Topic: The stars have gone out

[Agent : Orange]

A bout of insomnia and a 12 pack in the fridge, coupled with a ton of great clips that have been uploaded here, have me ruminating on some of the best times I've had with Coast.

Though I'm no fan of Noory, one of the most memorable shows in recent times (re: the bad new days) for me has to be when a typical caller to Noory asked some astronomy based gibberish. Noory, without breaking stride said something like "Didn't you hear? All the stars have gone out" and the caller actually took him seriously! This person was downright distraught that the night sky is not as they remembered it. To my shock and amazement, the next few callers didn't have the guts to come out and say "you're wrong", they took it as roughly gospel truth. Some gently questioned what George said but none of them openly challenged him and obviously missed the joke. From memory, these callers seemed to take George - somehow, even in the face of absurdity - at his word.

While awesomely hilarious, this for me was the tipping point. It was then I realized that the screened callers of this new C2C did not represent the same demographic that Art appealed to and that the show had proceeded past the event horizon of dumb, catering instead to screened BS that made little to no sense and the producers (as well as the host) knew it. While I thought it was a really funny gag, it said something sad about the intellectual agility of the new listening audience, and was I think the break from the good old days of Art Bell to the new listening audience. It made me question how seriously the show took it's guests if it did not take it's audience seriously.

Nevertheless, this is my favorite memory of Coast during the Noory era.

I would be very interested to hear this exchange again to see if my memory holds up.  Does anyone remember this series of calls, or have a link to the actual episode?

[anagrammy]

It is a huge difference in approach to have the "host" making the crazy statements instead of the caller.  Then things are flipped, we look to the caller for a retort and lo he hasn't got one (because he's a moron) and so you have radio silence followed by George Noory, "Are you there? Looks like he hung up." 

It is a symptom of desperation.  Imagine the numbers of catladies (no offense) and fawning dowagers they had to wade through to find this scrawney specimen. And then they handfeed him because CHrist-on-a-pogo-stick THEY can't even stay awake, let alone the audience.

Excellent post, Agent Orange.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall during the Clear Channel after action meetings.  Maybe Valdez can give us some hilarious movie voiceovers for those. 

CC:  Why in the world did you tell the caller the stars had gone out?  Why, George, why?

GN:  I misread the card



Anagrammy

[Agent : Orange]

It is a huge difference in approach to have the "host" making the crazy statements instead of the caller.  Then things are flipped, we look to the caller for a retort and lo he hasn't got one (because he's a moron) and so you have radio silence followed by George Noory, "Are you there? Looks like he hung up." 

He definitely turned the tables with this one. I was quite surprised.

It is a symptom of desperation.  Imagine the numbers of catladies (no offense) and fawning dowagers they had to wade through to find this scrawney specimen. And then they handfeed him because CHrist-on-a-pogo-stick THEY can't even stay awake, let alone the audience.

haha
This brings up an interesting question though - since Art had nothing to do with him, how was George picked as a successor? And why for that matter? One would think that Art had a backup plan, or someone to cover for him, if things ever went south. Wasn't he grooming the next host while he was on the top of the pyramid?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall during the Clear Channel after action meetings.  Maybe Valdez can give us some hilarious movie voiceovers for those. 
CC:  Why in the world did you tell the caller the stars had gone out?  Why, George, why?
GN:  I misread the card

lol!

[Roger]

I'm not as nostalgic about Art Bell as you.  For me, AB put his toe into
some deep waters, but ended up being irritating.

What the medium allowed was just a little too fearful for the market.

Like Occum's razor (sp?): could go this way, could go that way.

The 'phone-lines', the 'email' of the times proved just too much to
allow a proper assessment.

Uncertainty as to what to do was decided on the side of the commercial
interests.

Keep it shallow, 'spooky', 'eery' and 'Enquirer' like.

Cheap, short, shallow.

Despite how odious 'open-lines' were to all of us, sometimes a caller
called in a most fascinating tale.  Rather than shutting down 'open-lines',
Art would say: 'Sorry, we have a ton of callers waiting to get in'.

Fascinating story ended.  'We'll get your number and call you back to
get the rest of the story'.

Guess what?  No 'rest of the story' for those of us paying attention.

Deep as a puddle. And being nostalgic about that: give me a break.

Long John Neville, Frank Edwards, if they had the same opportunities
AB or GN have had: I'm betting it would have gone deeper.

