POLL: Do Not Talk About Proven Charlatans?

[Aaron LeClair]

I voted 'Yes.' Personally I think this show is one of the last remaining venues for relatively reasonable chat about the paranormal, and there are, unfortunately, way too many proven charlatans in this field.

I fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue. It's not a vote to repeal the 1st Amendment. It's a vote about what to talk about on a podcast. As a 'consumer' of this 'product,' given the opportunity to weigh in on what should and shouldn't be featured, I don't see why a vote either way implicates freedom of speech at all. When music radio stations poll their audience to see which tracks they should play, no one calls that a freedom of speech restriction.

Nothing's stopping anyone from saying what they want- anybody can start their own website or podcast these days and talk about all the more dubious paranormal chicanery they want.

I've lived in places where you can get 'disappeared' for simply gathering in groups of 4 or more, in your own home, for a discussion about politics. That's a freedom of speech issue. This isn't.

Now, if you simply like hearing about nutcases and hoaxers, that's a different matter, and a perfectly good reason to vote 'No.'

As an aside, this thread seems a perfect example of Godwin's Law in action:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your avatar a picture of a mime? Kinda looks like one after reading some of this. I didn't read all.

You pay for the show? I don't. I thought we were voting on what is allowed to be discussed in the forums. David and Gene already decided to no longer mention certain things on the show..... You listening to the same program that I am?

Gene, David, Jeff, and Aspie recently joined in on a MH discussion. David even thanked Aspie for his post.... They should be banned or silenced? Not much of the paracast left it you shut some of those guys up.

http://theparacast.com/forums/showthread.php?t=373&page=5

 

[Koji K.]

Your avatar a picture of a mime? Kinda looks like one after reading some of this. I didn't read all.

You pay for the show? I don't. I thought we were voting on what is allowed to be discussed in the forums. David and Gene already decided to no longer mention certain things on the show..... You listening to the same program that I am?

Gene, David, Jeff, and Aspie recently joined in on a MH discussion. David even thanked Aspie for his post.... They should be banned or silenced? Not much of the paracast left it you shut some of those guys up.

http://theparacast.com/forums/showthread.php?t=373&page=5

Not sure I follow you... I don't pay for the show, I don't pay for radio either, or reading webpages (aside from my net access costs). Notice I put 'consumer' in quotation marks (even though technically the term consumer can be apt even for free services).

As for your final comment, I couldn't agree more- not much of any paranormal research these days if you exclude the frauds. It's a sorry state, but there it is, this show is something almost unique.

But no one's shutting anyone up- like I said, there's plenty of outlets for frauds and charlatans. Now, the day Congress passes a law silencing them all, I'll be first in protest marches, but all this is is a question about what you'd like to hear on the show or what you wouldn't like.

My avatar is Klaus Nomi. I'm not a particular fan, but I thought it was a cool pic.

 

[CapnG]

It's a vote about what to talk about on a podcast.

No, it's about the forums. Post numero uno states that clearly.

 

[DBTrek]

Where do people get the idea that any sort of First Amendment argument is being made? Are these guys reading the thread or just posting based on ideas they've created in their own heads?

The poll asks whether or not anyone should be allowed to discuss an arbitrary class of people labeled as "Charlatans" on this forum.

Either you believe Gene and David should crack down and ban all posts mentioning "Charlatans" or you don't.

Obviously Koji and Cottonzway support this type of crackdown. I don't.

-DBTrek

 

[David Biedny]

The hell with the poll, if we think something - or someone - is a complete waste of time, we'll ban 'em from the Earth.

That's right, this will extend to the presence of that undesirable thing on THE EARTH. Not just these forums - on the big, dead rock of a planet called Tierra. Earth, just a big ball of rock and water - I think I read that on these forums. The wisdom to be found here JUST KILLS ME.

First, we ban the anarchists, republicans and car dealers.

Next, we ban Boy George.

Then we handle the nihilists - off to Newark they go, and they have to leave their laptops and cupcakes at the door. Yes, this means YOU.

Then we'll ban the Commodore 64 users, those wacky cats. VIC 20 fans get to stay, 'cause they got enough problems as it is.

Then we send the lawyers to their own little HELL - Utah.

Beer drinkers are already screwed, ya ever notice that this vile liquid smells like urine? Garbage in, garbage out.

Is that all clear? Good, now everyone GET A GRIP and try a nice cup of hot tea, with lemon and honey. And none of that Lipton's crap - if you drink this wet dirt, you don't deserve oxygen for your lungs.

Damn kids, GET OFF MY LAWN!

dB

 

[Rick Deckard]

I hope people have a sense of humour, DB....

 

[Koji K.]

