Blake Cousins (Twins Who Shall Not Be Named -- TWSNBN)

[Gene Steinberg]

Exactly. But when we do it, some people will continue to suggest that we shouldn't bother.

 

[FletcherMunson]

The difference is that James Fox is a smart guy who got sucked into a situation that didn't turn out quite the way he expected. He made that clear in his appearance on The Paracast, and in a more explicit fashion in the weeks that followed.

We have beaten down the carnival barkers over the years. Remember the episode with Bill Knell, when he hung up on us as soon as the questioning about his deceptions got too hot to handle? Blake isn't that sophisticated. But if he knows he's being watched very closely, that could influence him to at least try to clean up his act.

Does exposing the fakers just draw attention to their stuff? I suppose some people love to watch train wrecks, but people on the fence who might be wondering what it's all about may just decide it's not worth the bother.

I basically agree with you, Mr. Steinberg. Although I do believe Mr. Fox to be an intelligent man, I think he might have been a bit naive in not realizing where the puck was going with that "reality" show. But who am I to judge? If I were given the same opportunity, I'd probably take it, too. I've scraped the barrel for documentary funding and they should make convicts do it because it sucks your life away slowly.

I recall the Bill Knell episode very vividly and I believe you and Mr. Beidny performed a true public service. Mr. Knell is a dark beast of a fraud that goes beyond UFO hucksterism into sheer cruelty.

 

[Wade]

I've like to nominate blake to be the next inductee into the ufo hall of shame, maybe even dedicate a whole wing to him. Ed Dames should give the introduction.

 

[Wade]

Unless of course you consider mr. cousins to be playing the role of the trickster then maybe we should consider him for the hall of fame.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I've like to nominate blake to be the next inductee into the ufo hall of shame, maybe even dedicate a whole wing to him. Ed Dames should give the introduction.

You're going him too much credit.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Finished listening. *Pheew!* That was painful...

But I'm glad the show ended in a somewhat positive & conciliatory note —huge props to Gogs for that.

The thing that worried me though is trying to discern why Stan Friedman & Rich Dolan decided to accept this fellow's invitation. It was alluded that they were possibly motivated to make use of this huge platform for purely promotional reasons, and IMO that's not a fair claim to make unless they're given the chance to respond.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, there aren't many possibilities for Stan and Rich. Either it was for pay, or for reaching an audience. I suspect that Blake doesn't pay anyone for anything, so it had to be to reach a promised audience level.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Unless of course you consider mr. cousins to be playing the role of the trickster then maybe we should consider him for the hall of fame.

Or for neither. He has already received too much attention. Some people might regard a Hall of Shame rating as a badge of honor. Alas, Royce Myers isn't updating his UFOWatchdog site, beyond following the foibles of one Sean David Morton.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Well, there aren't many possibilities for Stan and Rich. Either it was for pay, or for reaching an audience. I suspect that Blake doesn't pay anyone for anything, so it had to be to reach a promised audience level.

Or MAYBE they were trying to do some of that critical education you guys were hoping to see in that Youtube channel.

 

[Burnt State]

Someone has to provide some on-the-record push-back against the rising tide of internet-based, ill-informed ignorance presented as entertainment. Hawkers and barkers masking sideshow entertainment as evidence of paranormal reality is not the answer. Correct me if I'm wrong Gene, but isn't that what the show is all about? Separating signal from noise? And once we find some signal—share it w/ fellow seekers?
Anyone have a problem w/ that?

Yes, I think that's why a lot of people are here. Some are believers, some are trolls, others are deeply curious and others are skeptics, but all like good stories, and are seekers each in their own way. However, to separate signal from noise might require paring down your guest list substantially, as you can tell by the level of criticism you get from your forum participants. Many want even more critical examination overall.

Too often the Ufological field is simplified into the category of "researcher" and huckster. But I think this thing labeled 'research' is as fuzzy as the carnival sideshow. Going back to the Knapp interview, where it was asked, "What kind of proof do you need?" we know that there are a lot of researchers who claim to have seen the goods but can not produce the actual evidence. There are also a whole bunch of researchers who just put spin on bits of data, pieces of MJ-12 puzzles, and the many other letters, "documents" photos and second hand, third party hearsay and claim everything from captured aliens, to aliens are demons, to aliens are already living on the moon.

As Goggsmckay stated on this episode, there really is nothing out there to counter all of the noise, and provide seekers a reliable place to start that is not guided by gullable, lowest common Greer-Meier denominator tabloid styled entertainment. Is there any reputable paranormal/UFO body that has not been tainted by infighting, finger pointing or the promotion of pure fog as truth? Each group has their favorites, allegiances and long time forged friendships from time spent as "players on the field" as Don Ecker would say.