Art Bell aimed at being a Murrow. He immitated Murrow. Voice, cadence
and all.

Who could blame him?  Murrow was an icon.  Part of the 'Great Generation'.

For us, now, Bell is an icon.  Art is living 'nostalgia'.

A 'Ham', a 'radio' guy with actual first-hand experience in the romantacism
of talking over the 'ether' via 'short-wave', 'single-side-band' and all
that.

Art is a real member of that 'generation' we call 'great'. Survivors of
WWII.

Yet, despite that greatness of Art, (I really love the guy, love his voice
and listen to most past re-broadcasts with delight), the 'badness' of Art
over-rides the goodness of Art for me.

I'm an iconoclast.  I don't worship Edward R. Murrow, nor Walter Cronkite,
nor JFK.

Expression, art, radio, tv, music everything should be based on goodness,
facts or truth and not perceptions that might drive business.

I'm fine with making business on genuiness.

We want to see people, hear people who are real and who seem to
manifest something we feel we possess inwardly.

At least, as children, we tend to idealize such figures, or idolize
them.

When such 'magnets' end up merely bending kids minds to a political
agenda or some product based on fear: that is propoganda.

I call bullshit.

[Roger]

Post-script: sorry, I meant Long John Nebel, not "Long John Neville" in my
last post.

[anagrammy]

Hi Roger, 

I never thought of Coast as a deep show.  More like a survey course in college.  Yeah, Survey of the Paranormal and Weird News.  Those who want to go deeper go online to discussion groups after they have read the book.

As a surveyor, Art was the best.  He made it entertaining and often made me read the book even though he panned the guy. Along the lines of "You know this guy is stretching the truth, but you can't take your eyes off the page."  So guests loved him anyway!  And so did the audience because he could be that wittier you talking to interesting people and asking the questions you would ask.

Anagrammy

[Usagi]

I have to agree about how annoying it was (rarely happens now), when an open caller would appear with a really tantalizing story or topic.  You know, fuck the rest of the queue - keep talking to this person!  "Give us your info and we'll call you back."  Yeah right.

Quality over quantity, guys!

[Agent : Orange]

I'm not as nostalgic about Art Bell as you.  For me, AB put his toe into
some deep waters, but ended up being irritating.

What the medium allowed was just a little too fearful for the market.

Like Occum's razor (sp?): could go this way, could go that way.

The 'phone-lines', the 'email' of the times proved just too much to
allow a proper assessment.

Uncertainty as to what to do was decided on the side of the commercial
interests.

Keep it shallow, 'spooky', 'eery' and 'Enquirer' like.

No one here (myself included) have been describing Art as an educator or philosopher. He was not especially critical or *really* up front with his audience at times. You're right on that.

What he had going for him is that he knew how to talk and keep it engaging. He knew how to interview guests and speak to strangers. He was a masterful entertainer. That's what made his show great and why I stand by it.

Cheap, short, shallow.

If you want more from a guest than a five hour interview, you're going to have to do some of your own legwork. I don't think any medium other than radio can give that to you on a regular basis. Television certainly doesn't. Podcasting could do the same thing but that's also based on a radio type format.

In terms of the guests I can see the majority of them as being called shallow. Easily.

However when it comes to the host I don't really know of any other radio personality in the last thirty years who was able to give their audience as much of an in-depth view of their personal lives with the sincerity that Art brought to the table for those who listened regularly. I'm probably sticking my neck out saying that but I don't mind being proven wrong. From time to time that's how I learn about new stuff.

Despite how odious 'open-lines' were to all of us, sometimes a caller
called in a most fascinating tale.  Rather than shutting down 'open-lines',
Art would say: 'Sorry, we have a ton of callers waiting to get in'.

Fascinating story ended.  'We'll get your number and call you back to
get the rest of the story'.

Guess what?  No 'rest of the story' for those of us paying attention.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I really enjoyed open lines with Art and there was more than one instance where he let callers go and ramble off their stories for extended periods.

Deep as a puddle. And being nostalgic about that: give me a break.

Alright we get it, you never liked the show. Gotcha.

Long John Neville, Frank Edwards, if they had the same opportunities
AB or GN have had: I'm betting it would have gone deeper.

Art Bell aimed at being a Murrow. He immitated Murrow. Voice, cadence
and all.

Who could blame him?  Murrow was an icon.  Part of the 'Great Generation'.

I've heard of Long John Nebel but I've never heard of one of his shows. Got any links where we can check him out?

