This is serious.

[tyder001]

Ya know the "tone" of these forums has gotten a little to "intense" lately. Imo that is. Maybe it's just me. It's confession time.

I listen to shows about the paranormal/ufo subject for entertainment. Oh sure I have very real personal beliefs and life experience. But, I don't come to a u.f.o. forum to honestly validate my belief in God or the meaning of life. I don't actually think there are "manned" craft from other worlds in our skies. There may or may not be and it's fun to speculate. I don't come to a forum out of ignorance of science or need a pop science course on logic. I like to discuss possibilties and the way logic, reason and faith and spirit can intersect but I'm not looking for the meaning of life here. I search inward for that. I go to the doctor for medical science and I am a college educated man who "understands" even if I don't act like I do the difference in the "scientific method" and talking and wondering about possibilities.

I listen to podcast while I walk for the same reason I listen to classic rock. I enjoy it. But, since I have come to this forum I have seen some "serious" folks. Some are so sure they are upholding the last bastions of science and logic against the illogical horde that would cast us all back into the dark ages. Some are so afraid to say the word "God" or "spirit" lest they be set upon by the horde of the cult of "logic."

Well, ya know what? I don't think anybody here be they mystic or scientist (and there are not that many of either here) can know the inner life of another human being. But, some of you take this so seriously. Since, I've been posting lately I realize I'm not really enjoying it. Maybe that's my fault. But I like to simply talk about the "possibility" of spirit and worlds beyond this one. I can't prove it with a test tube or a bible. Don't really want to. But, I guess I am at the wrong place.

I took biology and natural science and the Humanites and Social Work and Sociology and all the other classes of a good Liberal Arts University. I've seen medical doctors pray a prayer and college instructors scoff at anything beyond Darwin. I've seen the time when I have honestly doubted the exisitence of anything and also the time when I was "sure" that I was in the eternal moment and bosom of the universe.

But, it's as if everyone here from athiest to believer in u.f.o.'s to beliver in the esoteric is "desperate" to "prove" their reality to others who don't think the way they do. So, maybe I'll go listen to Tim Binnall interview Jim Marrs. Or an old Art Bell and Malachi Martin classic. Maybe Radio Mysterio with Greg Bishop or a good old Dark Matters show. Sometime a podcast should just be a podcast. A guest should just be allowed to state their case without being labeled an idiot or a crackpot. It's just a interview. It's just "sombodies" idea and opinon it's not the gospel.

then maybe after I've chilled out I'll stroll back over and listen to the Paracast again. Maybe Gene and Chris or Paul or Nick will have seperated the signal from noise by then. But for now I guess if I want Sociology I can call my old instructor in Hawaii. If I want science I'll call my old mentor in Colorado and if I want religion I'll call my pastor and friend in North Alabama. But, for a "trip" into the esoteric I think I'll just pull up an old Dark Matters or download a classic Art Bell show. At least they won't try to "convert" me.

Peace!

 

[pixelsmith]

i don't care how much education or how high someones IQ is...things are rarely as they seem. we all have opinions and beliefs but in an instant what we once thought to be true will become false, who we once held in high regard may turn out to be an ass. sit back and wait and the noise will separate itself from the signal...

tyder001 just hang in there, forums morph and self adjust.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

i don't care how much education or how high someones IQ is...things are rarely as they seem. we all have opinions and beliefs but in an instant what we once thought to be true will become false, who we once held in high regard may turn out to be an ass. sit back and wait and the noise will separate itself from the signal...

tyder001 just hang in there, forums morph and self adjust.

Yeah, pixel makes a great point there. Life changes and so do one's feelings. If you're here to have a good time and enjoy yourself, you really should. I enjoy talking about this stuff, arguing about it, making my feelings known. In the end, it doesn't really matter though.
Just have fun. As soon as you feel that isn't happening, step away. Start a new thread that talks about something else you like - you may find out you share common interests with someone you would have never met otherwise.

 

[NTS]

Well, The Paracast does put itself forward as a place where the paranormal is taken seriously. So I guess most posters take it at its word. And I don't think opinions about the paranormal necessarily map to people's spiritual beliefs. There are spiritual people who think anything paranormal is demonic and should be shunned. There are skeptics who think that science has a pretty good grasp of reality, but that some folks nevertheless have strange experiences that should be investigated. So I'd say that spiritual vs. skeptical isn't quite the way to look at it.

 

[tyder001]

Good points guys. I almost didn't post it and then when I did I thought it was a little to "self absorbed" and I should just delete it. But, once I posted it I thought I'd just go ahead and leave it there.

