The Perfect Balance...The Lance Moody Interview

[PararealitySaint]

Lance Moody, Skeptic, Blogger, Researcher, Realist
Chris O'brien, Investigator, Journalist, Honest Gentleman

Lance is one of the best skeptics I know. Chris is one of the best investigators I know. Together, this week's episode shows EXACTLY why I continue to listen to the Paracast from week to week.

Chris brings out relative information which he studies intensely, and he even states that Lance is like a watch dog.....And somewhere in the middle of it all you have reason!

Lance doesn't believe in the Christian faith mainly because "faith" isn't something within his personification of a reality in which he can either touch, smell, taste, or see. Chris is one to allow for investigatory findings to branch into a more wholesome and well rounded consideration, and does this instead of just minimally backed, theoretical explanation, and together the battle between the two forms an equitably well rounded consideration for all of us to....dare I say it...... eventually form a BELIEF with!

This very point is what I have been arguing with so many on this forum about for a long time now. I have faith in my religion, I believe in the demonic/inter dimensional answer for what is happening with UFO's and Abductions, and Bigfoot, etc.....Lance, from the interview I heard today, would probably state for the record that demons are a bunch of hookey. He would ask for physical proof and then closely disseminate the video, etc. Chris might be a little more open to suggestion, but he might also BELIEVE that it's more of an extra terrestrial non human answer for the phenomenon.

Either way, the approach to investigating this and other parts of the paranormal have to resolve within the realm of BELIEF in the end. I believe the video of the exorcism is real...I believe that the ectoplasm, albeit having the properties of an easily found and store bought ingredient, could have very well been spewed forth by a demonic entity possessing a human being....

Unlike Coast to Coast AM where you had Art Bell genuinely look at these subjects from a diversely interesting approach, for example, Father Malachi Martin versus say a Linda Molten Howe, today's Coast to Coast AM including shows like Ghost Hunters, Chasing UFO's and the like, are nothing more than entertainment venues mired deep in unproven fact and innuendo....but the difference between these shows and the Paracast, is that the Paracast fights to arrive at what seems a more logical explanation, and in doing so forces the real facts to be brought to the surface and scrutinized.

Many guests over the years have found this "real" attempt at answers very disheartening...many have left the show or have just taken a stand toward what they perceive of as abuse for the couple of hours or so and moved on to the next broadcast; where they pandered the Paracast for "its obvious bias toward not getting it"....

which is an actual quote from one of the guests of another paranormal show, author unknown....

You'll just have to....

BELIEVE IT.

Or not?

No pun intended.

 

[boomerang]

Just listened to the Lance Moody interview and was much impressed by Chris' attempts to get at what motivates Lance as a dedicated skeptic, and Moody's articulate and thoughtful responses. He sounds like a sharp guy and I would love to have him back again.

The Roswell case is indeed over processed at this point. But something Lance said about Major Marcel jolted me back into the paradox zone early on when he stated Maj. Marcel is on record that the photo-op debris in Ramey's office was the same stuff he found in the debris field. Well, perhaps Marcel is indeed on record as such. But he is also on record stating in effect the opposite:

So--Which is it and why the discrepancy? This is typical of the kind of recurrent dissonance that continues to confound so many of us.

My only general criticism of the session might be a need for greater point by point coverage of better cases that historically drive interest in the paranormal, and in particular, the ufo phenomenon. Perhaps Lance and someone on the other side of the ideological fence could agree beforehand to discuss pros and cons of best cases (problems and all) involving high strangeness as reported by multiple high credibility witnesses ? A debate between Lance Moody and, say, Robert Hastings or Stanton Friedman comes to mind.

Keep the good stuff coming.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Best episode in a long time. It's always interesting on how a paranormal show, the skeptics always seem to know the most about the topics.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

For the moderators - this thread apparently has malware (according to Google Chrome). Should it be moved to a new thread? Or is it the Trickster!

 

[pixelsmith]

hey.. wtf Chris? you discuss silly mutilations and fake reality tv shows but you can't ask my 9/11 question? that is pure BS.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

In Chris' defense, the 9/11 stuff is even more silly! There are plenty of places on this forum where Lance has dismantled your "evidence," so it would have been a waste of time.

 

[Muadib]

Not to mention that what I posted in that thread showed that the collapse did not break any of the laws of physics, and that your statement that NIST said the building free fell was an over simplification of what was actually stated, as the free fall only happened for a portion of the total collapse and that's completely consistent with the laws of physics as we know them, which is why no one cares.

 

[pixelsmith]

no one has dismantled anything in regards to 9/11. not lance, not muadib, not chris or angelo.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Chris is on the road for a few days, so I don't think he has easy online access.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As I recall, Lance, they were bitching about the multiple layers if you opened the birth certificate scan in Photoshop. Maybe someone should have flattened the file?

Now if you want to debate whether W won the 2000 election, or would have one if Justice Scalia hadn't been responsible for ramming through his selection, that's a discussion with traction.