No, it's about the forums. Post numero uno states that clearly.

Ah, you are right. I stand corrected. I have to admit talking about them on the forums as opposed to the paracast doesn't bug me so much, but the poll question said "Should the Paracast ban... etc" which I assumed meant the actual Paracast podcast. My bad.

I still stand by what I said about this not being a freedom of speech issue, though.

 

[CapnG]

Then we'll ban the Commodore 64 users, those wacky cats. VIC 20 fans get to stay, 'cause they got enough problems as it is.

Up yours, Biedny! C64 forever!!!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Where do people get the idea that any sort of First Amendment argument is being made? Are these guys reading the thread or just posting based on ideas they've created in their own heads?

I have been wondering the same thing.

The poll asks whether or not anyone should be allowed to discuss an arbitrary class of people labeled as "Charlatans" on this forum.

Either you believe Gene and David should crack down and ban all posts mentioning "Charlatans" or you don't.

Obviously Koji and Cottonzway support this type of crackdown. I don't.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Ah, you are right. I stand corrected. I have to admit talking about them on the forums as opposed to the paracast doesn't bug me so much, but the poll question said "Should the Paracast ban... etc" which I assumed meant the actual Paracast podcast. My bad.

I still stand by what I said about this not being a freedom of speech issue, though.

How much of this thread have you read?

You've made a rather big blunder, yet are confident in a position, based on what? Accurate interpretation of the thread? That should be in question now.. Maybe eat some humble pie and then burp. Go back and read the things said, and then form an opinion. Sorry, but it seems you haven't.

 

[cottonzway]

*sits on David's lawn in a lawn chair drinking beer*

 

[Koji K.]

How much of this thread have you read?

You've made a rather big blunder, yet are confident in a position, based on what? Accurate interpretation of the thread? That should be in question now.. Maybe eat some humble pie and then burp. Go back and read the things said, and then form an opinion. Sorry, but it seems you haven't.

Urm... you're the same "A. LeClair" who wrote in this thread just a few posts ago:

Originally Posted by A.LeClair
Your avatar a picture of a mime? Kinda looks like one after reading some of this. I didn't read all.

You didn't even notice my mistake the first time you responded to my post (and I'm still waiting for an explanation on that by the way, it wasn't very coherent...), nor have you read this entire thread yourself, by your own admission.

If you had, you would have noticed I still stand by what I said. The fact I was mistaken about the forums vs. podcasts issue changes nothing, except my personal annoyance-factor. This is not a freedom of speech issue, period.

I admitted my mistake, I already ate my humble pie. You on the other hand are a hypocrite. You admitted that you did not read my first post in its entirety, you clearly didn't read my second post at all, yet you accuse me of the same- and worse, only after someone else already pointed it out, and I had apologized and explained how, imo, it was harmless error and changes little. I see no point in further discussing this with you.

 

[67fortsmithufos]

The watchdog site has a "Hall of Shame" filled with various clowns and posers.
Why not have a Charlatan Forum? It might alleviate discussion about frauds in the legit forums? And while your at it, add an Argument Forum for those who just plain like to...well...you know...argue.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The watchdog site has a "Hall of Shame" filled with various clowns and posers.
Why not have a Charlatan Forum? It might alleviate discussion about frauds in the legit forums? And while your at it, add an Argument Forum for those who just plain like to...well...you know...argue.

Proving someone is a charlatan isn't always such an easy prospect, even if you just know what they are. Some of these people could be honestly self-deluded. In saying that, I think Royce Myers III and his UFOWatchdog are doing terrific work in keeping tabs on such things.

 

[67fortsmithufos]

Some of these people could be honestly self-deluded.

And some may be hybrid delusional charlatans. Take the literal and figurative hot air merchant from Arizona. He's released and filmed some 400 balloons (evidenced by reports from neighbors.) But if you listen to the guy, you come away with the sense that he's buying his own story.

 

[musictomyears]

I'm usually for banning censorship or pseudo forum moderators. But It's nothing I'm a die hard about so you can relax. I trust David and Gene's moderating abilities.

David and Gene do a fine enough job moderating, so far with no help. If anyone would need silenced it would be people who try and silence other members who do not break rules. Members who think they know what can and cannot be discussed and think the forum should revolve around them. Members who act as if they are forum moderators when they are not. Members who actually bump threads they don't like and become hypocrites by telling people to not talk about what they themselves just talked about.

There are those who try and knock down radio towers to shows they do not like, and then there are those who find it more reasonable to simply change the channel and/or perhaps build new ones more to their liking.

Have something better to discuss? Go make a thread and indulge yourself in it I recommend. How would you like it if I started following you around posting in threads you take part in telling you to stop? Then make a poll in order to try and ban you?