 

[Hoffmeister]

I think the main point is, that The Paracast had always staked out its camp in the paranormal podcast arena as the one that did try to get to some sort of truth, thats why its motto was 'Separating the signal from the noise'. If the Paracast just brings on interesting guests, and then lets them go off on one then its really no different to Binnalls show. Now I love Binnalls show, he makes it clear that he is just interested in the people sociology of esoterica rather than trying to get to the bottom of some of the mysteries, but I don't really want to listen to another show which does the same thing again only with more adverts and slightly more 'out there' guests....
The Paracasts key strength, its foundations, were built on separating the signal from the noise, and the reason there are so many arguments on here is that people have differing views on whether this is still happening or not. I've said it before and i'll say it again, the show really needs an extra host on top of the current ones, somebody who has a far more skeptical view that would balance things out a bit.
Thats the thing with these topics though, people tend to go through phases of interest

 

[Xylo]

Thats the thing with these topics though, people tend to go through phases of interest

Absolutely...very well said.

I was listening to an old interview with Don Ecker, right about the time when he "retired" from the UFO research field. In that interview he mentioned that he was "disgusted" with the UFO research field. But look at him now, back on the air.

Myself, I kind of feel the same way that Tyder does. I may have a bit more skeptical approach, but I'm also completely open to learning new things. I began listening to The Paracast because of the skeptical nature of it's hosts. Most of the other podcasts out there will interview the Jim Sparks and Michael Horne's out there and never even question them in a semi-logical way. The hosts just sit there and say "uh-huh" and verbally nod at them. So if I'm to believe everything that I've heard then Reptilians rule the world but disquise themselves in human skins, Grays are our friends-except when they're our enemies or when they're demonic, the Nordics are here to help us and from distant planets, except for the ones that appear on obscure Swedish dance shows, the governments of the world are conspiring to hide alien technology except for the inventions that they gave to private industry (thank you for velcro by the way,) there are these creatures called "rods" which are ubiquitous but have never been caught except on film, pilots don't know what they're seeing in the skies, all cattle and human mutilations are done by satanic cults except for the ones done by aliens and so much more...

I've been pretty close to calling it quits on this forum, but what keeps me coming back are the genuinely inspired posts from within the community. I'm kind of glad we have the debunkers here, but even more happy that we don't have that many doe-eyed believers who post unbelievable crap- they tend to be the ones that go away and don't return. In short, we've got a decent community here and that's why I probably won't leave.

 

[Decker]

Absolutely...very well said.

I was listening to an old interview with Don Ecker, right about the time when he "retired" from the UFO research field. In that interview he mentioned that he was "disgusted" with the UFO research field. But look at him now, back on the air.

Well, since my name was mentioned I felt that I must respond. If you listen to that show or the next one I did I also said (and in my paper "20 Years in the UFO Fog") that I never lost my interest in the paranormal but I did get disgusted with "butting heads with the lunatic fringe". Also .. I very much enjoy doing radio .. a lot. Now, my old co-host Dwight Schultz is doing radio but he covers political stuff. I don't like political stuff .. so doing radio on that, for me, is out. I like music, especially music from the 60's and 70's but hell, if you want that you can go to You Tube ... so music is out. I like cars but doing a car show would fold in about 10 minutes .. so car shows are out. What to do, what to do? Hey .. I got IT! Paranormal Talk Radio!

So there you have it. Am I writing and researching and publishing UFO stuff? Nope but I do talk about it on the "air". I think that should cover it and explain it for now.

Decker

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I think part of the problem is that some people have a distorted viewpoint of what The Paracast is, or was anyway. I get the impression that quite a few people remember Biedny as some attack dog, that the moment the guest would say something foolish he'd bitch slap them. But I don't remember it that way. I can recall a scant few instances similar to this but for the most part he just asked good questions and was basically respectful while talking to them. Of course, his forum persona was much different and maybe that is what is skewing peoples' memories. So now there is this false perspective out there that the Paracast was this place that allowed for no bullshit, that any unsubstantiated claim would be met with wrath. And they now expect Gene and the new co-hosts to behave like this, to make a reality out of exaggerated myth.

Imagine what the show would be like if it really were carried out the way some people want it to be. First of all many shows wouldn't make it the full two hours because guests would simply hang up. And getting guests would become increasingly difficult because who would want to be publically insulted? And guests would be so paranoid about every word they say that they'd self-censor themselves to the extent that we'd never really get to hear what they think. Leslie Kean's interview was very carefully presented. While that is fine for her I'm not so sure I want to hear that same delivery imitated by every guest week after week.

