At what point do your personal beliefs affect your credibility as a researcher?

[5tomidnite]

Lately I've added a new podcast to the list of paranormal podcasts I listen to. I picked it because it takes an alternate view on reptilian aliens. The people who present it are part of an organization that collects data on UFO abductees. They seem like a good organization apparently they have branches world wide and are willing to share their data with other researchers. All things that I think are great and lend credibility to a research group.

As part of their podcast they play a variety of the radio shows they do. One is where they give their view on current events and politics. This where I find they lose their credibility. They repeat talking points from twenty four hour news channels regardless of the validity of the information their repeating and with a passion that makes me think their critical thinking skills are lacking in fact bordering at the most generous way of putting it Juvenile. Now I don't care if people don't share my views. That's fine I've learned a lot from people who don't share my views. However their analysis of non-paranormal events makes me think that they can't reason well enough for me to trust the data they collect and analyze when it comes to paranormal events.

So anyway for me that's an issue but I wonder if I should consider their research and their groups research as invalid because their analysis of non-paranormal events is so lacking.

I know in the end it's my decision but I was just wondering if this is just my problem and if their are actually good paranormal researchers who otherwise are bad at interpreting non-paranormal events.

 

[Randall]

Who knows? There's a lot of subjectivity involved in many topics and what's juvenile to one person may not seem juvenile to someone else. For example, my insistence on establishing definitions for seemingly obvious things like, "UFO", "truth", "reality", based on logic and example rather than personal preference has been called pedantic and childish. Perhaps even worse, nobody has liked my last few posts in Official Funny Stuff ( here ). But I suppose there are things more important than getting "likes" ( Or is there ? ). It might be interesting to post a link to some examples you think are relevant and then add a poll to the thread to compare what people think.

 

[5tomidnite]

First the cyber bullying of Santa is hilarious.

The posting was inspired by Joe Montaldo from the UFO paranormal radio network. For an example try this episode of News On The FlipSide

 

[Total Loser]

I have been a long time reader of the forum but have never felt compelled to actually post... Until now that is. I assume you are talking about Joe Montaldo and his ICAR organization. To be blunt, Joe Montaldo has fraud written all over him. I used to listen to his podcast but his ridiculous claims became too much to handle. Mr. Montaldo claims several times to have an IQ in the neighborhood of 140, which puts him in the genius category; however he frequently mispronounces simple words and what little I have read of his is littered with grammatical errors and usage issues. Now I am not saying he cannot still be a genious, but is us very unlikely. Another issue I have with Montaldo is his claiming that he is a very powerful and respected man within the UFOlogy field, yet a simple google search of him reveals zero videos of him speaking on the subject. Numerous times Montaldo has stated that he was a consultant to ufo documentaries on the SciFi channel, but his name never appears in the credits under advisors or special thanks. His interview skills are such that he spends the bulk of his interviews talking over the guests or cutting them off to proclaim some ridiculous self promotion about how much of his money he spends on abduction research. Now touching on his research, simply it is not to be viewed as serious research-- nothing more than mass surveys and poorly written essays are what populate his site. Frankly, I cannot believe there isn't more out there on Joe Montaldo and I encourage anyone who does not believe me to listen to his shows and find out for yourself. With that all being said I still find myself listening to one of the shows, A Global Focus hosted by Trice Sherridan. I find her to he courteous to her guests and always very prepared to conduct insightful interviews.

I am sorry for making this my first post, as a measure of good faith I will attempt to stay active on the forum and participate in more productive posts.

 

[Randall]

I am sorry for making this my first post, as a measure of good faith I will attempt to stay active on the forum and participate in more productive posts.

Well ... I dunno if you should be forgiven until you've put at least one post in Official Funny Stuff and Space Babes !

 

[5tomidnite]

I have been a long tI am sorry for making this my first post, as a measure of good faith I will attempt to stay active on the forum and participate in more productive posts.

In my threads there is no need to apologize. You've basically expressed everything I felt listening to him talk. I have never read any of his research but I figured going by his shows he must be a poor researcher at best.

The point is that you contributed to the conversation. In contributing you gave everyone something to think about. So good for you.

 

[Randall]

In my threads there is no need to apologize. You've basically expressed everything I felt listening to him talk. I have never read any of his research but I figured going by his shows he must be a poor researcher at best. The point is that you contributed to the conversation. In contributing you gave everyone something to think about. So good for you.

