Listening to This Week's Show

[David Biedny]

Miner,

Thanks for the kind words, it's difficult to try and reach some understanding of some of this high weirdness. Try to ignore the negativity of those who think they have the answers, the most that any of us have are questions. Please send me some private email and tell me about your experiences. Use my first name at theparacast.com, I'm interested in knowing more about what you've been through.

dB

 

[interestedINitall]

Miner,

Thanks for the kind words, it's difficult to try and reach some understanding of some of this high weirdness. Try to ignore the negativity of those who think they have the answers, the most that any of us have are questions.
dB

Who is claiming to have definitive answers?

Granted I haven't been here all that long but it seems like the only thing that's been firmly established by the group is that anyone who displays skepticism without the requisite pussyfooting and acrobatic qualifying is branded "negative" or "closed minded."

I hope I'm wrong about this.

 

[David Biedny]

Who is claiming to have definitive answers?

Gene. And Alea. And diablorojo. And DCHENEY.

Are you blind? Drunk? Close-minded?

 

[interestedINitall]

Gene. And Alea. And diablorojo. And DCHENEY.

Are you blind? Drunk? Close-minded?

Uh huh, right.

 

[David Biedny]

Oh, and I forgot to mention Jeff Ritzmann, who has a bad attitude, does not believe in Santa (I mean, c'mon...), and thinks that most UFOs are made of ice cream. He's delusional, that Ritzmann, and he's putting together a Jonestown-style situation in the Arizona desert, all centered around the worship of Iron Maiden and Maryland crabcakes. I'm gonna go there, Korff-style, infiltrate his compound, and expose him for being thinner then he claims.

dB

 

[miner]

I'd keep your experiences to yourself if I were you - the folks on here don't want to hear it. They'll say your either a con artist or deluded. Find a private forum and share your thoughts with people who've had similar experiences. You won't get any answers on here - only name-calling and ridicule.

Rick,

I honestly understand where they're coming from. I expect it. Unfortunately the whole field is loaded with con artists and kooks. It makes it very difficult for most to take the subject seriously. If someone's hypothesis doesn't conform with your views, it's a natural reaction to lump them into that category. I understand and respect the skepticism/objectivity. It's needed.

When I stumbled on to the Paracast, I was looking for something that would help me weed through all the BS regarding this subject. I'm thankful that Gene and David are doing what they are doing. It's apparent to me they are not looking to profit. I'm sure they'd be content to break even.

They seem sincere in their pursuit just to find answers. That is a rarity in this field.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Rick,

I honestly understand where they're coming from. I expect it. Unfortunately the whole field is loaded with con artists and kooks. It makes it very difficult for most to take the subject seriously. If someone's hypothesis doesn't conform with your views, it's a natural reaction to lump them into that category. I understand and respect the skepticism/objectivity. It's needed.

When I stumbled on to the Paracast, I was looking for something that would help me weed through all the BS regarding this subject. I'm thankful that Gene and David are doing what they are doing. It's apparent to me they are not looking to profit. I'm sure they'd be content to break even.

They seem sincere in their pursuit just to find answers. That is a rarity in this field.

On the other hand, if all our listeners would send us donations, or remember us in their wills, send us limousines for our personal use, etc., I don't think we'd you down

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Try to ignore the negativity of those who think they have the answers, the most that any of us have are questions

This would be funny if it weren't so damnably sad. This is an indefensible, ludicrous statement on its face, Mr. Biedny.

When a critical, reasonable thinker presents a claim, he is required to present evidence. For example, if I claim that polar bears are going extinct, I have to provide direct sampling evidence and habitat surveys (among other things) to buttress my position. I can't present a list of anecdotes ("I once saw a dead polar bear floating by my igloo;" "I once saw a starving polar bear," etc.); I would have to have evidence that leads me to a conclusion. Any search for "truth," or "fact," requires that the searcher use the tools necessary to reach that goal: reason and evidence.

These endless parades of unsubstantiated, unsupported, uncorroborated, evidentially meaningless "eyewitness" accounts can only present questions, because there is nothing tangible to examine, nothing meaningful to test and observe, and no way to so much as verify the basis of the initial claim. Why do you persist in offering us stories, but then get upset when people ask for hard evidence to substantiate them? Why would that surprise or aggravate you? What does a paranormail claimant expect?

Critique from reasonable thinkers isn't "negativity," though I realize how soothing that platitude must feel. It's a demand for evidence that supports your claim. Heaping one unsupported story upon another unsupported story is intellectually vapid and unreasonable.

