• 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!

August 30th Episode with Karl Mamer


Status
Not open for further replies.

cottonzway

I was saying boo-urns
I'm like 20 minutes in and after the following I'm kind of on auto-pilot:

"Based on his background does Kelly Johnson have more credibility then your average person seeing things in the sky?" (paraphrasing)

"No."

:frown:

How do you take someone serious after that?
 
This guy is a douche. Sorry. Calling a true American hero in Gordon Cooper "Gordo" and saying several times "I don't want to say he was lying" is disrespectful. He needs to get his shine box.
 
This was a very frustrating show to listen to. I really wanted someone to ask him, if he walked out of his house, in broad daylight, and saw a metallic disk shaped craft hovering 100 feet above his house, and then suddenly shoot up into the sky, how would he explain this event? Hallucination? The planet Venus? Swamp gas?

Thanks for having Dilettoso back on to explain the Salla issue and the Phoenix Lights sighting. Perhaps on another show, you can have him go over some of the other accusations on the ufowatchdog site. I'd like to see these controversies cleared up once and for all. There could very well be innocent reasons for all of them. I would hope he would want to set the record straight.
 
Posted this in the other thread, but Ill post it here too. His article is worth a read:

The Amateur Scientist: The Paracast

I dont know if I want to listen to this ep now. Im all for hearing counter arguments and unique POV's, but I dont want to be frustrated by a science fundamentalist.
 
Although I'm still listening to this podcast...

LOL, I love how Gene & David had to ask him at different angles, a simple question, just to get this butt-hole to answer. It's apparent this "SKEPTIC" has not done his homework... Ahhh, he's bothering me.
 
I'm going to listen to the "last half" (40 minutes) tomorrow. I am just floored with Mr. Mamer. Gordo was a liar and the Federal Reserve is a government agency. On that note, time for bed....
 
Hm..hm...hm...You know..hm...yeah...you know...hm..hm..yeah, kind of...you know

Well, I'm not an expert on negotiating people and certainly do not have a degree in Psychology, but when I person keeps telling this along the whole conversation for me it indicates, that he doesn't feel that he has some solid arguments to back up his statements, but certainly does not want to admit that he is a sceptic in sake of Skepticism, the one you can safely put next to Debunking.

After listening to him once again I got this sense that debunking, Scepticism, DoIBelievers are all parts of artificial mechanism to keep people burring in the routine and prevent them from asking questions. I guess this is what I would do if I make an experiment on species and especially on a planet's scale.
 
Mr. Mamer was probably one of the weakest guests I've heard in some time. As a "skeptic," he does a great disservice to the skeptic world. One example of his circular reasoning was in response to a question about whether airline pilots were better able to distinguish aerial phenomenon as compared with people who don't regularly fly aircraft. Mamer's response was that a pilot who flies thousands of hours can't be expected to always make correct identifications. That's true, but what Mamer says is that, essentially, all the pilots who have reported aerial phenomenon were incorrect in doing so. He might not have literally used the word "incorrect" but he would not accept that any of those reports could have been accurate.

I deeply respect "science," but these guys who think that we totally understand how science works are ridiculous. Even though Mamer says, rightly, that he has no way of knowing how advanced our science is relative to some hypothetical alien, he really forecloses that possibility that something beyond our current comprehension is taking place. Look, I don't know what's going on but, as David and Gene constantly say, that's the whole point: we don't know. It wasn't that long ago (as in early 20th century) that scientists thought our Milky Way constituted the entire universe ... and everyday, it seems, you can read some new "discovery" and a scientist is quoted as saying that " this was unexpected" or "we didn't know that x could happen".

A smarter skeptic would just say "I don't know, but am open to being convinced. At present, however, from the evidence I've seen, I'm not convinced and here's why". That's the kind of position that can lead to an actual discussion.

Even some of the full-blown nut cases who inhabit this field usually have something to say (as ridiculous as it might be). Mamer was a ZERO.
 
I enjoyed this episode, guess I am wierd. I can understand where he is coming from,and alot of what he said was correct, especially when he was talking about science and eliminating bias.

I got the feeling he never really looked into the ufo subject with more then just a passing glance. He didnt know specifics about high profile cases and his debunking was very generic. Kinda like how I don't look into fairy, or chuppacabra or leprechaun sightings cause something in my brain just screams "Nonsense!" I get the feeling he feels the same about ufo sightings. Thats too bad, cause thats his loss imo.

Really liked the questions David and Gene asked, they were superb, and the cases they brought up were as well.

About "science fundamentalism". In a big way science is about trying to know fundamentals. Trying to get back to the core basics of "what" something is and how that something works. So using "science fundamentalism" as a derogatory remark kinda fails imo. I think the term should be dropped cause it sounds ignorant and it doesnt help at all in dealing with this stuff.

Kudos on the show guys. :D
 
Even some of the full-blown nut cases who inhabit this field usually have something to say (as ridiculous as it might be). Mamer was a ZERO.

What mobius said. Mr. Mamer has no game. If you have a look at his blog, he clearly intends to come off as "edgy" with his writing. (C'mon - 'with dick jokes'?)

What struck me was how out of sync his personal presence was with his online persona. (not so "edgy" in person, huh?) I'm sure under the right conditions he's probably a pleasant guy, but his whole online presence reeks.

I'm only halfway through this podcast, but regardless of how it ends, I'm sure Gene and David were too easy on this guy. Clearly, what this man says about the paracast means nothing.

It's painful hearing him scramble to cover himself because he 'has' to cling to his made up skeptic persona, regardless of what anyone says to him.

He even irked me enough to force me to stop lurking and post something, which is no small feat....

F.
 
Yeah it was frustrating but David was on top of things. Often Ill feel even more frustrated listening to a podcast like this, but not in this case. I feel he painted himself into a corner and looked kinda foolish.

Basically hes a "...it can't be true, therefore it isn't" person. I cant believe he cant even accept the possibility that Gordon Cooper actually saw what he said he saw. So Marmer cant even accept that maybe the US Govt has advanced craft like that. Clearly he associates 'UFO' or 'disk/diskoid' shape silent craft with aliens/ETs.

Its kind of unfortunate that he ended up having such fundamentalist leanings for science as his article was decent. Although his use of "woo" got on my nerves.
 
Completely agree Fritzer. Even in person I felt he was trying pretty hard to put forward a certain type of persona. Like a no-nonsense super smart guy that swiftly puts things in their place and tells it like it really is.
 
I am lost for words after listening to the interview with karl.
His views and opinions are so silly. Kelly johnson a pioneer in the aviation industry, a man who knew more about the human aviation than most, witnessed a solid craft. 'Which he, could not identify, doing speeds which were remarkable to him.

And, Yet Karl doesnt care to analyse "what he is saying, Honestly the man is a better witness than anyone Karl.The sky has alot of clouds, birds, and airplanes. That is about the best you get unless you get outside our space. So, how, could Kelly be wrong in what he siad, karl? He was expert in aviation.


Alot, of the arguments by karl that were put forward centre around a theory.That "humans all humans could be prone to seeing things that are not actually there. That bullshit annoys me.
Gordon, saw what he saw Karl, Your lack credibility when you suggest a man like this would lie. Why, what need, would Gordon have to claim such an encounter?

I have to trust my eyes since i drive every morning.
Should, i stop driveing since i a human. I could see things that could effect my driveing. It silly, we have objects in Photographs and videos going back generations are they all illusions 'Really.

Explain, why they even appear in photographs. Photographs and video that are verifyed as geniune Karl.
Karl will never change his opinion.Karl believes the whole topic is woo woo. If Karl actually took time to research everything with an open mind. I might actually respect him, but i dont honestly 'because he is a debunker not a skeptic.

I think this pictures, no matter if you are a believer in ufos or a die hard skeptic. You would look at them and if you have any intellectual honesty "question, what you now to be.http://www.ufocasebook.com/belgium1990.jpg
http://www.ufocasebook.com/walloniabelgium.jpg
 
To be so ungracious as to not concede a simple logical truth is just plain insulting. It's observed in the air (you can say flying), it's the thing that's being referred to (you can say object), you honestly don't know what it is (it's unidentified) but you know what it's not. You don't need to embarrass yourself by drawing conclusion about aliens or time travelers or trans-dimensional beings. It's ok to call a UFO a UFO in some cases.
 
Man, I totally love this episode! Still got 30 mins left, but it was great to hear David and Gene provide a logic proof model to engage debunkers/skeptics when we are at a bar or shooting the sh*t and get into this type of discussion.

My tendency in the past has been to list off a bunch of cases and then get emotional and annoyed when debunkers start saying it's impossible because........... it's impossible because................ it's impossible. Good show guys!

A lot of the previous shows are spent pointing out the bs cult worshippers like Salla, so it's nice to get the other side of things and have debunkers/skeptics on every once in a while and see what their argument is based on and point out the flaws of that logic and the reality that most debunkers/irrational skeptics have not even bothered to research the best cases with an open mind and no preconceptions.

Looking forward to hearing the 2nd part with Jim. I think Jim is a good guy based on listening to the show and I'd like to get it cleared up sometime about the details of his support of the early Meire photos.

Wish this episode was longer!
 
Karl's point about getting peer reviewed and published is one I can understand. Unfortunately, I think the options are limited to publish on this subject for a lot of reasons (professional suicide!!) including the fact that the interactions people have with these things can not be repeated or controlled. They are often kind of quick fleeting events, not the type of things we can conjure at will and recreate in a lab setting.

But.... certainly there could be papers submitted on Ted Phillips soil samples, the psychological research on "abductees', and on any of the legit photo/video research etc.....

I think all skeptics should be forced to read the Arigo book - Surgeon of the Rusty Knife and then discuss amongst themselves.
 
Thank you for this episode. I've been waiting for you to get a skeptic on the show. It's amazing how stock his responses were. It's as though there are skeptic talking points they all follow. There seems to be no individual thought among them. You hear one skeptic, you heard 'em all.

As you guys pointed out, they just can't say, "I don't know." They have to have an explanation for everything. And their whole attitude towards "personal experience" probably really gets my blood boiling the most.

David was right about comparing him to true believers and calling him a fundamentalist.

Now have Shermer on and have a go at him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top