August 30th Episode with Karl Mamer

[The Pair of Cats]

Decker,

"Well, at the risk of sounding snarky, I am already getting somewhat bored at the direction of this communication ... event."

Why is that? An honest discussion of an event is boring? I see.

"Muslims? Soldiers making errors? Eyewittness reports are always unreliable? What line of work are you in?"

What does that matter? Again, I could call into question your ability to observe. I never once said that eyewitness reports are ALWAYS unreliable.

"And once again what is your qualifications to suggest Cooper was confused or in error."

One doesn't need to be qualified in anything to notice the fact that there is absolutely no evidence.

" I know all about how someone can be in error in what they witnessed, but part of the equation is the quality of the witness."

That certainly is part of the equation, in a Court of Law. Science is not a Court of Law.

" And Friend, I had the opportunity to know Cooper. Did you or Mamer? Did you speak to him prior to his death? Just what do you know about the man? Did you ever conduct an investigation or perhaps you are like 99% of most people on the net, you like to blather?

Knowing Mr. Cooper is part of your bias. You were not there when the event took place. So your testimonial is meaningless. Again, in a Court, it would certainly be given some weight. But again, Science is not a Court. You either can prove what you say, or you cant.


"Just curious. Lets get back to the beginning, just what are your qualifications? If you don't want to share, then lets just end it here."

Would it matter to you if I was a War Veteran? Or how about a retired Physicist? What if I was still teaching part time in my retirement?

I hope they dont make a difference since NEITHER of us were there to witness the event.

If all you can do question me... Insist that I have "credentials" (whatever those may be), then you SHOULD end this. Because unless you have some evidence to go along with your opinion, it isn't very compelling except to other believers. Hope that wasn't snarky.

And let's not forget that "the beginning" of our discussion was based NOT on what Mr. Cooper did or did not experience, but your willingness to mischaracterize Mr. Mamer. Who you haven't met.

Great, just what we need, a debunking chef!
Karl Mamer came across as a bumbling, mis-informed, under prepared, Nabob who showed he hasn't really done any real research into the subject. If he had he would've been more familiar with the cases presented by Gene and David which are some of the more credible. He's typical of debunkers, who wrap themselves in skeptics clothing, and their lack of real research into the topics they debunk, making sweeping pronouncements and using tired cliche reasoning to blanket denounce any paranormal subject and childishly reducing them to, in their words, WOO.
Bad luck for Karl if he has been lambasted on this forum (and deservedly so). How dare he appear on a show without knowing anything about the subjects presented by the hosts. It wasn't as if David & Gene presented him with obscure cases with little profile , these were well documented and around for some time. Any skeptic worth his shit would've done some research prior to appearing on the show and be well prepared for any line of questioning not come across as some giggling, patronising, science fundamentalist. If that's the best the skeptics can do, GET ANOTHER SKEPTIC!!
His questioning of Gordon Coopers memory was at best guess work. Just because science believes that the recall of a persons memory diminishes over time doesn't mean that what a person recalls from that past event is incorrect or misinterpreted. Simply put science still doesn't know enough about the human mind, at this stage, to presume that people who have traumatic events will not be able to remember with any clarity those events 30, 40 or 60 years after the fact. There are many WW2 and indeed some WW1 veterans who can still recall, vividly, what happened to them and their mates 60 to 80 years later.
As for Don Ecker. The man is an icon in the field of UFOlogy. I for one would trust his opinion and definately his assessment of Gordon Cooper (seeing how he actually met him and interviewed him, at length).
How many UFO\Paranormal field investigations have you made MrChef?, or indeed Karl Mamer? It is one thing to disagree with a friend of the show, but quite another to disrespect him.
As far as it goes if you never posted here again the world world be better off. Stick to kitchen with your picture of Gordon Ramsay on the wall next to your pictures of James Randi and Stalin.

 

[ZombieOctopus]

I had to shut it off at roughly the half way point, not because of Karl's disregard for logic, but because I couldn't stand to listen to him any longer.

Because, like, you know, um, it's really, uhh, irritating, when, you know, people speak like this... you know?

If you edited out all the times he says: "uh", "errm" and "you know", the show would span 20 minutes, at most.

 

[Gojira2006]

Gojira,

I honestly can't see what from Decker's post would lead you to believe he could not be mistaken or in error. Are there any verifiable facts? No.

But that is besides the point. The real question is, what is Mr. Cooper actually saying? He didn't actually see anything. He saw a few frames of a film that gives no indication of the quality. He was told ahead of time what he would see, and that may have influenced his opinion.

Finally, and I think this is the most interesting thing... there is no record of the event, even in Blue Book. That does seem to suggest that what was actually witnessed may have been a secret aircraft.

