof.   

To get it to it's most basic; Sex sells. Let me explain. Having an 'expert' (and I use the word very loosely) on who tells you that accepted science  (thus far) is crap, and that their research (again I use that word very loosely) has shown; or in Hoaxlands case "Astounding confirmation", that NASA has covered up the existence of airports and Walmarts on the surface of Mars; Is far sexier than a PhD scientist whose life work is Mars and it's geology tell the listener that NASA is only just scratching (literally) the surface of Mars, but so far what they have found will take years to adequately digest and give a report on, but the initial findings are exciting. Hoaxland has no scientific qualifications whatsoever; but some hold his bollox in higher esteem than real scientists doing real science. The problem is, is real science is often mundane, repetitive, often leading to failure and no firm conclusions..NOT sexy. The likes of RCH simply wake up one morning and think of something to waste oxygen and the ether being broadcast; They know they have an audience, because instant gratification is easier than work and research.

[The Neverender]

I'm a consummate on the fencer.  I don't like to rule anything out or in without sufficient "proof." 

I don't like to rule things out as well, but i also like to have a certain level of proof of things, or even a level of plausibility... Are there UFO's that we can't explain that governments are trying to brush off and marginalize? Yeah i think that might be likely... Are aliens from the UFO's passing Whitley Strieber around like a blow up doll at a frat party? I'm less convinced of that...

I want to believe that we live in a world that is more mystical and exciting than we are told it actually is... but i need something to go on that i could show someone else that could create some level of doubt in their heads as to the accuracy of their current beliefs.

Mostly i like to use C2C and related shows like Clyde Lewis, UFO Hunters, Ancient Aliens as jumping off points to explore the tangential topics they discuss while trying to prove UFO's or what not. I never would have gone through pages and pages of NASA photo's from Mars if i wasn't trying to see how nutty RCH really was... Or I wouldn't have ever heard of Gobekli Tepe without C2C and Ancient Aliens... That site wrecks archaeological timelines but i don't think was ever brought up when i was an archaeology major in undergrad...


But C2C can't be in the truth business because many guests completely contradict each other... and i do find it entertaining to try to look for little nuggets of truth, or places where different people's stories seem to confirm each other... But i wonder what percentage of the C2C listening population is listening critically and what percentage are listening and polishing their guns so they can be ready to fight off the combined forces of the Illuminati and reptilians as they attempt to harvest our souls so the Greys can't use our DNA to create hybrids to challenge the Klingons for interstellar domination of the ancient cities on Mars....     

[onan]

c2c is entertainment... ok maybe not great entertainment but it is a show. The have a show to sell stuff. Even with Art it was a show. It was and is a carnival show. Instead of the fat lady we have the witch lady who is fat.


Sit on the fence look at their offerings... but facts, look elsewhere.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Or I wouldn't have ever heard of Gobekli Tepe without C2C and Ancient Aliens... That site wrecks archaeological timelines but i don't think was ever brought up when i was an archaeology major in undergrad...   

It's a fairly recent find. 

Some folks say the Sphinx is much older than we are told due to certain anomalies (and that an Egyptian king re-carved his face on it much later), but the answer always was there was no civilization that far back so it couldn't be that old - with Gobekli Tepe in that general part of the world, and going that far back, now it is possible for the Sphinx to also be that old.

[onan]

i don't think was ever brought up when i was an archaeology major in undergrad...

It was first uncovered in 1964, but was kind of overlooked due to assumptions about it being burial grounds. It wasn't really looked at again until the mid 90's if I remember correctly.

[ziznak]

I'm sure nobody here takes info on C2C as fact without at least a little research.

[West of the Rockies]

I don't like to rule things out as well, but i also like to have a certain level of proof of things, or even a level of plausibility... Are there UFO's that we can't explain that governments are trying to brush off and marginalize? Yeah i think that might be likely... Are aliens from the UFO's passing Whitley Strieber around like a blow up doll at a frat party? I'm less convinced of that...

I want to believe that we live in a world that is more mystical and exciting than we are told it actually is... but i need something to go on that i could show someone else that could create some level of doubt in their heads as to the accuracy of their current beliefs.

Mostly i like to use C2C and related shows like Clyde Lewis, UFO Hunters, Ancient Aliens as jumping off points to explore the tangential topics they discuss while trying to prove UFO's or what not. I never would have gone through pages and pages of NASA photo's from Mars if i wasn't trying to see how nutty RCH really was... Or I wouldn't have ever heard of Gobekli Tepe without C2C and Ancient Aliens... That site wrecks archaeological timelines but i don't think was ever brought up when i was an archaeology major in undergrad...


But C2C can't be in the truth business because many guests completely contradict each other... and i do find it entertaining to try to look for little nuggets of truth, or places where different people's stories seem to confirm each other... But i wonder what percentage of the C2C listening population is listening critically and what percentage are listening and polishing their guns so they can be ready to fight off the combined forces of the Illuminati and reptilians as they attempt to harvest our souls so the Greys can't use our DNA to create hybrids to challenge the Klingons for interstellar domination of the ancient cities on Mars....     

