Well it's that time again, namely, the weekend, where I attempt to pull together a week's blogs and find the energy to write them. This website makeover has been a lot of work and frankly, I'm exhausted, but one thing I have immensely enjoyed are all the readers who've taken time to comment here and on my Facebook wall; I just wish I had time to respond to all of you.

In the past two months, as I've been visiting various sites and refreshing my memory of various authors in the alternative research community, I've been noticing something, hence, the subject of this post, and that is, everyone in the alternative research community, or those who follow it closely, have some complaint or beef with it, or perhaps my antennae are picking up other signals and I am misinterpreting them?

Well, anyway, here's my beefs with it: (1) authors who don't footnote, (2) the tendency of so many to believe the most incredible things, without much critical thought, (3) the low-level of reporting by so much of the alternative media, (4) the same-old same-old themes and guests at the usual conferences, (5) UFO and Ancient Alien shows that rehash research that's been out there for 30 years.

Ok, having stated those first five topics on a long list of my own personal beefs, what I'd like to know is, what are yours? Yes, that's right, it's another informal poll! The only thing I ask is, leave personal names and shows out of it. I'd like to know what you have observed and what your personal beefs are.

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Paul De Gagne on March 9, 2011 at 5:33 am

    Thank you Christine,

    You do your homework.

    How I conceive of Conceptual Realism has somewhat of a General Semantics flavor to it.

    In this point of view “The map(concept/model) is not the territory or it tells me, “don’t ‘Reify’ abstract concepts because they exist only as ideas.” Put another way – Can I be observing an actual “physical” process as Farrell mentions and mistakenly confusing or confounding it by calling it a mere “abstraction or conception?”

    That’s interesting (to me at least). I have no real tacit-understanding. Now it is here, now it is not! Which one is it or is it both here at the same time – how can that be = means to me I am almost totally programmed in Western Logic..

    In my intuitive and I like to think imaginative experience this ‘feels’ like trying to find the way out of a Labyrinth without the help of a fine thread. Very difficult to arrive at a final, satisfying conclusion.

    I guess I asking for it trying to understand a book by John Preston titled ‘Feyerabend:Science, Philosophy and Society.” I read the last two chapter’s on Society, first, fairly well but when I got to a sub-section called “Theory of Observation” I realized I’m in way over my head so I put it aside for a little while. You know kind of sleep on it and let some other process inside of me rumminate or power it.

    In the meanwhile…

    Fortunately, I stumbled upon Babylon’s Bankers. What a pleasant suprise. Some of what he’s saying, proclaiming or whatever can be very unnerving when contemplating the posibilities. I am a radical. I can appreciate the work it requires to bring this knowledge to the public’s discerning-attention. I not aware of other readers’ position on Feyerabend’s ideas about Science in a Free Society but I think Farrell is putting it to practice.

  2. Paolo T. on March 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    My Beefs:

    1) The Jews are secretly taking over the world. What nonsense; everyone already knows that the Italians took over the world centuries ago and have been running it ever since. 🙂

    2) Those who claim the Nazis are all dead and gone.

    3) Talk of ‘Illuminati’. That a bunch of Bavarians who have meetings in cave/basements of castles are secretly ruling the world, silly….see comment 1 for who rules the world. 🙂

    4) Folks who use foul language, yell, threaten, or are otherwise abusive. Including those who attack others research without siting their own research/evaluations of the info.

    5) That Zittgiest thing. Half way into it the narrator talks about the creation of a new ‘spiritual religion’…that of NON-Religion. Can you imagine the new priests of the new Non-Religion-Religion. Hey, there is more to this mortal world than just DNA replicating.

    6) Wild ass theories about ET’s with absolutely nothing to back it up…AKA, anything Jim Lear has to say, except the part about his dad doing work on anti-gravity in the late 50’s….that is true and Lear backs it up with info.

    7) MUFON……those guys are a CIA intel front. Period.