Ones proven charlatan is another's saint btw. Who are you to say? Only for yourself, not others. Although you can try. You will probably fail. So far it looks like it. 5 no votes and only 1 yes vote so far.

I thought this post was so good that it deserved repeating. Right on!

(I only read it now).

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I thought this post was so good that it deserved repeating. Right on!

(I only read it now).

Thanks. I'm not used to positive feedback lol. Thanks again.

 

[Schuyler]

Well, I read every post. I don't want to dredge up 90% of it, but I am interested in the TOPIC: Should one ban, etc.

I don't think so, but for a different reason that has not been brought up. At least I didn't see it in the midst of all the shouting. For a forum that bills itself as a cut above the ATS crowd where reasoned discourse takes place, this thread has failed the test. I hope it doesn't happen again.

I would like a place to view where we could discuss, say, Bob Lazar. I would like to discuss Lazar without a lot of people jumping in to defend the man. I think he is a charlatan, pure and simple. But piecing together some of the bs that he has said can be difficult. I'd like to be able to come here to the hypothetical Lazar thread and say, "Hey, what's this about the Cal Tech degree being phony?" and have some knowledgeable person say, "yeah, it happened in 19XX when so-and-so went to the registrar's office, etc., and here's the LINK for you." It seems to me that could be a profitable discussion. What I DON'T want to see happen is a topic devolving into 'he said, no he didn't' like the current discussion on meier at ATS. It's frustrating to get through the MH noise there and have a fruitful outcome.

Other charlatans I would like to see discussed are "Dr." Burisch, John Lear, Cooper, Greer, Morton, Reed, Hoagland, Boylan, Hawkins, Howe, Serpo, etc. Watchdog is a good place, but with no forums to discuss he matter and a focus on people rather than events. Think any of those guys are the Real Deal? Then you see the problem.

 

[musictomyears]

I think the problem is bigger than that.

It seems to me that there is hardly a single person in official Ufology that didn't, at some stage in their career, make some questionable claims, either about themselves, or their work. There seem to be very, very few who appear to be entirely above board. Stanton Friedman would be such a person, yet even with him, I recently read some allegations concerning his private life that made me scratch my head. Bottom line: How many people are there in the world, where it would be impossible to dig up some dirt? Not many.

Greer and Lazar have been mentioned. I think it is easy to forget that quite a lot of Greer's claims are demonstrably true, while others aren't. I am not going to defend his imaginary briefings of top officials, or UFO hunts in the dark. But to simply classify him as a fraud would be incorrect. He is a real emergency physician, for example, and he did get serious witnesses to publicly talk about UFOs. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath.

The same goes for Lazar. So he made up some of his educational background? Very silly of him, and apparently a long standing habit, which was in evidence long before his alien saucer claims. However, he is a real scientific technician who worked on all kinds of weird and wonderful projects, and continues to do so. For some of the stuff, like his pyrotechnics, he received mainstream media attention - even without any UFO lore. Have a look at what he is getting up to these days:

Bob Lazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nuclear , Scientific Equipment & Supplies
United Nuclear , Scientific Equipment & Supplies

Was he employed at S-4, and did he help re-engineer alien craft? I have no idea. But unless somebody comes along and conclusively disproves his claims, I remain open to the possibility.

But I am trying to make a bigger point: Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly talk about their UFO related experiences, when they can be certain that their entire private life will be dragged into the open, and every little bit of inconsistency, or poor personal choices, will be splattered all over the media? For example, what do I care whether of not Lazar was involved with running a brothel? What has this got to do with anything, except for a bit of hypocritical posturing by his detractors?

I have had a good number of experiences in my life, to do with UFOs and the paranormal, that would be quite sufficient to base a career on. In fact, I did just that for a while. But would I jump into the limelight, so that spotty teenagers have something to blog about, and make fun of? Or, go onto a show, and have some nonsense I might have said or done, 20 years ago, pushed down my throat? You bet not.

We now have a popular culture, where ridicule and disrespect are a prerequisite for public discourse - not only in Ufology. Take politics. Why are so many politicians bland and ignorant bureaucrats? Because most sharp, capable and visionary individuals aren't going to join the political arena, since they know what would happen to them: A relentless onslaught of negativity, ridicule and cynicism.

 

[Schuyler]

I see your point, music, which is even more of a reason to not ban people who are 'proven charlatans.' As you correctly point out, many of these cases have more than one side to them; and I'm not sure the ferreting out of a single unfortunate incident nullifies everything (I'm thinking of Greer and the nerve gas incident as an example). Still, I look forward to some reasoned middle-ground discussions on these guys in the future here and can only hope that no subject is banned outright.