September 16, 2012 Nick Redfern

[RenaissanceLady]

Sorry RPJ,

I think listing the 5 items that I think fit Chris would only feed an argument I don't want to have.

I was never trying to make a case against Chris. I just enjoyed this show. I thought about it and realized it was because Chris was not there and Nick worked out very well as the co-host/guest. I wanted to voice my opinion so that I could hopefully encourage more shows of this quality. A forum about shows and a thread about this particular show seemed like the appropriate place. I realized the Chris would at some point come in and start name calling (which he has) and possibly threatening because I have seen how he has treated other posters that disagreed with him ("4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford | Page 4 | The Paracast Community Forums"). People criticize actors for how they play a role, directors for how they interpreted a story, sports players for their performance, coaches for the plays they call... When that person responds back with name calling and threats, they are considered unprofessional.

In my opinion Nick would make a great co-host, would invigorate the show, increase the audience and start moving The Paracast toward the popularity of shows like Mysterious Universe.

That's just my opinion. It doesn't matter any more or any less then anyone else's.

Smorry

I am among those who found this forum and podcast entirely because I appreciated Christopher O'Brien's work. I am quite confident that he has attracted other loyal listeners and participants to this forum because he has a good reputation as a field researcher and for his insight. He adds a different perspective to this forum and I would argue that the program is enriched by the dynamics between O'Brien and Steinberg. They seem to mesh well together and I find that makes for enjoyable listening. While no one is above criticism, any critiques of individuals or their work should be objective and insightful or it becomes the stuff of petty bickering and gossip.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with simply not liking Christopher O'Brien. It's fine if he isn't your cup of tea but that doesn't automatically indicate the fault is with him or anyone else. Individual tastes can vary like snowflakes but for the most part are entirely subjective. There's nothing wrong with this, as long as we understand when we're being subjective and not blame others for this dislike. If you can objectively point out a specific flaw with O'Brien's research and work, or if you can say precisely what it is that causes you to doubt or otherwise feel discomfort with him as a co-host, you're welcome to say that and start a dialog about ways for improvement. That would be a remarkably constructive way to share your opinion. Instead, what you have given us is a parcel of generic complaints and insults coupled with a passive-aggressive combativeness, whether or not that was your intent. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you've offered us so far is not enriching the discourse.

 

[Randall]

Nick is cool Chris is cool Gene is cool Biedny is Angry ( but that's cool too ) ​

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Jesus, did Chris pay all you people to say these things about him!? LOL. I think Chris is a good and competent cohost as well, but damn you'd think you people were getting free dinners from him.

I really enjoyed this program except for the poor sound quality from Nick. I think the Paracast needs to invest in a pair of $70 Logitech headsets to mail to guests. I have a pair I use for radio interviews and I've had compliments on the sound quality...much better than a cellphone while driving in a car through the Arizona desert. I kept having to turn it up and down based on whether or not Gene or Nick were speaking. Then there was the issue where, again, Gene and Nick were talking over one another. Frustrating and annoying.

Nick's top 10 list was funny, and had some valid points. I disagreed with leaving out the "trailing letters" to some extent. I agree that no one has a "degree" in any field of paranormal research, however if I have a Ph.D in astronomy and I write a book on UFO's in which I argue for the ETH and use astronomy to hit my points I think that emphasizing that Ph.D would add to the credibility of my point. Outside of that I do agree that having a Ph.D in herbal medicines probably wouldn't lend itself to the credibility if I argue physics of extraterrestrial craft.

I think it was missed by most but when Gene was mentioning about dropping the period from the middle initial, Nick D Redfern commented that if he did it, his name would be "Dredfern." I had a good laugh at that one.

Nick's a great co-host. I just think he needs to invest in a bit of better audio technology.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Nicks first book is the top one! and like many others his done.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Jesus, did Chris pay all you people to say these things about him!? LOL. I think Chris is a good and competent cohost as well, but damn you'd think you people were getting free dinners from him.

Dang it, Chris. He's onto us. I haven't spoken to the rest of your "fans" but we'll take unmarked bills instead of dinner.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Dang it, Chris. He's onto us. I haven't spoken to the rest of your "fans" but we'll take unmarked bills instead of dinner.

Oh man, I was hoping you'd all settle for my signature Cajun-style dish, Shrimp Diablo w/ killer shots of Don Julio. Or maybe a custom sushi platter featuring Caribbean and Southwestern style maki rolls... w/a big bottle of warmed up Momakawa ruby sake'. Party's at my house, but ya'll have to promise to play nice.

Seriously though, thanks to everyone for all of your kind words---I appreciate your support more than you know!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Perhaps O'Brien could use his funds in a more pro0ductive manner? Such as investing in the show to remove the need for pay subscriptions?

Whatya think, eh, whatya think?

What do I think? Err, I've been investing many hundreds of hours of my time over the past 2 1/2 years with little to no pay for my time. Gene and I are"trying" to get us to the next level, but I've already ammassed a considerable amount of sweat equity in the show, BELIEVE me! Some shows require quite a bit of background research--it isn't just turning on the mic and pretending you know as much (if not more than the guest) about a given subject and it takes a lot of work to be up2speed, right Gene?!

 

[Wade]

Oh man, I was hoping you'd all settle for my signature Cajun-style dish, Shrimp Diablo w/ killer shots of Don Julio. Or maybe a custom sushi platter featuring Caribbean and Southwestern style maki rolls... w/a big bottle of warmed up Momakawa ruby sake'. Party's at my house, but ya'll have to promise to play nice.

Seriously though, thanks to everyone for all of your kind words---I appreciate your support more than you know!

I'd been content with arizona road kill.

 

[mike]

Oh man, I was hoping you'd all settle for my signature Cajun-style dish, Shrimp Diablo w/ killer shots of Don Julio. Or maybe a custom sushi platter featuring Caribbean and Southwestern style maki rolls... w/a big bottle of warmed up Momakawa ruby sake'. Party's at my house, but ya'll have to promise to play nice.

Seriously though, thanks to everyone for all of your kind words---I appreciate your support more than you know!

I'm in, i know a great magick trick if you have a persian rug

 

[Smorry]

I am among those who found this forum and podcast entirely because I appreciated Christopher O'Brien's work. I am quite confident that he has attracted other loyal listeners and participants to this forum because he has a good reputation as a field researcher and for his insight. He adds a different perspective to this forum and I would argue that the program is enriched by the dynamics between O'Brien and Steinberg. They seem to mesh well together and I find that makes for enjoyable listening. While no one is above criticism, any critiques of individuals or their work should be objective and insightful or it becomes the stuff of petty bickering and gossip.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with simply not liking Christopher O'Brien. It's fine if he isn't your cup of tea but that doesn't automatically indicate the fault is with him or anyone else. Individual tastes can vary like snowflakes but for the most part are entirely subjective. There's nothing wrong with this, as long as we understand when we're being subjective and not blame others for this dislike. If you can objectively point out a specific flaw with O'Brien's research and work, or if you can say precisely what it is that causes you to doubt or otherwise feel discomfort with him as a co-host, you're welcome to say that and start a dialog about ways for improvement. That would be a remarkably constructive way to share your opinion. Instead, what you have given us is a parcel of generic complaints and insults coupled with a passive-aggressive combativeness, whether or not that was your intent. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you've offered us so far is not enriching the discourse.

Hi RenaissanceLady. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "insults". maybe when I said "We weren't told to believe something because the guests were friends of Chris's. Theories weren't blindly thrown out because the guest is not a friend of Chris's." As I have stated over and over 'this is my opinion'. It seems weird to have to prove one's opinion, but I'll try to explain why I made those statements. Here are some recent examples of behavior I have seen repeatedly during the two years I have been listening to the show. During the beginning of the Ed Komarek show Chris said Ed was "real top researcher". It wasn't long before it came clear that Komarek was grabbing bits and pieces from the internet and other paranormal books, putting them together to create his theory. What was his proof? Web addresses of the quotes he used. In my opinion that's not how you conduct or document research, at least not on any academic or scientific level. Even Gene was calling Komarek out for his use of the internet as proof. Chris called Nancy Talbot "a real strait shooter". I'm sure everyone here knows how that turned out. So, when Gene starts to ask for proof or verification of 'Chip's' claims during the Skin Walker episode and Chris cuts Gene off saying he vouches for 'Chip' without saying how he verified 'Chips' story, I get disappointed in the show. If people don't have support the stories they are telling and we are to accept whatever they say as truth because Chris vouches for them, I think the show's credibility is lowered. I feel comfortable saying that Chris's endorsements of guests don't carry a lot of weight with me due to such behavior as mentioned above. That's just the way I way feel. I fully understand not everyone feels that way. It's just my personal opinion.

On the other side Chris comes off as dismissive of guests or groups he doesn't like. For example: Kevin Randle. I don't follow Randle, but he seems one of the better guests when it comes to supporting his statements. But I have often heard Chris refer to him in a dismissive fashion.

Chris doesn't seem objective to me and I think the show would benefit from a more objective, even handed approach to their guests. That's my opinion. Obviously other people have different opinions. I'm not going to ask them to prove them.

As for "passive-aggressive combativeness", I don't see anything I said that could hold a candle to "newbies (who obviously haven't done their homework)", " George "Smorry"" or "I'll be watching you". If you are going to call me out for being passive-agressive, at least be fair and even handed.

As for Chris's "research and work". I have no opinion about them at all. I have never mentioned them. In fact I think he would make a great guest. My comments have only referred to the co-host position. I expressed my opinion in a forum who's topic was the paracast show, in a thread who's topic was the specific show I wanted to comment about. Seems fair enough to me. Actually, so far just about everyone has been pretty cool about it. They stated their opinions and allowed me room for mine

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I listen to another podcast (I know, Gene, this is a "radio show" and not a podcast) put on by a guy named Jim Harold who went "full time" into it. He had 2 podcasts that were free and had a good fanbase already. He quit his day job and offered a subscription....$9 a month or $70 for the year. You get 3 additional podcasts having to do with true crime, hauntings, and UFO's each, plus video "training" (that's not worth my time honestly but others may find value in it), a forum similar to this one, and video interactions with guests. He also offers an archive of all previous shows. Without the subscription you get the free podcast for up to 3 months, then it get's archived and you lose the access until you pay. Yeah, I chalked up the $70 for the year and so far it's not too bad. A LOT more content although the podcasts are only an hour long or so.

In the end if Gene and Chris want to start a premium service, which I think is a good idea, they're going to need to add a lot of value to what they offer in the form of additional content. One of the things they 'cannot' do, however, is start charging for what they already offer. That will turn a LOT of people off to the idea of paying for a subscription.

So what kind of product would warrant a subscription price? Maybe some actual podcasts offered. They're easier to put out than the radio portion of the Paracast, and you can do them quicker. Discounts at the Paracast store. Free products, even, would be nice for signing up. A magazine or monthly news letter. A premium form in which you can interact directly with some of the guests. Video content. Commercial-free content...just some ideas.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Oh man, I was hoping you'd all settle for my signature Cajun-style dish, Shrimp Diablo w/ killer shots of Don Julio. Or maybe a custom sushi platter featuring Caribbean and Southwestern style maki rolls... w/a big bottle of warmed up Momakawa ruby sake'. Party's at my house, but ya'll have to promise to play nice.

Seriously though, thanks to everyone for all of your kind words---I appreciate your support more than you know!

And now I'm hungry.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Hi RenaissanceLady. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "insults". maybe when I said "We weren't told to believe something because the guests were friends of Chris's. Theories weren't blindly thrown out because the guest is not a friend of Chris's." As I have stated over and over 'this is my opinion'. It seems weird to have to prove one's opinion, but I'll try to explain why I made those statements. Here are some recent examples of behavior I have seen repeatedly during the two years I have been listening to the show. During the beginning of the Ed Komarek show Chris said Ed was "real top researcher". It wasn't long before it came clear that Komarek was grabbing bits and pieces from the internet and other paranormal books, putting them together to create his theory. What was his proof? Web addresses of the quotes he used. In my opinion that's not how you conduct or document research, at least not on any academic or scientific level. Even Gene was calling Komarek out for his use of the internet as proof. Chris called Nancy Talbot "a real strait shooter". I'm sure everyone here knows how that turned out. So, when Gene starts to ask for proof or verification of 'Chip's' claims during the Skin Walker episode and Chris cuts Gene off saying he vouches for 'Chip' without saying how he verified 'Chips' story, I get disappointed in the show. If people don't have support the stories they are telling and we are to accept whatever they say as truth because Chris vouches for them, I think the show's credibility is lowered. I feel comfortable saying that Chris's endorsements of guests don't carry a lot of weight with me due to such behavior as mentioned above. That's just the way I way feel. I fully understand not everyone feels that way. It's just my personal opinion.

On the other side Chris comes off as dismissive of guests or groups he doesn't like. For example: Kevin Randle. I don't follow Randle, but he seems one of the better guests when it comes to supporting his statements. But I have often heard Chris refer to him in a dismissive fashion.

Chris doesn't seem objective to me and I think the show would benefit from a more objective, even handed approach to their guests. That's my opinion. Obviously other people have different opinions. I'm not going to ask them to prove them.

As for "passive-aggressive combativeness", I don't see anything I said that could hold a candle to "newbies (who obviously haven't done their homework)", " George "Smorry"" or "I'll be watching you". If you are going to call me out for being passive-agressive, at least be fair and even handed.

As for Chris's "research and work". I have no opinion about them at all. I have never mentioned them. In fact I think he would make a great guest. My comments have only referred to the co-host position. I expressed my opinion in a forum who's topic was the paracast show, in a thread who's topic was the specific show I wanted to comment about. Seems fair enough to me. Actually, so far just about everyone has been pretty cool about it. They stated their opinions and allowed me room for mine

Smorry, please go back and re-read some of your own posts. You start off by insisting that Chris tells people to believe something simply because they're his friends but in comparison, Nick Redfern was "like a breath of fresh air." You then went on to say how Chris does all of the "10 Things" Ufologists aren't supposed to do but when you got called on this in RPJ's response, you then decided it wasn't worth mentioning what exactly Chris does that makes you feel this way. You also did all of this on his home turf, where you know Chris will be reading and will certainly have some defenders.

