Unfair stereotype statement from David

[hopeful skeptic]

I think we do need to give Gene and Dave some credit, because I think it's very hard if you're running the kind of show like the Paracast to find people to come on and talk without just recycling the same old people again and again. And in this odd and quirky field of UFO research, not everyone is going to have the credibility of Mother Theresa. And they did point out the problem of believability with his story.

Well, I empathize with the hosts - I don't know that "credit" is the right word. There's an effort to stir the pot a bit when discussing ufology, and that means that by necessity listeners will have to put up with a lot of supernaturalistic nonsense.

I get my laughs listening to the first five, ten or fifteen minutes of the show. Biedny has a problem with the Bible, because the authors regard the Earth as their dominion? Why is it hard to believe that shepherders and farmers, who had subsistence hunter-gathering behaviors in their recent past, would see the Earth that way? Puh-leeze.

And I cracked up hearing about how the Earth will get rid of humans when we become a problem. Earth is not a sentient being. It's comprised of rock and water. It has no will and no emotions. Earth doesn't choose to do anything.

The quicker some of this new age nonsense is put to bed, the better. Frankly, it's intellectually embarrassing.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I just went back and listened again to Miley's appearance. God, how did I miss Ann Druffel's admitting to using psychics to look into the poor doctor's death?

Wow. "Psychic archaeology." Simply amazing.

 

[Yakuzablitz]

For people interested in uncovering truths that society has discounted out of hand, there seem to be a lot of people on this board who scoff at users of mind-altering substances and in turn dismiss what they have to say out of hand. Pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? Yes, drug use does compromise the giving of "objective" testimony but, as auntiegrav said, most people are altering their consciousness in some way every day. Mescaline most definitely alters your perceptions but then so does meditation, drinking a beer, or smoking a cigarette.

This interview interested me because it suggested one more possible avenue for exploring the UFO phenomenon. People have been trying to gather completely objective data about UFO encounters for decades and yet we seem no closer to an answer. Why not consider the idea then that people who see UFOs may actually be in some altered state of consciousness? Whether being in this altered state allows them to see something that they couldn't normally access or is a product of that altered state, I can't say. But, I don't think people should avoid discussing these ideas because they're embarrassed about sounding too "New Age-y". That seems like a form of intellectual cowardice to me.

For those not frightened of delving into the fascinating (and messy, stupid, enlightening, horrifying, etc...) area of study I think of as chemognosis (or exploring one's experience of the world through drug-induced manipulations of one's consciousness), I highly recommend browsing through the website Erowid.

Here's their entry on mescaline, btw.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

For people interested in uncovering truths that society has discounted out of hand, there seem to be a lot of people on this board who scoff at users of mind-altering substances and in turn dismiss what they have to say out of hand. Pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

Skeptics doubting the usefulness of a UFO report from a mescaline user would be "pots calling the kettle black" if the skeptics were, themselves, using hallucinogenic drugs. Non-drug users discounting the testimony of a weed-head are not calling the kettle black, since they are not black pots themselves.

Yes, drug use does compromise the giving of "objective" testimony but, as auntiegrav said, most people are altering their consciousness in some way every day. Mescaline most definitely alters your perceptions but then so does meditation, drinking a beer, or smoking a cigarette.

I strongly doubt "most people" are actively altering their states of mind on a daily basis. Even if they were, their eyewitness testimony would be as useful as the mescaline user's. It would be absolutely worthless. Eyewitness testimony is anecdotal, and not testable. It is useless in the evidentiary sense. It doesn't matter if the reporter is a pilot, a pot smoker or the King of Siam. Eyewitness testimony is nothing more than a story that can't be proven without outside, testable, measurable evidence.

Show me fifty eyewitnesses who saw a UFO and I'll shrug my shoulders. Show me one eyewitness who saw a UFO and the radar returns from the local air traffic control tower and we can have some basis for a discussion.

This interview interested me because it suggested one more possible avenue for exploring the UFO phenomenon. People have been trying to gather completely objective data about UFO encounters for decades and yet we seem no closer to an answer. Why not consider the idea then that people who see UFOs may actually be in some altered state of consciousness?

I can't understand this line of reasoning at all. We don't know anything more about UFOs than we did in the 1950s, so we'll entertain all kinds of new age nonsense in an effort to find something to talk about? That approach makes sense if you're hosting a radio show, since you have to come up with guests, but makes no sense if you're approaching the UFO subject with a scientific, logical mind.

The elephant in the room that no one wants to address? Maybe there isn't anything more to learn about UFOs. Maybe they don't want to interact with humans, or introduce themselves on CNN. Maybe they don't care one whit about Al Gore and his global warming panic-mongering, and are uninterested in "saving" us. Maybe UFOs are entirely imagined, and don't really exist. All are plausible possibilities. Filling the time with supernatural silliness doesn't profit anyone.

Whether being in this altered state allows them to see something that they couldn't normally access or is a product of that altered state, I can't say. But, I don't think people should avoid discussing these ideas because they're embarrassed about sounding too "New Age-y". That seems like a form of intellectual cowardice to me.

