least fav show

[Greg M]

Even though everyone was really energetic on the show, and alot of stuff was disccussed - July 11 show was like a bagel with out cream cheese. Something was missing. It was still a great show and a positive start , but it was like salt and vinegar chips with out the salt.
I am looking forward to hearing the future shows though. Where do I ask questions about the older shows, in regards to follow up's

 

[paraschtick]

Even though everyone was really energetic on the show, and alot of stuff was disccussed - July 11 show was like a bagel with out cream cheese. Something was missing. It was still a great show and a positive start , but it was like salt and vinegar chips with out the salt.
I am looking forward to hearing the future shows though. Where do I ask questions about the older shows, in regards to follow up's

I know this is about the paracast but as it might turn into a bitching thread ... which sometimes is a good thing ... I would like to bitch for a second about the recent Radio Misterioso roundtable programme that some people have enthused about.

Well I love Radio Misterioso. Its one of my favourite programmes. I think it sometimes is the best prog out there (when I get to hear it of course) ... but this one. Soooo self indulgent. It really turned me off in several ways. The discussion of the paranormal stuff was tedious. The political stuff was ... well ... it was like listening to a bunch of old style Republicans. You know the kind: there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Nothing of any import happened on 9/11. And although there is sufficient evidence coming out of everyone's ears to show Israel had a hand in the events that day, those who say so are anti-semitic. Really. Quite insanely blind.

And these guys still hold that the government is lying to us about ufos etc.. I mean ... totally inconsistent logic. The government didn't lie about 9/11 ... but they do lie about ufos!!!

What else?? Paul Kimballs lame "comedy". Yeah ... really funny guy ... my sides split usunder. The cockroaches ... woah ... hilarious ... Walter Bosley ... bs-er extraordinary ... why is he getting so much coverage??? He gets worse with ever programme I hear him on. How about the Dark Matters prog he was on with Richard Sarradet this week. Boy he talks such claptrap ...

Anyway ... rant over for the moment. Worst paracast??? Possibly the one with the mad dentist or the mad French bloke (both names escape me at the moment). Totally insane stuff. Although the ones with Michael Horn were horrible and fascinating in the same way some people think car crashes are.

But I'm sure I've forgotten something. Maybe the Bill Knell one was someone's worst programme but I just couldn't bring myself to listen to that one. Something about ambushing someone ... even a baddie such as Knell makes me feel a bit queasy.

So now ... carry onnnnn ...

 

[spacebrother]

ParaS,

Sorry you found the recent RM show "self-indulgent." I don't know if we (the guests and I) ever agreed that 9/11 was not fishy. I also am not sure if we agreed that the government is hiding anything of substance on UFOs. We all have differing opinions, even politically.

When four friends get together for a conversation, it will often sound chummy. I don't know if I should apologize for that.

I'm also sorry that you can't bear to hear Walter. To each his own. He's my friend and I find him interesting. Perhaps you should ignore the shows on which he appears instead of listening and getting angry.

Yes, it's true, I brought in a box of cockroaches and let them loose in the studio for comic relief. Sorry you didn't find it funny.

I have said before that since I am not being paid for doing the show (and have actually been paying to use the facilities of the radio station for over 10 years now) I am really doing Radio Misterioso for myself. Under that definition, the whole operation is "self-indulgent." If others find it enjoyable, that is welcome icing on the cake. I think that's the formula for a lot of things we find enjoyable in life. If it was a commercial show, a lot of the spontenaiety would likely be lost.

It's good to hear that you generally respect and like most of the programs I've done. You may like the show we did last Sunday with my skeptical friend John Shirley, which I will post later this week.

 

[tyder001]

Greg I gotta give you major Kudos. Sometime ago (can't remember when now) you posted a show with the actual voice and music of Charles Manson. (Top that Coast to Coast) I can't remeber it all now but it was classic. No I am not a fan of serial killers but this was classic pop culture and history in one show. Nobody after that can say in my presence that you don't know how to do a show. Also, (as you said) you don't charge for it. So keep it up.

Now as for politics. Well, that will always tick some folks off. My favorite author is a little to rabid left for my taste. Although I consider myself a little "left" of center I'm not left wing all dems are good and all repubs are evil type. Anyway, I still read him and I have read everything he has ever published. I intend to continue that. So, sometime we have to seperated the politics from the folks who bring us joy or we will end up only listening to or reading about religion or biology or top 40 pop. Nothing wrong with any of it but a little can go a long way if that's all ya got.

Thankee Sai

 

[paraschtick]

ParaS,
Sorry you found the recent RM show "self-indulgent." I don't know if we (the guests and I) ever agreed that 9/11 was not fishy. I also am not sure if we agreed that the government is hiding anything of substance on UFOs. We all have differing opinions, even politically.
...
It's good to hear that you generally respect and like most of the programs I've done. You may like the show we did last Sunday with my skeptical friend John Shirley, which I will post later this week.