I'm an iconoclast.  I don't worship Edward R. Murrow, nor Walter Cronkite,
nor JFK.

Expression, art, radio, tv, music everything should be based on goodness,
facts or truth and not perceptions that might drive business.

I'm fine with making business on genuiness.

Then I have some bad news for you. Get it over with and throw out your tv, music and radio because all of that stuff is and always has been used in worship of the almighty buck in one way or another. The world may have seemed to be a better place when Uncle Walt was reading the news but how much of that really is because you were forced to only take one perspective? I challenge you to find a broadcast of "The Shadow" that didn't include ads for Blue Coal. Entertainment-wise someone has always been able to hitch the wagon of business to successful outlets and make a buck off of popularity.
Nothing new there, sorry.

The nature of journalism has indeed changed since those halcyon days but I'm afraid you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Art Bell is not, nor has his show, ever been about journalism or "faithful reporting". If you're looking for that you ought to find another news outlet. And preferably a source that's not online, broadcast on the radio or on television if you don't want to support the media money making machine. The fact that you would confuse the two is a bit surprising to me.

Are you really holding any of the Coast to Coast AM hosts up for comparison with Edward Murrow? Really?

We want to see people, hear people who are real and who seem to
manifest something we feel we possess inwardly.

At least, as children, we tend to idealize such figures, or idolize
them.

When such 'magnets' end up merely bending kids minds to a political
agenda or some product based on fear: that is propoganda.

I call bullshit.

Please explain how Art Bell - a radio personality on air between midnight and five am - is "bending kids minds to a political agenda or some product based on fear". And, who are these easily corruptible, impressionable children gathered around their radios waiting with baited breath to hear of the latest chupacabra slaying in the wee hours of the morning anyway?
 
Unfortunately it's not entirely clear who or what you're calling bullshit on with this post. You seem to have the purpose of the Coast show and the function of it's hosts a bit confused. I fail to see how Art Bell is not a radio host in the tradition of Long John Nebel. From the admittedly little I know of Nebel's show it really doesn't seem like a forum I'd use to get any real news or hard biting journalism. I'm willing to bet it was also a broadcast that made money off of advertiser revenue just like any other. Seems more like a show I'd turn to for - gasp - entertainment.

I'm open minded and I'm willing to change my opinion if you can offer evidence, cite your sources and explain your position more clearly. You can "call bullshit" on whatever you want but just aping "it was better in the old days" sadly won't convince me that's the case.

[Roger]

Orange: you're right.  I am probably harping on how it 'could have been'
or maybe on how it 'could be'.

What use would it be for me to provide 'references' to a referenceless
medium driven by profit-driven sponsering?

I'd like to see us have some greater access to deep research that doesn't
limit itself to 'conscision' (sp?), or the way ads or commercial-breaks
interrupt a train of thought.

Art Bell is phenomenon in radio history.  Nothing I say can detract from
that fact.  A phenomenon, nonetheless, who wasn't without some rather
blaring gaffs to my listening ear.  I wouldn't even try to pretend my
irritations were typical.  I can only talk about my first-hand frustrations
that lead me to turn him off more and more and then finally: finally.

Amazing to me, is that in the 'replays' of past Art shows, whom-ever is
selecting, often choose the most boring, most annoying segments of his
history on radio.

Proving that, despite the fact he had no screeners, while he pretty much
ran his show in his own style, he was still very often irritating, boring
and impatient with his guests or callers.

I am not going to apologize for being irritated by his ability to interrupt
a guest just as they were about to reminesce about some unpublished
experience, but Art would find some point about some past point, and that
train of thought was lost. Never to be mentioned again.

A guest will obviously, most of the time, defer to the host, be frazzled,
and so as not to be deemed utterly lost, keep up with the pressing of the
host.

This happened not just once or twice, but so often, it became agonizing.

Sometimes, the guest would persist in keeping with a prior topic. Sometimes
this became irksome to Bell, and he even shut the show down on that guest
for refusing to follow on to the next question Art would pose.

And he would spend half an hour justifying why he had done that.

Sorry, but this is not a scholarly debate, not an historic document of
radio-entertainment.  Are there code-numbers of every show by Art Bell?
Sub-sections or paragraph numbers of transcriptions of interviews?

Want me to quote chapter and verse? Or can I simply say: Art Bell is not
God or radio-entertainer premier.

