H
hopeful skeptic
Guest
Mr. Sparks' inability to keep a story straight aside, I still believe the best - and for me, most maddening - portion of The Paracast is the direct dialogue between Messrs. Steinberg and Biedny.
I suggest that the reason folks walked out on Dr. Jacobs' presentation on abductions tells us a lot about the faith system that so many UFO believers cherish. I hold that there is no difference between Christian eschatology and typical UFO eschatology except the name of the savior. Why would anyone want to hear that alleged UFO occupants are in any way evil, or harmful to people, or bent on nefarious purposes? Folks have a cherished faith that the aliens are come to save us all from ourselves, and will not give that up. The only thing surprising to me about the audience's reported reaction is that stoning wasn't involved.
Several moments later, Mr. Biedny decried those who take a strong position one way or another, and lamented the aspersions heaped upon those who take a "grounded," middle position. I understand the frustration he feels with those who accept only one or another hypothesis to explain what a UFO is- and share it - but feel that this does not address the real, key issue at hand: What evidence - hard evidence, not eyewitness testimony, stories and anecdotes - exists for anyone's position? Those making claims about the nature of UFOs must first prove that UFOs exist. I think a case can be made for that, based on a smattering of physical trace evidence and hard radar returns (which would lead me to further speculate that the UFOs are physical in nature, and have physical, measurable properties). I don't think anyone can go beyond this, since there's no evidence anywhere. What we're talking about, then, is really a story-swapping session, where the veracity of a claim is really dependent on the communicator and the gut feeling of his audience. In that kind of environment, folks who don't care about evidence will stake out ground, since they don't have to worry about fighting any evidentiary battles.
In regards to Mr. Sparks, I share Mr. Steinberg's suprise that he accepted a second interview. It surprised me when it was announced, and surprised me even more after I heard the interview. Bad decision. Bad, bad, bad. If I had been advising Mr. Sparks, and had a stake in his story, I would have tied him to a tree and spiked his Kool-Aid to prevent him from keeping the date.
All aside, though, I compliment Messrs. Steinberg and Biedny for asking at least some of the questions a critical thinker should ask. Their two interviews with Mr. Sparks were far more informative and revealing than the three-hour love fest Mr. Sparks shared with Art Bell. Kudos!
I suggest that the reason folks walked out on Dr. Jacobs' presentation on abductions tells us a lot about the faith system that so many UFO believers cherish. I hold that there is no difference between Christian eschatology and typical UFO eschatology except the name of the savior. Why would anyone want to hear that alleged UFO occupants are in any way evil, or harmful to people, or bent on nefarious purposes? Folks have a cherished faith that the aliens are come to save us all from ourselves, and will not give that up. The only thing surprising to me about the audience's reported reaction is that stoning wasn't involved.
Several moments later, Mr. Biedny decried those who take a strong position one way or another, and lamented the aspersions heaped upon those who take a "grounded," middle position. I understand the frustration he feels with those who accept only one or another hypothesis to explain what a UFO is- and share it - but feel that this does not address the real, key issue at hand: What evidence - hard evidence, not eyewitness testimony, stories and anecdotes - exists for anyone's position? Those making claims about the nature of UFOs must first prove that UFOs exist. I think a case can be made for that, based on a smattering of physical trace evidence and hard radar returns (which would lead me to further speculate that the UFOs are physical in nature, and have physical, measurable properties). I don't think anyone can go beyond this, since there's no evidence anywhere. What we're talking about, then, is really a story-swapping session, where the veracity of a claim is really dependent on the communicator and the gut feeling of his audience. In that kind of environment, folks who don't care about evidence will stake out ground, since they don't have to worry about fighting any evidentiary battles.
In regards to Mr. Sparks, I share Mr. Steinberg's suprise that he accepted a second interview. It surprised me when it was announced, and surprised me even more after I heard the interview. Bad decision. Bad, bad, bad. If I had been advising Mr. Sparks, and had a stake in his story, I would have tied him to a tree and spiked his Kool-Aid to prevent him from keeping the date.
All aside, though, I compliment Messrs. Steinberg and Biedny for asking at least some of the questions a critical thinker should ask. Their two interviews with Mr. Sparks were far more informative and revealing than the three-hour love fest Mr. Sparks shared with Art Bell. Kudos!