March 2 Gene & Chris Shop Talk Episode

[nameless]

There's a delicate balance to maintain with a guest and the listening audience between being overly credulous and overly critical and I think you guys have achieved it quite nicely.

I don't think you can be overly critical but you can be in your face confrontational which isn't going to win you any favors or repeat shows which is why coast 2 coast which has a huge platform but fails to capitalise on it and nut rides any woo woo ball sack in comparison is too unconditional. Ironically they could be more confrontational due to their market position. The Paracast is a good balance but I know a lot of listeners hark back to the b-man days fondly. I understand the position someone like Chris faces, having to walk the professional knife edge which maintains working relationships and being an investigative broadcaster interviewer. But that's where we come in . Use us to ask the hard questions if there are any so not to compromise that position. I think you will find interviewees are more pissed off with having the flow of their spiel interrupted by advertisers than having to answer challenging questions. If not then the paracast becomes a watered down c2c entertainment show. If a guest puts forward an unsubstantiated world view I can't see why you can't be reciprocal in unsubstantiated interrogation , if any thing it would bring out more than the premeditated lite chat show UFO circuit routines a lot of these guys peddle as stories.

 

[nameless]

I do think that the Paracast has the reputation and integrity of a distinct market brand that can be capitalized on. I do not think that symposiums or real life conventions are a thing of the past, far from it as more people are making whole hearted life style choices in the light of hard times, with people more willing to spend what little money they do have on meaningful real life experiences. These talks and convention discussions can still be pay per viewed too but a purely virtual experience is as insubstantial as, say the amount of "friends " you make on facebook .

I think with the history and wealth of experience plus the cadre of para/UFO friends you Paracaster people are tapped into which to me are a distinct network, as a symposium line up it works as a statement of intent and showing of integrity saying " these are the people you should listen too" because young people or any people that fall into UFOs or para stuff play straight into the hands of the c2c, Camelot, Icke, Greer and the new agey bull shieeeeeet tailored events.

I think the money backers of these other conventions rely too heavily on the big name special effects but if you trust in your own venture it can still be as big because of its integrity and what it actually has to say.

Has there ever been a convention which was tailored at being serious and studious, following a narrative line such as the chronology of key UFO events ? Or one which looks at the major theories and hypothesis as options or tools and time lines of enquiry in regard to understanding UFOs, split into days with the main proponents of each theory espousing with key evidence and open discussion? Do conventions have panel discussions with real time av techs who pull up videos films and photos as the discussion unfolds on the fly to illustrate points in the discussion and then .... "Wait a second we have Dr Valee on Skype to answer that" ? I think people are crying out for some fine dining here that they have to work a bit to appreciate, much as people are after a serious paranormal tv documentary programme that isn't some SUV shakey cam clown escapade that panders to base beliefs and knee jerk reactions. I definitely think you guys have the means or are integral to helping people by giving them what they need as opposed to what they want.

 

[Fubar]

Regarding the lights near Toledo. I think the explanation Chris had was spot on. There's an Air National guard base at Toledo Express airport. They fly F-16's out of there quite often.

 

[Han]

Really enjoyed this episode, thank you very much.
Best wishes Harry.

 

[Burnt State]

Thanks for answering all of the questions in the question bank, Gene & Chris. Most of what needed to be said about this episode has already been well covered above. Through my questions I wanted to specifically get at the long standing complaints on the forum regarding why aren't the questionable guests taken to task with more due diligence. As astutely pointed out above, I think that using critical questions from forum members is the best way to increase the critical quality of the show. That puts the onus on forum members to research guests and pose the really hard questions. I think that the interactive quality of The Paracast is what I find the most appealing as forum members have been increasingly playing a significant role in shaping the show as both guests and as providers of discussion for the show.

Let's face it, if Gene and Chris hammer into every guest, be they friend or foe, it will leave very few willing guests that will enter into the arena. Critical listeners see through what's taking place and if you think too many softballs are being tossed across the plate; then, come out to the question bank and lay down the heavy ones.

I appreciate one major theme for many out here which is that neither UFO's nor the paranormal, are entertaining, nor should it be treated as entertainment. But in a world where the show must go on there is a delicate balance to be struck, and sometimes all you can hope to take out of episodes are historical aspects of the field, some wild rollicking tales and the occasional critical investigation. If you want more, then participation is your best bet.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I agree with the idea that the forum posted questions can give Gene and I a perfect out. I feel comfortable asking really tough questions posed by all of you. Posing your difficult questions opens the door for pointed followup questions by Gene and I. I think it's a really good approach and thank everyone in advance who does the research and poses those heavy questions. I have no qualms at all breaking the ice w/ this approach. Some of our guests are crafty but so are we...

 

[technomage]

Quite often a guest will reveal more if they aren't guarded. You catch then on a comfortable moment and hit them with a more revealing question. You can't always be confrontational, though it works that way sometimes.

In the early days of The Paracast, this balance was not achieved. We had some great moments, but we actually found listeners switching us off because of too much bitterness. Sure, some switch us off now because of the ads, but we are still way ahead.

I have listened to the first 6 or so episodes and haven't gotten to the confrontational ones yet. Your co-host was actually quite polite. I look forward to seeing the transformation! I understand though, that you will get more from guests if you don't antagonize them. Who wants to go on a show and be attacked?

 

[Polterwurst]

Thanks for addressing my questions, Chris and Gene. Even if I had the impression it took a segment or two to really gain speed (but then turning into a wild roller-coaster ride of ideas and information), probably because of Gene being ill, the show was again thought-provoking and interesting in terms of what other forum members are interested in and what the hosts think about it. I like this kind of interactive approach very much and I think it's great being a participant in the discussion rather than just listening to it.

I may be hopelessly entrenched myself, but I always wonder why such groundbreaking and IMO important work as that of Dr Tucker and his mentor and predecessor Ian Stevenson gets relatively little attention or even recognition. The phenomenon of small children seemingly having "past life memories" is real and it happens again and again, and these really scientifically minded researchers have been reporting it for about 50 years now, but not many people seem to listen or care.

I mean, it's hard to find anyone here in Germany who knows this research (and near impossible to find someone who'll speak openly about it) so I've been posting these questions and my own experiences here on the forum because I want to find out if there is more recognition or controversy in the US, where this research has been conductedsince the 1960s.

My impression now is that there probably isn't, which I find quite astonishing. Now, maybe that's really a good thing, because IMO it's the "smaller voices" with the solid research we should be looking for instead of the big, sensational theories and outrageous tall tales.

It's probably as Chris said, anything that looks like it's religiously motivated, is probably rightfully avoided by most people. Only this research definitely isn't religiously motivated and my personal theory is that it wasn't religions who came up with the idea of reincarnation, rather they developped it from the observation of naturally ocurring phenomena like this one or like NDEs, psychics etc.. And of course, no one gives credence to what a small child says. Well, what can you do.

 

[flipper]

I really enjoyed the shop talk and hearing Gene and Chris's opinions. It helps! Thanks for answer the questions that we form members have been wondering about. Gene I think your right about corporations, they are like mosquito sucking the blood out where ever they land.