Brandenburg

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Everybody has been on the JB etc sometimes and if as some suggest he was on something heck shit happens. I don't agree on all Dr Brandenburg comments but hey that's freedom of speech Lance
Apocalypto I agree not all the comment were in good taste but go live in China and ask all those folks in prison due to asking for free speech and democracy buddy? By the way do you live in a democracy?

 

[stphrz]

I have yet to listen to this show, and I'd have to admit I've got exactly zero interest in consuming the type of research Bradenburg is peddling. As usual, I find the reactions infinitely more entertaining. Especially the pot-shots and outright befuddlement surrounding the fact that an (ahem) academic/scholar has had the audacity to let a few bats out of the belfry, and on, of all places (gasp!), a paranormal broadcast. I.e. the dismissive references to the occasional wonky unsupported idea being sandwiched between an occasional "bat-shit" insane idea. Batshitanity, I'll call it.

Having had the privileged to study, work, endure a relationship and (more than) occasionally party with such denizens of the Ivory Tower, I should tell you, despite the trappings and stereotypes that seem to follow those whom have navigated such success; success in this realm as well as others tend to belong to those whom walk the razor's edge, if you know what I mean. And this type of behavior, (especially in those orbiting the higher end of the IQ spectrum) tends to follow creativity. I'd suggest, it's part of the process.

To say the least, finding a way to cope/reign in this dangerous cocktail of personality traits has for years been a unique problem of sorts for all institutes of higher learning, especially those tasked with recruiting the next Nobel laureate, but even more-so for those that have been fortunately (or unfortunately, depends on how you look at it..) labled with the burden of being a"prestigious" institute. ....Anyway, I'm getting off track here. I guess the point is you shouldn't be anymore shocked by having witnessed Batshitanity in a scholar as you should a vacuum cleaner salesman. Actually, I'd argue the reverse. The less quotient of Batshitanity in your scholar, the higher degree of suspicion one should hold. (I think this actually is part of the intake procedure at Yale, i.e. rating one's degree of Batshitanity. Those under-performing in this category get sent to Princeton, Brown, or worse, Dartmouth.) That's my take anyway, and it is based on some exposure.

Loosen up people.

What are you saying? We should judge a scholar meritorious by the amount of wacky or false statements they make? That creativity and insight flow from irrationality/insanity? That someone with a firm grasp of facts and evidence supporting measured responses should be veiwed with suspicion?

Dude.

What utter complete nonsense.

 

[Hotkafka]

What are you saying? We should judge a scholar meritorious by the amount of wacky or false statements they make? That creativity and insight flow from irrationality/insanity? That someone with a firm grasp of facts and evidence supporting measured responses should be veiwed with suspicion?

Dude.

What utter complete nonsense.

Is that what I said? Whoa. Apparently I'm channeling some Batshitanity of my own.

Reviewing what I wrote I can see how you might have come to that conclusion. I'm going to blame my ineffective, wandering point on lack of sleep and projection of general work frustrations. In any case, you win the prize for completely powering through my last point, which I think had something to do with "loosening up." A giant stuffed panda bear should be arriving at your doorstep within the next 3-5 days.

 

[stphrz]

Make it a stuffed tiger. That will will make me all warm and fuzzy. Until then I'm going to remain grouchy.

 

[Ezechiel]

What are you saying? We should judge a scholar meritorious by the amount of wacky or false statements they make? That creativity and insight flow from irrationality/insanity? That someone with a firm grasp of facts and evidence supporting measured responses should be veiwed with suspicion?

Dude.

What utter complete nonsense.

It does ! Ask Mozart !.... today's rationality is tomorrow's irrationality. You've got to think outside the box (I need some of that JB lol)


Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb

Yesterdays rationality is todays irrationality.

1888, Simon Newcomb: "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."

 

[hak]

I had a hard time getting past his paranoia.... among other things.

 

[Ron Collins]

Hey as long as everyone agrees that most of the ideas discussed on the Paracast are totally entertaining bullshit, I am cool with that.