Just my opinion, needless to say. Probably worthless to you. Important,
however, to me. Hence my need to say. I call bullshit.

[Agent : Orange]

What use would it be for me to provide 'references' to a referenceless
medium driven by profit-driven sponsering?
...
Sorry, but this is not a scholarly debate, not an historic document of
radio-entertainment.
...
Want me to quote chapter and verse?

Of course I'm not asking for you to quantify your completely subjective opinion.

What I was getting at was for you to show me that the "goodness" and "genuine-ness" of your examples of past media that were driven by something other than the bottom line. You wrote about the motivating factors of media in the past which apparently did not depend on "perceptions that might drive business", but rather which used "making business on genuiness" the goal.

This *is* a quantifiable argument.
So can I offer any evidence, any "chapter and verse" as a counterpoint?

Sure, here's one among many:

Flintstones Cigarette Commercial

You are the one who invoked Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and JFK. My entire point is that it's easy to look back on the past with rose colored glasses but that often times the real agenda was very much in tune with what is still going on today. Despite appearances or the means by which the media is accessed, very little has changed.

And being nostalgic about that: give me a break.

You said it buddy.

I'd like to see us have some greater access to deep research that doesn't
limit itself to 'conscision' (sp?), or the way ads or commercial-breaks
interrupt a train of thought.

Fair enough.

A number of times Art had interviewed Michio Kaku, among other prolific names in the scientific community. These interviews in my opinion are some of his best, and he is able to lead the guest along into some very technical and complicated subjects while keeping a clear focus and moving the conversation along. These interviews were very much back-and-forth exchanges and I'd argue they provide the best examples counter to your argument. It's hard to find guests to discuss research much deeper than this.

Again not really a fair example on my part because these guests were exceptions rather than the rule.

Art Bell is phenomenon in radio history.  Nothing I say can detract from
that fact.  A phenomenon, nonetheless, who wasn't without some rather
blaring gaffs to my listening ear.  I wouldn't even try to pretend my
irritations were typical.  I can only talk about my first-hand frustrations
that lead me to turn him off more and more and then finally: finally.

Do you still listen to the show at present from time to time? Do you find any of the new hosts more palatable than Art?

... despite the fact he had no screeners, while he pretty much
ran his show in his own style, he was still very often irritating, boring
and impatient with his guests or callers.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Or can I simply say: Art Bell is not God or radio-entertainer premier.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing counter to this. However I would say that he was one of the best in the past twenty or so years.

Again, if you know of any examples of radio personalities that you consider superior, and that I can listen to online, please point me to them. I'm always interested in hearing new stuff and I'm willing to give pretty much anything a chance. I can't compare Bell to Nebel since I've never been able to find any of his shows online.

Just my opinion, needless to say. Probably worthless to you. Important,
however, to me. Hence my need to say. I call bullshit.

I find your opinion interesting.
However I still don't know exactly who or what you're pointing to and calling bullshit.

[anagrammy]

I agree with Roger that Art was becoming more irritable with callers, not guests, but callers.  I can totally understand that given he had no screeners, but it was wearing on the listener who is up late after a long day, looking for some entertainment.   This did seem to increase toward the end, which again is natural as any person dealing with the public will tell you, there is a burnout factor.  Customer service reps deal with it all the time.

I think this is why we heard Noory getting so much praise at the beginning of his takeover, for being so NICE to the guests.  It was the contrast.  Even with that, I'd rather have Art though.

Anagrammy

[Roger]

Huh. Okay, you mean, on what do I base calling 'bullshit' on nostalgia
for Art Bell?  I think it is okay for me to refer to myself in saying:
I found my self not liking the guy's show because it became boring.

I also said, I didn't fault him for imitating Murrow, even though I felt
he didn't have to do that: his voice all by itself was and is fine.

I think the old radio business called it a 'honeyed voice'.

Similarly, George Knapp tends to reproduce the cadences and tonalities of
John Kennedy.  Maybe he's from Mass, maybe not.  However it comes about:
voice isn't the be-all or end-all of what draws MY attention to radio.

Hell, I even listen to 'DOCTORE' Savage and his endless, self-absorbed
rants.  I can even listen to that guy for an hour.  Then I try to listen
to Punnet.  Despite his stutter, his utterly unneccessary parenthetical
side-bars TO HIS OWN THOUGHTS EVEN, besides to comments by guests, what
makes me turn him is the same thing that made me turn Bell off: interruption
of guests in mid-sentence.