So you let '84 off the hook ... and here I was looking forward to some more Official Funny Stuff and Space Babes. BTW, I once took a Mensa test in a magazine and it said that I was a genius and that all I had to do was send them a $200 membership fee and I would get my certificate ... so I guess that makes me a genius too! Funny thing though ... I'm not sure why, but I got the feeling almost anyone could get a certificate if they just paid the $200. I mean the "test" didn't seem to be more complex than a few trick questions, and I'm skeptical that I'm actually that smart. I can never seem to get that last square to fit into the Rubik's cube ... and forget about Sudoku. On Chess Titans ( Windows computer chess ) I only win about 28% of the time on level 8. In fact probably the smartest thing I did was not send Mensa the $200 ... I can just imagine how the really smart guys would be laughing if I'd gotten sucked in by that .

 

[5tomidnite]

So you let '84 off the hook ... and here I was looking forward to some more Official Funny Stuff and Space Babes. BTW, I once took a Mensa test in a magazine and it said that I was a genius and that all I had to do was send them a $200 membership fee and I would get my certificate ... so I guess that makes me a genius too! Funny thing though ... I'm not sure why, but I got the feeling almost anyone could get a certificate if they just paid the $200. I mean the "test" didn't seem to be more complex than a few trick questions, and I'm skeptical that I'm actually that smart. I can never seem to get that last square to fit into the Rubik's cube ... and forget about Sudoku. On Chess Titans ( Windows computer chess ) I only win about 24% of the time on level 8. In fact probably the smartest thing I did was not send Mensa the $200 ... I can just imagine how the really smart guys would be laughing if I'd gotten sucked in by that .

I actually had a certified IQ test done. To clarify I was down on my luck, had one hour of sleep and was filled with anxiety when I took the test and even skipped some parts. The result was to my shame (hence the ealier clarification) that my overall IQ was only 126. This means I only have above average intelligence. Mixed with my apparently groan worthy level of creativity according to at least one version of "the official handbook of the marvel universe" that I'm roughly as smart as Spider Man.

What I've learned from testing is that intelligence is an advantage but not a guarantee of success in your undertakings. I have had both amazing successes in my life as well as some spectacularly stupid failures.

Also I suck at chess and Rubik's cubes as well.

 

[Randall]

Also I suck at chess and Rubik's cubes as well.

The only reason I use chess as an example is because it doesn't involve chance. I have about a 28% rating against Chess Titans at level 8 ... which sucks compared to Master level players. They've got some kind of almost freak ability.

 

[Fcseven]

I have been a long time reader of the forum but have never felt compelled to actually post... Until now that is. I assume you are talking about Joe Montaldo and his ICAR organization. To be blunt, Joe Montaldo has fraud written all over him. I used to listen to his podcast but his ridiculous claims became too much to handle. Mr. Montaldo claims several times to have an IQ in the neighborhood of 140, which puts him in the genius category; however he frequently mispronounces simple words and what little I have read of his is littered with grammatical errors and usage issues. Now I am not saying he cannot still be a genious, but is us very unlikely. Another issue I have with Montaldo is his claiming that he is a very powerful and respected man within the UFOlogy field, yet a simple google search of him reveals zero videos of him speaking on the subject. Numerous times Montaldo has stated that he was a consultant to ufo documentaries on the SciFi channel, but his name never appears in the credits under advisors or special thanks. His interview skills are such that he spends the bulk of his interviews talking over the guests or cutting them off to proclaim some ridiculous self promotion about how much of his money he spends on abduction research. Now touching on his research, simply it is not to be viewed as serious research-- nothing more than mass surveys and poorly written essays are what populate his site. Frankly, I cannot believe there isn't more out there on Joe Montaldo and I encourage anyone who does not believe me to listen to his shows and find out for yourself. With that all being said I still find myself listening to one of the shows, A Global Focus hosted by Trice Sherridan. I find her to he courteous to her guests and always very prepared to conduct insightful interviews.

I am sorry for making this my first post, as a measure of good faith I will attempt to stay active on the forum and participate in more productive posts.

I have the opportunity at my job to listen to over 30 podcasts during a week. When nothing new is on (or I run out) the UFO paranormal radio network has like five shows available each day. These are what I call my podcasts of last resort. The quality is horrible. For example a "show" will sometimes start 20 minutes in after cycling through music or ads for other PRN shows. The shows sound like they are recorded on a $5.00 microphone. Joe Montolodo is a horrible interviewer (for example once Jesse Marcel Jr. hung up on Joe once for I think freaking him out with stories about reptilians) plus he claims to be an abductee. Or at least I think that's what he claims because he is almost incoherent at times while going off on tangents. Maybe Joe would make a good guest on the paracast so J&C could try to see what this guy is about.