I don't agree. I love science. I love the careful application of science to solve a problem. Unfortunately, science can not solve everything. There are genuine mysteries in the world that have not been aptly described let alone investigated or solved. That is precisely what people here are doing. Describing a problem/issue. That doesn't mean that the descriptions are always valid. It also doesn't mean that they are invalid. What it means is that all the descriptions need to be catalogued and added to the mosaic that will later be used to identify questions science can answer as well as answers that will help to spawn further questions. To blanket call it bullshit shows a complete lack of respect for the people posting here.

If you honestly feel that way Lance why do you spend so much time on all the paranormal related stuff? I have no problem with someone being skeptical. I am skeptical to a large degree. But, in my opinion you have to be open to the idea that it is not all mundane and explainable. Otherwise you are just as guilty in your assignment of solutions as the crowd that invoke the "space brothers" into every little thing. I guess what I am saying is that you can't be to married to a belief system or it will negate your ability to think objectively. You might already be at that point Lance. If I am off base, tell me why.

I should mention that I have not listened to the show and that this is a more generalized statement not intended to be brought on by the show content but by a series of posts I have recently read from Lance.

 

[Hotkafka]

I know that this rationalization comforts those who WANT to believe in the paranormal. Above notice that I point out that the claims made by the guest are unsupported (this in addition to the claims that demonstrably wrong as I brought up in my OP). In other words he has no evidence for the endless drivel he spouted out.

If you think, Ron, that there could be something to a paranormal claim, I would hope that you might AT LEAST wonder about the evidence behind the claim instead of endlessly worrying about the motivations behind the skeptic's objections to the it. Even if I really am a puppet in the pay of the Skeptical masters (as one silly & credulous person we both know claimed) it shouldn't matter to you IF I AM WRONG.

Some guests are just horribly and totally worthless if you are interested in the truth (if their book is published by Adventures Unlimited Press, you can bet the farm that they will fall into this category). But perhaps they are fun to listen to for some people--I got a great deal of enjoyment listening to the co-host interview this guest without even the slightest challenge, even agreeing with things like the Sphinx nose above. I loved hearing at the end of the interview how Gene finally had heard enough and seemed to be getting annoyed with the valueless and silly words of the guest, even as the co-host gushed about how he wanted to get the guest on again soon to talk about his even newer book.

That was very funny to me and entertaining.

The time I spend thinking about these things is pretty limited--I do a lot of animation and have decent breaks while the computer renders a scene. Fighting against the paranormal is just one of my hobbies. Do you have any idea how many times I have been asked about this same topic? Is there something wrong with pointing out that a claim has no evidence and the guest is just talking out of his ass?

And yes, the guest did apparently write a paper a long time ago that supports in a VERY LIMITED way one idea that he espouses. Unfortunately he formulated many many other crackpot ideas that he presented nothing for in the way of evidence. When you have someone who is telling us "facts" about history, who cites apocryphal historical tales that are demonstrably false (and only believed by folks who know nothing about history), shouldn't a question really be directed to the guest in the same spirit as you challenged me:

"Why are you talking about stuff you know nothing about?"

Lance

How come I have the impression Lance is lobbying for a co-host spot? Maybe he's growing bored with assassinating ghost hunters.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hey Lance,
I think Chris enjoys being co hosts on the Paracast and come mate you enjoy the paranormal scene. Lance what type of Animation stuff do you do? Advertising, Movies,Carrtoons , Sci-fi?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

The time I spend thinking about these things is pretty limited-

And it shows, Lance. Maybe instead of complaining about the co host (who you seem to have a big problem with) and your perceived direction that the show is taking, you simply stop listening.
Like Ron i have yet to listen to the show. I trust that the opinions of others here, who have, are fairly on the money, even yours. Having said that, not every guest is going to fulfill the needs or wants of every listener.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Almost all advertising these days. Mostly motion graphics and effects work. And, of course, editing.

Cool Lance worked on any big budget movies ?Also done any work with Paul?