Blimey. Yeah Greg. I do usually really love your stuff. Maybe this time I wasn't in a good mood or something . I really love the spontaneity and the freewheeling chat and have really looked forward to pretty much every programme thats been posted on the Radio Misterioso site (except maybe the singing alien abductress ... you know who I mean ). But this one really rankled with me for various reasons.

Maybe the chumminess can be a good think sometimes, and sometimes not. Maybe I wish I could have been there to go "noooo you're talking total claptrap ... and this is why". Anyway, I'm still going to listen to the prog when you post something. I'm totally useless it seems at remembering when its streaming (being in New Zealand doesn't help either).

Anyway, sorry if I seemed a bit harsh. Put it down to getting old ... or grumpy ... or something . And I shall listen to the John Shirley one with interest. I read one of his books many moons ago, and then never saw another again. Must see if I can track one down now I've finally finished The Threat (warrghh ... never again, I tell you ... never again).

Anyway ... many thanks for all the work you've done and continue to do

Best wishes

paraschtick

[ps I actually went to post my message and my connection went down ... so I actually assumed it hadn't gone through. Guess what?? How wrong was I?? :redface:]

{pps And as for Walter. Hmmm ... nice guy ... but ... hmmm ... his stories just don't pass my intestinal bs detector ... but of course as we know about all these things I could be totally wrong. I shall still listen to him when he's on a programme but with one ear full of salt ... whatever that means}

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

I think The Paracast needs to get back to the basics which capture the listener's attention: (i) interviews of bona fide frontline experiencers or investigators who can relay what they have witnessed or uncovered in their meticulous ground work (e.g., Ted Phillips, Phil Imbrogno); (ii) fascinating cases that many of us have not heard about because they have occurred in other countries or just have not been picked up by the Amercian media (e.g., Dorothy Izatt, Bill Chalker); and, (iii) genuinely groundbreaking theoretical thinkers who truly look at the subject from a fresh perspective, or perhaps have thought through a perspective beyond what many already have, with data driving theory rather than the reverse (e.g., Jacques Vallee; cf., Stan Friedman). So, in the most recent episode, I believe Paul mentioned a case from Canada where individuals from two houses witnessed a UFO, but reported two entirely different perspectives -- I would love to hear more detail about that case. Or, a frontline witness from the Trumbull County UFO case, where 15 police officers from five different jurisdictions witnessed an unconventional craft over a residential neighborhood at close proximity.

I do agree with the poster on another thread who stated that the nature of The Paracast and this Forum have changed markedly over the past six to twelve months. While no one is willing to swallow everything and anything about UFOs hook, line & sinker, I do think that the "skepticism" has gone to the other extreme, where people try to outdo one another in debunking everything that comes across the Forum or the show, whether objectively justified or not.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Tom,

No adversity intended, just an honest question because I think you bring up a good point to discuss:

What is your definition of a 'bonafide' front-line experiencer?

I think this is a good topic for discussion because it implies qualifications and we should peruse those, though said qualifications will vary with as many people in the discussion. I'm interested in what you and others have to say about a bonafide experiencer. If there is an already established definition or criteria that has been generally accepted (by that I mean well outside the circle of skeptics here), fill me in.

Greg Bishop and Christopher O'Brien will verify that I have been investigating an issue thoroughly for a period of two years which will soon be available in a book written by me with another author who is a professor of history at a university and published author who has appeared on the History Channel. I did the first year of work before going to him for a source on one aspect and he was impressed enough with what I discovered to offer voluminous input and wasted no time accepting my request that he write the book with me. Since 2007, Greg has heard me relate the investigative research, and last year Christopher was a source with whom I have discussed one aspect of the book. Also, Adam Gorightly recommended me to an agent he has worked with and that individual enthusiastically took on the book. Admittedly, the book is not about paranormal experiences, but it does involve esoteric concepts and occult history. Because I have been very busy investigating and writing this book, I haven't as yet had the time to deeply investigate some experiences I have had during this time.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

AdventureMan, thanks for the note.

I am an armchair researcher and have never been in the field. However, I would use common sense to determine who is a bona fide, credible witness -- an elderly couple who see something on the way home from an evening community event over a ten minute time period, several police officers on the midnight beat who see something in relative close proximity, a family of four looking out their back window into their back yard, with perhaps some corroboration of physical trace evidence or a neighbor's testimony. Ultimately, you need a credible researcher who goes out and talks to the witness face-to-face and determines if they are psychologically stable, have any ulterior motive and were situated properly in their witnessing something without a common explanation.