What's wrong with simply allowing the guests to say what they want to say and judging it afterward? Gene and the other guys shouldn't have to go through this same routine every week where people are demanding to be told why thumbs weren't broken and eyes gouged out. That wouldn't be an interview anyway, more like a spectacle appropriate for boneheads that watch MTV. No, the best solution is to simply ask very good questions. If the questions are right a guest's foolishness can be exposed without ever needing to get rude with them. And once it is exposed we can laugh about it on the forum afterward. It isn't necessary to laugh right in their faces while the show is happening.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I think part of the problem is that some people have a distorted viewpoint of what The Paracast is, or was anyway. I get the impression that quite a few people remember Biedny as some attack dog, that the moment the guest would say something seemingly foolish he'd bitch slap them. But I don't remember it that way. I can recall a scant few instances similar to this but for the most part he just asked good questions and was basically respectful while talking to them. Of course, his forum persona was much different and maybe that is what is skewing peoples' memories. So now there is this false perspective out there that the Paracast was this place that allowed for no bullshit, that any unsubstantiated claim would be met with wrath. And they now expect Gene and the new co-hosts to behave like this, to make a reality out of exaggerated myth. Imagine what the show would be like if it really were carried out the way some people want it to be. First of all many shows wouldn't make it the full two hours because guests would simply hang up. And getting guests would become increasingly difficult because who would want to be publically insulted? And guests would be so paranoid about every word they say that they'd self-censor themselves to the extent that we'd never really get to hear what they think. Leslie Kean's interview was very carefully presented. While that is fine for her I'm not so sure I want to hear that same delivery imitated by every guest week after week. What's wrong with simply allowing the guests to say what they want to say and judging it afterward? Gene and the other guys shouldn't have to go through this same routine every week where people are demanding to be told why thumbs weren't broken and eyes gouged out. That wouldn't be an interview anyway, more like a spectacle appropriate for boneheads that watch MTV. No, the best solution is to simply ask very good questions. If the questions are right a guest's foolishness can be exposed without ever needing to get rude with them.

You're absolutely right about David Biedny and his rep for bashing people about. He usually spent his time picking on the easy targets, like Horn or Bassett, but rarely asked the tough questions of someone like Vallee. But with Biedny, for all his flaws and his ego, you could usually at least count on a reasonably intelligent conversation, and it's worthwhile to remember that. I've had my issues with him since he quit, but I always enjoyed chatting with him when he was co-host and I was a guest.

Here are three problems, however, that are not particular to The Paracast (although they are relevant to the current version), and should apply to any show. In no particular order:

1. Sometimes, it's not the questions you ask that is the problem, but the fact that the guest was ever invited to be on the show in the first place. This is pretty rare, but it does happen. Exhibit A: Louis Jarvis.

2. Unless you have a well-known history of asking the hard questions even of your friends and relations, you probably shouldn't be hosting an episode that features close personal friends, particularly if you are involved with them in a business venture, or they have helped your career in some way. It's called a conflict of interest. I'll let people figure out which exhibit best fits this one for themselves.

3. Finally, when you do have a guest on, like a Ray Stanford, who isn't a complete nutter like Jarvis, but who has serious questions that need to be asked of him, you need to ask those questions, without fear, particularly when before the show you've solicited questions from forum members, and they've actually provided some. Also, if you fall under catgory #2, you should probably step aside and let someone else do the interview.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

You're absolutely right about David Biedny and his rep for bashing people about. He usually spent his time picking on the easy targets, like Horn or Bassett, but rarely asked the tough questions of someone like Vallee. But with Biedny, for all his flaws and his ego, you could usually at least count on a reasonably intelligent conversation, and it's worthwhile to remember that. I've had my issues with him since he quit, but I always enjoyed chatting with him when he was co-host and I was a guest.

Here are three problems, however, that are not particular to The Paracast (although they are relevant to the current version), and should apply to any show. In no particular order:

1. Sometimes, it's not the questions you ask that is the problem, but the fact that the guest was ever invited to be on the show in the first place. This is pretty rare, but it does happen. Exhibit A: Louis Jarvis.

2. Unless you have a well-known history of asking the hard questions even of your friends and relations, you probably shouldn't be hosting an episode that features close personal friends, particularly if you are involved with them in a business venture, or they have helped your career in some way. It's called a conflict of interest. I'll let people figure out which exhibit best fits this one for themselves.

3. Finally, when you do have a guest on, like a Ray Stanford, who isn't a complete nutter like Jarvis, but who has serious questions that need to be asked of him, you need to ask those questions, without fear, particularly when before the show you've solicited questions from forum members, and they've actually provided some. Also, if you fall under catgory #2, you should probably step aside and let someone else do the interview.

