Bishop, Bosley - May 30th

[trainedobserver]

Well it looks like the science fundamentalists have their quantum knickers in a gordian knot lolClick here to enlargeClick here to enlarge. Lets face it guys it's just a case of ...since i don't believe you, then it's not true, right?

You are apparently the type that likes to put words in other peoples mouths and you just don't seem to get it. You've also attributed quotes to me that I did not post. You've scrambled AOIs and my postings. Your attention to detail and credulity leaves much to be desired.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I guess you didn't read the part where I mentioned I had some experiences and I was able to explain them without resorting to aliens, gods, or ghosts. Also, I think you got some of the quotes messed up since you attributed certain quotes to the wrong people. That's probably not your fault since I was having trouble with that yesterday.

You are apparently the type that likes to put words in other peoples mouths and you just don't seem to get it. You've also attributed quotes to me that I did not post. You've scrambled AOLs and my postings. Your attention to detail and credulity leaves much to be desired.

Sorry guys. I was pressed for time yesterday and for some reason when trying to reply to each of your quotes using the "Quote Selected Text" function, the quotes were being attributed to the wrong person. (My incorrect use of the function).I tried to correct them but still managed to get them arse about face and for that i humbly appologise. Below are the quotes with the corrections.

Real science isn't "dogmatic", in fact dogmatism is contrary to the fundamental tenants of science. It has been my experience that those who attempt to describe science in the language of religion have a gross misunderstanding of what science and the scientific method actually are. I find this extremely surprising coming from someone with your background and training Walter.

So far, nothing paranormal (in the common meaning of the word, aka supernatural) has been proven to exist, so I can't name any. I'm looking forward to the day that someone wins the JREF's million dollar challenge. Maybe you can do it with your remote viewing? Maybe I'm just being difficult. Sorry.

Angel i did read the part

...where I mentioned I had some experiences and I was able to explain them without resorting to aliens, gods, or ghosts.

.
I am interested to hear what, if any, experiences you have had that could not be explained by such.

Trainedobserver. Who is AOL? Careful. The Angel of Lioren may not appreciate that slip lol But i'm sure he doesn't mind as it goes to show how easy it is to scramble things .
Credulity? Come on now that's a bit disingenuous don't you think? I have already stated that i don't necessarily believe all of Walter's stories just as I don't believe everything you say. I think that some have merit because they match similar things that have happened to me.
Tell me then, do you believe any of the stories that Walter has recounted? Sorry if you have already posted or commented on such.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I am interested to hear what, if any, experiences you have had that could not be explained by such.

That's the thing, there aren't any experiences I've had that I can say are not explainable in more conventional way. Another example: I've had "orbs" appear on photographs - I can't understand why one would chose to say these are ghosts instead of dust or insects that are illuminated by the flash.
My interest in the topics covered here is to understand why people can come to such different conclusion when confronted with similar situations.

 

[trainedobserver]

Who is AOL?

Point taken. Yes of course, I was referring to AOI. It's called a typo.

Tell me then, do you believe any of the stories that Walter has recounted?

Belief? That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. I don't place a credence and faith in unproven facts (see my signature) particularly when the source of the unproven facts displays an insufficient understanding of little things like standards of evidence and are either unwilling or unable to sufficiently explain why I should take their unsubstantiated claims seriously. Any time in the past when I have allowed myself to "believe" someones extraordinary story of an experience (or more pointedly their interpretation of the experience) on face value I've regretted it and I try to learn from my mistakes. If a person believes someone's interpretation of their experience simply because they like them, like the way they tell the story, because they ring true, they resonate with the hearer, or because as you say they appear to "match similar things that have happened" to the hearer (which doesn't speak to the interpretation of those experiences at all) questioning their credulity is hardly disingenuous on my part.

If you actually read my exchange with Walter you will note that I never said I didn't believe that he had experienced anything so I don't really get what you're going on about. I questioned his interpretation of those experiences. The difference is hardly subtle or unreasonable. I thought this forum was dedicated to separating "signal from noise", wouldn't that require some questioning and debate?

Like AOI I am hardly dogmatic or a fundamentalist. To my unending regret I used to be a religious fundamentalist and rather dogmatic so I think I know the difference. As I've posted elsewhere my training and daily experience induced such cognitive dissonance that I had to break from my cherished "beliefs." Science ...real science ... is all about arriving at the truth of a matter irregardless of "beliefs" of individuals or most importantly the very hypothesis that is being tested itself. The point of science is to attempt to find any fault in the hypothesis not to "confirm" it or to "prove it" outright but to break it if possible.