 

[Walter Bosley]

All reasonable criteria. I don't disagree with any of it. However, many might say you have to flesh out a definition of ulterior motive, and 'credible researcher' might come under multiple definitions, as well. Where do solo experiences come in here? We shouldn't discount discussion or mention of individual experiences simply because there were no witnesses or trace evidence.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I think The Paracast needs to get back to the basics which capture the listener's attention: (i) interviews of bona fide frontline experiencers or investigators who can relay what they have witnessed or uncovered in their meticulous ground work (e.g., Ted Phillips, Phil Imbrogno); (ii) fascinating cases that many of us have not heard about because they have occurred in other countries or just have not been picked up by the Amercian media (e.g., Dorothy Izatt, Bill Chalker); and, (iii) genuinely groundbreaking theoretical thinkers who truly look at the subject from a fresh perspective, or perhaps have thought through a perspective beyond what many already have, with data driving theory rather than the reverse (e.g., Jacques Vallee; cf., Stan Friedman). So, in the most recent episode, I believe Paul mentioned a case from Canada where individuals from two houses witnessed a UFO, but reported two entirely different perspectives -- I would love to hear more detail about that case. Or, a frontline witness from the Trumbull County UFO case, where 15 police officers from five different jurisdictions witnessed an unconventional craft over a residential neighborhood at close proximity.

I do agree with the poster on another thread who stated that the nature of The Paracast and this Forum have changed markedly over the past six to twelve months. While no one is willing to swallow everything and anything about UFOs hook, line & sinker, I do think that the "skepticism" has gone to the other extreme, where people try to outdo one another in debunking everything that comes across the Forum or the show, whether objectively justified or not.

Good post, Tom.

As for bona fide in relation to researchers, I like the idea of having researchers such as Phil Imbrogno and Ted Phillips back on. Also having more international researchers on would be a cool idea.

Bona fide experiencers? How do you define that one? Is it the fact that there would be multiple witnesses to an event? Like the multiple witnesses to the Rendlesham/Bentwaters case or the Phoenix lights case (to which i think we have had shows) as examples.
It may float (and I agree with you) but unfortunately i can already hear the debunkers starting up the mass halleucination bus.
Having said that I agree that it would be a good idea to involve more experiencers, in multiple or otherwise and be unconcerned of the sceptodebunkers reactions to them.

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

All reasonable criteria. I don't disagree with any of it. However, many might say you have to flesh out a definition of ulterior motive, and 'credible researcher' might come under multiple definitions, as well. Where do solo experiences come in here? We shouldn't discount discussion or mention of individual experiences simply because there were no witnesses or trace evidence.

Totally agree.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Individual experiencers certainly can be credible where common sense tells you that they are probably not lying or are not misinterpreting common events. So, for example, the local school principal who previously was a physics teacher, who happens to see a landed disc at the same time that others report seeing a UFO in the general area. The proverbial town drunk, or someone looking to make a quick buck, or someone with a fantastic story that really doesn't smell right (e.g., Jim Sparks) should probably be discounted. I think you need general principles as to what constitutes "credible", as opposed to a bright line rule.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I don't disagree.

My point on defining ulterior motives is that if you include someone selling a book, you'll eliminate probably 80% of the guests on all shows, LOL . Yes, I have a book on the market which I rarely talk about on air (mostly when asked to by a host, or at a conference, one of which I'm scheduled at in October). That book is sold only at another host's show website, which I'm not rude enough to mention when on a different show than his, i.e. hosts don't want guests promoting 'the other guy'... I also have the book coming out, though it is not about any personal experiences I've had. There is my father's story about Roswell that I talk about, but I don't see a dime of the book that article is in. I don't plan to write a book of my experiences of recent years. I've also advocated more than once that if one wants to get closer to the truth, he or she should go underground for a few years and investigate privately. With UFOs especially if the powers that be who might pay attention to UFO investigators don't see or hear you in the UFO media community and you're not writing about it anywhere publicly, they're gonna be real curious about what you're doing. Maybe the phenomena will show itself more to you because you're not being public. Who knows? It's only my speculation. But it doesn't mean that just because someone does choose to write a book that they're dishonest -- and I know you don't think that, I'm just saying it.

Debunking and skeptical extremism can be classified as serving an ulterior motive as well, many might agree. Just as I have been suspected of being a government plant because of my background, some might say a member of a skeptic's organization being conspicuously active in a negative or derisive manner in the community of the paranormal serves some ulterior agenda, be it personal or that of a group.

But you are right, one must consider the possibility of ulterior motives. Once it's considered, let the community decide via ratings, etc., where the community media are concerned. If a host feels his audience doesn't like a guest, he just won't ask that guest to be on. (I doubt Gene will have me back on, for example, LOL .