 

[starise]

In all my time reading and researching paranormal events I never cease to be amazed by the number of so called experts, many if not most of them self described in a particular sub category of the paranormal. .... I think we can pretty much assume that everyone is an expert. No questions asked

In the early days I was fooled by similar hucksters . I think many of us with more questions than answers involving an area we might not understand to the degree we desire have come to realize the total emptiness in any methods employed up to this point. No matter who employs them, how long they have looked at a subject or what they seem to have uncovered.

It's all fun to kick around but how long do you want to kick it around? It is all very much like regurgitation. Life is too short.

I happen to think that most everything about anything concerning the paranormal scene via media is some kind of fraud or half truth. Even the believable events have enough speculation in them to constitute a viable unbelief. Words like emptiness, pointlessness, aimlessness come to mind.

I like a good mystery . I like solving mysteries , or maybe to understand a mystery would be a better fit. It can be interesting and fun up to a point in looking for an answer, but crossing the line is pure insanity. When real answers aren't possible, some people will accept a replacement explanation, or look decades for one.

In many ways the paranormal is a belief system with many adherents. Among these there is much disagreement and infighting. The rules are very flexible, but inflexible people seem to make the rules. The only real glue holding the whole mess together is the paranormal itself.

 

[StrangeDaysIndeed]

This thread made me make an account (now that I finally bit the bullet you can expect to see more of me). Anyway, I think this Montaldo guy is a liar and a fraud; worst of all many people listen to this guy and take him seriously. I listened to his show and, as a Jewish man whose grandfather survived thought the Holocaust, was so offended by the Obama and Hitler comparisons he was making (on a show about abductions WTF right?). I decided to go on his stations paltalk page and private message Joe and let him know how offensive that statement was. Like the classless act he is, he copied and pasted my conversation into the general chat and told the 150 people in the room to have at me.

I think he is dangerous because he actually charges people to get hypnotically regressed by him and his wife-- as well as claims that he cannot be regressed because something about how he knows too much and it's dangerous. I think Gene and Chris should have him as a guest. I don't want it to be an ambush, but I do want someone to actually press him about the stuff he claims. Mike Clelland interviewed him and pressed him a bit but that's not really his style. I think Gene and Chris would be doing the entire field a great service by confronting him about the potentially damaging material he is claiming.

 

[DaveM]

I actually had a certified IQ test done. To clarify I was down on my luck, had one hour of sleep and was filled with anxiety when I took the test and even skipped some parts. The result was to my shame (hence the ealier clarification) that my overall IQ was only 126. This means I only have above average intelligence. Mixed with my apparently groan worthy level of creativity according to at least one version of "the official handbook of the marvel universe" that I'm roughly as smart as Spider Man.

What I've learned from testing is that intelligence is an advantage but not a guarantee of success in your undertakings. I have had both amazing successes in my life as well as some spectacularly stupid failures.

Also I suck at chess and Rubik's cubes as well.

I would take the validity of an IQ test with a large grain of salt. When my HS class was tested for IQ the person who scored the highest ended up collecting garbage for a living. It doesn't mean a thing if you have no ambition to succeed in life.

 

[Randall]

I would take the validity of an IQ test with a large grain of salt. When my HS class was tested for IQ the person who scored the highest ended up collecting garbage for a living. It doesn't mean a thing if you have no ambition to succeed in life.

Even when one has intelligence and ambition there's still no guarantee, and what really slams are the few who basically just luck out for no apparent reason other than being in the right place at the right time.

 

[5tomidnite]

In all my time reading and researching paranormal events I never cease to be amazed by the number of so called experts, many if not most of them self described in a particular sub category of the paranormal. .... I think we can pretty much assume that everyone is an expert. No questions asked

In the early days I was fooled by similar hucksters . I think many of us with more questions than answers involving an area we might not understand to the degree we desire have come to realize the total emptiness in any methods employed up to this point. No matter who employs them, how long they have looked at a subject or what they seem to have uncovered.

It's all fun to kick around but how long do you want to kick it around? It is all very much like regurgitation. Life is too short.