I know a big, warm, fuzzy "koom-ba-ya" session with fellow believers feels nice, but it isn't intellectually challenging, doesn't force a believer to test his beliefs in the light of reason (thus robbing him of the benefits of self-examination), and doesn't do anything to further these claims. If you're really interested in searching for "truth," at least be willing to pick up the tools available to you.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I'd keep your experiences to yourself if I were you - the folks on here don't want to hear it. They'll say your either a con artist or deluded. Find a private forum and share your thoughts with people who've had similar experiences. You won't get any answers on here - only name-calling and ridicule.

Mr. Deckard, that is not the position of a good critical thinker, and you're misrepresenting what a good skeptic is. Mr. Ritzmann, Mr. Sparks, the dope-smoking UFO witnesses from a couple of weeks ago, Ann Druffel, et al, are simply asked for objective, tangible, observable evidence to support their claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm more than happy to hear anyone out, but an endless litany of unsupported, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated stories and "experiences" isn't getting anyone anywhere, and doesn't get an investigator closer to the "truth." It isn't reasonable, isn't logical, and isn't the way human civilization has learned to discern myth, misinterpretation, delusion and outright fabrication from fact.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I'm thankful that Gene and David are doing what they are doing. It's apparent to me they are not looking to profit. I'm sure they'd be content to break even.

They seem sincere in their pursuit just to find answers. That is a rarity in this field.

Sincerity and altruism have nothing to do with good argumentation or investigation. I like the show, too, but don't enjoy hearing legitimate, clear, reasonable critique off-handedly labelled as "negativity." That's the last bastion of someone embarrassed for an answer.

 

[pixelsmith]

geez... let it go kids. one of you take your ball and go home.

 

[David Biedny]

HS, given that it appears that no one has EVER produced a piece of hard, tangible evidence for a UFO encounter - a piece of a craft or a living/dead being would be the only tangible evidence, as photos/videos can all be fabricated and retouched - EVERY UFO story is anecdotal. In the realm of paranormal research, I think there is some very compelling video evidence, but again, all video evidence is potentially suspect. There are cases, such as that of Ze Arigo - where somewhere along the line of two MILLION people were cured by him - the reality of what happened is simply undeniable, so we assume that there is indeed something paranormal about this case. If you PERSONALLY don't have the chance to interview any of those couple of million people, you are free to think and believe anything you want, the facts of the case live outside of your opinion.

In sharing my own experiences with the audience, I'm simply conveying the details of what happened to me - and in various cases, to me and other people who were there with me - I really don't give a rat's ass whether you - or anyone else - believes me or accepts the validity of my descriptions. I'm not looking for your acceptance, so get over it. In interviewing folks for the show, I look for internal logic, sincerity, and motive, as this is all I have to go by. You want physical evidence of paranormal activity of ANY kind? I wish you the best of luck, and I'll be the first to commend you for getting it and VALIDATING it. Given that The Paracast is a LABOR OF LOVE, NOT my day job, having discussions with people is about as good as we can do in the name of uncovering some actual truth. I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an investigator, expert or any kind of an authority on these topics. I'm the equivalent of a hobbyist, a student of the paranormal. I have no agenda outside of a deeper understanding, and I realize that the field is littered with s*** and fear-mongering morons looking for their 15 minutes of fame and attention. Me, I've had some fame in my time, and it's vastly overrated.

Can we absolutely, positively prove the validity of ANY paranormal encounter? One would have to be mentally damaged to think this is possible, or even probable. That's the nature of this beast. I'll continue to engage people in conversations about the topic, and express my opinions. You're free to change the channel at any time.

Thanks for your thoughts.

dB

 

[pixelsmith]

perfectly stated David!!! BRAVO!!!

Thank You!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Sincerity and altruism have nothing to do with good argumentation or investigation. I like the show, too, but don't enjoy hearing legitimate, clear, reasonable critique off-handedly labelled as "negativity." That's the last bastion of someone embarrassed for an answer.

There's people who are negative about what they think is negativity. I guess they find it a positive thing to do.

 

[interestedINitall]

There are cases, such as that of Ze Arigo - where somewhere along the line of two MILLION people were cured by him - the reality of what happened is simply undeniable, so we assume that there is indeed something paranormal about this case. If you PERSONALLY don't have the chance to interview any of those couple of million people, you are free to think and believe anything you want, the facts of the case live outside of your opinion.