 

[Ron Collins]

If you think, Ron, that there could be something to a paranormal claim, I would hope that you might AT LEAST wonder about the evidence behind the claim instead of endlessly worrying about the motivations behind the skeptic's objections to it. Even if I really am a puppet in the pay of the Skeptical masters (as one silly & credulous person we both know claimed) it shouldn't matter to you IF I AM WRONG.

The time I spend thinking about these things is pretty limited--I do a lot of animation and have decent breaks while the computer renders a scene. Fighting against the paranormal is just one of my hobbies. Do you have any idea how many times I have been asked about this same topic? Is there something wrong with pointing out that a claim has no evidence and the guest is just talking out of his ass?

And yes, the guest did apparently write a paper a long time ago that supports in a VERY LIMITED way one idea that he espouses. Unfortunately he formulated many many other crackpot ideas that he presented nothing for in the way of evidence. When you have someone who is telling us "facts" about history, who cites apocryphal historical tales that are demonstrably false (and only believed by folks who know nothing about history), shouldn't a question really be directed to the guest in the same spirit as you challenged me:

"Why are you talking about stuff you know nothing about?"

I haven't listened to the show and to be honest I was never all that interested in Brandenburg. That really wasn't my angle. I am absolutely interested in the evidence and its provenance. I just think that you are too quick to dismiss some forms of evidence. Almost all of the time you come off as agenda driven to assign benign conclusions to cases that may have merit. I think you should put the same amount of research into many of the cases you criticize as you put into the Kelly Johnson case. You did good work there (though I dont recall ever reading what you thought it was he and his team saw). Then present a coherent and well documented conclusion. At very least you should approach each case without preconceived notions or you are just as guilty as the guy who automatically believes it must be Commander Zorg from the Pleiades.

As for why I concern myself with skeptics (this is going to get uncomfortable), I find it more interesting to hear the arguments against my proclivities. It keeps me honest with myself and reminds me that I need to be more open to different conclusions.

Oh, and no there is nothing wrong with conclusively pointing out when a person speaking from a position of authority on a subject is full of it. In fact that is precisely why I like this forum. Many a tard has been outed right here. Many more will follow.

 

[Ron Collins]

Hi Ron,

What form of evidence do you think I am too quick to reject?

I reject the photos that Stephen Greer claims to have of himself holding alien babies.
Why? Because he has never produced them and I am quite sure that they don't exist. And he is a silly bald-faced liar.

I do reject the clear and close up photos of saucers (so close you can see inside) that Ray Stanford claimed to have.
Why? Same reason as above.

I reject the clear and convincing photos of 400 lb. ghost wolves that Ted Phillips claimed to have. Why? Because when he produced his sad and ridiculous photos, the supposed animal consisted of only a few pixels that could have been anything. I reject all of his "research" because in his interview he proved himself to be completely clueless as to how research might be conducted, making statements that show him to be, at best, a well meaning but scientifically hopeless saucer buff with no real idea of how to investigate anything.

In other words, I do reject all evidence that has been claimed but never produced.

But what other evidence do you think I am so quick to disregard. Most of the time, it comes down to witness recollections. I admit that I put little stock in such evidence (without supporting additional stuff). I am not alone in downgrading witness recollections--cops do it, lawyers do it, even UFO researchers do it (but often only when it helps their case). Study after study shows how amazingly unreliable this kind of evidence is.

Is there any kind of evidence beyond witness testimony that you have seen me reject out of hand?
If you might name a specific case, I would be glad to try to show you my reasons or apologize.

As a skeptic, I love science as the best means we have to discover truth and advance mankind.
As a skeptic, I hate stupid magical thinking that blindly steers mankind back to the dark ages.

I really do try to be fair (believe it or not) and have sometimes found myself in the middle between parties who both lack evidence supporting their case (like Phil Klass and his lie detector tests!).