Damn, you got that in before I finished my edit. As far as the upcoming Stanford interview goes let's wait and see. It might be carried out better than you're predicting.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Damn, you got that in before I finished my edit. As far as the upcoming Stanford interview goes let's wait and see. It might be carried out better than you're predicting.

Here's hoping.

 

[Hoffmeister]

I think part of the problem is that some people have a distorted viewpoint of what The Paracast is, or was anyway. I get the impression that quite a few people remember Biedny as some attack dog, that the moment the guest would say something foolish he'd bitch slap them. But I don't remember it that way. I can recall a scant few instances similar to this but for the most part he just asked good questions and was basically respectful while talking to them. Of course, his forum persona was much different and maybe that is what is skewing peoples' memories. So now there is this false perspective out there that the Paracast was this place that allowed for no bullshit, that any unsubstantiated claim would be met with wrath. And they now expect Gene and the new co-hosts to behave like this, to make a reality out of exaggerated myth.

Imagine what the show would be like if it really were carried out the way some people want it to be. First of all many shows wouldn't make it the full two hours because guests would simply hang up. And getting guests would become increasingly difficult because who would want to be publically insulted? And guests would be so paranoid about every word they say that they'd self-censor themselves to the extent that we'd never really get to hear what they think. Leslie Kean's interview was very carefully presented. While that is fine for her I'm not so sure I want to hear that same delivery imitated by every guest week after week.

What's wrong with simply allowing the guests to say what they want to say and judging it afterward? Gene and the other guys shouldn't have to go through this same routine every week where people are demanding to be told why thumbs weren't broken and eyes gouged out. That wouldn't be an interview anyway, more like a spectacle appropriate for boneheads that watch MTV. No, the best solution is to simply ask very good questions. If the questions are right a guest's foolishness can be exposed without ever needing to get rude with them. And once it is exposed we can laugh about it on the forum afterward. It isn't necessary to laugh right in their faces while the show is happening.

I don't know why you get the impression that anyone wants an attack dog as a host. I have said time and again that it is possible to question what someone is saying without being aggressive or rude. Why is it that people have the perception that there are two ways to talk to a guest?

All I want is for a few more of the guests to be asked
1. What evidence have you seen that leads you to your conclusions?
2. Can we see some of this evidence so we can use it to make our own conclusions?

The only reason the forums have gotten so hostile which has left you with the impression that people want an attack dog, is because people have been taking things personally on these forums and as a result getting aggressive which each other on here.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I don't know why you get the impression that anyone wants an attack dog as a host. I have said time and again that it is possible to question what someone is saying without being aggressive or rude. Why is it that people have the perception that there are two ways to talk to a guest?

All I want is for a few more of the guests to be asked
1. What evidence have you seen that leads you to your conclusions?
2. Can we see some of this evidence so we can use it to make our own conclusions?

The only reason the forums have gotten so hostile which has left you with the impression that people want an attack dog, is because people have been taking things personally on these forums and as a result getting aggressive which each other on here.

I wasn't talking to you specifically, was generalizing. And if it is your supposition that there hasn't been demand expressed for more confrontational questioning (Not by me, by others) since David left the show all I can say to that is, "Where ya' been?"

 

[Gene Steinberg]

What bothers me about all this is the double-standard I see about The Paracast then and now:

Bringing Friends on as Guests: Sorry folks, but this is a red herring. We have all brought our friends on the show. Biedny had his brother and two close friends to back up his descriptions of personal paranormal experiences, plus others. Kimball offered his friends when he co-hosted, along with his uncle, Stanton Friedman. Greg Bishop brought his friend Walter Bosley, and I've presented many of the people I've known over the years in the UFO field — and some of these people, such as Jerome Clark, rarely go on radio. They all did it for me as a personal favor and we got great interviews.

So please stop hammering Chris because he presents the people he knows. Frankly, being a talk show host is new for Chris, although he's done lots of radio and TV over the years. He's still fine-tuning the skills, and he's coming along just great. And, yes, Chris is my friend. So are Paul, Nick and Greg. Biedny could have remained a friend, but he had other plans.

Asking Softball Questions Now and Then: Most of the questions asked on The Paracast over the entire length and breadth of its existence have been informational in nature, not confrontational. There are always questions that could be asked but aren't. Sometimes you forget, sometimes the topic veers into another direction, or you run out of time. We're trying to schedule people far enough in advance to allow time to post a thread here, so you can ask your questions. That way, you can't blame us if we didn't ask them.