Can we absolutely, positively prove the validity of ANY paranormal encounter? One would have to be mentally damaged to think this is possible, or even probable. That's the nature of this beast. I'll continue to engage people in conversations about the topic, and express my opinions. You're free to change the channel at any time.

Isn't this a contradiction?

In any event, this seems like a matter of intent. I think the talk about "seeking truth" on the show sets it up as something deeper and more thoughtful than - say - a Coast to Coast and therefore more is expected of it. I doubt a show like Mysterious Universe is challenged in this way because it is more of a "storytelling" (yet thoroughly entertaining) trifle.

How can one "get at truth" but never worry about "proving" anything? These two intentions don't seem to jibe.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

The field of the paranormal is a bit like the OJ case. There's compelling evidence mixed with shady people, in a less than perfect system. The evidence is good to some people (or would be good to them minus the potentially damaging parties involved), but then out comes damaging evidence the people who collected it aren't saints. Lawyers and people who want to cash in, or win, spin the evidence to suit their agendas. The conclusions are all unsettling. A racist conspiracy? Incompetent science? A lovable (to many) football hero brutally murdered two people, including the mother of his kids? Drug dealing murderers and a framed celebrity? To many people's minds, no conclusion makes sense and all conclusions makes you wonder and ask more questions. How could he do that? Why would Mark, or OJ do what they did? There in lies the circus of debate. People have a hard time accepting certain avenues of evidence for a variety of reasons. Usually, all human ones.

I do think proof is possible of certain "paranormal" topics. However, it relies little on CERTAIN humans. Certain humans like to get in the way of progress often. Anyway, I am open to the day when a drunk alien crashes in NY city. Hard to cover that one up. It would prove it to my satisfaction at least. Maybe not everyone. Different people have a different standard of "proof". Some a light in the sky is Zeta Reticulians, to other's not even an anal probe by greys would suffice. They'll conclude they are crazy instead. They may be after all. We all may be.

 

[interestedINitall]

Anyway, I am open to the day when a drunk alien crashes in NY city. Hard to cover that one up. It would prove it to my satisfaction at least. Maybe not everyone. Different people have a different standard of "proof". Some a light in the sky is Zeta Reticulians, to other's not even an anal probe by greys would suffice. They'll conclude they are crazy instead. They may be after all. We all may be.

True, but I don't think the now hated skeptics on here are asking for anything unreasonable. Do you?

It seems like they're asking for something the other side of the debate doesn't have so the importance of that something is being decried. That's rather dishonest.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

True, but I don't think the now hated skeptics on here are asking for anything unreasonable. Do you?

It seems like they're asking for something the other side of the debate doesn't have so the importance of that something is being decried. That's rather dishonest.

I don't think asking for evidence is unreasonable, no. I do it all the time. Many take offense to it. Oh well. I do so in a way that's non offensive. Or so I thought. The way in which one ask for evidence is often an issue I observe. There's something I'll call tact, that seems to be on a low priority with some.

I'm not sure what all is going on with this thread btw. I'm a bit lost, but commented on matters that I do not think I'm lost on. None of which were geared toward anyone at the Paracast specifically. It was more so in regards to aspects of the topic generically.

I think it is reasonable for both sides to ask what the evidence is. If one asserts someone is lying, be ready to deal with the question of, "What's the evidence?". If someone is saying that they are telling the truth, be prepared to get asked, "What's your evidence".

 

[interestedINitall]

If one asserts someone is lying, be ready to deal with the question of, "What's the evidence?". If someone is saying that they are telling the truth, be prepared to get asked, "What's your evidence".

I'm not the first to state this on here; the onus lies with the claimant not the skeptic.

This thread has gotten very strange. I think it's something I said that sent certain people for a loop and then it snowballed from there. That's regrettable. People seem to be dividing into camps and that's counterproductive.

There have been some very surprising developments.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

HS, given that it appears that no one has EVER produced a piece of hard, tangible evidence for a UFO encounter - a piece of a craft or a living/dead being would be the only tangible evidence, as photos/videos can all be fabricated and retouched - EVERY UFO story is anecdotal.

This is absolutely wrong and absurd. The Blue Book files (an all-too-often overlooked source) has many interesting cases involving possible physical trace evidence. Hynek, et al, did some very good work with trace cases, and hard radar returns off of visually vectored targets are evidence of that observed object's physical nature and (where applicable) speed, direction of travel, altitude, etc. A piece of a saucer would be the Holy Grail of ufology and its proponents, but is not the only acceptable type of physical evidence.