But even if something were found to be wrong with that decision, how would we handle the crisis of having had an illegal president in office at least for his first term, and all the decisions he made? Once the deed was done, that's where it goes. We can go back to all the dead Chicagoans who made Kennedy president in 1960, for example.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Are we beginning to acknowledge the difference between a UFO (unidentified flying object) and some form of non human being originating from another planet, thus utilizing a spacecraft to arrive in our planetary view? The difference is very important as Lance might not deny the relevance of the phenomenon, but instead perhaps disagree that it's some form of empirical proof that these alien extra terrestrials in fact exist.

Lance even acquiesced during the interview to Chris that there are strange happenings out there that we cannot explain. I agree with him and leave FAITH and BELIEF as my reasoning for just "what" they seem to be.

To do so otherwise at this point would be foolish to say the least.

 

[dyingsun]

Good show, since there is no way to qualify personal experiences, I get where Lance is coming from, not agreeing on all points still.

Thanks for doing it , Lance.

 

[Randall]

UPDATED & REPOSTED​

It seems to me that Lance's ultimate position is denial and that skepticism is merely one means toward that end:

Quote 2:31:08 "Some things can't be explained because we just don't have the data. We're not ever going to have the data. So I ... my belief is that they probably could be explained conventionally but we don't have enough data to do so. So ... so that that's a difference than me saying they just can't, they, you know they can all just be explained because that's not, that's not the true. What I'm saying is that I, I know of no case for which the evidence is compelling to indicate a paranormal, uh, source."​

The above is not skepticism. Skepticism is a tool to be used to advance ourselves toward the truth, not to advance ourselves toward a preconceived opinion ( they could all be explained conventionally if given enough data ). Additionally, we find that there is a dismissal of evidence contrary to his position. For example, the USAF Blue Book unknowns were UFO reports for which there was sufficient evidence to eliminate a conventional explanation. From my past exchanges with Lance, he is aware of this, yet he continues to dismiss it. He also states he knows of no cases involving compelling evidence for a paranormal source. To be fair, UFOs aren't technically a "paranormal" phenomenon. But if we assume that Lance was using the term in its most generic fashion, there are UFO reports with "compelling evidence"; it's just evidence that Lance denies as valid ... e.g. The 1952 Washington DC case involving multiple trained reliable witnesses, multiple radar traces, and a USAF pilot who made visual contact with several UFOs.

In cases like the 1952 DC flap we can only conclude that Lance refuses to believe there actually was multiple radar tracking and multiple witnesses and that a USAF pilot was never actually vectored toward a UFO and that the pilot never actually saw any UFOs. We are left to assume that Lance takes that position because as a skeptic he doubts everything and therefore unless the radar tapes can be produced along with the UFO, they may never have existed or were simply misinterpreted, and even if they were produced, then he'd still doubt they were the actual tapes or the actual UFO from the DC sighting.

Ultimately, although he would probably claim otherwise, there is no evidence compelling enough to convince Lance ( short of perhaps a mother ship cruise ). Yet he seems to have no problem believing the anecdotes from the hoax he cited. He doesn't say he also considers the possibility that if someone is going to purposefully hoax a UFO sighting that perhaps some of the witnesses could be part of that hoax, or that it's possible that coincidentally other strange lights were seen in the vicinity. Instead he seems to blindly assume that the story proves that witnesses are really poor at describing what they see and paints all witnesses and sightings with same brush. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks there's something wrong with that.

On the flip side ... good show Lance. You also made some good points and gave us some valuable advice about not jumping to conclusions, in particular confirming the validity of things that can be checked. It may be a hard line approach, and it may not enable you to accept the wider reality, but it also insulates you from the wider BS that us "honest believers" also want filtered out but don't always catch because we're looking right past it. Thank you.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Lance can't you just feel the love?

 

[Kieran]

The supposed 1952 flap is a great example of the crappy evidence for UFOs.

One of the best contemporaneous accounts is from a plane crew who was tracking one of the UFOS. They were vectored in by radar. When they arrived the "UFO" ended up being a steam ship.

You rarely hear this episode mentioned by the pious believers who scoff at possible weather conditions upsetting radar (a well known phenomena).

Lance

Lance, is this video a fake? Whats the official explanation for this 1952 sighting?

Those white blobs seem to be moving ( flying) not at all stationary. The white blobs seem too big to be birds too?

 

[SRL+]

Lance Moody’s contribution, (in my opinion), may simply be viewed as a useful tool to be used in order to help some separate the signal from the noise. As long as he doesn’t break out into a rendition of “Space Oddity”, things will be just peachy.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

The supposed 1952 flap is a great example of the crappy evidence for UFOs.

One of the best contemporaneous accounts is from a plane crew who was tracking one of the UFOS. They were vectored in by radar. When they arrived the "UFO" ended up being a steam ship.

You rarely hear this episode mentioned by the pious believers who scoff at possible weather conditions upsetting radar (a well known phenomena).

