• 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!

Loren Coleman, May 4, 2014


I found his take on the mothman interesting. I was unaware of how the name originated. Interesting.
 
Sorry but I had to turn off the show when Loren got on his soapbox about disarming gun owners. He seemed ornery and pissed off up to that point anyways so no big loss.
 
I did too. Coleman's tone was dispassionate, honest and very convincing. It's great to hear from someone who was there and can understand the writer and the book as the successful entertainment vehicle it was, hard boiled detective film noir style included. It really is like a piece of collage, documenting what he was assembling as it poured liberally out of the blender.
 
Great job. Coleman deserves more air time and more careful consideration from all of us.

Clear, rational, concise. And backed up with evidence for what he says.
 
good show thanks for reading my question guys. thanks also for rewording it aswell i should of specified.
very interesting to know the origins of mothman as well
 
Sorry but I had to turn off the show when Loren got on his soapbox about disarming gun owners. He seemed ornery and pissed off up to that point anyways so no big loss.
I agree... Especially since his opinions are not backed up by proof(facts and stats, which actually point to the polar opposite conclusions), which is odd considering proof is what everyone screams for when dealing with the paranormal.
 
Sorry but I had to turn off the show when Loren got on his soapbox about disarming gun owners. He seemed ornery and pissed off up to that point anyways so no big loss.
I turned the show off at this point as well. Otherwise it was enjoyable up until that point.
I'll disarm when the Govt disarms.
 
You should have asked Coleman that question Gene, when you were interviewing him. He sounded like was on his high horse for getting rid of lawful citizens weapons. I would have pounced all over his stupid response.
 
I didn't because this wasn't a gun segment. It was just a passing comment and we needed to move on. I think most people who favor some form of gun control are merely considering safety, not depriving anyone of their second amendment rights.
 
I am sure the Paracast has gone off topic more than once. If Coleman replied that citizens should be disarmed, he needed to clarify his statement. As it stands, he looks like a naive author of Bigfoot books.
 
I found the gun stuff really relevant actually.

Aside from my political thoughts on gun control (it's needed), I would think it's directly relevant to the "if I see a bigfoot should I kill it in the name of science" question.
 
Coleman's points around gun control were far from ornery or soapboxy. He made some pretty simple statements about people keeping guns out of the hands of children i.e. slack gun owners who don't store properly, and also made statements about whether or not assault weapons that have been used in previous mass shootings in America are things that should be sold. Technically I understand the following based on previous very informative debates about gun control on the forum:
  • America is a gun culture and that can not be changed.
  • Other gun culture countries like Switzerland do not have mass shootings like America does.
  • America is a leader in mass shootings and needs to address this problem
  • Guns are common family household items that are treated with respect in most homes and used for very functional reasons, like you would own a shovel
  • Assault weapons require a high degree of hurdles to jump through before you can own one.
  • The police are not there to save you from criminals - that's apparently an individual responsibility.
  • The proliferation/promotion of weapons as a commodity has increased access to youth shooting grandma and their siblings. These tragedies appear to outweigh reports of kids saving the homestead with the family gun from criminals
  • More guns=more gun tragedies and waste of life
  • You'll never be able to remove the right to bear arms but why not work on minimizing tragedy?
  • The N.R.A. needs to address issues of tragedy in the face of rejecting every single restriction that is attempted to try to eliminate tragedy. They just say it's people who kill people and not the innocent gun - so what, should we ban bad people? They need to be a little more practical and less rah rah rah the gun yay!
  • Gun control and gun tragedies = a ludicrous situation that appears to have no answers because the will to change the situation does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Coleman's points around gun control were far from ornery or soapboxy. He made some pretty simple statements about people keeping guns out of the hands of children i.e. slack gun owners who don't store properly, and also made statements about whether or not assault weapons that have been used in previous mass shootings in America are things that should be sold. Technically I understand the following based on previous very informative debates about gun control on the forum:
  • America is a gun culture and that can not be changed.
  • Other gun culture countries like Switzerland do not have mass shootings like America does.
  • America is a leader in mass shootings and needs to address this problem
  • Guns are common family household items that are treated with respect in most homes and used for very functional reasons, like you would own a shovel
  • Assault weapons require a high degree of hurdles to jump through before you can own one.
  • The police are not there to save you from criminals - that's apparently an individual responsibility.
  • The proliferation/promotion of weapons as a commodity has increased access to youth shooting grandma and their siblings. These tragedies appear to outweigh reports of kids saving the homestead with the family gun from criminals
  • More guns=more gun tragedies and waste of life
  • You'll never be able to remove the right to bear arms but why not work on minimizing tragedy?
  • The N.R.A. needs to address issues of tragedy in the face of rejecting every single restriction that is attempted to try to eliminate tragedy. They just say it's people who kill people and not the innocent gun - so what, should we ban bad people? They need to be a little more practice and less rah rah rah the gun yay!
  • Gun control and gun tragedies = a ludicrous situation that appears to have no answers because the will to change the situation does not exist.
You make many valid points. Unfortunately, the groups defining the debate are 180 degrees opposite from each other. You need to read the American Rifleman if you wish to understand where the N.R.A. stands. They won't give an inch in the battle over gun control. They have the money and backing of their members to go head to head.

When you consider persons like former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who will spend millions of his fortune in order to decide what the citizens can eat, drink, smoke or bear arms, then you have a big problem on your hands. I for one am leery when a billionaire has decided what is best for me.
 
Back
Top