Very well said, Neverender!  I think a number of us here feel similarly.  I know I, too, very much enjoy thought-provoking material (paranormal and otherwise), but I also welcome and require a bit of solid supporting evidence.  I don't know whether we should blame television, the internet, social networking, a combination thereof (or something else entirely), but many people do seem to have lost their ability to actually examine the evidence for credibility and contribute to an argument in a meaningful fashion. 

And the image you presented of Streiber as a frat-party blow-up doll is too funny (if a bit disturbing!). 

[Yorkshire pud]

And the image you presented of Streiber as a frat-party blow-up doll is too funny (if a bit disturbing!). 

He gets taken back when his nose runs. 

[The Neverender]

It was first uncovered in 1964, but was kind of overlooked due to assumptions about it being burial grounds. It wasn't really looked at again until the mid 90's if I remember correctly.

I'm 27 it was definitely being worked on and i think carbon dated while i was in school... I'm not saying it's a conspiracy (though it does fit all the criteria of a conspiracy , ie i have no proof and i just made the conspiracy up) I think it was mostly a factor of grumpy people not embracing change. For instance, in my experience some (mostly older) archaeologists hated what could be done with DNA... because it called them on their BS. They don't like the more complex truth and would rather deal in the mythologies they created

[onan]

I'm 27 it was definitely being worked on and i think carbon dated while i was in school... I'm not saying it's a conspiracy (though it does fit all the criteria of a conspiracy , ie i have no proof and i just made the conspiracy up) I think it was mostly a factor of grumpy people not embracing change. For instance, in my experience some (mostly older) archaeologists hated what could be done with DNA... because it called them on their BS. They don't like the more complex truth and would rather deal in the mythologies they created

I had an anthropology professor that railed against topics left out when discussing ancient egyptian and early mayan and aztec cultures. I have little doubt that leaders in fields that use a great deal of speculation guard their territories like rabid dogs.

[Abby Normal]

c2c is entertainment... ok maybe not great entertainment but it is a show. The have a show to sell stuff. Even with Art it was a show. It was and is a carnival show. Instead of the fat lady we have the witch lady who is fat.


Sit on the fence look at their offerings... but facts, look elsewhere.

Well said.  Indeed, look for facts elsewhere.

[The Neverender]

Oh there's definitely some good Professors out there... but i think the old guard still has the run of the field... hopefully the younger generation doesn't follow in their footsteps... I so wanted to be an archaeologist until i really got to know a lot of archaeologists... and the sad studies most of them conducted. The journal article that pushed me over the edge looked at a the concentration of a few pottery shards in Meso-america and based off the premise that these shards represent pots that were stored in the corners of of dwellings, made grand decorations about trade networks and political structure based on a similar find in a Chinese Dynasty that was separated by tens of thousands of miles and a couple thousand years... I realized that you you could make up whatever you wanted as long as it fit into the main story that the field accepted, because you need to be constantly publishing or else you get fired... 

They expect results... but only results they like... and your expected to keep churning out those results in a journal or a book, or you can find another job

(I'm only a little bitter haha)       

[stevesh]

Forgotton who said it, but 'scientific paradigms change one funeral at a time'.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

I think they do believe. People have believed in ghosts, the apocalypse, werewolves and magic for thousands of years. People believe in bigfoot and UFOs. I think the groups tend to say believe in ghosts but think UFOs are false or all kinds of combinations.


I have attached a file of someone that sounds like a sincere believer to prove that people out there really do believe this.

[WildCard]

Do you think most people who listen to the show know that the more extreme guests (Strieber, Lear, Jones, Quayle, Dames) are either mentally ill or/and just selling a story/product?

1.Strieber

Here's my deal - If someone/anyone, tells me they experienced something/anything, I'll give them benefit of the doubt.

I was reading Castaneda at the same time "Communion" came out. Able to "suspend my disbelief" until the end of the third book, where they all jump of a cliff.

2.Lear

Well, when he'd talk about the moon being towed to our orbit and used to beam up souls . . .

You'd have to be brain-dead (see-George Noory) to take that on faith.

Bob Lazar thought his shit was nuts. And he's Lear's only IRL/AFK source. If you believe Lazar, (I do, but there's good reason not to), they saw a craft. That's it.

His other sources are random yahoo's at abovetopsecret.

3.Jones

Doesn't believe in aliens. Fuck him.

4.Quayle

Ian had the temerity to challenge Quayle and he had a hissy fit. They made Ian apologize. Wish he'd quit instead.

5.Dames

"You promised me gold. Where's my gold?"
-Art

That's the end of discussion - Give me gold or STFU! That goes for all of you!

6.Somebody mentioned Hoagland.

Art asked Ingo Swaan about Hoagland - "The problem is I know these guys, I used to play poker with these guys."

[Unbuhliebahble!!!]

I swear it seems like Quayle pops a bunch of opiates before he gets on the line. He NEVER stops talking

[WildCard]

Art asked Ingo Swaan about Hoagland - "The problem is I know these guys, I used to play poker with these guys."

Wrong. Again.

It was Terence Mckenna, "I know how squirrely they are."

[Wyzzy93]

I reckon some people really do believe all the guff. You need your Bullshit Filters on when listening to C2C, i have found of late that I have to trawl through a lot of shows before I find one I listen to all the way through. What date was the show with Ian Punnett where Quayle had a hissy fit? I would love to hear that.