The new setup, by and large, requires more frequent station breaks, so that reduces guest filibustering, since we have to shut them down every 9 to 11 minutes. Sometimes they'll still filibuster, but at least we control it better, and the conversation is now better organized.

 

[stphrz]

The Paracast does many different kinds of shows. Evidence shows, personal experience shows, book plug shows, roundtable sessions about the state of ufology shows, spooky ghost story shows, belief shows etc. etc.

It can take different postures depending on the show. A take no bullshit posture is very appropriate in a show where claimed scientific evidence is discussed.

A consumer advocate posture is very appropriate when the guest is selling something like a book. Have the guest make their case why we should spend our money on their product.

Less intense postures can be adopted for other types of shows. Rountables, spooky story shows and shows about personal belief systems or speculation can be a lot of fun and you can just kinda go wtih it. But if the guest makes claims of evidence or proof, be prepared to call them on it.

A hardassed approach may not always be appropriate but there are times when it is. If that isn't your thing, you don't have to do those kind of shows. I'll still listen because I like Gene and despite expressing some harshness on these forums towards Chris, I like him too. He comes across well on the air. They are both good hosts and the shows they produce are still head and shoulders above the other stuff that's out there.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You're absolutely right about David Biedny and his rep for bashing people about. He usually spent his time picking on the easy targets, like Horn or Bassett, but rarely asked the tough questions of someone like Vallee. But with Biedny, for all his flaws and his ego, you could usually at least count on a reasonably intelligent conversation, and it's worthwhile to remember that. I've had my issues with him since he quit, but I always enjoyed chatting with him when he was co-host and I was a guest.

Here are three problems, however, that are not particular to The Paracast (although they are relevant to the current version), and should apply to any show. In no particular order:

1. Sometimes, it's not the questions you ask that is the problem, but the fact that the guest was ever invited to be on the show in the first place. This is pretty rare, but it does happen. Exhibit A: Louis Jarvis.

2. Unless you have a well-known history of asking the hard questions even of your friends and relations, you probably shouldn't be hosting an episode that features close personal friends, particularly if you are involved with them in a business venture, or they have helped your career in some way. It's called a conflict of interest. I'll let people figure out which exhibit best fits this one for themselves.

3. Finally, when you do have a guest on, like a Ray Stanford, who isn't a complete nutter like Jarvis, but who has serious questions that need to be asked of him, you need to ask those questions, without fear, particularly when before the show you've solicited questions from forum members, and they've actually provided some. Also, if you fall under catgory #2, you should probably step aside and let someone else do the interview.

1. So you don't like Louis Jarvis.

2. I believe all of the guests that you have brought on this year have been your friends have they not? Are you assuming that Chris or Gene haven't asked the hard questions of their friends before interviewing them?

 

[Paul Kimball]

What bothers me about all this is the double-standard I see about The Paracast then and now:

Bringing Friends on as Guests: Sorry folks, but this is a red herring. We have all brought our friends on the show. Biedny had his brother and two close friends to back up his descriptions of personal paranormal experiences, plus others. Kimball offered his friends when he co-hosted, along with his uncle, Stanton Friedman.

Gene,

You missed the other part of that - you know, the one where a person has a history of asking those people tough questions, and disagreeing with them without fear. That's the difference between Chris and I... in my opinion, of course... but also backed by a lengthy paper-trail (and in some cases video and audio "trails), of me asking those questions and disagreeing with my friends.

But you've chosen your path, so what more is there for me to say, really, other than to wish you all the best where you're headed.

 

[Ron Collins]

I think this is all way overblown. This isn't 20/20 and we all knew that going in. Lets be honest, if I took a poll of my friends I would bet 80-90% of them would say all the guests are sketchy because of the subject matter. By now we should all be aware of the reactions those 3 little letters elicit. Start throwing ghosts, vampires, bigfoot, abductions, tricksters, mutilations, and whatnot into the mix and it deteriorates even further. No matter how evidence for them is presented. Presenting guests like Jarvis, Greer, Dolan, Friedman, Redfern, Good, or Randles is only discernible to those dialed into the subject in the first place. I didn't see a mass exodus of forum membership because of this episode and I doubt seriously that listenership has faltered either. Or is likely to.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I didn't see a mass exodus of forum membership because of this episode and I doubt seriously that listenership has faltered either. Or is likely to.

Many of us (I'm sure) will be interested in what other forum members think about tonight's episode w/ the reclusive Ray Stanford. The Paracast is a work-in-progress and there is no substitute for verifiable data and replication of well thought-out hypothetical insights. But that will have to be covered more fully in future shows... lol