It also may have been a UFO.

But what in the story suggests that it absolutely was a UFO? Nothing.

: Well, as I typed earlier, I don't know what Cooper saw on those frames of the film, or what his folks saw, either . . . But whatever they did see - first hand or on snipets of the film, the visitation fits the exact definition of a UFO - unidentified, apparently flying, & probably a physical object . . . As far as my doubting that Cooper made a mistake based on Don's post, I am relying on their credentials - Cooper's & Ecker's . . . This doesn't mean that I think that they're infallible, but their backgrounds give me a high degree of confidence that both were/are reporting things to a high degree of accuracy - Cooper to Ecker, & Ecker to us . . . :

 

[grannysmith]

Great, just what we need, a debunking chef!
....
As far as it goes if you never posted here again the world world be better off. Stick to kitchen with your picture of Gordon Ramsay on the wall next to your pictures of James Randi and Stalin.

Very childishly ad hominem, indeed.

All this "who are you?" stuff is just dick waving (and an attempt to smuggle in an 'argument from authority') : isn't it the force of the argument that is the only relevant factor?

Didn't Kant say something about the court of reason being the only authority (and, yes, just in case I should be regarded as 'unqualified' to refer to Kant, I do teach Philosophy at University level : though I admit to never having met him )

ETA : I think the 'credentials' thing can be a red herring in discussions like this. Of course credentials are important - but only if you are relying on taking someone's word on trust and not researching the claims oneself.

Thus, 'credentials' are a signifier of professional competence useful to someone who wishes to employ a professional to do a task they are incapable of undertaking themselves but in a discussion board like this, can be in no way conclusive (if the board is to be credible) because we are all 'participants' in discovery rather than in a relationship of 'one way projection of information taken on trust by the recipients'.

 

[Gojira2006]

Very childishly ad hominem, indeed.

All this "who are you?" stuff is just dick waving (and an attempt to smuggle in an 'argument from authority') : isn't it the force of the argument that is the only relevant factor?

Didn't Kant say something about the court of reason being the only authority (and, yes, just in case I should be regarded as 'unqualified' to refer to Kant, I do teach Philosophy at University level : though I admit to never having met him )

Well, certainly the force of argument is very important, but the background/experience of the witness is also of no small importance . . . I'm not a scientist, but I hope to one day practice law, & from my education to this point, I understand the importance of the qualifications of the witnesses in certain testimonies . . . We're not all astronauts, or astronomers, or meteorologists, or physicists, or what-have-you - but a court of law recognizes that experts in certain fields carry more weight under certain circumstances than others do - subject to their credentials being verified & their testimonies being cross-examined . . . That said - I continue to believe that Gordon Cooper is an "expert witness" when it comes to military confrontations with UFOs, & that his word carries weight on those particular visitations . . .

 

[grannysmith]

Well, certainly the force of argument is very important, but the background/experience of the witness is also of no small importance . . . I'm not a scientist, but I hope to one day practice law, & from my education to this point, I understand the importance of the qualifications of the witnesses in certain testimonies . . . We're not all astronauts, or astronomers, or meteorologists, or physicists, or what-have-you - but a court of law recognizes that experts in certain fields carry more weight under certain circumstances than others do - subject to their credentials being verified & their testimonies being cross-examined . . . That said - I continue to believe that Gordon Cooper is an "expert witness" when it comes to military confrontations with UFOs, & that his word carries weight on those particular visitations . . .

I think you slightly misunderstood my point.

I was talking about what part 'credentials' play with regard to participants on a forum debating issues which are basically philosophical in nature ('can we trust witness testimony?' etc) rather than with regard to witnesses of phenomena.

On the witness point, I think the argument has become a bit too polarised on witnesses - even 'practiced' witnesses can make errors but because they are 'practiced' witnesses I would give them more weight (ceteris paribus) but I would not take their evidence as conclusive, necessarily.

Beyond this issue of reliability there is the separate (epistemological) issue of one-off eye-witness observation not being 'scientific proof' of anything. I think, to use a legal analogy, in a non-laboratory setting we have to accept a different standard of proof - balance of probabilities? (as in a civil case) or something more rigorous?

ETA another issue with 'expert witnesses' is their area of expertise and the surrounding conditions of the observation. Imagine a doctor examines a patient and make a diagnosis - this would be reliable but not infallible. Now imagine a doctor on a train speeding through a station at which t5he train is not stopping glimpsing a man on the platform apparently exhibiting some behavior which is symptomatic of a particular disease - not so 'reliable' now are they? The witnessing of something by an 'expert' does not always qualify them as an 'expert witness' in relation to the event under examination is the conclusion here, I think.