So what I call 'bullshit' is a pretend interview.  When a host pretends
his thoughts are paramount and represent what everyone wants to hear.

People stay tuned, if I'm any example, at any time, because MERELY, sometimes
something interesting DOES GET THROUGH. Stuff to ponder.

The 'Well, alright, but I'm afraid we are going to have to take a break
now because we are coming up on the top of the hour' after a series of
almost breathless interruptions of a guest: sorry, that gets old real
fast.

And that bit 'Can you stay on for another hour' seemed to come only to the
most egregiously uninteresting guests, but the most fascinating guests or
EVEN CALLERS, got short shrift. Now to the 'main guest', who would puck
ice picks in our ears talking about economics, peak oil, or God forbid,
Ed Dames or some lisping all-knower about the after-life or vampires.

Fucking-A.  Art Bell didn't quit: he was FIRED!

George Noory, too, is on the verge of being FIRED.

That production interest has been dwindling like a rusty bucket.

The entire scene of right-wing crap is going to hell in a hand-basket
because you know why? IT IS FUCKING BORING AS ALL HELL.

Same with the LEFT-WING radio adventurers, supposedly the 'answer' to
the extremism of the 'hyuk-hyuk' hicks.

Art Bell himself had no idea what he was getting into, thrived upon, and
he still has no idea what he captured then wandered away from.

And, you mention Michio Kaku.  Have you listened to his show?

He can't say two words to a guest before he says: "I'm sorry but we have
to break off now".

Kaku's gig is: whatever you idealize: not gonna be here in this world for
another hundred or 500 years'.! He said that about stem
cell research once, but we know now that as he said that
powdered pig-bladder was regrowing finger-tips. And
children were regrowing finger tips without any treatment
at all.  Yet this 'sage' didn't know about that. In fact,
'treatment' was found to stop regeneration in amputations.
Gee! 'Science' erred?  Real researches know that 'science'
is actually rare, not willy-nilly known all about!
Not getting that impression from this so-called 'scientist'.

"We Physicists", he liked to say to Art and all us 'listeners'.

'WE PHYSICISTS'?  Really?  'WE'?

Do you know cartoon about the Lone Ranger, after the
Ranger sees a a horde of Indians coming down on them, and he says: "Looks
like we've had it Tonto".  And Tonto retorts: What you mean 'we'?

Is 'physics' a religion?  Is there some special, unifying credo whereby
Kaku can say: 'We physicists'?

Kaku pretends to have practically invented 'string theory', but I gather
many predecessors with a different term for that construct would beg to
differ.

Damn it, why give me crap for not liking a show for being not as deep as
it might have been?  Kaku, like Sagan was, is the current 'high priest' of
science who gets into Parade.

Kaku talks about subjects he is utterly ingorant about, but puts it forth
like he knows, or the people he talks to know it all.

Bell resorted to him, resorted to Danes, Strieber while alternative and
expert testimony galore was and IS out there.  How are they avoided so
skillfully?

I have been highly surprised, now and then, when alternative resources
did make it onto his programme.  And they did O SO RARELY.

I can only imagine why this sparseness.  Was it because they weren't
pushing a book? Didn't have 'product', or when they did have product
in form of book or tapes or whatever: why never heard from again? Merely
the same old cycle of regulars. A fellowship of a mutual admiration
society.

I haven't been able to figure it out, in case you are trying to determine
if I'm a 'conspiracist' or not.

I think it is just plain stupidity. Some subjects can't be dumbed down,
some guests are too far over the head.  Granted, some guests can't simplify
and so, lacking ghost-writers, or mediators, don't get on, or if ever on:
never on again.

Business rules. Public dumb, stays dumb.

Excuse me, but I don't appreciate the condescension of Kaku, and is seeming
ready answer about ANY topic deemed scientific.

I wager he thinks he knows all he thinks he needs to know about stem-cells
or cancer.  He doesn't admit this ignorance, and Art Bell couln't call him
on his lack of knowing. Yet he'd let Kaku expatiate on and on, maybe not
on stem cells or cancer, but on something else.  Here's the thing:
Kaku has given simplistic and even childish summations of things
outside his field in the same dogmatic voice as an Ed Dames.

When Kaku pretends to talk to 'experts' on things outside his field of expertese,
he makes it out as if he is talking of some final authority, as if there
are not SCHOOLS of thought on these topics.

