July 18, 2010 - David Hatcher Childress

[Ron Collins]

I just wanted to point out that your post says you are quoting me. You are not. You were actually quoting "Tyder001" on post #76 in his response to my post #75. I have edited your post to reflect this accurately.

You've touched upon a peeve of mine regarding some attitudes on this forum. Look, I'm all for scientific, rational exploration of what we call the "paranormal", as well as the UFO question. But you can't sepnd every minute of every episode yelling "But... THE PROOF! Can you privide EVIDENCE?!" It's fine to ask probing questions but at a certain point you've gotta have a dialog.

Look, it's up to US, as listeners, to decide how credible we find the guests, and to do additional research if we want to take it further. The hosts can only do so much before the show becomes a cross-examination rather than a radio show.

And besides, not everything has to be scientifically provable, or confirmed by five eye-witnesses who provide signed statements and video footage from three different angles, to be interesting. Things are what they are. I have no problem with speculation or anecdotes, because I recognize them to be just that.

I would only say that when a guest represents the information as fact then they should be judged by their ability to produce evidence to support that assertion. If they preface it by saying it is their opinions and very few facts on only spattering of anecdotal evidence exists then my issues with them decrease proportional to that admission. The field, (I do believe this is a field of study. However diluted, it exists.) is rife with examples of jackasses with dubious threads of tenuous evidence that represent it all as obvious facts arrived at through a clear progression of discovery. At that point the onus is on them.

I do understand that there is an undercurrent of mysticism or otherwise unverifiable phenomena in these topics. However, where I differ is that instead of labeling it as such and moving on I believe in trying t apply current understanding and always searching for the angle that is testable. This is, in my opinion, the way we keep the subject matter from evolving into a faith. (no pun intended...honestly)

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Well, I for one thought the Paracast was about "Separating Signal from Noise." This show had an awful lot of noise in it, and not a lot of separating in it. Another forum member put it best; this program was entertaining and nothing more. If Childress' hypotheses are "on the table" for consideration, they need to be teetering precariously on the edge.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Well, I for one thought the Paracast was about "Separating Signal from Noise." This show had an awful lot of noise in it, and not a lot of separating in it.

Before you separate the noise, you have to define it for what it is. I won't say, necessarily, that what David talked about was noise. But he expressed a number of well-known conclusions about ancient mysteries, the Moon and so on and so forth. That's an early step towards dissecting them and seeing what they are made of. At the end of the day, as I said at one point, we can't really prove the Moon stuff right now anyway. That is unless we return there — and maybe we have, but that, too, isn't proven either.

 

[tyder001]

I'm afraid "some folks" equate rudeness , religous athiesm and combativness" with seperating signal from noise. You can "debate" and ask probing questions without getting sidetracked into a pissing contest and yelling for "documentation" everytime somebody makes an observation or relates a "human" experience. I think Gene does a good job in that reguard. I know some folks here dislike Coast to Coast and I find it's current "direction" to be less than stellar. But, I can remeber Art Bell in his heyday saying something along the lines of "Well, I'm not buying it doctor" or "Well, I'm not convinced but here's the story." Point is he didn't yell at the guest and didn't berate them and made his points at the same time. There truly is an "art" (no pun intended) to a good interview. Check out some of Greg Bishops work at Radio Mysterioso for a good example of being able to conduct a good and entertaining interview without being a doey eyed beleiver in everthing a guest says. Another expample: If I come here and say (1)"I dreamed that I would have blueberry pancakes for breakfast and by golly that's what my wife fixed." That does not call for documentation and links and "proof" in a test tube. We can discuss it civily and even have fun with it. (2.) Now if I come on and say "I dreamed my wife would make blueberry pancakes and she did and therefore all the laws of physics have changed and it proves "gravity is an illusion" Then it's time to say "Give documentation and experiments and prove it. I fear some on here don't really respect the reality of paranormal or even odd human experiences and are simply wanting to "debunk" instead of having fun and understanding that some things are just not known and some things are just food for thought and fun.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'm afraid "some folks" equate rudeness , religous athiesm and combativness" with seperating signal from noise.

