This is serious.

[The Pair of Cats]

I agree with you on this one, Ron. There seems to have been a huge over-reaction to the Ted Phillips, Louis Jarvis and even the upcoming Ray Stanford show. Not everyone listens to the Paracast to hear hosts demand proof of every single little claim by their guests. Not every one listens to hear Stanton Friedman or Richard Dolan regurgitate their same old schtick, although Stanton at least is consistent and knowledgeable about his. The UFO community and its members, which include the pundits, the presenters and researchers alike, are a diverse and multi-faceted one. You can't always have Leslie Kean, James Fox etc. on the show. Sometimes you have to balance that out with the weird and wacky, occasionally pausing to expose the frauds, things that the Paracast has managed to achieve in its lifetime.
If you don't like the show or guests presented then it's simple. Just turn it off. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Hoffmeister]

If you don't like the show or guests presented then it's simple. Just turn it off. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

I think about half of the listeners actually did turn off the last one

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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.

Paul there is no change. You were very gentle in your treatment of your friend Dolan, while I had him admit to changing his previous views on an issue or two.

So let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Kieran]

I agree with you on this one, Ron. There seems to have been a huge over-reaction to the Ted Phillips, Louis Jarvis and even the upcoming Ray Stanford show. Not everyone listens to the Paracast to hear hosts demand proof of every single little claim by their guests. Not every one listens to hear Stanton Friedman or Richard Dolan regurgitate their same old schtick, although Stanton at least is consistent and knowledgeable about his. The UFO community and its members, which include the pundits, the presenters and researchers alike, are a diverse and multi-faceted one. You can't always have Leslie Kean, James Fox etc. on the show. Sometimes you have to balance that out with the weird and wacky, occasionally pausing to expose the frauds, things that the Paracast has managed to achieve in its lifetime.
If you don't like the show or guests presented then it's simple. Just turn it off. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

We agree often Philip on Paranormal topics. But I don't listen to the show for entertainment really, I can find some entertainment elsewhere, if that is what I'm truly seeking. I have to side with Paul , Lance and Angel. Researchers do need to step up and start producing this marvellous evidence, that they claim they have, or else there just talking heads.

There is plenty of intelligent people out there than could come on the show, and this show is only on once a week!! Not every guest that speaks about Paranormal topics has to be from the United states as long as the person is intelligent,can speak the English language clearly for an American Audience.Then they should be asked to come on.

I would recommend, Robert Bauval to be a guest on the Paracast. He does radio interviews, and he is well-read, and speaks clear English. He has some intriguing theories about the Pyramid of Giza, that I believe, the Paracast audience would like very much.

Phil, if we turn off every show there is a bad guest or someone we dislike like is on, we be waiting weeks to hear the Paracast again. I think Gene and Chris are doing a fine job, and all the respect to them, that we are getting the show handed to us for Free. But to keep the Paracast from going backwards, the show must fumigate the bad guest from the good guest. Or it will become non Gold standard.

Ray Stanford talks a good story but produces little evidence to back up the encounter he alleged he had. If Ray has Amazing evidence he really should come on with it and stop getting upset and moody because people are asking to see this amazing stuff.

Ted Philips I'm reserving judgement until his website comes online. He might have something that will match the stories he tells on Radio.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I think about half of the listeners actually did turn off the last one

We agree often Philip on Paranormal topics. But I don't listen to the show for entertainment really, I can find some entertainment elsewhere, if that is what I'm truly seeking. I have to side with Paul , Lance and Angel. Researchers do need to step up and start producing this marvellous evidence, that they claim they have, or else there just talking heads. There is plenty of intelligent people out there than could come on the show, and this show is only on once a week!! Not every guest that speaks about Paranormal topics has to be from the United states as long as the person is intelligent,can speak the English language clearly for an American Audience.Then they should be asked to come on. I would recommend, Robert Bauval to be a guest on the Paracast. He does radio interviews, and he is well-read, and speaks clear English. He has some intriguing theories about the Pyramid of Giza, that I believe, the Paracast audience would like very much. Phil, if we turn off every show there is a bad guest or someone we dislike like is on, we be waiting weeks to hear the Paracast again. I think Gene and Chris are doing a fine job, and all the respect to them, that we are getting the show handed to us for Free. But to keep the Paracast from going backwards, the show must fumigate the bad guest from the good guest. Or it will become non Gold standard. Ray Stanford talks a good story but produces little evidence to back up the encounter he alleged he had. If Ray has Amazing evidence he really should come on with it and stop getting upset and moody because people are asking to see this amazing stuff. Ted Philips I'm reserving judgement until his website comes online. He might have something that will match the stories he tells on Radio