During my over 30 years of immersion into religious belief I experienced more strange things and heard even more bizarre tales than you might imagine. And as the Vallee quote in my signature states I found that "not only is there an amazing willingness in the human mind to invest credence and faith in unproven facts, but there is more evil, more readiness than ever on the part of various sophisticated groups, to use this human weakness as a tool in controlling others."

On experiences: I once saw a large triangle of lights moving above the street in front my house in the early morning. I had just been reading the day before about triangles sighted in Belgium. I was jaw-dropped stunned by the sight. Rather than jump to conclusions I did what I've been trained to do my entire career, I started gathering data. What time was it? Where was the sun? How many lights were visible? Were the lights connected or separate? As I continued to watch the formation I saw that although it was uncannily slow moving and the impression was that it was perfectly aligned (at least during the first few moments) there was a couple of the lights which broke from the formation and then returned to it. It was a flight of geese flying very low over my neighborhood and the rising sun was reflecting off their bellies.

On another occasion I saw a brilliant red (or so it appeared to me but I'm color blind so who knows what color it actually was) object move from horizon to horizon in a matter of seconds. Checking things I found that the Space Shuttle was passing over my region at that time. Was it a UFO or the Space Shuttle. While to this day I am still amazed by how fast that thing crossed the sky I have to say in all probability it was the shuttle.

While examining photos I took of the most impressive double rainbow I have ever seen in my life I detected several "orbs" in the photograph. Rather than attribute them to UFOs I did a little research and discovered that they were rain drops reflecting light and are known to be quite a common occurrence.

There are other things but I think that should be sufficient to give you the idea.

 

[trainedobserver]

One more very important point I would like to make and question I would like to pose. Maybe it should be in its own thread.

For all those who take such glee in disparaging science and the scientific method, "Just what is the viable alternative to science and the scientific method?" Just what are you proposing as the alternative? What exactly?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Belief? That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. I don't place a credence and faith in unproven facts (see my signature) particularly when the source of the unproven facts displays an insufficient understanding of little things like standards of evidence and are either unwilling or unable to sufficiently explain why I should take their unsubstantiated claims seriously. Any time in the past when I have allowed myself to "believe" someones extraordinary story of an experience (or more pointedly their interpretation of the experience) on face value I've regretted it and I try to learn from my mistakes.

Well of course. I am sorry that you have let yourself become bitter and twisted from being trusting. Most unfortunate for you.I suppose being a religious fundamentalist for 30 years will do that to you. Unlike you, my "belief" in something is not quite as black or white as yours.

If a person believes someone's interpretation of their experience simply because they like them, like the way they tell the story, because they ring true, they resonate with the hearer, or because as you say they appear to "match similar things that have happened" to the hearer (which doesn't speak to the interpretation of those experiences at all) questioning their credulity is hardly disingenuous on my part.

Sure i believe some of what Walter says but I'm not staking my life on it. My range of "could be" or "maybe" is a bit more flexible than yours also. It seems to me that because you don't believe someone then no-one else should. Well i'm sorry but not everyone has to fall into line with your dogmatic approach to belief. Sounds like you have trouble escaping your fundamentalist dogma.
I like hearing about paranormal type experiences because really those having the experiences hold the only proof that the paranormal exists at all. Science certainly cannot prove or disprove it. Whether or not the tales they tell are definitive or not, i certainly don't take the insulting holier than thou attitude that you do.
I suppose what i'm on about is that science, in itself, is not the problem here, it's the people like you who use science like it's the be all and end all of definitive proof of the paranormal. (Well if science and me don't believe someone or something then it can't be true).

Science ...real science ... is all about arriving at the truth of a matter irregardless of "beliefs" of individuals or most importantly the very hypothesis that is being tested itself. The point of science is to attempt to find any fault in the hypothesis not to "confirm" it or to "prove it" outright but to break it if possible.

Well so far it's not proven either way to prove that the paranormal or UFOs exist or not. Besides the fact that most scientists won't touch this subject with a barge pole. Why is that?
In the end to those of us who have had unexplained paranormal experiences nothing more has to be proven. It's only dogmatic fundamentalist zealots like you who demand proof.

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

... I've had "orbs" appear on photographs - I can't understand why one would chose to say these are ghosts instead of dust or insects that are illuminated by the flash.

I totally agree.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I totally agree.