You seem to often link atheism with negativity. Why is that? Does the fact that a person not believe in a god make their opinion less valid?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

There's an unfortunate and incorrect assumption that we have had lots of confrontational interviews in the past, which isn't true. We've made a very few guests uncomfortable. One hung up on us early on. But a lot of what passed for confrontation were the after show quarterbacking we used to engage in, and, with the revised format, I've tempered that somewhat. We won't hold back, but we won't be insulting either.

 

[tyder001]

You seem to often link atheism with negativity. Why is that? Does the fact that a person not believe in a god make their opinion less valid?

Not at all. But I typed muh liddle fangers to da bone on dat 1. So, I would be interested in more feedback than just that one statement. I understand "atheism" I just don't agree with it. But, that doesn't mean I disrespect people who are atheist. I find that from what I've seen I respect you and Trainedobserver and some others. I don't see the world the way you do but that's kind of what my post was about. So, aside from the atheist thing "how did ya like the udder parts.

 

[justcurious]

You can "debate" and ask probing questions without getting sidetracked into a pissing contest and yelling for "documentation" everytime somebody makes an observation or relates a "human" experience. I think Gene does a good job in that reguard.

Tyder, "human experience" does not refer to any quantifiable notion, therefore you are an heretic to science, and expose yourself to a ban, ask angel !

irony level of the post for dummies: 10/10

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Not at all. But I typed muh liddle fangers to da bone on dat 1. So, I would be interested in more feedback than just that one statement. I understand "atheism" I just don't agree with it. But, that doesn't mean I disrespect people who are atheist. I find that from what I've seen I respect you and Trainedobserver and some others. I don't see the world the way you do but that's kind of what my post was about. So, aside from the atheist thing "how did ya like the udder parts.

I think I've said this before, but it makes sense to restate. I don't believe that' there's anything paranormal going on, and when it comes to UFOs, there's no evidence to show that any of them are intelligent alien crafts, but in my opinion, there are some cases that remain unexplained. Discussing stuff like that is harmless in my opinion and can be a lot of fun.
I do take issue when people are making claims that are based on bad facts and bad science and are trying to make money from it. Worse than that though are people that want to teach kids that the world is less than 10000 years old and that we lived side by side with dinosaurs. The WORST thing though is people that speak out against science based medicine, such as promoters of homeopathy and anti-vaxers.
So, after all that, I don't want Gene and his co-hosts to grill guests and make them feel uncomfortable, but I do want them to ask good questions. The Paracast crew does a great job - even to a skeptic like me. Keep in mind it's the only podcast of its kind that I listen to - the rest are all about skepticism, videogames, and comedy. I won't list them here, but anyone is welcome to send me a PM if they want to know.

 

[tyder001]

While I also beleive the world is more than 6,000 years old I don't see what that has to do with what I was talking about. You may not believe it but I know actual "smart" doctors and Social Workers and teachers who do beleive in evolution and still have a spritiual side to them. For some reason (maybe it's the big mouth religious fundies of both Christian/Atheist stripe I don't know. But, for some reason some folks seem to think ya can't be intelligent and still beleive in God or meaning in the universe. That's to bad cause it's a lie. But, although I (as I've said before) accept evolution on "faith" I don't know for sure there were not humans and dinosaurs walking at the same time. KNow what? YOu don't either. But, from what we can see of the fossil record it's very doubtful. I've seem my "white crow" and can never, ever be told again that all crows are black. On the other hand my evangelical religion didn't survive my personal experience either. I seem anti athiest when I'm around a bunch of athiest. However, when I'm around a bunch of evagelical Christians...well lets just say athiest is the nicest thing I've been called.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

While I also beleive the world is more than 6,000 years old I don't see what that has to do with what I was talking about. You may not believe it but I know actual "smart" doctors and Social Workers and teachers who do beleive in evolution and still have a spritiual side to them. For some reason (maybe it's the big mouth religious fundies of both Christian/Atheist stripe I don't know. But, for some reason some folks seem to think ya can't be intelligent and still beleive in God or meaning in the universe. That's to bad cause it's a lie. But, although I (as I've said before) accept evolution on "faith" I don't know for sure there were not humans and dinosaurs walking at the same time. KNow what? YOu don't either. But, from what we can see of the fossil record it's very doubtful. I've seem my "white crow" and can never, ever be told again that all crows are black. On the other hand my evangelical religion didn't survive my personal experience either. I seem anti athiest when I'm around a bunch of athiest. However, when I'm around a bunch of evagelical Christians...well lets just say athiest is the nicest thing I've been called.

Oh yeah, as I've said b4. I don't beleive in spacemen either.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

For some reason (maybe it's the big mouth religious fundies of both Christian/Atheist stripe I don't know. But, for some reason some folks seem to think ya can't be intelligent and still beleive in God or meaning in the universe.

I know plenty of smart people that believe in God - I don't equate atheism with intelligence.

But, although I (as I've said before) accept evolution on "faith" I don't know for sure there were not humans and dinosaurs walking at the same time. KNow what? YOu don't either. But, from what we can see of the fossil record it's very doubtful.

Not to sound like a know-it-all, but I do know for a fact that humans and dinosaurs did not walk the Earth side by side. As you said, the fossil record shows that it is doubtful that man and dinosaur were ever together. I'll go one further to say that it proves its impossible. But guess what; if a fossil ever shows that this theory is wrong, we'll have to accept it. That's the beauty of science. What makes a theory scientific (like evolution) is that it is falsifiable.
Just to say though, I have no problem with religion and tradition, as long as you keep yourself grounded and don't say that everything is "of the devil," and I know that you don't do that, and I respect you for it!

A

 

[paraschtick]

... there's no evidence to show that any of them are intelligent alien crafts, but in my opinion, there are some cases that remain unexplained. Discussing stuff like that is harmless in my opinion and can be a lot of fun.

Ummm I wouldn't exactly put it like that, Angel, I would put it to you that there's no evidence to show that they are alien at all ... but there is plenty to show that some of these craft are intelligently controlled in some way or other. Whether they are just intelligently controlled craft or intelligent beings in themselves is not possible to say (and maybe each one should be taken on a case by case basis). Some may be ... some might not be. But to say that none of them are intelligent is ... well ... in my mind ... throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Oh and faith of any kind by any intelligent, thinking person is incredibly silly and I think extremely childish . Proof of a supreme being of any kind will be the only way to prove to me that one exists. I will not go with faith alone ... that would as I say just be really really dumb ]

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Ummm I wouldn't exactly put it like that, Angel, I would put it to you that there's no evidence to show that they are alien at all ... but there is plenty to show that some of these craft are intelligently controlled in some way or other. Whether they are just intelligently controlled craft or intelligent beings in themselves is not possible to say (and maybe each one should be taken on a case by case basis). Some may be ... some might not be. But to say that none of them are intelligent is ... well ... in my mind ... throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Oh and faith of any kind by any intelligent, thinking person is incredibly silly and I think extremely childish . Proof of a supreme being of any kind will be the only way to prove to me that one exists. I will not go with faith alone ... that would as I say just be really really dumb ]

I knew I should have been more specific in my post, but I was short on time. I meant what you said as well. I don't believe that they are intelligent non-human controlled "things." As usual, once the evidence appears, I will gladly accept it.

 

[Capnkumquat]

This sort of guest is to "the paranormal" as the tea party is to politics...So positive they are right (correct), that no rational conversation about the issues can be had. David Childress seems to constantly run away from true experts, physicists, scientists, archeologist, to hang onto his imaginary research as "the answer".

