Bishop, Bosley - May 30th

[Angel of Ioren]

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!

That's going to be extremely interesting to hear. Looking forward to it.

 

[spacebrother]

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,

I'll have to listen to what I said again, but I do not consider people who remain interested in the subject "stupid." That would mean that I think I'm in that category. I do think that those who remain interested and never change their opinion or viewpoint from the ETH (or at least consider other options as viable for discussion) are at least acting stupidly.

Whatever I said, I didn't mean to sound crass or insensitive.

I don't go on the attack unless someone is rude. Otherwise, I tend to let those I interview hang themselves with their own words. If some in the audience want confrontations, I'm sure that they will find them on shows where I am not co-hosting (or when someone is rude to me or other guests or hosts.) I also tend to ask to co-host when there is a guest from which I can learn something. Listen to some Radio Misterioso shows if you like and you will see what I mean.

Charlatans and just plain dumb people are not interesting to me. Those who believe them will continue to do so. Nothing I say on the Paracast will change that, at least not much.

 

[trainedobserver]

I appreciate the response Greg. Yes, please listen to what you've said again, I don't think I have mischaracterized it, if I have, well I apologize. And no, I am not looking for confrontations, I would just prefer to not hear absurd and unsubstantiated statements go unchallenged. But that's just me. Also, I believe that challenging the absurd and unsubstantiated need not be construed as an "attack" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Rick,

I'll have to listen to what I said again, but I do not consider people who remain interested in the subject "stupid." That would mean that I think I'm in that category. I do think that those who remain interested and never change their opinion or viewpoint from the ETH (or at least consider other options as viable for discussion) are at least acting stupidly.

Whatever I said, I didn't mean to sound crass or insensitive.

I don't go on the attack unless someone is rude. Otherwise, I tend to let those I interview hang themselves with their own words. If some in the audience want confrontations, I'm sure that they will find them on shows where I am not co-hosting (or when someone is rude to me or other guests or hosts.) I also tend to ask to co-host when there is a guest from which I can learn something. Listen to some Radio Misterioso shows if you like and you will see what I mean.

Charlatans and just plain dumb people are not interesting to me. Those who believe them will continue to do so. Nothing I say on the Paracast will change that, at least not much.

I've known Greg for several years, and consider him one of my best friends. One of my biggest issues with him, however, is that he's too nice and too laissez-faire in his dealings with the morons who populate the world of the paranormal (and yes, that includes more than a few listeners). Thus it amuses me to no end to see him being accused of this, instead of me.

Greg is a man of the people. I am an unapologetic elitist. Vive la difference!

 

[trainedobserver]

Paul, I think I represented what Greg said correctly and was responding to exactly what he said. I replayed it a couple of times to be sure I heard him correctly. I didn't twist his words or take them out of context nor did I make snide remarks or pitch vague insults his way. Sometimes people misspeak. It happens.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul, I think I represented what Greg said correctly and was responding to exactly what he said. I replayed it a couple of times to be sure I heard him correctly. I didn't twist his words or take them out of context nor did I make snide remarks or pitch vague insults his way. Sometimes people misspeak. It happens.

I didn't say you did. I just found it funny, that's all. And ironic, given who Greg is. No worries.

 

[spacebrother]

OK. I misspoke. Sorry!

I try to never speak or write in absolutes.

I'm polite unless attacked. I guess I just find some of the claims and stories interesting enough to listen without contradicting too much.

 

[brainiak11]

What do you mean by dogmatic? Are you referring to people like James Randi and Carl Sagan that require actual evidence before they believe something? I prefer to use critical thinking to come up with answers.

Yes, I prefer critical thinking as well. But James Randi is hardly a scientist. He is a magician. He hardly qualifies as an objective observer. His $1,000,000 award has been shown many times over to be non-winnable. What bothers me is that these phenomena aren't being studied. I'm sure that with proper scientific method many of these mysteries would come to a reasonable conclusion. I remember a Randi show on TV years ago about dowsing. He basically debunked it on the show. I know many people who have had wells drilled successfully due to dowsing. My question is? Perhaps some of these phenomena are not subject to scientific scrutiny. I will cite as examples the many species that we know exist but we cannot get to reproduce under laboratory conditions (captivity) (even with artificial insemination). Because they don't reproduce under these conditions does that mean that they can't exist or reproduce? Absolutely not!!! It just means that we have to study a little further. I find it totally irresponsible that science just disregards the "subjects" offhand.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

What do you mean by dogmatic? Are you referring to people like James Randi and Carl Sagan that require actual evidence before they believe something? I prefer to use critical thinking to come up with answers.

