• 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!

The December 20th Show.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy Allison
  • Start date Start date
Forums New posts

Free episodes:

sk4p said:
Seriously, I don't know how you guys put up with it.

There are episodes where the person is so obviously full of crap that it's laughable, but rarely are they so harsh in their attitude and tone that I just find it pretty much unlistenable, and Bob sure as hell got there a lot.

I was delighted to see Don's name but disappointed he was mixed in with Angry Hollywood Guy so much ...

--Shawn
Click to expand...



Well said, and of course we cannot blame Don. More Don is never a bad thing.

The Moon stuff is absolutely riveting listening though, so I really hope our 3 friends can get another show on this topic soon.
 
Not a total trainwreck. The moon stuff was fascinating. Robert Kiviat was pompous, but did have some interesting nuggets in is egotistical ramblings.
Again, anyone have links to some of these high res images (not the youtube vid some jpgs if possible).
P.S. I think Robert was very hyper, and his stab at David was uncalled for. Not everyone knows David is an Expert, if not THE expert in Digital imaging and I was cringing during a lot of this show!
 
I listened to it again this morning , and while the subject matter is gripping. Kiviat made me wish I had a big build-up of wax in my ears.
The show is as awesome as ever and our hosts did a fantastic job given what they were to deal with.
I'll say it again. We need a good Moon show !!
 
The guys argument about the tabloid press is absurd.

His comparators, even if accurate, merely shows the decline of more serious news sources rather than any defence of the infotainment found in tabloids, Fox etc..
 
Just for the record, I have a hardback copy of Leonard's 'Somebody Else is on the Moon' and the pictures in the book are much better than the mass-market paperback, of course. They are about four times bigger and glossy (well before the era of jpegs). To judge the book based on mass-market pictures doesn't do it justice. It's still difficult to see stuff, but a couple are very compelling. You can still get the book in hardback on the used market, but it will be $100-$225.
 
I can see how the guy seems hard to take... at the same time, he came across as overly excited about the material combined with obviously never having heard the show. I think some of what may have come across as being rude was more him not realizing some of the humour and for lack of a better term, inside references that anyone familiar with Gene and David would get. It's not an excuse for some of those instances, and he still came across as a bit arrogant in others, but I didn't dislike him quite as much as some obviously did (and perhaps rightfully so) with those ideas mentioned above in mind.
 
What an obnoxious individual.

I would like to complement Dave on the level of self-control he exercised during this interview. I think the sarcasm (you being the provincial one) towards the end of the show was lost on him. He seemed to be doing this purely as a self promotion vehicle.

Very interesting topic, very narcissistic guest.
 
aNorthernSoul said:
I can see how the guy seems hard to take... at the same time, he came across as overly excited about the material combined with obviously never having heard the show. I think some of what may have come across as being rude was more him not realizing some of the humour and for lack of a better term, inside references that anyone familiar with Gene and David would get. It's not an excuse for some of those instances, and he still came across as a bit arrogant in others, but I didn't dislike him quite as much as some obviously did (and perhaps rightfully so) with those ideas mentioned above in mind.
Click to expand...

I thanked you and then decided to add a comment.

I appreciate your partial defence of him.

We should be careful not to be too dualistic about the worth of guests. I think you are right to temper the more extreme dismissals.:)
 
grannysmith said:
I thanked you and then decided to add a comment.

I appreciate your partial defence of him.

We should be careful not to be too dualistic about the worth of guests. I think you are right to temper the more extreme dismissals.:)
Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, just on listening I wasn't really dismissive at all but then I read this thread and could see some people's points to a degree. I think his heart was in the right place though.
 
Wow.

That was just tough to listen to! Bob uses the same overweening language and bulldozer tone like so many producers that I have had the displeasure to work for. My the whole time I was trying to focus on the information, my mind is shrieking that that guy is exactly what is wrong in American filmmaking and TV. People like this guy who just wheel and deal with half-baked ideas and dubious assertions of their commitment to the integrity of the story are the same people who rape your favorite novels and comic books characters for film adaptations.