Good, some common ground

I wanted to add that people like myself and Trained Observer are not taking a holier than thou approach to this; we're just trying to base our explanations in ways that fit into the way the world works. That doesn't mean that there are things that we do not know right now, of course we don't know everything.
Here's a great video of Richard Dawkins and James Randi talking about this, and how Randi may lose his million dollar challenge because of it:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LSOD77clNZM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LSOD77clNZM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Good, some common ground Click here to enlarge

We probably have more common ground than what you think
It's also very hard to explain a paranormal experience of the high strangeness variety to those who have never had one, as i think Walter was attempting to do. When you have gone through your checklist of possible, normal and mundane explanations and you are still left with high strangeness it becomes near on impossible to accurately describe what has happened to others in a way that they may accept or understand. And believe me the first thing i did with mine was apply intense sceptical scrutiny to them.
I do think that science may eventually come up with some answers to these questions eventually but up to now nothing has been forthcoming. Also as long as the paranormal is consigned to the fringe areas of the scientific establishment it will never receive the recognition and attention of the truly gifted minds and therefore we will have to put up with the current paradigm.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 PM ----------

I wanted to add that people like myself and Trained Observer are not taking a holier than thou approach to this; we're just trying to base our explanations in ways that fit into the way the world works. That doesn't mean that there are things that we do not know right now, of course we don't know everything.

No worries i see what your saying. As long as you accept that your world may not work the same way as mine or Walters or anyone elses' for that matter

 

[trainedobserver]

It seems to me that because you don't believe someone then no-one else should.

I have no idea why you would say something like that. It appears to me that you make a great deal of assumptions and enjoy engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing the real issues with any clarity, something that I really have no use for whatsoever.

Since you have yet to propose an alternative to science I still don't know what it is you are attempting to get at and I really don't care to speculate on or assume what it might be.

Well so far it's not proven either way to prove that the paranormal or UFOs exist or not.

Well that is simply untrue. There is plenty of evidence that Unidentified Flying Objects or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena do exist. Anyone spending a sufficient amount of time in the literature would have to acknowledge that there is a long history of people observing strange aerial phenomena that cannot be positively identified as one thing or another.

If at some point you want to discuss what a viable alternative to science is without the attacks and insults I would be glad to participate. Until then your constant insults and attacks on me and what you imagine I may be thinking are really beneath any further comment.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I have no idea why you would say something like that. It appears to me that you make a great deal of assumptions and enjoy engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than discussing the real issues with any clarity, something that I really have no use for whatsoever.

You really should look at the tone of your own posts before you call the kettle black.

Science ...real science ... is all about arriving at the truth of a matter irregardless of "beliefs" of individuals or most importantly the very hypothesis that is being tested itself. The point of science is to attempt to find any fault in the hypothesis not to "confirm" it or to "prove it" outright but to break it if possible.

Well so far it's not proven either way to prove that the paranormal or UFOs exist or not.

It's, meaning "it has" (as in science). Scientists are not exactly lining up to pronounce that either exist in any definitive way. Most scientists shy away from the subjects for fear of ridicule.

If at some point you want to discuss what a viable alternative to science is without the attacks and insults I would be glad to participate.

If you are talking about science in the context of the study and verification of Paranormal events or the validity thereof, i welcome its (science and scientific) involvement and don't require any alternative. All i would ask is that more scientists are involved and from differing disciplines.
Regarding personal anecdotes and the recounting of personal unexplained experiences? I don't need science to tell me anything about them. I am happy with my own explanations, therefore i need no alternative to them as i am sure Walter is.

At least Angel and I can find some common ground even when our opinions differ on this subject.

Until then your constant insults and attacks on me and what you imagine I may be thinking are really beneath any further comment.

Good. I'm done talking to you as well. Crawl back into your fundamentalist hole with your science manuals and your bible. I couldn't give a rat's toss bag what you think of me. You need to HTFU, princess.
That Ad Hominem enough for ya!!!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Good. I'm done talking to you as well. Crawl back into your fundamentalist hole with your science manuals and your bible. I couldn't give a rat's toss bag what you think of me. You need to HTFU, princess.
That Ad Hominem enough for ya!!!

That's not helpful at all.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

At least Angel and I can find some common ground even when our opinions differ on this subject.

I think you share the same common ground with Trained Observer - he also thinks that orbs are bullshit, like any other sane person. I must say that looking back at other discussions, you'd probably consider me even more of a dogmatic skeptic than him.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

That's not helpful at all.

It helped me, I feel better!!

Going back to the subject of the thread, Walter Bosley. To disagree with him or about him is fine. To be dogmatically sceptical of him also is fine. Many, including his friend Greg Bishop, are sceptical of some of the opinions he holds.
At the very lest he should be shown some respect. I'm not saying that you disrespected him. But for some to needlessly interrogate him about his personal experiences is just over the top. I don't think he was asking any or all of us to believe him, he was mostly just recounting stories. You either believe him or not, no need to be rude about it.
I thought his anecdotes were fascinating but i'm not turning into a fan boy over them. Some of his stuff is in my gray basket.

I think you share the same common ground with Trained Observer - he also thinks that orbs are bullshit, like any other sane person. I must say that looking back at other discussions, you'd probably consider me even more of a dogmatic skeptic than him.