I happen to think that most everything about anything concerning the paranormal scene via media is some kind of fraud or half truth. Even the believable events have enough speculation in them to constitute a viable unbelief. Words like emptiness, pointlessness, aimlessness come to mind.

I like a good mystery . I like solving mysteries , or maybe to understand a mystery would be a better fit. It can be interesting and fun up to a point in looking for an answer, but crossing the line is pure insanity. When real answers aren't possible, some people will accept a replacement explanation, or look decades for one.

In many ways the paranormal is a belief system with many adherents. Among these there is much disagreement and infighting. The rules are very flexible, but inflexible people seem to make the rules. The only real glue holding the whole mess together is the paranormal itself.

Yep something like that. The basic premise of the thread is that everyone has their bias but when does the bias spoil the validity of the researcher's research.

My philosophy in this subject is that while I may not believe someone's interpretation of specific data the data itself might still be of value. However when a person's bias makes me think they are essentially making up their data or at least bending the data then I throw out their data as well as their interpretation.

 

[5tomidnite]

Even when one has intelligence and ambition there's still no guarantee, and what really slams are the few who basically just luck out for no apparent reason other than being in the right place at the right time.

Well there is another factor. What can be seen as a "lack of ambition" is instead the result of the lack of ability to relate to "beings of lesser intelligence". Being "highly intelligent" doesn't guarantee the ability to convey your understanding of the world to others nor the importance of it. For me personally I often answer the question "What do you do?" with "Do you mean how do I pay the bills or what do I actually contribute to society?"

 

[5tomidnite]

This thread made me make an account (now that I finally bit the bullet you can expect to see more of me).

Two in one thread

Anyway, I think this Montaldo guy is a liar and a fraud; worst of all many people listen to this guy and take him seriously. I listened to his show and, as a Jewish man whose grandfather survived thought the Holocaust, was so offended by the Obama and Hitler comparisons he was making (on a show about abductions WTF right?). I decided to go on his stations paltalk page and private message Joe and let him know how offensive that statement was. Like the classless act he is, he copied and pasted my conversation into the general chat and told the 150 people in the room to have at me.

I think he is dangerous because he actually charges people to get hypnotically regressed by him and his wife-- as well as claims that he cannot be regressed because something about how he knows too much and it's dangerous. I think Gene and Chris should have him as a guest. I don't want it to be an ambush, but I do want someone to actually press him about the stuff he claims. Mike Clelland interviewed him and pressed him a bit but that's not really his style. I think Gene and Chris would be doing the entire field a great service by confronting him about the potentially damaging material he is claiming.

That's why I picked him for the subject of the thread. He just seemed so messed up. I could have chosen Richard Syrett of the Conspiracy show. However he's not a researcher as much as a reporter. He seems relatively fair and diligent in his interviews until a "pro-Christian biased" guest comes on and then he just lets them say whatever thing they want without challenging them because he himself is deeply religious and deeply pro-Christian biased. As an example it is his believe that ufoes are demons so consequently he won't challenge any guest who takes that stance.

 

[Jimi H.]

Lately I've added a new podcast .. because it takes an alternate view on reptilian aliens. The people who present it are part of an organization that collects data on UFO abductees.
..
They repeat talking points from twenty four hour news channels regardless of the validity of the information their repeating and with a passion that makes me think their critical thinking skills are lacking in fact bordering at the most generous way of putting it Juvenile. ..

You're going for the "reptilian aliens" show but their discussing/taking sides on regular news events is the proof of their lack of critical thinking skills?

That's far out man! That's really far out! I really don't know what to say..

Good question though: "At what point do your personal beliefs affect your credibility as a researcher?"

Very good question indeed!

EDIT: sorry, hadn't seen it was an old OP

 

[5tomidnite]

You're going for the "reptilian aliens" show but their discussing/taking sides on regular news events is the proof of their lack of critical thinking skills?

That's far out man! That's really far out! I really don't know what to say..

It's not that they took sides or discussed it. It's that they repeated the information as though it were true whether it had validity or not. In other words they showed themselves capable of ignoring the truth if it suits their beliefs or worst that they are incapable of distinguishing between valid and invalid data. Or at least that's how I should have explained it

Good question though: "At what point do your personal beliefs affect your credibility as a researcher?"

Very good question indeed!

Thank you very much

EDIT: sorry, hadn't seen it was an old OP

No problem. You showed me I need to be more articulate.