I'm personally going through an interesting transition with my experiences. I can't prove them to others. I've always come from the position of one should present evidence or convince others they happened-- until now, because I've experienced something not witnessed by others. That should affect one's credibility to the extent that it gets filed in the reported data column but no hard conclusions can be drawn from it, but it should not be a reason to identify that witness as a 'fraud' and completely eliminate them from the scene. Therefore, there should be a range or spectrum of credibility, i.e. 'unable to confirm but honest as near as can be told' to 'the person was high or drunk, etc' and places in between.

Just thoughts...

 

[trainedobserver]

Where do solo experiences come in here? We shouldn't discount discussion or mention of individual experiences simply because there were no witnesses or trace evidence.

The credibility of the witness aside, discussion and consideration of solo experiences where there are no other witnesses or trace evidence probably depends on how interesting the story is more than anything else. How interesting is the "Lady sees vampire and drives into canal" story as opposed to Philip K. Dick's "religious experience" for example? I would argue that P.K.D.s religious experience is much more interesting not only because of who P.K.D. was but more so because of what he did with it. But more importantly should we simply accept their explanations for their experiences or should we attempt to understand them from a wider perspective and perhaps gain a deeper understanding of not only their experiences but ourselves as well?

Another example of such a thing. True story: I once knew a young religious fellow who was about to make a very important decision. He was in turmoil and in constant prayer about what to do. He thought it was right to do one thing but felt God was telling him to do something else. At one point driving down the road he felt that God was telling him to stop the car and look into the sky. He pulled over, got out and looked up. There in the sky was a large cloud that resembled a gigantic human head. Now what do you say to something like that? There is no doubt that this young man believed that he saw a human head formed from clouds. The question arises though, " Did his god make a head out of clouds for the guy to see or did his brain take the patterns in the clouds and construct a human head out of it?" Is it evidence for gods, neurological functions or what and how interesting is it?

 

[Walter Bosley]

Interesting is subjective, but you have a point where pertinent is concerned. Maybe the giant head experience would fit one discussion/case but not another.

 

[Hoffmeister]

I enjoyed the latest pcast show, and LOVED the RM show. I hated all the commercials in this one though, we dont get nearly so many commercials in the UK and it gets a little difficult to deal with. Just felt like every time a conversation got going, there was another commercial

 

[paraschtick]

I enjoyed the latest pcast show, and LOVED the RM show. I hated all the commercials in this one though, we dont get nearly so many commercials in the UK and it gets a little difficult to deal with. Just felt like every time a conversation got going, there was another commercial

Hoff ... you'll get used to it. I've listened to literally hundreds of American radio programmes over the last seven hundred years, and you'll get used to using that fast forward button alot. I hardly ever listen to anything streaming in real time, and find that mp3s are really a god send when wanting to avoid them (usually) horrible adverts. Although saying that you'll now and again come across some small hometown advert advertising window replacing services or some such which are kind of a hoot .

So I say use that fast forward button. Its what ... ummm ... fast forward buttons were produced for .

 

[Capnkumquat]

I was hoping the radio show would be more like a "reboot" of the Paracast. Start by pretending that your audience knows little or nothing about the subject, start from the beginning of UFO history, explore the topic with some history of famous cases, expand the topics slowly and keep them focused. The show was entirely too fragmented in topic, personality, and format, with lots of "insider speak", and allusions to previous discussions when this was supposed to be the "first" show.

That show must be what it's like to experience A.D.D.

Good luck with the show and I'll be listening next week.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We have a loyal worldwide audience. It wouldn't be fair to cut them out of the action. Putting all the co-hosts together helped us frame future discussions and give everyone a sense of their different approaches and viewpoints.

 

[Han]

I live in the U.K I dont have satellite TV. to be honest I harldy watch tv except for documentarys or football(soccer). the adverts on the last paracast show were a revalation to me, for example advetising a Holster* or food for when Martial law is imposed. It was like a window into another world**.

I think that because you(paracast team) are honest, and want to make a great show better, you ask for the listeners opinions. Please remember that you cant please everyone all the time. In other words a few adverts are not going to stop anyone listening if they are really interested.

For me personally even the adverts have compelled me to look into areas which I would not have considered before.

For everyone else just remember change is always a challange lets stick with it.
You wont find a better show about the paranormal. Especially a free one!

* Illegal over here
** I have never visited the U.S

looking forward to the next show

 

[DFWMike]

Heck, I thought it was a great show. The commercials weren't hard to fast forward through, glad to see Gene getting some play with a network good luck to you Gene I'll continue to be an ardent listener. I never was crazy about Dave Biedney so this concept goes over really well for me.