Example: I have watched archeologists on PBS attempt to duplicate similar construction feats as the ancients would have done. With little or no practice, only good guesses, and some trial and error, they did large scale stone pulling, stone raising, and even set an obelisk in a 2 week time frame. They did their feats on a tiny budget, with limited man power, and the power of their brains.

Ancient man didn't need aliens, Atlantian technology, or psychokinetic powers. They only needed available manpower, determination, and the knowhow from the last thousand years of previous building projects.

I understand when guests say they have seen something unexplainable, and try to speculate what it might have been. This guest sees something unexplained and discounts credible information, professional expertise, and inserts "belief"...

...Puleeeze Mr. Childress, surely you have something better to do.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

David Childress seems to constantly run away from true experts, physicists, scientists, archeologist, to hang onto his imaginary research as "the answer".

If we accepted the word of "true experts, physicists, scientists, archeologists" and so on and so forth, we wouldn't be talking about ANY paranormal subject, be it UFOs, ghosts, strange creatures and all the rest. So that's not really a valid complaint. But what David reports and theorizes about should still undergo rigorous examination to separate facts from sheer speculation. I don't think even he'd dispute that.

 

[Capnkumquat]

But he is speculating on things and giving "reason" for things by passing over about a million better answers (one of them being "I don't know"). It seems to me to be the equivalent of stating the human body is made up of 4 humours when medical science (over the last 2400 years) has proven otherwise. What more needs to be researched? The 4 humours model of the human body is regarded as bunk by anyone with a brain.

His speculation goes above and beyond the irrational and squarely lands in the camp of the crazed "believer". Hiding behind your quote, is the notion that we should take such drivel seriously and respectfully accept it with open arms with the understanding that we should "go out and rigorously examine what he claims". Why hasn't he gone out and gotten some proof of his own for his own whacky claims, where is his corroborating research...Oh that's right, there isn't any.

If he has nothing, why are we listening?

What good is it to have a person on the show who only claims to have something of importance to say, when he really has nothing of importance to say. And when questioned about his claims merely throws off with..."My theories will of course require rigorous examination."

Gratuitous assertions can be just as gratuitously denied...I deny his assertions.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

He's written loads of books. Other than interrupting him every five minutes with a "prove this" demand, we wanted this to be the intro. There will be more deliberate probing in future episodes. We will even solicit your questions.

 

[Capnkumquat]

I don't really want the guest interrupted like that, It just seems he got away "scott free".

I could tell, you and your guest host wanted to ask more probing questions, but were...restrained. I can appreciate the new kinder, gentler, Paracast, I just don't like the idea of such poorly thought out reasoning from a guest becoming the new face of the Paracast.

I don't exactly know how I would handle such a guest...probably the wrong way...but it would be spectacular if only for a moment. :^)

 

[SLVA]

If I may state up front no "snideyness" or offence intended here.
To have steered the show through the messy departure of a co-host and then take it to a whole new audience via syndication deserves props.
Because it's a good show (it's kept me busy with it's entire archive over 2 years) and all for free, respect due. Discovering through it little known Sth American cases, amazing introductions to the likes of Mac Tonnies & Dark Matters - the list goes on. But more than all that, a show that doesn't need to plug a David Icke book, doesn't need the sensational or deeply unhappy individuals. that's cool, that's refreshing that's part of the brand right? Signal / Noise.
The pay off of feeling better informed by listening to the paracast, than let's say "other shows", and "those guests" is you know when you are hearing unoriginal material that's kinda unsubstantiated or well you know...how it smells really fast.
It doesn't have to be disrespectfully done. It can be humane and considerate without a debunking attitude either (because we all seem to agree that's not the shows agenda) What is the harm in being known for the show that does sometimes call foul play on a guest? Halt proceedings and maybe state all the reasons why it's just noise and it's not helping a quest for new thinking on the subject.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Halt proceedings and maybe state all the reasons why it's just noise and it's not helping a quest for new thinking on the subject.

You do remember when I moved the discussion away from Moon mysteries, right?