• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

POLL: Do Not Talk About Proven Charlatans?

Forums New posts

Should The Paracast BAN talk about proven cases of liars, frauds, and charlatans?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • No

    Votes: 26 89.7%
  • Total voters
    29

Free episodes:

I'm glad we all seem to be coming around to the conclusion that banning the discussion of anyone or anything is not in sympathy with the goal of "finding the truth". The human desire to "save others" from misinformation is understandable, but counter-productive. Sometimes you just have to have faith in your fellow man's ability to sort out what is reasonable from what is ludicrous.

Sure . . . some suckers will always be taken in by the snake oil salesmen. That does not (in my mind) constitute a need for restricting the topics of discussions. The lowest common denominator will always be at risk of believing the most bizarre and unfounded claims. Little can be done about that.

-DBTrek
 
I doubt they will be banning anyone for talking about certain people any time soon. David mentioned MH by name on the Ecker show after all.

One of the things the Paracast does is similar to what the UFOwatchdog.com site does. If you take away that aspect of the show, you have another Fart Hell show....
 
For my money, the only thing that should be banned is censorship.

We enjoy freedom of speech, at lest for now. We should use it.
 
Gil Bavel said:
For my money, the only thing that should be banned is censorship.

We enjoy freedom of speech, at lest for now. We should use it.
Click to expand...

I often tell people the same thing. I think I might have mentioned it in this thread even. Not sure, it's been awhile.

This thread just magically appear as having new posts in it to you too?
 
oh, by the way, reading about some of the frauds, charlatans, money-inspired cons and other less than credible lecturers out there has been an education I would not have missed.

I vote the education of the masses continue, and if that means the forums ripping apart seminars hosting "experiencers and experts", "educators" and "channelers" who make themselves out to be something they are not, then so be it.

knowing we have some tech-savvy experts working on behalf of the Paracast forum's participants to give a reasoned look at photos of objects, and accounts of encounters gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
 
I voted no (FWIW) because I think the paranormal field is so full of charlatans that it's a benefit to the field to have a show which takes on the difficult but necessary task of exposing those charlatans.

The flip side of the coin I guess is that sometimes I wish there would be a little more talk about ufology and a little less talk about ufologists, charlatans or otherwise, I guess it's all about finding a balance...
 
Well, who decides who has been "proven" a charlatan? In my mind folks like Bob Lazar, Stan Romanek, Phil Corso, Ed Walters, Billy Meier, etc., have been proven hoaxers but you always get people standing by these guys no matter what. Recently someone fairly high placed at MUFON (Supposedly a STAR investigator.) came out in support of Romanek against James Carrion. I responded to the guy's blog and he deleted my comment. In my mind this particular fellow is completely lost and has decided to build a personal utopia for himself at the bottom of a sea of Kool-Aid. Yet he has been deemed clear-thinking enough by some to place him on the STAR team. So again, who decides who is fraudulent and who isn't because even those in the top ranks of Ufology can espouse some pretty controversial beliefs.
 
Speaking as a person not only new to the forum but not particularly well exposed to the various personalities in the paranormal/UFO world, I wouldn't trust a sort of "in or out" list. You know, Fred is in, we like Fred, he's our friend; Barny's out, he's an idiot, we hate Barney. I want to know why Fred is in, and Barny is out. Listening to shows in the archives have been helpful to me. I find out who seems sensible and reasonable and then find out who they think is sensible and reasonable, or at least worth listening to for certain reasons.

One show in particular I found helpful in this way was the tribute to John Keel, and another the round table with Kimball, Bishop, and Redfern. The first was full of veterans from the 1950s onwards, and the second seemed to represent a newer generation. All of these guests seemed reasonable, sensible, and discerning. Now I want to find out who they read and pay attention to and take it from there.

Honestly, if someone says, "the Name of So-and-So must never be spoken here, and if it is, the speaker of this Name will be smitten by a thunderbolt," without any reason given, I am going to want to find out who could be so dreadful as to merit this derision. So to me, anyway, you might as well talk about the idiots cuz I just want to know. Like with all these forum members who are "Banned". I want to hear the story. I'm an inquiring mind. ;)
 
Wickerman1972 said:
Well, who decides who has been "proven" a charlatan? In my mind folks like Bob Lazar, Stan Romanek, Phil Corso, Ed Walters, Billy Meier, etc., have been proven hoaxers but you always get people standing by these guys no matter what. Recently someone fairly high placed at MUFON (Supposedly a STAR investigator.) came out in support of Romanek against James Carrion. I responded to the guy's blog and he deleted my comment. In my mind this particular fellow is completely lost and has decided to build a personal utopia for himself at the bottom of a sea of Kool-Aid. Yet he has been deemed clear-thinking enough by some to place him on the STAR team. So again, who decides who is fraudulent and who isn't because even those in the top ranks of Ufology can espouse some pretty controversial beliefs.
Click to expand...

I agree, with the exception of Corso. I am still not sure what motives Corso had for lieing. The only motive, i see at the moment. We all know, Corso had seemly a great Career. Maybe with the things he had done in his life during the World War 2 and later he wanted to be remembered.

Alot of people have done great things in their lifes and are just forgotten in time.With a story like this one. It be hard to forget you then? It might be a silly reason. It just, i don't see the motives for lieing as of yet.
 
I'm shocked to think that 25% of the people that took the pole think it should be banned. I still get the odd email with an old urban myth and the sender is telling me how 'true' the story is.
 
Of course we will discuss whoever and whatever we want to. No one is forcing anyone to read about people they feel are unworthy of their time. Discussing hoaxers and their efforts is very revealing, too. Someone might actually learn something useful. ;)
 
If they insist on propping up their own fraudulant claims, and for some reason choose to go out on the paracast (out of ignorance, because they would know if they listened that Gene and David don't suffer fools, or a kind of self delusion, bordering on or just plain bat-shit insane) then bring it on. A session with Gene and David can only be good (well, not for them, but certainly for everybody else!).
 
I haven't read through all this thread but unless someone has already mentioned it I'd like to make this point.

If the UFO community were to ban talk of liars, frauds, and charlatans what would we have left to talk about? :)
 
Due to the fact that we are not all experts in the field, I think that we should keep these topics open so that people may educate themselves on the activities of these people.

The expressions "Know your enemy" and "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" ring true here.
 
cottonzway said:
So you are saying people here shoudl talk about or cover issues that are PROVEN to be bald faced lies in the UFO community?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, without a doubt, yes.

Without the Paracast's coverage of individuals with dubious case histories I would not know whom to believe and whom to doubt. Sometimes a little bit of discussion about the frauds/charlatans and liars is educational. Credibility is another issue. It would deny the credibility of The Paracast if these cases were simply not discussed/examined/brought to light.

So rather than ignore these less than believable issues, I'd rather discuss the bad and give it the ignominy that it deserves. Sometimes silence is not the better option.
 
Well, for starters, I don't think the banning of speech or topics is EVER beneficial. That being said, just think back to me requesting info on William Cooper and the always wonderful Mr. Ecker chiming in with all the information exposing this guy in a very undeniable fashion. Considering there are always newcomers coming to the forum who have also given him the well deserved thanks for doing that, and how there aren't many sources out there exposing these guys (in comparison to sources shilling for them)... I think there is real value in addressing these characters whenever it happens to come up.
 
whoa, just read the shitstorm that was this thread.

I'm left wishing we had a rolleyes smiley even more now. Talk about a flare for the dramatic.
 
Ivoted no, but because of the word BAN. Ithink we should all agree to marginalize these folks. Let's scissor out a big chunk of the laughter curtain and drop it over them.
 
Back
Top