If that isn't passive-aggressive, I don't know what is.

It's the equivalent of me walking into the kitchen of a Jewish grandmother and saying, "Well, you can pretend this is authentic Jewish cooking but if you REALLY want good matzo ball soup with the freshest ingredients by a woman who can actually cook, we should all go to that house in the neighboring suburb. It's so much better than anything being offered here. No offense."

You know it's poor form to insult your host, especially on the host's own territory. You also know that if you're going to kick dirt on the host, he and many of his other guests will defend him. I seriously doubt this was naivete on your part but rather an opportunity to play alpha-rooster and crow to Chris's followers about how tough and smart you are by insinuating things you will not specifically explain. You were invited to give actual critiques in private but as far as I can tell, you have declined and continued to kick dirt around. Now you seem surprised that Chris and many of those who respect him will stand up and defend him. These are more the actions of a troll than someone who has something constructive to say. Having said this, you are still entitled to your opinion.

So is Chris. We should cut him some slack because he has actually been out in the field. He may personally know many of his guests and can be a more objective gauge regarding who works hard and is honest versus those who don't quite do their homework - and to be blunt, he may also call out the b.s. artists. I'm sure he's seen a few. He's been in this field for a long time, does his research and at the very least deserves some respect for this, even if there is room for disagreement.

 

[Randall]

Seems like this whole thing with Smorry vs Chris is getting a bit blown out of proportion. I don't see any nefarious intent on Smorry's part, and sometimes we all say things that aren't completely accurate. He has pointed out the examples he believes are relevant, and I can't say I entirely disagree ( or agree ). I've been reluctant to add my two cents worth because I don't want to appear to be picking sides, especially if it's perceived that by doing so it will be interpreted as an endorsement for Nick as opposed to Chris. My issues with Nick recently have been far more serious than anything I can say about Chris. If I had to say who is the most balanced it's Gene. He has an excellent style and if I were to imagine myself as a guest on the show, I'd be happy with ( or without ) either Chris or Nick as co-hosts, but I wouldn't be happy without Gene. If you want to get an idea about how really professional Gene is compared to some other hosts, check out shows where Gene is the guest like DMR ( Link 1 | Link 2 ).

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@Jeff (sandanfire) - I would not be surprised if Nick Redfern actually does have a decent microphone. The fact that the show is recorded over Skype might mean that occasionally there is nothing that can be done to get round poor sound - certainly not if the recording has to take place at a set pre-arranged time.
I know from using Skype myself that depending on a few factors I don't pretend to understand, sometimes the sound is perfect and sometimes not, and that is with a very basic and cheap mic.

So all I am saying is that even if Nick has a good mic, the sound might have been low quality anyway? (please anyone knowledgeable on this subject weigh in with some wisdom in case I am talking out my 'dan burisch')

Goggs

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@sesame shtick - Any chance of revealing your real identity? Have you ever used this site before under a different name? No big deal, just felt that your writing style was familiar!

goggs

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Perhaps O'Brien could use his funds in a more pro0ductive manner? Such as investing in the show to remove the need for pay subscriptions?

Whatya think, eh, whatya think?

Is that a joke? It's free. Troll.....?

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Cut him all the slack you want, take his slacks off if you desire.

But as soon as someone is subjected to royal treatment, all suppositions of credibility are off. Think Richard Nixon.

First, good grief. Punned down in the prime of life.

Second, I don't believe he's getting "royal treatment" by anyone. I do think he's allowed to share his knowledge and opinions regarding people he may personally know. He's also allowed to share his research and point out if another hasn't done his homework. Both Gene and Chris are rather good at doing this, which I gladly prefer over pandering and brown-nosing. If a doctor criticizes another doctor, it doesn't mean that first doctor is somehow closed-minded. It might mean that the doctor recognizes if someone in his profession isn't up to snuff on a particular topic. People call out others in their profession all the time when those others are damaging to that profession. This is far better than allowing outrageous claims to go unchallenged.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Um.....did I miss something here?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Why do you feel the need to hide behind the name 'sesame shtick' so you can be an ass when everyone else is in this forum to learn new things and swap ideas, have arguments and discussions etc?

I have a feeling you've been here before in another guise. Your kind usually do that kind of thing. I am willing to admit I'm wrong if you prove otherwise but I predict you wont.