This is my response to Bob, and for that matter, to half the producers "working" out there:


My apologies to the decent, hard working few business people who also call themselves producers. A few bad apples and all...


*Ahem* The subject is fascinating for speculations sake, and true, there are some intriguing photos but I feel like this is one of those subjects that really requires actual eyes on evaluation to determine what the hell these anomalous images actually show. For example, regarding the Face on Mars at Cydonia, no "true believer" can accept the survey photo from a few years back that showed a much higher resolution photo of the site aimed at disproving the "Face" photo. Richard Hoagland will continue refuting such photos as disinformation and continue to present highly detailed descriptions of "anomalous objects" from grainy pixellated photos of amorphous blobs.
 
aNorthernSoul said:
Thanks! Yeah, just on listening I wasn't really dismissive at all but then I read this thread and could see some people's points to a degree. I think his heart was in the right place though.
Click to expand...

Lol, maybe : he came across as a bit of a 'hustler' to me but your right : we should be wary of assuming particular motivations when other rational people see it differently.

The internet is said to be good at producing 'polarised opinions' : I like your more tempered approach.
 
kipspritely said:
Somebody please post some links to the gears photo, and the tread anomaly!
Click to expand...

I actually posted a photo of the "tread anomaly" (rolling boulders/objects) on the previous page. Here it is:

lo5_h168_2_boulder.gif

Track_01a.png


At one point DOn mentioned 'Lunar transient phenomena' ... for anyone not sure what he was talking about:

Aristarcus_MA_03.png


Also Don mentioned the Vito Saccheri interview. WELL worth a listening because its a fascinating story:

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/vito-saccheri-moon-show-special-t4715.html
 
grannysmith said:
Lol, maybe : he came across as a bit of a 'hustler' to me but your right : we should be wary of assuming particular motivations when other rational people see it differently.

The internet is said to be good at producing 'polarised opinions' : I like your more tempered approach.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks! Yeah, one always must be wary, but that can lead to a variety of closed mindedness if one gets TOO wary I would imagine. I can see the "hustler" perspective, though to me I read more "passionate" into it. Now that being said, passion does not equate to correct either...
 
heh I must be the only person listening who didnt think Bob was being an ass. Sure a lot of his points were a bit iffy, but some of them were good, and he was still behaving in a fairly civil manner even after his jousting matches with David.
David was making some (often correct) statements about the media that Bob has worked in for all his life, so it was understandable that he would get upset. But afterwards he carried on the conversation in a civil manner. I wish people would do that a little more in the ufo field and not take things so personally all the time.

Seriously though, the guy just came on the show and isnt trying to sell us anything, or do anything bad to anyone so I think some of the people here are getting over-excited about him being an ass. I really enjoyed this show.

And for those of you that missed this earlier post I made, here is an example of how Mr Murdochs media doesnt *ahem* change its news for the sake of entertainment:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/hygiene/home/article190130.ece

Going back to the moon thing I have always had a few problems with the theory that there is buildings up there:
  1. How comes Edgar Mitchell never saw anything up there? Spending all the time he has with Greer, we are surely to have heard about it if he did
  2. How comes all the 'objects' are the same colour as the moon itself? Literally no colour anywhere
  3. The rolling boulder scene has the main argument used that it has rolled up a hill then down again. But to me the crater it rolled up and down is itself clearly on a mountainside so it just picked up enough momentum from that as it went down
  4. How comes the Japs or the Indians havent seen anything unusual up there
  5. Despite what many people said (including i think kiviat in this film), Neil Armstrong didnt suddenly change when he went up to the moon. The BBC did a great documentary on him recently where they met all his old schoolfriends etc, and they all said he was a complete introvert
  6. If as Karl Wulf (spelling) said, there really are bases on the back of the moon, how the hell did we see them in the dark??? if they have lights, then not only all of the apollo astronauts in the lunar orbiter would have seen them, but so would the japs and the indians again
There are probably more but this is all I can think of off the top of my head.

Sorry (Gareth :)) i'm not trying to be a party pooper again, these are just my observations. I wish to god there really was something on the moon, think how much more exciting life would be :shy:
 
Back
Top