Evidence that this new age garbage exists should be presented, otherwise we're talking about nothing useful. Folks seriously believing that the UFO mystery will be solved through the use of thought photography, demonology, re-cast Christian eschatology, psychics, remote viewing or hallucinogenic drugs are not using critical thinking skills.

If you can show me one peer-reviewed, published scientific study that proves that the use of hallucinogenic drugs clarifies and enhances objective human perception, then we have something to talk about. Happy hunting.

 

[Yakuzablitz]

Wow hopeful skeptic, what a scathing rebuke of a post. Obviously, I'm out of my intellectual league in trying to have a discussion with you. Let me sleep on your reply and get back to you. I certainly don't want to post any ideas that haven't been thoroughly cross-referenced with the latest research and peer-reviewed, as that would be a waste of your time. Let me ask though - do you regard discussion of philosophy or religion with the same scorn you have for discussion of "New-Age" topics? Is any area of conversation where objective evidence can't be produced worthless? I just ask so that I can limit my response to topics that you don't find utterly tasteless and ridiculous.

Pardon my dramatic response - it's late.

 

[CapnG]

Like I said before, there's very little that's "hopeful" about you, Skeptic. That said, I totally agree with you on this matter. You may also want to drop in on the Sparks/DMT discussion in the UFO Contactees forum if you haven't already. You too, Yakuza, always good to get more opinions and thus broaden everyone's understanding of our mutual confusion!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I just went back and listened again to Miley's appearance. God, how did I miss Ann Druffel's admitting to using psychics to look into the poor doctor's death?

Wow. "Psychic archaeology." Simply amazing.

Yeh, that stood out BIG time with me. When all else fails, grasp at straws. I didn't listen to much more of the show after that. I'll get around to the rest later probably.

At least she didn't blame Phil Klass for his death (in the parts of the show I heard at least). I've actually heard people do that before.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Like I said before, there's very little that's "hopeful" about you, Skeptic. That said, I totally agree with you on this matter. You may also want to drop in on the Sparks/DMT discussion in the UFO Contactees forum if you haven't already. You too, Yakuza, always good to get more opinions and thus broaden everyone's understanding of our mutual confusion!

I really am hopeful about UFOs, CapnG. I do get tired of schtick being entertained for the mere purpose of having something to discuss, but that's the reality of having a radio show. It's like two fishermen working a mud puddle - there's no evidence the mud puddle has fish in it, but they've fished everywhere else, know those spots already, and it gives them a chance to get their reels and bait boxes out and while away a few hours. They can do that, of course, but shouldn't expect to catch any fish.

There are some really, really fascinating UFO cases that have hard evidence to support them (hard radar target returns, physical traces on the ground, etc.). I guess I'm hopeful that something will come of those cases, since they offer at least a little objective, testable data.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I really am hopeful about UFOs, CapnG. I do get tired of schtick being entertained for the mere purpose of having something to discuss, but that's the reality of having a radio show. It's like two fishermen working a mud puddle - there's no evidence the mud puddle has fish in it, but they've fished everywhere else, know those spots already, and it gives them a chance to get their reels and bait boxes out and while away a few hours. They can do that, of course, but shouldn't expect to catch any fish.

There are some really, really fascinating UFO cases that have hard evidence to support them (hard radar target returns, physical traces on the ground, etc.). I guess I'm hopeful that something will come of those cases, since they offer at least a little objective, testable data.

Actually you raise an interesting point there. Radar/visual sightings date back over 50 years and more, and have been documented in many books over the years, starting with Keyhoe, Ruppelt, etc.

Yet, that's as far as they've gone. We get more and more of these cases over the years, yet only one verified incident of this sort would be sufficient to demonstrate that there are strange craft in our skies that do not belong to us.

That's why David and I often sound a negative tone about UFO research.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Yeh, that stood out BIG time with me. When all else fails, grasp at straws. I didn't listen to much more of the show after that. I'll get around to the rest later probably.

At least she didn't blame Phil Klass for his death (in the parts of the show I heard at least). I've actually heard people do that before.

If only "the gummint" was that efficient in silencing people; there's a long list I'd like to submit. I also enjoyed hearing Biedny take Druffel to task for her belief in Christianity and a liberal interpretation of the Bible. When Biedny tells the audience he's no Biblical scholar, he isn't kidding. It was a devolution in which two people compete with dueling mythologies.

I wish he wouldn't use as "evidence" the supposed metallic, machine-tooled spheres found in South Africa. That story comes from Forbidden Archaeology, and is based on a 1982 Weekly World News story - it's the "Jamison, 1982" citation in the book. The spheres were not found in pre-Cambrian rock, and only one of the hundreds had "grooves" on it. The existence of metamorphic, pyrite spheres like that has a perfectly prosaic, natural explanation. It's that kind of bad argumentation that isn't doing anyone any favors.

Charlton Heston once repeated the story as evidentiary, so the universe will probably collapse and end soon, since I've found the point at which Charlton Heston and David Biedny intersect. Frightening!

 

[fitzbew88]

Actually you raise an interesting point there. Radar/visual sightings date back over 50 years and more, and have been documented in many books over the years, starting with Keyhoe, Ruppelt, etc.

Yet, that's as far as they've gone. We get more and more of these cases over the year, yet only one verified incident of this sort would be sufficient to demonstrate that there are strange craft in our skies that do not belong to us.

That's why David and I often sound a negative tone about UFO research.

Gene, I'm curious: what do you mean by "verified incident"? It seems to me there are already a lot of these.

My own (humbly submitted) feeling is that "verified" radar/visuals will buy us nothing unless there is some evidence of origin. Best case is that we conclude "something funny flew through the sky." It doesn't leave us much better than when we started.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Actually you raise an interesting point there. Radar/visual sightings date back over 50 years and more, and have been documented in many books over the years, starting with Keyhoe, Ruppelt, etc.

Yet, that's as far as they've gone. We get more and more of these cases over the year, yet only one verified incident of this sort would be sufficient to demonstrate that there are strange craft in our skies that do not belong to us.

That's why David and I often sound a negative tone about UFO research.

That's the real rub, isn't it? Such evidence, where it exists, is hard to expand upon. Technicians die, material is still classified, etc. That's why I understand why folks like Miley, Druffel, et al, have to be part of the radio show. You have to have guests. I just don't think anything really useful will arise from discussions based on, or buttressed by, supernaturalism.

Let's say two folks are guests on the show. One is a fundamentalist Christian (one of Biedny's favorite whipping boys) and asserts that UFOs are the byproduct of demonic interaction with humans and a harbinger of the Apocalypse. The second fellow bases his suppositions about UFOs on remote viewers, psychics and mescaline users. These are both unscientific, nonsensical claims that differ only in flavor. They're both unproven, untestable and vapid.

A show has to be entertaining, though, and you have to have guests. I completely understand why these folks are scheduled, and I also understand why you can't tear after them. Tear too much, and you won't have guests. But some of us have to giggle and smirk when nonsense is passed off as a serious contribution to a greater understanding of UFOs.

I never miss a show, so you all are doing something right! (I edit a lot of the commentary, though, to prevent myself from ramming my head through my monitor. )

 

[hopeful skeptic]

But some of us have to giggle and smirk when nonsense is passed off as a serious contribution to a greater understanding of UFOs.

Just to be clear: I mean that the guests are passing off the nonsense, not the hosts.

 

[quantumleap]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Oh Man! Do you have a problem with "New Agers"? I myself believe each to his own, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. After all, it's just a matter of opinion.

 

[David Biedny]

Hopeful, glad you enjoy the show.

dB

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Oh Man! Do you have a problem with "New Agers"? I myself believe each to his own, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. After all, it's just a matter of opinion.

Ugh. It does hurt everyone. Ignorance and belief in silly superstition hurts us all. It stunts productive thought, permits the continuation of ignorance and keeps people from becoming better-informed, more adept critical thinkers.

How do you expect to "search for truth" if you're not willing to discard anything at all?

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Hopeful, glad you enjoy the show.

dB

It's the first thing I download on Sunday night. I never miss an episode.

 

[Yakuzablitz]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

hopeful skeptic, I see where you're coming from, I really do. But, how do you know that all superstition is silly, that all "supernatural" phenomena are bunk and as such the study of them (for those of us who are interested) can in no way contribute to our understanding of the universe? You ask for objective proof of the positive effects of psychedelic use or the occurrence of ESP, for example, but how can I produce such proof when scientists are worried about doing research in those areas for fear of damaging their reputations and endangering their academic tenures? How can we hope for objective evidence like radar data to ultimately prove anything, when that data is subjectively interpreted by groups with entrenched world views that skew their understanding?

 

[CapnG]

The problem with "supernatural" phenomena in my opinion isn't that the research isn't being done but rather the research is too caught up in this whole "carnival" atmosphere. Just because it's fringe research it tends to get relegated to the realm of "entertainment", which in turn strips it of the serious attitude such research requires.

I suspect however that the real problem is we just don't have the means to study this stuff properly yet. I liken it to the concept of microbes before the invention of the microscope. You could theorize about them, see evidence that points to their existence but until you actually scrape some goo on a slide and stick it under a lens you're never going to be able to create rational theories, repeatable experiements or have genuinely observable results. We just aren't there yet.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

The problem with "supernatural" phenomena in my opinion isn't that the research isn't being done but rather the research is too caught up in this whole "carnival" atmosphere. Just because it's fringe research it tends to get relegated to the realm of "entertainment", which in turn strips it of the serious attitude such research requires.

I suspect however that the real problem is we just don't have the means to study this stuff properly yet. I liken it to the concept of microbes before the invention of the microscope. You could theorize about them, see evidence that points to their existence but until you actually scrape some goo on a slide and stick it under a lens you're never going to be able to create rational theories, repeatable experiements or have genuinely observable results. We just aren't there yet.

Problem lies in peer reviews. Peers are too busy having their minds made up to look at the data if and when it is published for peer review.

Or, scientist acting unscientifically and having fuzzy logic. Stephen Hawking mentions that he once explored parapsychology, but the controls were always flawed. Conclusion? Psychic phenomena is all rubbish. Huh? Shouldn't he have concluded the experiments were rubbish, corrected them, and tried again?