There are cases, such as that of Ze Arigo - where somewhere along the line of two MILLION people were cured by him - the reality of what happened is simply undeniable, so we assume that there is indeed something paranormal about this case. If you PERSONALLY don't have the chance to interview any of those couple of million people, you are free to think and believe anything you want, the facts of the case live outside of your opinion.

My God, how good a time did you have in South America?

Ze Arigo is a dead Brazilian con artist (died 1971 or so, I believe, but only one in a long, long line that continues into the present) who performed "psychic surgery" without use of traditional medical instruments, primarily in the 1950s. Arigo claimed to be channeling the spirit of a dead German doctor named Fritz, and came to real fame after his contact with a Brazilian senator. Twice in trouble with Brazilian authorities for illegally practicing medicine, Arigo's brief "surgeries" were followed up by his handing an illegible prescription to the victim, who would be immediately referred to Arigo's brother, a pharmacist, who (miraculously) would be the only man able to read Arigo's scrawl. The medications were conventional, of course, but supposedly administered in doses that contradicted normal application.

(The good news is that Fritz' spirit didn't die with Arigo. He made two more appearances, and is now living in the body of yet another Brazilian quack.)

For those of you monitoring this thread, and are interested in critical appraisals of Arigo's "miracles," I might suggest the following, a smattering of books from both sides of this claim:

Barrett, Stephen and Kurt Butler (eds.) A Consumer's Guide to Alternative Medicine: A Close Look at Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Faith-Healing, and Other Unconventional Treatments; edited by (Buffalo, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1992).

Maki, Masao. In Search of Brazil's Quantum Surgeon: The Dr. Fritz Phenomenon (Cadence Books 199.

Barrett, Stephen and William T. Jarvis. eds. The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1993).

Brenneman, Richard J. Deadly Blessings : Faith Healing on Trial (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1990).

In sharing my own experiences with the audience, I'm simply conveying the details of what happened to me - and in various cases, to me and other people who were there with me - I really don't give a rat's ass whether you - or anyone else - believes me or accepts the validity of my descriptions.

If you don't care whether people believe you, and don't encourage lively, educated debate about the merits of these endless eyewitness accounts, why did you start a podcast, and a public forum? Did you simply expect credulous back-slapping?

If you're really searching for "truth," isn't it important to you that your beliefs - even the sacred cows among them - can withstand scrutiny and critical rigor? Isn't self-examination important?

I'm not looking for your acceptance, so get over it.

It doesn't bother me that you don't crave my acceptance. It bothers me that reason and logic are butchered and discarded in an effort to pander to supernaturalism. All a skeptic is asking for is evidence, and not endless story after story.

Since Mr. Ritzmann won't answer this question, I'll pose it to you: How long should skeptics and reasonable people wait for tangible proof of these claims? When does the clock expire? At what point do evidentially unsupported claims get discarded?

In interviewing folks for the show, I look for internal logic, sincerity, and motive, as this is all I have to go by. You want physical evidence of paranormal activity of ANY kind? I wish you the best of luck, and I'll be the first to commend you for getting it and VALIDATING it.

Well, a moment ago, you vouched for a Brazilian con artist and stated that he was undeniably responsible for healing two million people. Now, you're saying that physical evidence for paranormal claims is tough to come by. Didn't you just claim there are two million examples of the validity of Arigo's superpowers?

I'll leave "sincerity and motive as litmus tests for truth" out of the discussion, for the time being. Thank God science and learning aren't judged by this standard.

I have no agenda outside of a deeper understanding, and I realize that the field is littered with s*** and fear-mongering morons looking for their 15 minutes of fame and attention. Me, I've had some fame in my time, and it's vastly overrated.

Profanity aside, you do have an agenda - you believe the paranormal exists. Your "deeper understanding" does not seek to determine whether there is a paranormal, it seeks to determine the qualities and properties of the paranormal, which you accept on its face, sans evidence. I am asking for the evidentiary basis upon which you make the claim that there is any "paranormal" phenomena at all. All I get in return are stories.

Can we absolutely, positively prove the validity of ANY paranormal encounter?

You'd better hope so, and the paranormal industry had better hope so.

One would have to be mentally damaged to think this is possible, or even probable.

Or they would have to be a critical thinker, who uses logic, reason and evidence to determine the validity of a claim.

That's the nature of this beast. I'll continue to engage people in conversations about the topic, and express my opinions. You're free to change the channel at any time.

And there's the "take it or leave it" I knew was coming: I don't have any evidence, I won't/can't produce any evidence, so shove off.

Sounds like Gwops.