 

[Gojira2006]

I think you slightly misunderstood my point.

I was talking about what part 'credentials' play with regard to participants on a forum debating issues which are basically philosophical in nature ('can we trust witness testimony?' etc) rather than with regard to witnesses of phenomena.

On the witness point, I think the argument has become a bit too polarised on witnesses - even 'practiced' witnesses can make errors but because they are 'practiced' witnesses I would give them more weight (ceteris paribus) but I would not take their evidence as conclusive, necessarily.

Beyond this issue of reliability there is the separate (epistemological) issue of one-off eye-witness observation not being 'scientific proof' of anything. I think, to use a legal analogy, in a non-laboratory setting we have to accept a different standard of proof - balance of probabilities? (as in a civil case) or something more rigorous?

Yes, I did misunderstand your point, & I apologize . . . I agree - expert testimony in & of itself is not conclusive, but, in a civil trial, does goes to the preponderance of the evidence, which is the threshold for that venue . . . The problem I have with some skeptics is that they oftentimes question the credentials of the "expert witness" at the expense of familiarizing themselves with the case at hand, & therefore avoid rightly critiquing the evidence & the conclusions drawn from the evidence . . . A good trial lawyer will stipulate to the expertness of the witness (unless the witness is a complete fraud or incompetent, or sells their services to the highest bidder), & instead focuses on their evidence & conclusions . . .

 

[Kieran]

The phenomen has many skeptic's and debunkers, who believe that everything can be explained from right here on the planet, there is notting unexplainable to see here. That is wrong, the whole universe at this point is unexplained.

As humans we are suffering from vanity. We have to get beyond this and stop being ignorant to the facts of the phenomen. Craft of unknown origin are appearing in our skies. Plenty of evidence exists. We dont have something like a craft or a body to show the world.

But something which is all purposes is more showable than 'God' for evidence is appearing in our skies.

People. are with Don, MRCHEF, not because of respect for the man. Just as a point must of us do Respect him.

But the Argument is not longer there.... 'do they exist or not' We Know they do.
The argument has moved on.

 

[Kieran]

Mostly I was thinking this:



In fact he says as much in the article David posted:

He's clearly demonstrating motivated reasoning, starting from the position that UFOs are crap and working backwards from there. No evidence will ever be good enough because it might be hoax or misidentification and therefore it is.

Doesn't it ever occur to him that if some UFOs really do represent an "other" and that other is demostrably superior in every way that counts, that it is under no obligation to show up in a lab and be processed?

His comments about "expert observers" are particularily taxing. If your car is not working properly, who's opinion would you consider more valid: a mechanic's or a manicurist's?

One other thing that irked me was the use of terminology, I really wish David had just spelled it out for him. He gave him plenty of leads but did not definitively say "UFOs does not mean flying saucers". It was danced around but never stated in exactly those terms and it should have been because Karl kept using the term "UFO" in that context and only that context.

The Jim part of the show was great but hey, with Jim I expect great.

About the episode he mentioned with Wendle and "Connor" you might want to watch this:


I said might, mind you...

Interesting video CapnG. Watched a good bit of it and found Bob Dean not very Credible. He claims that Area 51 has 30 levels. Lazar claims there is none and this guy conor mentioned four levels.It all so confuseing, even this colonel in the Background with books of Billy mieer in the background, seem to be too involved with the nonsense of the ufo topic.

Bob Dean, is full of storys which in many ways don't seem logical. One were he siad, that they he heard that an official, can remember 'if he was military or not. That, when he visited Area 51 he went through at door at Area 51 was teleported to another Area in Australia pine view/ or pinewood, i forget now.It all sounds far fetched for me withount the evidence.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I had to shut it off at roughly the half way point, not because of Karl's disregard for logic, but because I couldn't stand to listen to him any longer.

Because, like, you know, um, it's really, uhh, irritating, when, you know, people speak like this... you know?

If you edited out all the times he says: "uh", "errm" and "you know", the show would span 20 minutes, at most.

Actually we cut out about half of those. Seriously.

 

[Gojira2006]

But the Argument is not longer there.... 'do they exist or not' We Know they do.
The argument has moved on.

I think that you're likely right - & we should judge each case on its own merits, realizing that folks sometimes fabricate & sometimes are mistaken, but even if they do, that doesn't mean that all cases are automatically phoney . . . The first thing that should always be ascertained is if an event did occur & what transpired, & not the character of the witness . . .

 

[pixelsmith]

Pixelsmith,

I was wondering when it would happen. Certainly no free thinking individual would agree with Mr. Mamer! Therefore, mrchef must be Mr. Mamer!