Yes, I prefer critical thinking as well. But James Randi is hardly a scientist. He is a magician. He hardly qualifies as an objective observer. His $1,000,000 award has been shown many times over to be non-winnable. What bothers me is that these phenomena aren't being studied. I'm sure that with proper scientific method many of these mysteries would come to a reasonable conclusion. I remember a Randi show on TV years ago about dowsing. He basically debunked it on the show. I know many people who have had wells drilled successfully due to dowsing. My question is? Perhaps some of these phenomena are not subject to scientific scrutiny. I will cite as examples the many species that we know exist but we cannot get to reproduce under laboratory conditions (captivity) (even with artificial insemination). Because they don't reproduce under these conditions does that mean that they can't exist or reproduce? Absolutely not!!! It just means that we have to study a little further. I find it totally irresponsible that science just disregards the "subjects" offhand.

Randi is definitely not a scientist, and he freely admits that. As a magician, he's able to catch people making outlandish claims that are using trickery. Just look at what he did to that liar Uri Gellar - he made him look like a fool and it was wonderful. A few years ago, Criss Angel did the same thing to him. People like Criss Angel and Derren Brown (a British mentalist) are more qualified than a scientist to call out "psychics" because they know the techniques that they use.
As to whether the million dollar prize is unobtainable, I can't say. The rules seem fair to me, but then again, I'm not the one that's trying to prove anything.

 

[trainedobserver]

OK. I misspoke. Sorry!

Well, I appreciate that Greg.

---------- Post added at 08:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

...Perhaps some of these phenomena are not subject to scientific scrutiny.... I find it totally irresponsible that science just disregards the "subjects" offhand.

I believe that you are confusing science with individual scientists. There is a tremendous difference. It is true that individual scientists as human beings can choose to not study certain things based on their personal prejudices, opinions, beliefs, or something as simple and pragmatic as the law of diminishing returns, the scientific method itself has none of those characteristics.

I challenge you or anyone else to provide a viable alternative to the scientific method in the study of anything whatsoever. I have made this challenge in this forum and elsewhere in the past and to my knowledge no one has bothered to even attempt it. I think there is good reason for that.

R.P.

 

[NTS]

"I find it totally irresponsible that science just disregards the 'subjects' offhand."

Most scientists work in highly specialized fields, on problems suggested by the current theories in those fields. Prejudice and beliefs aside, 'paranormal' phenomena are usually not well-defined enough to attract the interest of scientists in any particular field. Who would study UFOs for instance: astronomers, meteorologists, geologists, psychologists, sociologists? And where would they begin? UFOs potentially fall into all of these categories and more, but not primarily into any single one, and there is little theoretical basis even to start from.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I welcome science and scientific study into the realm of the paranormal, indeed i would encourage it.
How far has science come along in explaining paranormal subjects up to now? One of the problems is getting anyone of any standing to do so. And then when someone of any standing does so (e.g Bigelow) we never see their results. Is it a money issue? Is it a reputation issue? Why is it that, up to now, we have a less than stellar body of work from the scientific community? Is it because most people, including scientists, could care less about the paranormal subject? (I suspect, yes).

The Skinwalker Ranch is a good example of someone with unlimited resources attempting to study and catalogue unexplained phenomena but what have we got for all of the effort? More questions than answers. Bigelow and NIDS may have very good reasons for not disclosing their results. Which raises the question, if science did come up with any definative answers would they tell us?

Until this science/scientific study dilemma is somehow resolved we are left with personal and anecdotal evidence, photographs, video and the reporting of these strange occurrences. Ultimately it is up to the inquirer as to whether they are to believe these or any anecdotal evidence.
While it is prudent to always wear the sceptical hat when listening to or studying these accounts one should be mindful not to dismiss everything as hallucination or such. It is also worthy of note that for someone to describe a paranormal event may be fraught with problems as our means of describing such things successfully to others may be limited by our language to adequately do so.