Lance

Good show and I think you (Lance) explained yourself well, as did Chris. You now know not to question Ray Stanford in earshot of Chris! -as many here are also patiently waiting to hear/see this evidence. Ted Phillips bothers me too - if he genuinely has great evidence, but is not going to show it, please don't tease us all by saying it. It's like a kid saying ' I know a secret' which is usually a pretext to divulge that secret - except kids usually do!

On the skeptic/debunker definition Lance - to me, a debunker will knowingly use a false/any explanation when they do not have a good one to hand. I am not accusing you of this behaviour in the least. I do think Phil Klass did. Debunkers use any explanation they think will satisfy the public even if that explanation cannot be the correct one in that particular case. I don't know if others agree with my definition but it's what I go by when I call someone a 'debunker'.

There has been some terrible cases of debunking - but, admittedly, nowhere near as many pathetically fake UFO cases that people still insist on believing. Oh, and I detest Steven Greer. Nothing to to with this thread or post but I like to slag him off regularly cos he deserves it and much, much more!

As Chris kind of mentioned, you seem a completely different person when interviewed than the person who posts

 

[Stagger Lee]

Lance Moody’s contribution, (in my opinion), may simply be viewed as a useful tool to be used in order to help some separate the signal from the noise. As long as he doesn’t break out into a rendition of “Space Oddity”, things will be just peachy.

No doubt "tool" -how "useful" remains to be seen. (just funnin' ya)
Not sure about the '52 flap- but I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for the object shelled to death, above LA in the early 1940's. The military's explanation of "War nerves" never ID'ed the object itself, lit up by spotlights and heavy artillery, before vanishing over a dark ocean sky. The one photo available, clearly shows an object.

 

[Muadib]

No doubt "tool" -how "useful" remains to be seen. (just funnin' ya)
Not sure about the '52 flap- but I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for the object shelled to death, above LA in the early 1940's. The military's explanation of "War nerves" never ID'ed the object itself, lit up by spotlights and heavy artillery, before vanishing over a dark ocean sky. The one photo available, clearly shows an object.

Actually, it doesn't, it just looks like it does because it was retouched. Observe:

Famous Battle of LA photo was retouched version

March 13th, 2011 by Mori

“Feb. 25, 1942: Searchlights converge on an unknown object in the skies over Los Angeles. During the early morning air-raid alert, more than 1,400 anti-aircraft shells are fired.​

The incident, now referred to as the Battle of L.A., occurred less than three months after the Pearl Harbor attack and two days after a Japanese submarine shelled an oil facility near Santa Barbara.​

The next day, on Feb. 26, The Times published a photo page with a retouched version of the above searchlight photo and seven other images of damage from falling anti-aircraft shells.”​

Do you hear that sound? It’s one “classic” UFO case falling apart in the most basic form. In an article by Scott Harrison published by the same LA Times, we are informed that an original, unretouched negative of the famous image was recently found at the Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive at UCLA, and that:

“In the retouched version, many light beams were lightened and widened with white paint, while other beams were eliminated.​

In earlier years, it was common for newspapers to use artists to retouch images due to poor reproduction — basically 10 shades of gray if you were lucky.​

Thus my conclusion: the retouching was needed to reproduce the image. But man, I wish the retouching had been more faithful to the original. With our current standards, this image would not be published.”​

Previously, Tim Printy had already delved into the whole Battle of LA case in his SUNlite Vol..3 No.1, where he had already speculated the famous image could have been retouched. He also noted that another photo of the Battle of LA published on LIFE magazine shortly afterwards didn’t show anything at all:

As it turns out, just like the original unretouched LA Times image.
Printy’s article also goes into the very small detail that most promoting an UFO link seem to ignore, that the Battle of LA happened a couple of days after an actual Japanese attack on the west coast.
Interestingly, and quite amazingly, all the panic that night may have started with a weather balloon. One of the major cases before the word UFO was even coined involved a weather balloon.
Believe it or not – and if you do read more about the historical context, it actually is quite believable – fact is that the only physical evidence for an alleged alien spacecraft that night has just vanished.
As it was never actually there.


So, while the circumstances surrounding the episode may be strange, the photo doesn't show any kind of craft. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, especially since I am of the opinion that there may be something to this whole UFO thing, though I don't think anyone can guess what yet. We need to stop with the "oh yeah, well explain this!" thing that we do, we sound like a bunch of Michael Horn's, and nobody wants to sound like an asshole. As if Lance's failure to study and explain every single UFO case ever somehow means something? Stop trying to convince non believers, UFO's aren't a religion. I guess I just don't understand this need people have to justify their beliefs to others. What do you care whether someone else believes UFO's are real or not?

 

[Stagger Lee]

"What do you care whether someone believes.."
I don't. The 52' wave flap was mentioned as one incident that remains unexplained, reminding me of the LA incident ten years earlier. I was not aware of the "touch up" possibly done to the photo. That certainly goes a long way in dismissing the photo- although I still find the incident peculiar- as the civilian witnesses to the incident all agree to there being an object. Not to mention the amount of shelling that took place. I'll admit the timing (right after Pearl Harbor) does make the incident suspect...but that could also be that we were more aware of our surroundings, looking for objects in the sky.