You are (a dogmatic skeptic) But at least you are not necessarily rude about it. The tone i get from your mate is that he likes to tell others how to think and what their experiences were and what they really saw. In other words if i don't believe you then no one should, if i think it's bullshit then it is , end of discussion. That's just my take on T.OBS and i could care less what he thinks on any given subject.

 

[macavity]

Hi Walter,

Your description of waking up thinking that you were in a different body and in the home of a different family reminded me a little of "Capgras delusion" (or Capgras syndrome) - see Wikimedia Error - although it's not an exact fit by any means. Following the link on that Wikipedia entry to the one for Delusional misidentification syndrome (Wikimedia Error) I was struck by the line "There is considerable evidence that disorders such as the Capgras or Fregoli syndromes are associated with disorders of face perception and recognition. However, it has been suggested that all misidentification problems may exist on a continuum of anomalies of familiarity,<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup> from déjà vu at one end to the formation of delusional beliefs at the other" and wondered if your experiences of encountering places which you felt strongly you'd seen previously in a dream might in some way be related to a form of déjà vu?

Needless to say, I'm not suggesting for one moment that you suffer from any of the above syndromes and I apologise if anything quoted above sounds insulting - "delusional" certainly has negative connotations in common parlance but my intention is not to be derogatory.

Thanks for doing the show, it was an interesting listen.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

The most ridiculous of all the UFO myths, and that's saying something, is the one that holds that the Nazis somehow engineered a flying saucer.

Could Paul serve as co-host when Bosley returns? I think you could make that one a pay-per-listen program, Gene!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Could Paul serve as co-host when Bosley returns? I think you could make that one a pay-per-listen program, Gene!

Hmmm. Or two co-hosts. Let's see how it plays out

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Hmmm. Or two co-hosts. Let's see how it plays out

I would pay to hear Paul take part in an interview of Bosley. That would be pretty awesome.

 

[trainedobserver]

I would pay to hear Paul take part in an interview of Bosley. That would be pretty awesome.

I'm all for having Paul interview Walter as well.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I would pay to hear Paul take part in an interview of Bosley. That would be pretty awesome.

I didn't need to pay for it - I'm listening to one right now on Radio Misterioso. I'm really liking it, and I'm enjoying how the discussion is going. Great stuff.

 

[trainedobserver]

While sitting by the pool this weekend listening to my ipod the May 30th paracast episode came back around in the playlist. Instead of skipping to something else I decided to give it another listen. I'm often doing something else while I'm listening to a podcast and sometimes I miss things that are said. So on this second listen to the show I was a little taken back by G.B.s comments about UFO circle jerks and the stupidity of people who remain interested (I think he actually said 'fascinated') in UFOs. Probably more disconcerting to me was Gene's lack of a response to this. Given that many folks who listen to the show are like myself and who have maintained an interest in UFOs over the years (admittedly it waxes and wanes for me) I was more than a little surprised to hear this sentiment expressed in such a crass and insulting manner. I've already gotten the clue that asking questions of or attempting to discuss the claims of guests isn't as welcomed as it was in past but if the co-hosts are showing such contempt for the subject and their audience I have to seriously wonder where the paracast is going.

Rick Poole

 

[Gene Steinberg]

While sitting by the pool this weekend listening to my ipod the May 30th paracast episode came back around in the playlist. Instead of skipping to something else I decided to give it another listen. I'm often doing something else while I'm listening to a podcast and sometimes I miss things that are said. So on this second listen to the show I was a little taken back by G.B.s comments about UFO circle jerks and the stupidity of people who remain interested (I think he actually said 'fascinated') in UFOs. Probably more disconcerting to me was Gene's lack of a response to this. Given that many folks who listen to the show are like myself and who have maintained an interest in UFOs over the years (admittedly it waxes and wanes for me) I was more than a little surprised to hear this sentiment expressed in such a crass and insulting manner. I've already gotten the clue that asking questions of or attempting to discuss the claims of guests isn't as welcomed as it was in past but if the co-hosts are showing such contempt for the subject and their audience I have to seriously wonder where the paracast is going.

Rick Poole

Contempt? No, I gave Greg his opportunity to put his cards on the table. He has a long history of involvement in the UFO field, but hasn't been on The Paracast all that often. If you compare the viewpoints of our four co-hosts, you'll find a substantial variety of opinions. They weren't chosen because they adhere to any particular viewpoint of "corporate code," but because of the depth of their work and the fact that they consider their positions carefully.

That's not an insult to you. It's a reflection of a change in direction, where no single point of view is going to dominate the show from here on. One of our early episodes after the network transition will put all four in the same virtual studio, and I'm just going to sit back and let them hash things out. We'll all be flies on the wall and you'll have a blast listening to them!