If truly critical analysis is brought to bear, not the desperate debunking kind, but just plain healthy skepticism, there would not be too many people at all that you could actually verify as signal. Then there's no show. It's all just a very creative, and sometimes a tireless connecting of various dots (i.e. conspiracies) - that's what the paranormal/UFO quest has taught me. It's all mostly tilting at windmills.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

As someone with scientific credentials in ethno-anthropology & archaeology I do not apologize for the following statement:"David Hatcher Childress is a charlatan".

What are your credentials in these fields? I'm not asking to be a wisenheimer; I'm just curious.

 

[Burnt State]

P.S. I would like to echo what others have said here; it was great to have Goggs on the show! Shows that give really strong airwave access to the listeners, whether it's Greg Bishop's casual call in conversations for Radio Misterioso or hearing forum participants on The Paracast, are to be greatly commended. There's a kind of democratizing of the discussion, and diversifying of the personalities that i'm sure many here appreciate and could make up for what some might feel is lacking in hearing a consistently clear signal.

I especially got a kick out of hearing Goggs call out the commercial break with his version of , "the paracast." Somehow, it became that much more entertaining, which is the other reason why people are here.

 

[Konrad Hartmann]

I remember reading something about how Houdini would sometimes reveal the secrets of competing stage magicians. Does anyone think it would be of value for someone to post information on falsifying video, photo, or other evidence? In other words, how-to instructions would be posted so that people could understand how someone may have faked an item.

For example, consider the Nancy Talbot case with the sociopathic Dutch guys. Images exactly like those of a photo of Nancy's brother appeared on other photos. Well, maybe, someone could make a transparent copy of the photo, maybe attach it with a fine line to one of their fingers, palm the transparency, and the flip it over the lens when taking a picture. If someone could demonstrate this being done, it might make it easier for people to understand the possibility of a hoax.

The danger of course is that some people would just use the information and techniques to create more hoaxes. If people want to believe in a piece of material, they will bend the facts to meet expectations.

Listening to this episode, I was interested to learn of the website's roll call of guests: Stanton Friedman, Stephen Bassett, Roger Leir, David Jacobs, Steven Greer, and Richard Dolan. All men involved, including Blake Cousins, seem to offer the promise of "The Smoking Gun." You know The Smoking Gun, don't you? Disclosure, man! It's right around the corner! I'm working on a video of the new alien autopsy. Big news, big news. While you're waiting, would you like to see the sasquatch in my cooler? Tom Biscardi just dropped it off. There's a big revelation right around the corner. The Rapture--whoops!--I mean The Disclosure is coming! For real this time!

I disagree with those who say that entertainment has nothing to do with this field. We don't talk about research papers as much as we do books with fairly exciting content. I don't say that as a criticism. I tend to read history books on topics that interest me before those that perhaps have more significant content. I am far more likely to pick up a book about gladiators than, say, about a comparison of economic patterns between the Republic and the Empire. But, while I think of UFO YouTube videos as entertainment, do you think that many people coming to a UFO convention aren't coming to see the big show? And a lot of guys review UFO anecdotal stories the way train buffs review the minutiae associated with trains. There's nothing wrong with either, but entertainment is a big part of both. As Nick Redfern discussed and wrote about, the conventions seem to need to bring in a lot of the above usual suspects to, I think he said, 'to bring the punters in.' I guess at some level, I'm wondering what the difference is between Cousins and a lot of his guests, besides the presence or absence of a title.

 

[Secretbanana]

Unfortunately this dude and is site is emblematic of todays generation of spoon fed, unread, sensationalistic, face value, celebrity, twiiterfeed, face ache false friend me, oprah generation.

Wow... Bitter much?

Of course, your argument is somewhat weakened by the fact, that you belong to the previous generation of "spoon fed, unread, sensationalistic, face value, celebrity, radiofeed, face ache false friend me, Geraldo Rivera generation."

Every generation of youngsters is soooo much worse than what young people used to be like. At least that's what old folks ever since Aristoteles have always been saying...

 

[Secretbanana]

I still think the poor kid owes no one an apology. He's just doing what Art Bell did - providing a platform for people of all stripes to state their case. With Bell we could individually decide who was insane and who had something interesting - and who the con men were (Major Head Games) etc. etc. I personally don't think Bell believed any of it. What harm did it do?
.

I agree heartily. What Blake Cousins does, isn't that much different from what some of your other guests do... Some of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's claims about Djinns were highly dubious, as was Arty Sixkiller Clarke's.

The latter example is especially relevant, since Sixkiller Clarke did more or less the same as Cousins does, except that its in a book rather than a website.

So why the open hostility to Blake Cousins dubious videos, when Sixkiller Clarke's dubious stories get a relatively free pass?

You're obviously free to "police" the UFO field as you feel free, but by coming down as hard as you did on Blake Cousins, you seem to "enforce" it in a rather inconsequent and inconsistent way.