C'est la vie!!
I agree with your assessment of Phillips and Stanford. If they have evidence then it would be nice to see it. But i think that you nailed it when you said that the show is "free". I'm sure that all of the hosts, Gene included would like to offer the type of guests that appeal to all of the forumites and listeners, all of the time. But that is just not possible. Of course there will be the odd shows that will have guests that elicit the types of responses that we have seen here but i have confidence that Gene and co are working hard to be all things to all posters even disgruntled ex-hosts. The show is definitely strong enough to absorb a few hits to its body. Its not like every show that has had them on has suddenly fallen on its sword and died a painful death now is it? I see that Don's show is still going despite of Jarvis being on it.
The knee jerk reaction and raw emotion that these shows have generated has been somewhat over the top especially the personal attacks on the hosts. In Chris' case it's almost like there is some underlying distrust of him that has bubbled to the surface and exploded into attacking his credibility which is totally unfair and unjustified in my opinion.

 

[Hoffmeister]

The knee jerk reaction and raw emotion that these shows have generated has been somewhat over the top especially the personal attacks on the hosts. In Chris' case it's almost like there is some underlying distrust of him that has bubbled to the surface and exploded into attacking his credibility which is totally unfair and unjustified in my opinion.

I haven't read every post so maybe i'm wrong, but I honestly haven't seen any personal attacks on Chris.
From what I can see people are posting things about the show, and even if someone is saying 'Chris isn't asking tough enough questions' (which I don't necessarily think is true) then thats still not a personal attack. If we can't make comments about how we think the show can be improved, then whats the point in even having the forums.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I haven't read every post so maybe i'm wrong, but I honestly haven't seen any personal attacks on Chris.
From what I can see people are posting things about the show, and even if someone is saying 'Chris isn't asking tough enough questions' (which I don't necessarily think is true) then thats still not a personal attack. If we can't make comments about how we think the show can be improved, then whats the point in even having the forums.

You need to read at least 3 different threads as this has spilled out over at least that many. Most have been poorly diguised as attacks on the choice of Jarvis and then Stanford as guests on the show. Questioning Chris' right to bring them on in the first place. Calling those guest names and insulting them. This then evolved into questioning Gene's integrity of letting co-hosts bring on friends and to whether they would ask the truly hard questions of them. There are some who have said that Kimball didn't really ask the hard questions of Dolan (his friend) when he had him on.
And yes people are entitled to their opinion and the freedom to express it on any subject that they feel necessary. Go ahead, post what ever it is you feel necessary to express.. I do. Why shouldn't others?
But then don't get your knickers in a knot when you get criticsed for those comments. And I'm not suggesting you were one of those. Even though i think your Greer comment was a back handed attempt at sarcasm.
I'm sure Gene and the other hosts genuinely appreciate comments about their guests or suggestions on how to improve the content of the show. .

 

[Hoffmeister]

This then evolved into questioning Gene's integrity of letting co-hosts bring on friends and to whether they would ask the truly hard questions of them.

Even though i think your Greer comment was a back handed attempt at sarcasm.

I don't think its questioning Gene's integrity to ask whether its a good idea for hosts to interview guests that are their friends. Again, this isn't personal, its simply asking the question. If someone comes up to me at work and questions the way I am doing things, I don't take it personally, I just respond to the question...
As for my comment, it could be read as sarcasm (although that wasn't intended) but it certainly wasn't back handed. Its again a question which nobody seems to be able to answer, 'what is the difference in the claims between Jarvis and Greer?', they are both as unbelievable as each other.
Now, in terms of the integrity of those two, there is a difference because Greer uses his claims to gain money from the public.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

...what is the difference in the claims between Jarvis and Greer?', they are both as unbelievable as each other.

Greer has been on a few times. Jarvis has not. This was his first time. I doubt whether was more than a handful of forumites who had heard of Jarvis before he came on the Paracast. The exception being those who may have had heard him on Dark Matters. There would be absolutely no point in getting Greer on again unless the hosts were prepared for a 5 minute show because that would be all that it would take before the show ended. As indeed there may be no point in having Jarvis on again as it would also degenerate into a prove it or else type situation.

More pointedly it's highly unlikely that he would come on again now anyway or that anyone would want him to.

And what difference does it make whether there is any difference between Greer & Jarvis anyway? In the end it is irrelevant.The point is that he was on the show, some liked him, some did not and some were on the fence about him. The forum traffic was, in regards, heavy. Much heavier than the one with Leslie Kean.

Will the Paracast suffer dire consequences for having him on? Probably not. You can't please all of the people, all of the time! And you know what? There will be shows in the future that will polarize listeners in the same way despite all the best efforts of the hosts to provide interesting guest and topics.

As for my comment, it could be read as sarcasm (although that wasn't intended) but it certainly wasn't back handed.

Do you really want Greer on again?

 

[Hoffmeister]

I would DEFINATELY listen to a Greer show, just because he makes me laugh so much. Would i choose to have him on over james fox or another good guest... Nah