People like Walter Bosley can only recount their anecdotes to others, he cannot make believers out of them and i don't think that was ever his intention. If we choose to believe or disbelieve then that is our right. At the very least his stories gives us pause for thought and discussion, possibly offering other avenues of research to embark on.
I look forward to his re-appearance on The Paracast

 

[trainedobserver]

Is it a money issue?

Largely so, yes. Scientists have to eat and research costs a great deal of money. If you can't get anyone to pay for the research then it doesn't happen. It is just that simple.

The Skinwalker Ranch is a good example of someone with unlimited resources attempting to study and catalogue unexplained phenomena but what have we got for all of the effort? More questions than answers.

Is that an assumption on your part? How do you know that? They haven't released any data and aren't likely too from all indications. They aren't going to "give away" what they paid for.

Until this science/scientific study dilemma is somehow resolved

The dilemma of funding you mean? The economics of investment and return? It will be solved when someone with cash chooses to fund it.

we are left with personal and anecdotal evidence, photographs, video and the reporting of these strange occurrences. Ultimately it is up to the inquirer as to whether they are to believe these or any anecdotal evidence.

What is anecdotal evidence worth exactly? Has anything constructive or even useful come from it?

While it is prudent to always wear the sceptical hat when listening to or studying these accounts one should be mindful not to dismiss everything as hallucination or such.

It is extremely prudent to maintain a level of healthy skepticism. And certainly not every strange experience is a hallucination. However, what we actually know about how the mind and senses work must be considered along with probability when evaluating anyone's experiences and their interpretations of them. For example, take the case of the lady who says she saw a vampire and as a result wrecked her car. What is more likely? A) She saw a vampire. B) See saw something and thought it was a vampire.

People like Walter Bosley can only recount their anecdotes to others, he cannot make believers out of them and i don't think that was ever his intention. If we choose to believe or disbelieve then that is our right.

Certainly. Anyone is welcome to believe in gods and goddesses if they so choose. However, given what we know about human perception and the history of superstitious belief in such things, the probability that the goddess Hekate or whoever made her presence known is a bit on the down side. The simplest explanation is often the correct one. My first response to Bosely suggested that "Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say that you saw what appeared to be an image of a something that looked like a "goddess" of myth burned onto the side of a mountain?" Now he says he saw a simulacrum. I have to wonder just what he thinks the difference is and what is so offensive about suggesting that the most likely explanation is rooted in the mechanics of human perception rather than deities.

Obviously I like listening to strange stories and entertaining remote possibilities or I wouldn't be listening to The Paracast and Dark Matters and participating in this forum. It doesn't stop me from employing critical thinking however nor should it.

 

[Ron Collins]

In a perfect world the scientific method is with out a doubt the best practice for finding definitive answers or finding better questions. The biggest problem in applying it to the paranormal is in our inability to recreate the phenomenon at will. I think the better question to ask here is who can design a testing regimen that would bring us answers to specific questions. I think it is easy to do if you have physical trace evidence (radar data, ground chemistry, ectoplasm, debris... etc) but harder to do when the evidence is anecdotal.

 

[trainedobserver]

... but harder to do when the evidence is anecdotal.

A one off event is a one off event. It becomes a story. If you can relate the story to something that has been repeated in the past, for example the phenomena of paradolia for example, you at least have a probable cause. In the end it comes down to probability. Which is the more probable cause of event X, cause Y or cause Z?

 

[Kieran]

I strongly believe science may someday explain the "Majority" of what we are seen in the Skies. But could science explain the Afterlife, if it exists? A purely hypothetical question, of course. Since there is no verified case of someone returning after being reported, medically deceased. We do have reported cases of Near- Death Experiences, that are extremely interesting!!.But for me. Science will be unable now or in the distant future. Explain how a deceased "Human" could move from their resting place of were their buried, Underground usually, without Flesh or Body. To some other place, which would be outside of our present three dimensional reality? That is why. The afterlife nirvana will forever remain the greatest unexplained mystery for us Humans, that we explore and discuss. And While Science is a great tool to have. It will be unable to explain the mysteries, some us believe and cherish, and ponder when we get to the age of our demise from this planet.

Whatever Walter witnessed. Nobody Truly could say, he never saw, what he saw!! I wasn't there and i don't think anyone posting here was there either. So how could you make a rash judgement or dogmatically oppose what he had to say. If you like, were not there yourself?

It is ok to state your opinion. But don't be an ass about it. Now if we had information that he lied to us!!! Be my Guest slate the Guy. He has lied so who cares then.

 

[Ron Collins]

A one off event is a one off event. It becomes a story. If you can relate the story to something that has been repeated in the past, for example the phenomena of paradolia for example, you at least have a probable cause. In the end it comes down to probability. Which is the more probable cause of event X, cause Y or cause Z?

But when presented with thousands of one off's don't you then have to take a step back and ponder the full tapestry instead of just viewing the interesting threads? BTW, I am not disagreeing with your main thesis. We need to need some methodology to explore these questions and you are right, other than the Scientific Method we do not have that methodology. But, I think we need to be careful to avoid tossing out all aspects that can not be reviewed in this manner. It would be the ultimate arrogance of inaction. That sort of thing never ends in real enlightenment.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

Certainly. Anyone is welcome to believe in gods and goddesses if they so choose. However, given what we know about human perception and the history of superstitious belief in such things, the probability that the goddess Hekate or whoever made her presence known is a bit on the down side. The simplest explanation is often the correct one. My first response to Bosely suggested that "Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say that you saw what appeared to be an image of a something that looked like a "goddess" of myth burned onto the side of a mountain?" Now he says he saw a simulacrum. I have to wonder just what he thinks the difference is and what is so offense about suggesting that the most likely explanation is rooted in the mechanics of human perception rather than deities.

Well said.

 

[trainedobserver]

Whatever Walter witnessed. Nobody Truly could say, he never saw, what he saw!! I wasn't there and i don't think anyone posting here was there either. So how could you make a rash judgement or dogmatically oppose what he had to say. If you like, were not there yourself?
It is ok to state your opinion. But don't be an ass about it. Now if we had information that he lied to us!!! Be my Guest slate the Guy. He has lied so who cares then.

I really have to question whether you actually comprehend what I have written about that subject Kieran. If you want to believe in goddesses be my guest, as I have already said.

 

[Kieran]

I really have to question whether you actually comprehend what I have written about that subject Kieran. If you want to believe in goddesses be my guest, as I have already said.

This Goddess Wallter saw. Was her name Hekate from Greek Mythology or is that just a name you have thrown out there?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Originally Posted by trainedobserver. Is that an assumption on your part? How do you know that? They haven't released any data and aren't likely too from all indications. They aren't going to "give away" what they paid for.

Not really an assumption here. Unless you can point to any data released by NIDS or Bigelow.Then what do we have as far as "scientific effort" goes? Nothing! if information is tied to money spent then science is no good to anyone other than NIDS!

Originally Posted by trainedobserver. What is anecdotal evidence worth exactly? Has anything constructive or even useful come from it?

What a strange reply. If you have no anecdotal evidence, then you have no place to start any investigation. If Bigelow had not heard, through anecdotal evidence about the Skinwalker Ranch, then i doubt he would have been there.
Do you or have you read the bible? Do you believe in God? Do you believe that Jesus ever existed? All evidence pertaining to the aforementioned icons are purely anecdotal.

Originally Posted by Ron Collins. But when presented with thousands of one off's don't you then have to take a step back and ponder the full tapestry instead of just viewing the interesting threads? BTW, I am not disagreeing with your main thesis. We need to need some methodology to explore these questions and you are right, other than the Scientific Method we do not have that methodology. But, I think we need to be careful to avoid tossing out all aspects that can not be reviewed in this manner. It would be the ultimate arrogance of inaction. That sort of thing never ends in real enlightenment.

Well said sir!

Originally Posted by Kieran. Whatever Walter witnessed. Nobody Truly could say, he never saw, what he saw!! I wasn't there and i don't think anyone posting here was there either. So how could you make a rash judgement or dogmatically oppose what he had to say. If you like, were not there yourself?

Exactly Kieran. We can theorise all we like about what we think Walter saw but ultimately we weren't there. To say to Walter "...wouldn't it be better if you said you saw this...or wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say that you saw..." is somewhat patronising and an attempt to put words in another's mouth. I realise that this is just an attempt at analysing the anecdotal evidence but it just comes off as being arrogant and condescending. If you don't believe him, just say so.