Well, maybe Art just enjoyed saying the word 'Doctor'; and perhaps he wasn't trying
to inculcate some slavish adoration of men or women (mostly men) who
had letters after their names, as if to end all thought or doubt.

Sorry: I doubt.  I call bullshit on this kind of 'radio'.

You know very well, all other topics were capable of being excoriated by
Bell. Exceot when the speaker was a 'DOCTOR' or 'Major'.

Swallowed lock stock and barrel of Danes and Corso.

Both men are full of holes.

No 'Dr.'? No 'Maj'? you can feel the
disrespect, tongue against the cheek, drumming of fingers.
Short-shrift.

I was once impressed at his patience with a back-wards
sound guy.  This he had patience with. Go figure.

Can I come on with pictures of clouds and show you how
every cloud has what I say I see in it?

So the gamut of gullibility by Bell, the slavish adoration of lettered
fools, impatience, interruptions . . . repeated return to crap. Who gives
a fucking fuck about VAMPIRES! Tape recordings played backwards? When there
were literally tons of living people, now sadly many of them now dead beyand
anything but mikeless tape-recorders to listen to, neglected by this
'giant' of radio.

So in that perspective, I mentioned Nebel, Edwards.  You can read books
about these guys, but they didn't have near the freedom or access to the
public Art enjoyed. Pitty he didn't study their topics or humor.

Maybe they'd have fallen flat.

Perhaps there is some insularity that comes with getting big. I wouldn't know,
being a puny, thankfully, private person: a listener, reader, nobody.

A million emails a year, maybe that would be a little too much to peruse.

The ones who got through must have been mighty persistant.

How many topics, people were suggested to Bell to look into, and some
assurance, 'Yeah, I'll look into that' and: nothing.

One man.  Some production for one man as it was, no doubt.

Now look at C2C today.  Pretty big money, wouldn't you think? Production
staff?  What? 2, 3, 6, 9?  Not like Fibber McGee and Molly: production staff
and associated personelle was in the 100s.

What does your buck get ya today? Fewer making more money, less product.
Less quality.  Your ad makers don't even respect you, they treat you like
dumb mules afraid of your own shadow.

Listen to ads in the 40s or 50s or even 60s: public regard was FEARED.

Tables turned: Ads want to make you AFRAID.

I call bullshit.

Period.

BS, BS, BS.

Art Bell: stay where you are. PLEASE don't come back. After that: let
C2C rot in hell for their stinkin' pile of propoganda, panty-waste,
shallow, ignorent (willfully so) drivel.

'S not intertaining. Not informative. Odious is what it is. And even mostly
was.  When we are used to crap, even old crap seems tinged with nostalgia.

That said: Let Knapp get some balls, stop showing up on C2C, and start his
own franchise SOMEWHERE ELSE.  C2C is tainted. It's ugly.

References: me. My two cents.

I had to edit this once, but, frankly, was it worth it?

Anyway though, thank you for your kind, even-tempered
treatment of my ranting and raving.

Very gentlemanly of you. Good form.

[George sucks]

Too long, didn't read.

[Roger]

Oh, okay, short version: Art Bell: BS. Ian Punnett: BS (say his name
a hundred times! oh wait, you don't have to, he will say it);
George Noory: BS.

George Knapp: pretty good.

2 cents.

[anagrammy]

Oh, okay, short version: Art Bell: BS. Ian Punnett: BS (say his name
a hundred times! oh wait, you don't have to, he will say it);
George Noory: BS.

George Knapp: pretty good.

2 cents.

Agree.

[Agent : Orange]

Agree.

Wow Ana, I'm a bit surprised that you favor Knapp over Bell?

[anagrammy]

Wow Ana, I'm a bit surprised that you favor Knapp over Bell?

Yes, I have to say I like Knapp better than Bell in what I call his Tropical Period, the time after he moved to Manila.  Did you notice a change?  There wasn't the focus and the mystique associated with the desert night.  He was distracted by technology problems, station political issues, floods, possible monsoons/typhoons and possibly a baby crying at 1:00 pm in the afternoon.

Knapp is totally present for the show.  He states that it's hard, hard work because he puts in the time for good show prep.  He wonders how George Noory and others do it day after day. Simple--they are coasting and the show is suffering as a result.  My opinion is that they need a team of hosts.  Take Knapp--he has a genuine interest and body of knowledge on UFO's.  Why not let him take that topic and run with it.  I can't remember George Noory ever offering a cogent question on the subject.  In fact, just the other night I was listening to Linda Moulton Howe in a surprisingly animated segment on the Aztec, NM flying saucer.  Noory did not have one decent question. He grunted from time to time and did the breaks.  Knapp would have looked at this news as explosive and surely would have asked LMH the obvious questions that were on my mind, which was, "Are the UFO investigators going to unite and pursue these new witnesses or are they going to hack away at the witnesses separately, like paparazzi, making sure we never get the complete story?  and the biggest one of all, "Where are the alien body tubes now and can we get the pictures?"  I also wondered if Truman's penalties to individuals and families still stands and how that is perceived by the military now?  Did George Noory ask any of those questions pertaining to where this story will go in the future?  Zzzzzzzzzzz.  LMH on UFOs = night off for Noory.

Back to possible formats for the show in the future-  Art was unique in that he had the same level of interest in EVP's that he did in UFOs, demons, the Pyramids, the Anastazi or the Annunaki.  And he knew the difference between the last two.  We're not really going to find that again, so why not let the hosts do what they love.  Noory = Conspiracies, Last Days, Religion.  Noory is actually better than Ian on religious subjects because Noory is more neutral.  He actually does not believe in Catholicism, he was raised Catholic, that's all.  Noory is agnostic. 

Ahhh, guess I can't put off cleaning house any longer today, so bye for now.  Good thoughts.

Anagrammy

[aldousburbank]

Noory is agnostic. 

Is that a nice way of saying that George doesn't have a fucking clue?

[EvB]

Is that a nice way of saying that George doesn't have a fucking clue?

I think it's his philosophic view  - "It can't be known - unless it's a portal."

[Roger]

Yep, coming week looks pretty lame. Tonight has the potential to be somewhat interesting. We'll see, right!? Could be funny for all the usual reasons.

The 'somewhere in time' show on Saturday will be the only other potential highlite ere end of weekend.

Maybe the Wednesday show with Schopick will prove useful.

We'll see.


----quote from c2c web-site---

Friday, May 6, 2011: Joining George Noory, in the first half, author John LeMay and researcher Noe Torres talk about some of the strange incidents and UFO lore associated with Roswell, New Mexico. Followed by Open Lines.
                     
Saturday, May 7, 2011: Stanford University professor, Mark Z. Jacobson joins Ian to discuss how we can power 100% of the planet with renewable sources of energy like wind, water, and sunlight and what this could mean for the global oil industry ( related essay).
                     
6-10pm PT: Art Bell - Somewhere in Time returns to 12/5/01, when Dan Aykroyd and David Sereda discussed a NASA video showing hundreds of UFOs closely resembling the Dropa Stones - ancient discs found in Tibet by a team of archaeologists in 1938.
                     
Sunday, May 8, 2011: Guest host John B. Wells ( email) is joined by geopolitical analyst Craig B. Hulet, who'll discuss the recent developments in the Middle East, the War on Terror, bin Laden's role in 9-11, and what he sees for the future of the United States.
                     
Monday, May 9, 2011: Author Jim Marrs will discuss how events such as the ongoing deadly radiation from the Fukushima reactors and spraying of Corexit in the Gulf continue with little news coverage, as well as how despite the recent victories over terrorists, there's been no talk of doing away with the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, or any of the other Constitution-shredding legislation. Hosted by George Noory.
                     
Tuesday, May 10, 2011: Author of psycho-political thrillers, Dr. Steve Pieczenik was trained in psychiatry at Harvard University and international relations at M.I.T. He'll discuss how Psy-ops are being used against the American People on several fronts. Hosted by George Noory.
                     
Wednesday, May 11, 2011: Writer and medical advocate, Julia Schopick began studying alternative medical treatment after her husband developed a cancerous brain tumor. She'll discuss the history of how numerous natural, effective and inexpensive treatments for various diseases have been largely ignored by the medical community. Hosted by George Noory.
 
Thursday, May 12, 2011: Muckraker out to expose the abuses of the New World Order, Mark Dice has made a career out of speaking truth about the powers that be. He'll discuss the various ways that technology is violating not only our privacy but our civil rights - all using our tax dollars. Hosted by George Noory.

---end quote----

[aldousburbank]

I think it's his philosophic view  - "It can't be known - unless it's a portal."

I think it was last night, I was listening for a few minutes when I heard George say something about a fucking portal.  Dickweed.

[Roger]

George may be STONED! Schrapnel, frags, no matter what: he keeps talkin'.
I'm thinkin' he's thinkin': GAWD! Hope I wake up tomorrow at least, in time
for mess! After that! Sleepin' and dreamin' and gettin' a check! Bodies
falling left and right (neglected interesting subjects) notwithstanding:
 gonna get a check!

Oops! Gotta catch a plane back to LALA land! Have an interview lined up
with the yet-living people involved with MAUDE. Or is it 'MoD'? I'll ask
Lissa (or is it Leesa?). Jon La Da Sir will know?  Yeah, yeah, that's what
I'll do. I'll call John, and ask him what I'm doing! Now, what's his number?

Wait! What's my number? What am I talking about? Why am I here? uh. . . .
OH YEAH! My Check! Gotta call Lisel! Why isn't my check here!??!!!

What about my CONTRACT!?

Doesn't contract mean shrink?

AHA! i REMEMBER NOW: GOTTA GO SEE MY SHRINK WHEN i GET BACK TO LA!

[Agent : Orange]

I think it was last night, I was listening for a few minutes when I heard George say something about a fucking portal.  Dickweed.

He mentioned something about a portal on tonights show (Friday) as well.

[anagrammy]

Damn!  My first instinct was right on.  The drinking game on FRIDAY NIGHT COUNTDOWN should have been "portal!"

[Roger]

Actually, Orange, I'm finding myself moving towards your more balanced
measurement of 'reality'.

I'm finding measurement and judgement things not a little bit beyond
even articulate reaction.

[Roger]

BTW: I might have seen your point of view a little more faciley had your
'avatar' not been appended by that objectionable tag of 'kneel'.

Do you 'kneel' to logic and reason?  Do you 'kneel' to anything?

Lest you think I 'kneel' to you: I don't.  I kneel to no person save
my parents.

Reason, reasonableness.

Living under some measurable principle attainable by my own puny
thinking processes alone can educe my sacred and conserved
vital force called faith.

Anyone else might also take access to and apply and apply their
faith and yield like results: to that principle of experiment and
enquiry, I give due honor.

I've objected elsewhere to choices of 'avatar' or some 'stand-in' for
posters who have not chosen as of yet an 'avatar'.

I find your 'avatar' and your choice of 'motto' attached thereto:
objectionable.

It seems contrary to your demonstratively reasonable voice.

It makes me wonder why you use it.

You disappear behind it otherwise.

I don't know.  There may be some sense to your methods I think mad.



Not to you.  If you are like me, you are nothing. If you are like me:
you have nothing save the ability to learn.


Are nothing.

[Agent : Orange]

I find your 'avatar' and your choice of 'motto' attached thereto:
objectionable.

It seems contrary to your demonstratively reasonable voice.

It makes me wonder why you use it.

You disappear behind it otherwise.

I think you're reading into it a bit too much. It's a riff on Shepard Fairley's Obama Change portrait, with the subject replaced by the would-be global despot General Zod from the 1982 film Superman II, which is one of my all time favorite movies. The character is best known for the line "Kneel before Zod". That's all it means. It's a (potentially obscure?) pop culture reference.

I was planning on changing it a while back and still may, but I've kind of grown attached to it.

Lest you think I 'kneel' to you: I don't.  I kneel to no person save
my parents.

I really do think you have misinterpreted what it really is. It's not supposed to be some deeper personal message to you or a call for board-wide submission. It's a comic book villain. There's not really much more to say about it.

BTW: I might have seen your point of view a little more faciley had your
'avatar' not been appended by that objectionable tag of 'kneel'.

I can see your point here, I guess, but I don't really think that the quality of a users posts or contribution to the discussion should be biased by their choice of avatar, but maybe it is in general.

Ideally, my arguments shouldn't be judged on someones preconceived notions of what it is that I'm trying to say with my userpic. If my posts mean less to you because of what you think of my avatar that's your problem and not mine. 

It does bring up a number of interesting questions about life and social interaction on the net. A lot of people choose random and often meaningless funny stuff and memes to put up there, and it's not really meant to reflect some tragic character trait or personal philosophy or anything like that.

[The General]

I thought your avatar was absolutely hilarious, Orangie.

[Agent : Orange]

I thought your avatar was absolutely hilarious, Orangie.

Kneel before Zod!

[Treading Water]

I thought your avatar was absolutely hilarious, Orangie.

Ditto. 

I loved that movie, too.