(Anyways, don't take my critique too harshly. I wouldn't listen to the Paracast if I didn't like it...)

 

[enzo]

Very well said. If I had a show, I'm sure I could discredit and make fun of every single UFO 'expert' in the field. There is something blatantly absurd about the entire field. What is there to take seriously? Where do you draw the line? What is legit and what is poppycock? What I like about it all is that it is sheer entertainment. Nothing else is to be gained from it. It is ALL simply watching Capt. Kirk making it with a green Martian. It is all Mel's Hole. I like to listen to it when I go to bed. Sometimes I laugh. 60 years and nothing gained.

 

[Randall]

This show is really interesting from a ufology culture perspective. In it we hear dialog between media personalities about the legitimacy of the work being done by the guest ( Blake Cousins ). When it comes to this topic, the group I'm with ( USI ) has only one policy for determining the legitimacy of a person's involvement in ufology. Do they have a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon? If both of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, then their involvement is as legitimate as anyone else's.

In the case of Mr. Cousins, it seems safe to assume that he has a genuine interest in the topic, and he believes he is making a constructive contribution. The point of contention is whether or not this belief is justified. The argument has been made that the sheer amount of unverified content presented on Cousins' YouTube channel contributes more noise than useful information and is therefore detrimental to the process of determining the true nature of the UFO phenomenon.

In my view there is merit in the above concern and Chris' offer to assist Cousins in that regard was extremely constructive. Cousins' acceptance of Chris' offer also clearly puts him on the "constructive" side of the equation. The question now is; what ( if anything ) will come of it. By making the offer that he did, Chris has now taken on a good sized chunk of the responsibility for resolving the issues he sees as important. I don't recall seeing anything quite like this take place in the ufology community before and if it is successful it would be worthy of some celebration. So I'm sure we all wish you luck Chris. Please let us know how it goes. If you don't, then rest assured we'll be asking .

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I agree heartily. What Blake Cousins does, isn't that much different from what some of your other guests do... Some of Rosemary Ellen Guiley's claims about Djinns were highly dubious, as was Arty Sixkiller Clarke's.

The latter example is especially relevant, since Sixkiller Clarke did more or less the same as Cousins does, except that its in a book rather than a website.

So why the open hostility to Blake Cousins dubious videos, when Sixkiller Clarke's dubious stories get a relatively free pass?

You're obviously free to "police" the UFO field as you feel free, but by coming down as hard as you did on Blake Cousins, you seem to "enforce" it in a rather inconsequent and inconsistent way.

(Anyways, don't take my critique too harshly. I wouldn't listen to the Paracast if I didn't like it...)

Blake's material is, by and large, blatantly fake, and a skilled photo analyst can tell you how those videos might have been made. With Sixkiller Clarke, for example, we are dealing with more with folklore, material presented as honest remembrances of unusual experiences. Feel free to believe or disbelieve, but the issues aren't as clear cut. It's not as if she's making things up, or deliberately printing falsehoods, although I grant some of you may feel that way.

Blake? He clearly doesn't care, and he has, so far at least, not followed up on the offer Chris made to help him out.

 

[Randall]

Blake's material is, by and large, blatantly fake, and a skilled photo analyst can tell you how those videos might have been made. With Sixkiller Clarke, for example, we are dealing with more with folklore, material presented as honest remembrances of unusual experiences. Feel free to believe or disbelieve, but the issues aren't as clear cut. It's not as if she's making things up, or deliberately printing falsehoods, although I grant some of you may feel that way. Blake? He clearly doesn't care, and he has, so far at least, not followed up on the offer Chris made to help him out.

I don't have a problem with any of the concerns that you or Chris expressed. However there seems to be some concern about the way in which those concerns were expressed, and not unlike a couple of other comments by other posters, I also felt at times as though Cousins was being put through an interrogation or an ambush rather than a discussion. This isn't meant so much as a criticism as an observation. Certainly The Paracast motto "Separating The Signal From The Noise" shouldn't be reduced to a mere slogan, and this episode made it clear that you're not afraid to take on the challenge. Bonus points for that. But at the same time we also want to make sure that the process stays constructive. So what's the bottom line here? I share all the same concerns that you and Chris do on this issue and you guys drilled right into it. Somebody certainly needed to do it, and in the end I think both you and Chris and particularly Goggs, who seemed to be the first to plant the seed about getting Cousins to network with specialists, all swung it around by the end into something constructive.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Blake strikes me as the sort of person who won't respond unless he's hit in unexpected ways between the eyes. All he does is repeat the same tired patter, and we had to break him out of the mold. Despite that, he went right back into his routine at the end of the episode.

Chris has written a lengthy letter to Blake offering to help, but I'm not expecting much.