QED. It's scientific proof!

Wow.

My name is David. Not Karl. I am presently a Chef. Not a... what was he? A technical writer?

But you believe what you want to believe.

i am skeptical.

 

[Kieran]

I think that you're likely right - & we should judge each case on its own merits, realizing that folks sometimes fabricate & sometimes are mistaken, but even if they do, that doesn't mean that all cases are automatically phoney . . . The first thing that should always be ascertained is if an event did occur & what transpired, & not the character of the witness . . .

While i agree with most of your post. If you have a case, it usually involves a Witness. Withount, a witness thIS "ufos" will fly around our skies withount being seen. So most cases usually involve a witness. So you have to look sometimes at the character of the witness to be sure if the case is geniune. As, we now alot of people in this field, are prone to telling storys that are not geniune.

 

[Gojira2006]

While i agree with most of your post. If you have a case, it usually involves a Witness. Withount, a witness thIS "ufos" will fly around our skies withount being seen. So most cases usually involve a witness. So you have to look sometimes at the character of the witness to be sure if the case is geniune. As, we now alot of people in this field, are prone to telling storys that are geniune.

Oh, I agree that the character of the witness is important, but skeptics all too often only focus on that side of the story, & nothing else . . .

 

[Decker]

Good morning all. I don't know if you are all aware of it but the last several days my wife and I were under a great deal of pressure, we are only a couple of miles from the wildfires (actually the Station Fire) just outside of Lake View Terrace, here in So. Calf. It has been nerve wracking, especially in light of the fact that last October we got caught up on the wildfires then and had to evacuate our home. We were gone for 3 days and didn't even know if we had a home to go back to. The reason I am telling you all this? Well actually I may have come across more curmudgeonly toward mrchef than I meant to. That is not to say that I didn't mean every damn thing I said about Colonel Cooper, but I may have come across more strident than I meant to.

So mrchef, if I caused offense ... none was intended ... sorry. That is not to say that I still think you don't have a clue but be that as it may.

Decker

 

[Gojira2006]

Good morning all. I don't know if you are all aware of it but the last several days my wife and I were under a great deal of pressure, we are only a couple of miles from the wildfires (actually the Station Fire) just outside of Lake View Terrace, here in So. Calf. It has been nerve wracking, especially in light of the fact that last October we got caught up on the wildfires then and had to evacuate our home. We were gone for 3 days and didn't even know if we had a home to go back to.

Gosh - I hope that you're safe, & that you continue to be . . . !

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

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.

Yeah, Bravo to David and Gene... they both kept backing him into a corner... then David finally got him to concede "well maybe I would believe it if I saw it" (I'm paraphrasing of course). And that every sighting is a misidentification... of Venus? Venus looks like a single bright dot. Not at all what has been reported over and over.. and in daylight too (although you can sometimes see Venus in the daytime).

His voice was irritating too... it was like David and Gene interviewing Jerry Lewis! "La-dy, you didn't see no UFO...."

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.

Exactly.... they can't be real because there is no such thing.

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.

So many of them are like this.

 

[grannysmith]

Good morning all. I don't know if you are all aware of it but the last several days my wife and I were under a great deal of pressure, we are only a couple of miles from the wildfires (actually the Station Fire) just outside of Lake View Terrace, here in So. Calf. It has been nerve wracking, especially in light of the fact that last October we got caught up on the wildfires then and had to evacuate our home. We were gone for 3 days and didn't even know if we had a home to go back to. The reason I am telling you all this? Well actually I may have come across more curmudgeonly toward mrchef than I meant to. That is not to say that I didn't mean every damn thing I said about Colonel Cooper, but I may have come across more strident than I meant to.

So mrchef, if I caused offense ... none was intended ... sorry. That is not to say that I still think you don't have a clue but be that as it may.

Decker

lol - he gives with one hand and takes away with the other

Good luck, though : I hope you're all safe and well.

 

[pixelsmith]

His voice was irritating too... it was like David and Gene interviewing Jerry Lewis! "La-dy, you didn't see no UFO...."

LMAO... someone had to say it... his voice caused me to turn him off a couple times. i couldn't stand it.

 

[TerraX]

Just finished listening to the Karl Mamer episode, thought it would be fair - maybe even refreshing - to soak in a little of the skeptical point of view. And about 20 to 30 minutes in I regretted it already.

Mr Mamer was completely close-minded. No tolerance for the paranormal in any way, not the slightest bit of imagination forthcoming. Witnesses were made irrelevant up to the point where you have to wonder in what world Mamer lives in. Guess he would make a fine lawyer, but maybe that's below the belt.


Did love the Evony adds on the main site. That's probably why I made it through the entire episode.: