June 14 Show

[Angel of Ioren]

Did anyone else find the cases presented by this week's guest less than compelling? Is it really that impressive that he has such a huge database of all these wild claims?
There is a lack of critical thinking in the way he approaches the topic. Stuff like the guy that was hit by the beam - when he said that he died two days after of a strange form of cancer, that was interesting. It turns out he died several months later of leukemia - not as compelling a claim.
Or the woman that said she saw the devil in her backyard? There are a lot more plausible explanations than taking what she said at face value.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Did anyone else find the cases presented by this week's guest less than compelling? Is it really that impressive that he has such a huge database of all these wild claims?
There is a lack of critical thinking in the way he approaches the topic. Stuff like the guy that was hit by the beam - when he said that he died two days after of a strange form of cancer, that was interesting. It turns out he died several months later of leukemia - not as compelling a claim.
Or the woman that said she saw the devil in her backyard? There are a lot more plausible explanations than taking what she said at face value.

Which specific case are you referring to?

Remember, our guest made it clear during the episode that there was no way he could personally vouch for all the reports in the database, although he had investigated a few. You can make of that what you will. But even if you eliminate suspected cases, there's an awful lot of strange stuff going on that demands further study.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, there are the two I mentioned in my post. I'm sure that there are strange things going on, but I can't help but look for more mundane explanations without any real evidence that says otherwise. Since all the cases he presented only involved people's accounts, it's not enough for me to judge them to be what the experiencers think they are - that is, paranormal.

 

[pixelsmith]

Which specific case are you referring to?

Remember, our guest made it clear during the episode that there was no way he could personally vouch for all the reports in the database, although he had investigated a few. You can make of that what you will. But even if you eliminate suspected cases, there's an awful lot of strange stuff going on that demands further study.

Not as strange as what is going on in real life that gets ridiculed and buried.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I agree with AoI. I checked Rosales' website, and it contains this statement:

"I obviously do not believe every single story, but I believe all stories must be told."

That, in a single sentence, sums up everything that is wrong with so-called paranormal "research." The goal of a competent researcher / investigator should be to winnow out those stories which don't have merit, and focus on the core group of cases which do.

 

[Keiko]

Actually I'm enjoying it. I have only listened to half of it but I find the guy interesting - especially the accounts of his own experiences.

I think there can be different types of research - a 'scientific', investigative approach and a more anthropological, data compiling kind, like collecting tribal creationist myths/beliefs.

I think if someone is out to 'prove' that something is real or not and convince others then they should employ the the former. If they are more interested in compiling accounts in order to document a human/sociological phenomena or perceived phenomena than that has validity too.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Actually I'm enjoying it. I have only listened to half of it but I find the guy interesting - especially the accounts of his own experiences.

I think there can be different types of research - a 'scientific', investigative approach and a more anthropological, data compiling kind, like collecting tribal creationist myths/beliefs.

I think if someone is out to 'prove' that something is real or not and convince others then they should employ the the former. If they are more interested in compiling accounts in order to document a human/sociological phenomena or perceived phenomena than that has validity too.

I found problems with his accounts since it's stuff that he experienced as a child. There's stuff from my childhood that I remember that would qualify as paranormal, but I can't trust it since it was such a long time ago. There was this one time when we saw a ghost in the mirror during a black out, but I doubt is was a ghost and I can't even be sure it was a real memory.
Since I have not ever seen anything that strange ever again, apart from some sleep paralysis episodes, I'm quite sure that those memories are not real. That's when I get annoyed when people think that kids are more sensitive to spirits and that's why they can see them. The real reason is because kids have active imaginations and they like to make shit up to explain things.

 

[Keiko]

I found problems with his accounts since it's stuff that he experienced as a child. There's stuff from my childhood that I remember that would qualify as paranormal, but I can't trust it since it was such a long time ago. There was this one time when we saw a ghost in the mirror during a black out, but I doubt is was a ghost and I can't even be sure it was a real memory. Since I have not ever seen anything that strange ever again, apart from some sleep paralysis episodes, I'm quite sure that those memories are not real.

Maybe that's true for you but some people have genuinely vivid memories of experiences when they were young. I wouldn't rule them out just because they were kids at the time. Especially if it's something that has remained disturbing to them years later.

That's when I get annoyed when people think that kids are more sensitive to spirits and that's why they can see them. The real reason is because kids have active imaginations and they like to make shit up to explain things.

Not all kids and not all the time. Something that can freak an adult out will no doubt scare a child - being told they are making things up if they are traumatised about an experience and believe it real is probably a really bad idea. That's not to say there aren't kids who will just make things up for attention or some other reason but usually it's not that hard to tell the difference IMO.

 

[alzo]

Did anyone else find the cases presented by this week's guest less than compelling? Is it really that impressive that he has such a huge database of all these wild claims?
There is a lack of critical thinking in the way he approaches the topic. Stuff like the guy that was hit by the beam - when he said that he died two days after of a strange form of cancer, that was interesting. It turns out he died several months later of leukemia - not as compelling a claim.
Or the woman that said she saw the devil in her backyard? There are a lot more plausible explanations than taking what she said at face value.

Totally agree.... far too much noise not enough signal. I had to turn off half way through. :frown:

 

[paraschtick]

Totally agree.... far too much noise not enough signal. I had to turn off half way through. :frown:

I've not listened to the show yet ... and might not now hearing what other people have made of it after listening. But I have huge problems with a lot of the reports coming out of South America ... which I guess is what is discussed in the programme (??). I don't know if its just me but there is soo much superstition in South America that I feel that it colours a lot of the stories I hear coming from there.

How do you manage to seperate the wheat from the chaff when there are so many silly stories going around about hairy dwarves, flying witches, chupacabra etc etc etc.. I mean does anyone have a handle yet on whether the chupacabra stories are stories of a real beast or just some sort of mythological creature?

Or is it just me being silly???

 

[Will Penguin]

I agree with AoI. I checked Rosales' website, and it contains this statement:

"I obviously do not believe every single story, but I believe all stories must be told."

That, in a single sentence, sums up everything that is wrong with so-called paranormal "research." The goal of a competent researcher / investigator should be to winnow out those stories which don't have merit, and focus on the core group of cases which do.

I don't know; I think there's room for more than one approach. We can have "wheat/chaff" folks only perusing the really compelling stuff, and also "archivist" types who focus on just amassing a lot of different accounts. Roasles doesn't seem to have an "OMG look at all these true stories wow can you believe it?!" attitude; it's more like "Here's what I have; some of it is pretty well-documented and some if it just anecdotal." The questionable/anecdotal stuff is still valuable: we can cross reference it with more well-documented stuff and look for patterns/commonalities. At the very least it tells us something about human nature.

IMO the problem occurs when people present weaker/anecdotal-type as absolutely true. I didn't see the guest doing that. It's a "look into it more if you like and make up your own mind" kinda thing. That's fine by me.

 

[trainedobserver]

I had to turn off half way through.

As did I. It was the first paracast I did that with.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As did I. It was the first paracast I did that with.

Then you missed the part where we discussed all the UFO files APRO accumulated over the years and asked you listeners to participate in a campaign to have the current owners of that material open it up for outside inspection and research.

Too bad.

And, by the way, believe it or not, this is one of our most popular episodes ever — based on download counts.

 

[Paul Kimball]

And while I may disagree with what constitutes a "good" case (McMinnville is weak for me, for instance, strong for Paul) this is undoubtedly the reasonable way to approach this.

Hi Lance,

Actually, I've always thought the McMinnville case was pretty weak.

Paul

 

[trainedobserver]

And, by the way, believe it or not, this is one of our most popular episodes ever — based on download counts.

Well, I'm willing to give it another listen. I was just saying you lost me there for a bit.

 

[kipspritely]

I think the Paracast is just gaining traction. Gene stated this is the most downloaded show yet. The guest, on the other hand, was a wild bore. I also couldn't listen to the show the whole way. Someone needed to take him to task when he was yammering off case after case of un-verifiable garbage. Collecting data is only ONE part of an investigation. Why not only present your most compelling cases?

I am not impressed. Still love the show though!

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I always enjoy listening to Peter Davenport, who also is a collector of cases, and who really approaches them with some critical thought and attempts to assess overall trends.

The most captivating interviewees, besides the credible frontline witnesses, are the Phil Imbrognos of the field: researchers who get out and look the witnesses in the eye and collect data, then taking what they have learned, attempt to draw some logical conclusions from them.

 

[NTS]

The guest didn't seem very well prepared and I didn't find the cases he cited especially compelling. But there's some value in simply recording incidents without making judgments about them. It's impossible to know what might be significant in the future.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The guest didn't seem very well prepared and I didn't find the cases he cited especially compelling. But there's some value in simply recording incidents without making judgments about them. It's impossible to know what might be significant in the future.

I'm still surprised why not a single listener has mentioned, in these forums, those 15 file cabinets worth of UFO data from APRO that remain in storage under lock and key. Doesn't anyone want to help us find a way to get ahold of that information? Anyone?

We made a big deal of it on the show, during the final half hour. This episode has had a huge number of downloads. I had hoped we'd hear something about this subject.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I'm still surprised why not a single listener has mentioned, in these forums, those 15 file cabinets worth of UFO data from APRO that remain in storage under lock and key. Doesn't anyone want to help us find a way to get ahold of that information? Anyone?

We made a big deal of it on the show, during the final half hour. This episode has had a huge number of downloads. I had hoped we'd hear something about this subject.

I think it's simple Gene - those APRO files aren't going anywhere, and there isn't much that anyone can do about it.

Paul