  3. Tartarus on March 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Well, my “beefs” are about the same as yours.
    Basically, authors who are poor at referencing, the lack of critical thinking, too little reporting, constant rehashes of particular themes (which can be interesting and useful, but I wish the more overlooked things would also get some time in the spotlight), and constant rehashes of old research (again, old research can be interesting and useful, but some of the newer and more overlooked research also deserves some attention).

  4. Christine on March 8, 2011 at 11:26 am

    high falootimg is a legitimate typo, n and m are close together.
    I assume you can spell right. I wanted to say, “what the hell does
    that [expletive deleted] mean?” regarding the conceptual realism
    thing, what IS conceptual realism?

    Several times I have had to go wiki and google to find out what
    something means so I can discuss it without looking totally
    ignorant by asking what it means. Usually it is something I can
    understand – and expound on it or refute – in a hot second, but
    the name for it is new to me.

    now, there might very well be some secret satanic rituals going
    on behind the pope’s back in some storage section of a basement
    everybody forgot about, but you won’t track it down by interviewing
    Svali or finding our who threw herself off the vatican roof and
    tracking down her associates.

    • Christine on March 8, 2011 at 11:38 am

      okay, I found it. “the doctrine that universals have real and independent existence”

      universals are usually deduced from particulars. Hmmm. Combine this idea
      of conceptual realism with the idea that reality is created by viewers, and you
      could have some interesting fluctuations in the structure of, for instance,
      dogs and other animals, pulsating between the universal dawg or caat,
      and the momentary impression one has, inbetween is whatever breed the
      individual was designed into. Oog. No, I did not take a hit of acid before
      writing this.

  5. Paul De Gagne on March 8, 2011 at 6:36 am

    Reading Christina’s words gives me pause. If I am of the caliber I like to think I sometimes am then I better learn to toughen up and spell ‘vane’ correctly. She has a point. But self-deception is a two-edged sword? Some monk once wrote that fiction can sometimes be more truthful and realistic. By true what I mean is it has more “explainatory power.” More understandability (what good is a fact if no one but the genius who invented it can understand it, wait – it’s still good but I think you get my point) then just dry so-call neutral data printed on a flat piece of paper on a flat table.( or should I say the data is what is coming out of the slot on the table as well as on the paper)
    Pardon me, this is off topic. I am reading “Babylon’s Banksters.” In it one so called critic discribes the opponent’s theory as a “Mystical adoption of the fallacy of Conceptual Realism.” I love this high falootimg phrase (spelt wrong)! The critic then goes on to make the stolen idea his own. In different form of course. This is so typical

    Now back on topic. In my post I stated 2600 “miles” per second. An obvious freudian slip of the tongue or rather slip of the finger. It is about 2,000 feet per second.
    I can remember another phrase and it has to do with a “joke” and Farrell’s five comments about the quality of what’s out there in the alternate media. It sometimes makes me feel like shouting “Alas, all is in Vane.”

  6. Christine on March 8, 2011 at 6:22 am

    yes, a lot of those AM people make money and look at the disaster
    promoting survivalist crew, they sell stuff all the time.

    That doesn’t mean something might not be due about now…..

  7. sj smith on March 8, 2011 at 4:34 am

    after a day to think a little more about, I don’t see how the problems with alternative media are any more or less the same problems with mainstream media. It’s just a matter of scale.
    Everyone involved needs to produce and justify their jobs and identities and careers, until the next offer comes along.
    The twenty-somethings have an entirely different gig in the works, and perhaps the observance of the decline of journalism is evidence of acculturation.

  8. Christine on March 7, 2011 at 7:46 am

    speaking of alternative media, with its obsession with the Illuminati,
    a group that hasn’t existed under that name in a long time, though
    its influence and a genealogical descent from it of some other
    organizations IS established, there is this character called “Svali”
    who is supposedly an ex Illuminati mind control victim and mind
    control victimizer. And one of the people supporting her, or
    first getting her publicized I forget, and who is the only source
    for some satanic rituals in a Vatican basement and a woman who
    killed herself throwing herself off the Vatican roof, is supposedly
    a reporter.

    And he says, “I searched in vane.”

    A REPORTER WHO MISPELLS LIKE THAT?! this is all a lie.
    I searched in vain does not become I searched in vane except
    on purpose, because you don’t know how to spell it.

    to type vain you go left hand left hand right hand right hand
    in typing. you can type cain or vwpm because these are LLRR.
    But “vane” is LLRL. That looks too deliberate, it fits phonetic

    Svali is bunkum. That doesn’t mean some of what she talks
    about doesn’t happen, but if she is a mind control victim
    then that included the compulsion to talk exageration
    and twists to discredit the story. A form of disinformation.

    • Gary Hunter on March 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm

      I’m sorry to have to point out the irony that “mispelled” is actually spelled misspelled. Vain is the correct form of the adverb.

  9. Paul De Gagne on March 7, 2011 at 6:37 am

    I agree. Same old, same old or SSDD = same old organic fertilizer, different day.

    I like number 2) gripe. I found looking at the same old same old with a different perspective or with the critical eyes you suggested we use, I occasionally discover some simple profoundities! Right in front of our noses!

    I guess that’s the way things are. I read omewhere a genius has the ability to explain something about reality that isn’t plain to see or is unseen. The Genius does this in such a way the student does see.(cognates if that is the proper fancy word?) The reaction from the class is “Aha, How could we have not seen it for it was right there all along right in front of our eyes.

    Before I go on and on I would like to mention a similar example. It is crude but I am just a layman. It is stated the earth’s rotation travels about 2,600 miles per second. So in 2 seconds the land beneath my feet has traveled about a mile in space. So I jump in the air for 2 seconds Have I traveled a mile in space? Am I incorrect?

  10. sj smith on March 7, 2011 at 5:48 am

    My wife would be the first one to point out that this genre of entertainment is all written for and by men.
    I cannot tell if all of the commentors here are men or not.
    My own interest stems from a terrible curiosity that has plagued me all of my life.
    I’m 59 next week, and all of the subjects and slants have floated in and out of my thoughts for 56 years, at the least.
    I read as much as possible, and now like to podcast in addition, which is very much easier, as I work alone and can listen while tasking.
    I understand how I can be tricked through reason and thinking and logic.
    I depend on my own intuition to discern the value of what is presented.
    Sometimes it takes more than 3 days to reach a conclusion, and file it away.
    35 year old material is the range of memory for most of today’s presenters.
    What we are all talking about is timeless, as it involves 4d and beyond, and yes, I am one of those who uses the term ‘divine feminine’ for the female principle that is finally on the rebound after 25 centuries.
    I work with my hands and am self-employed, grew up on a dairy farm, wasn’t raised religious, and am non-academic. I find many guys with these type of blogs remind me of those I have known with excellent Jesuit educations.I have no form of traditional higher education. I appreciate the exploration into the unknown from all angles as there is everything to learn from it. And the Unknown is also of the Feminine Principle
    and ‘feeling’ is an essential partner component to Perception and Understanding.
    It’s good to question our motives and intentions once in a while.

  11. MattB on March 7, 2011 at 3:08 am

    This thred and fireside chat isn’t a perception management exercise is it Joseph?

    You wouldn’t be testing to see how the audience can create a large perception of an issue with small inferences from the ‘observer’……..

    I just remeber that little game you played on one of the Byte show episodes when you deliberatly got fired up about an issue.

    You wouldn’t be testing to see if havebeen ‘pre conditioned’ as well?

  12. Dan Pendleton on March 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    I don’t mind the AA shows even if it is old material. As stated previously, I may pick up some information on the finer points. What really grinds me are sites like ATS and other site that have the most over the top ideas…..that people actually buy into! The alternative media is now shooting for viewers/readers just like the MSM. Some unscrupulous sites and rags will publish anything remotely sensational with the subject of UFO’s, aliens, bigfoot, etc. But also just like MSM, the real story is out there. You have to be very careful what and where you read. To sum it up, the want of money has reared it’s lovely head in the alternative media world. Truly this will be the undoing of the rich, the wanna be rich and our capitalist based government. It may be for the better….I hope.

  13. Mike M on March 6, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    I would have to agree with most of what has been said. Credibility seems to be a prevailing factor, not only with the materials content, but who is providing it. 🙂

    • Mike M on March 6, 2011 at 9:15 pm

      Another issue I have is, especially for the new persons interested in these subjects, there are no warnings about potential frauds. I know I was impressionable, and still am in certain ways, to irrational ideas, concepts, and information. Most of which may be due to the lack of proprer guidance. There are no formal channels of introduction, my introduction was quite by chance, leaving some vulnerable to persuasive argument built upon dishonesty. That is a problem, with a magnitude I can not quantify. 🙂

      • Spirit Splice on March 8, 2011 at 8:16 am

        Exactly. And if we are afraid to directly talk about who the problem people are we are doing others a dis-service and contributing to the lossibility tat they will be taken in by fanciful nonsense. I mean why bother even bringing it up unless you are going to get specific?

  14. MQ on March 6, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    I guess what irks me the most are the ones who cloak all wacky statements with the cover of “intuition”, “feelings”, “divine feminine”, etc. Feelings means you don’t have to take the time to critically look at something, with the plus- and minus-points fully written up.
    I’m sure those who worship the Greys *hate* the Nazi Bell (and probably several other of your books) for blowing their little space god worship up. Because really, who wants to admit they’re worshiping Nazis?
    I know you did an interview with Project Camelot, which was kind of surprising because I’m sure most of the rest of their interviewees fall into one or more of your irksome categories.

  15. Steve on March 6, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Been reading your work for a while now, and it is top of the shelf. This leads into my main beef, people who don’t read the work. Whether they support it, or condemn it is moot. How can you have an opinion on something if you haven’t familiarized yourself with it’s contents?

    There seems to be a huge segment of this area, who will watch, or listen to the short easy to consume media, and then make an emotional, non-critical leap to whatever they want to believe, and then stand adamantly behind their opinion and trash on anyone with a differing one.

    Thought this does seem to be improving. There is a small upswell in the altermative media who are promoting critical thinking, supporting assertions, and being open minded about subjects on which all the facts haven’t been tabled. Hopefully this will continue.

  16. shandor on March 6, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    What bothers me is people being so afraid to name names and call people out for the nonsense they spread. The alternative community largely is a collection of nihilistic story tellers who think any sort of nonsense is ok and if you demand evidence (such heresy) then you are being closed minded or part of a cointelpro. How are things ever going to change if we all keep tiptoeing around and giving silent nods to each other about what we know is a major problem and yet, we never speak up about who and what and why?

    Seems counterproductive to complain about anonymous sources and people. What good will that do and how will others learn to distinguish the truth from the BS? We have to educate people not only on the data itself, but also on the thought process, the collection of such data, the filtering of it and how to connect the correct dots.

  17. Brandon on March 6, 2011 at 11:51 am

    I’m sick and tired of UFOs, Aliens, Big Foot, Nessie, 2012, Ghost Stories, Reptilians, Pleiadians, The Church of Disclosure, People who believe they know everything “that’s coming” from “inside sources,” Channelers, Loud Mouthed People, Truthers, New Agers.

    Somehow, all of those things are entangled into all of this, and it just won’t go away!! This is why I don’t even listen to certain radio programs, or visit certain websites, because it seems like there’s this unwritten agreement that the audience, guest, and host are going to suspend all critical thinking skills for an hour, and sit around the camp fire telling scary ghost stories.