Thanks,

Lance

Give me some time and I will make a list or apologize myself. I am heading to England in about a week and a half for vacation so time is a little tough but I will try to get this done before I go. Otherwise it will be while I am there. I wish this forum let you set reminders. I could so use that.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I always enjoy a civil and intelligent back and forth such as Ron and Lance have had here. Well done.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The Paracast co-host objected to my characterization of Stanford above and I have edited the post.
Lance

Really? Sorry, but Ray Stanford has not provided any proof to his claims. Why is he exempt from criticism? That's total BS.

 

[Hotkafka]

Really? Sorry, but Ray Stanford has not provided any proof to his claims. Why is he exempt from criticism? That's total BS.

I think there is a fuzzy line between criticism and a drive by character assassination... and it appears Lance likes to walk this tightrope.

But, hey, it's a forum, not a church for gadsakes. **Lance, go to your corner!

 

[hak]

Wow after all this batshitanity (TM– Hotkafka), I'm going to listen to this show 10 more times! You all crack me up.

Dr. Brandenburg's anit-China/pro-Americana stance was paranoid and irritating, without looking up this guys bio, I'm going to guess he is around 60 years old... why do I get this?

His ideas are essentially old-ideas, the love of mars, the America is number 1 the I'm a plasma physicist, his sci-fi take on mars, it's almost as if he was stuck evolutionarily speaking... He comes from a very conservative institution, I'm not surprised that NASA scientist would reject the panspermia theory. Florida+engineers+military = conservative thinking with some religious afflictions.

The panspermia theory has been around for quite some time, and I have always thought it had a ring of truth, though, perhaps not to the extreme. I'm a panspermian myself. Hee hee!

 

[cottonzway]

I liked this show. Sorry, I'm with him on China. I don't call it "paranoid" to have concerns about a country that still worships a former dictator that killed 60 million+ of their own people to have more influence then America. I am as critical of my country as it can get while being honest, but I'm not wanting to see China have more power/influence then America.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Really? Sorry, but Ray Stanford has not provided any proof to his claims. Why is he exempt from criticism? That's total BS.

NO, what you've stated is "total BS." YES Ray HAS provided proof for his claims. I set up a presentation for him on 2006 that around 50 people attended. The ones who could keep up w/ the science were duly impressed. Two months ago Ray met w/ a famous, world-class, physicist and gave him an abbreviated 4-5 hour presentation that the physicist called "marvelous." I don't care what you or Lance or anyone thinks: I know that Ray is the real deal. Deal w/ that! End of rant

 

[hak]

Sorry, I'm with him on China. I don't call it "paranoid" to have concerns about a country that still worships a former dictator that killed 60 million+ of their own people

cottonzway,
You are probably right to have some paranoia about China, but the chest thumping that America was once able to do is over. We are in a state of contraction and have turned into a blatant corptocracy. We won't even educate our children because the investment makes people cringe. Our poverty rates have increased, and that's with a horrendously outdated poverty statistic. The future economy is going to need highly educated people that we won't produce.

It is very wise to keep account of our neighbors, but investing in their demise is something that we can no longer afford.

China will face a major economic crash in this decade, building cities of empty housing with no ROI, is not a good investment. The money they made was from middle-class American's buying cheap goods, and you can't eat an ipad. Food prices are skyrocketing, they aren't going to do so well.

America needs to invest in America. You can make an argument that funding NASA, and reinvesting in the space-race will bring jobs and fulfillment to the USA. And I totally agree, probably out of love for the idea of going to space. We need to focus on education if we ever want to see our former glory. Though, many would argue that our wealth was stolen from 3rd world countries.
We are in a very different time then the 1950's or 1970's it requires a major shift in thinking for survival. And the country is slow to embrace this change in thinking. Ironically perhaps, because many Americans are poorly educated.

This is a major tangent, but the point is, embrace change and work with it. Brandenburg seemed stuck in old ideas. Not to say that there aren't truths in these ideas, but they have evolved and we need to as well. It sounded like he was tying one on as well, which might have made his anti-China ideas more ardent then they normally would have been. I don't blame him, I couldn't speak on a podcast without a little help myself.