  18. Jay- on March 6, 2011 at 11:34 am

    I think it’s problematic to disparage 35 year old research. By that line of thinking: Wilhelm Reich, Bruce Cathie, “The Chronicle of Akakor”, David Bohm, Whitaker, Dayton Miller etc ought all to be ignored.

    I think what you mean is ossified 35 year old conclusions about the nature of UFOs and ancient man should be reexamined.

    However your point about footnotes and sourcing is entirely valid.

  19. jordan on March 6, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Most people visit websites that present information they already agree with and believe. You dont have to footnote information if the people are going to believe it regardless of its source, and thats the main problem with conspiracy theory websites and UFO websites…. the people visiting them are already convinced, and these sites mainly just preach to the choir.

    I respect Dr Farrell’s approach to research, which is why I visit this site. The first thing I look at with any website is where its information is sourced from. If there is no source, im not there.

  20. Antoine on March 6, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Hi Joseph,

    I agree with you that scientifically speaking, the phrase ‘where’s the beef’ is rarely answered properly by fringe media. What I’d really like to see from authors, you included, is a fair explanation of where you draw the line between fact and fiction.

    One person telling a story is fiction without tangible proof. But a city full (Battle of Los Angeles) then even without concrete proof, one could assume its fact enough.

    I guess that’s my question… where do you draw the line?



  21. chris on March 6, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Exactly Joseph
    Its always the same old stuff for the most part . If you don’t focus on ground breakers like your work, some of vallees work, some of streibers work, some of childress books for example, and look at all the others they are very repetitive and are saying the same darn thing that books in their genre were saying in the 60s, if not earlier.
    Its like the people who ignore books or help put them out on a cover level allow more books that say
    1. ufos are extraterrestrial and have no relation to human activities
    2. there are no or only a few underground anomalies but they are all ET, but its rare
    3. if you want to be spiritual you should focus on your material wants and use your spirituality or magical techniques to get it
    4. the government is only trying to protect us from evil communists or aliens and is not actively researching or doing tests on people

    of course we all know these points are all rot. but it seems like the majority of alternative books support those theories even lately. things are slightly changing thanks to independent presses and the net, but not as much as need be in my opinion.

  22. Greg Parent on March 6, 2011 at 9:07 am


    I concur with each of your points. As far as #2, I put the onus on the hosts who seem to let every inane and outlandish claim pass with nary a critical word or question.. Not only is the same material being rehashed over and over with no new insights or findings, but the UfO community is repeating the same errors and getting taken in by the same tricksters that Vallee wrote about in the eighties. Serpo was a prime example of the latter. I have seen people who began their carreers as impeccable researchers –and after a few years on the ufo cocktail circuit–get totally sucked into the collective disturbance of the community. Past the isle of the Sirens, they traveled untied to the mast, unlike Odysseus.

  23. ericswan on March 6, 2011 at 7:34 am

    It’s the issue of amplitude sir. The longer wavelengths like yours, meditate and meticulate thought before speech. Others with shorter amplitude intuit and initiate speech before thought.

  24. Aaron on March 6, 2011 at 7:21 am

    I actually don’t mind the Ancient Alien type shows with the 30 year old stories. While most of the stuff is material I am already familiar with, I do also pick up a few more details and become re familiar with aspects I have forgotten. But of course those shows are more geared towards new people just getting into the subject, which I think is great. More people need to become aware of the fact that there are a lot of unexplained mysteries and there is more to the history we were taught in school… And of course they choose to re-cover these old stories because there has already been so much alternative research done on them; which is as close as we can get to proving the accepted version of things is wrong… I just wish more would show greater professional courage.

    But the thing that angers me the most is hearing scientists, archeologists, historians and the like, dismissing completely out of hand any other possible explanations without actually examining the evidence themselves to see if it has any merit. It seems to me that they are afraid of breaking ranks with their fellow academics and being ridiculed and ostracized, so instead of pursuing actual science, they instead parrot the accepted dogma and create a new minor dark age.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events