• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 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!

Seth Shostak on Larry King

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

D

Daedalus

Dark Lord of Digital Marketing
So I'm watching Larry King Live, this whole stephenville thing, and I have come to the conclusion that Seth Shostak is a dick. I know a thing or two about how to read people; body language, tonality etc...(Its my job) His analogies and his inability to ask serious questions that will result in a broader knowledge and not just him debunking whoever he comes across. ALSO what I thought was kinda cute was when he said that he thinks the money that is spent on SETI research and the amount of money spent on UFO research was probably pretty comprable. WHAT?!?! IS THIS GUY SMOKING?? and can I get some cause I'm letting this all get to me...

Just so you know...

Paul Allen has spent $25 Million over the last 3 years on the Allen Telescope Array
SETI and UC Berkley are contributing $16 Million

Annual operating budget of $4-5 million. -EVEN IF Ufo researchers together spend a combined total of 4 or 5 Million I would think no one is pumping in $35 or $40 Million dollars into the field. Maybe Greer, but thats it:D
 
Ah, Shostack... That man gave a name to my pain, I call it "disection debunking". What guys like Shostack, Shermer and McGaha do is they take each piece of evidence (sightings, radar, police reports, whatever) and treat it as seperate from the whole.

Then they calmly debunk each piece, often with clunky, even patently absurd (but never-the-less POSSIBLE) explanations and then slap their hands together as if wiping dust off, never once remarking on how ludicrous the odds of these things happening TOGETHER are.
 
I call him Poostack.

I've been meaning to contact him and let him know there's at least evidence for ufos of the nature that implies something more advanced than we humans from the here and now, which is more than I can say for SETI. He often asks, what does ufology have to show for itself? My reply would be (short version) more than SETI, yet you don't debunk SETI do you..... Seti has more funding too. Who looks worse in the end?

Ok, granted, ufology still looks worse if you look at the crackpots and cons, but I'm talking about the data that some of the better researchers share.
 
If our civilization is any indication of interstellar transmissions, then we can only expect to pick up aliens' old, weak TV/Radio signals. To make it more difficult I am sure there is a certain range for every signal depending on its strength. And do we ever amp up our own tv/radio signals and aim them out to space?

I think we should be working on directing amp'd up transmissions to deep space (like in the aliens in the movie Contact) that have enough info to show they came from sentient beings. I know some would say we might not want to advertise our presence, but what do the SETI folks say? That it's too expensive? To my knowledge no one is doing this right now.
 
Brian Now said:
If our civilization is any indication of interstellar transmissions, then we can only expect to pick up aliens' old, weak TV/Radio signals. To make it more difficult I am sure there is a certain range for every signal depending on its strength. And do we ever amp up our own tv/radio signals and aim them out to space?

I think we should be working on directing amp'd up transmissions to deep space (like in the aliens in the movie Contact) that have enough info to show they came from sentient beings. I know some would say we might not want to advertise our presence, but what do the SETI folks say? That it's too expensive? To my knowledge no one is doing this right now.
Click to expand...

We're advertising ourselves whether we like it or not. Radio, tv, radiation from bombs etc. go out into space.

I think optical seti should be given more of a go.
 
Folks,

Here's what you need to know about Shostak - around a year ago or so, he had a special guest on his podcast radio show thing:

Kal Korff.

And no, it was a serious, straight show. Shostak has a problem wth UFOs, but he finds Korff to be a credible person.

And that, as they say, is that.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
Folks,

Here's what you need to know about Shostak - around a year ago or so, he had a special guest on his podcast radio show thing:

Kal Korff.

And no, it was a serious, straight show. Shostak has a problem wth UFOs, but he finds Korff to be a credible person.

And that, as they say, is that.

dB
Click to expand...


Yeah, I heard about that. Were you able to listen to that show? I couldn't. The two of them together is a nightmare for me.
 
Shostak is not only a dick, but totally unqualified to discuss UFOs.

When Larry King asked James (Out of the Blue) Fox what he thought about the sighting, I wanted him to say, "Well, Larry, I wasn't there--so I can't have any sort of reasonable opinion. And neither can Seth".

While I've always been somewhat dubious of his doctorate (I'm just sure he got it at Phoenix U.), he strikes me as not only someone that's never cracked a UFO book before, but is a professional debunker, in the vein of Phil Klass.

The guy is on the official payroll of who ever pays people to say stupid shit and character assassinate UFO witnesses, and/or just does it for a hobby because he gets a kick out of it.

He constantly breaks Stanton's rule, "If you can't attack the data, attack the witness", and since he's never ever fucking ever bothered to LOOK at any data, he should never, ever, ever, ever be allowed on TV to discuss UFOs unless he claims to have seen one.

And even then maybe not.

This guy puts the "bedunk" in debunker.

I really, really hate that guy.

Peace.
 
Shostak bothers me the least of all of the debunkers. Larry King has had James McAsshole, Bill Nye, Michael Shermer, and now Seth Shostak. Seth was by far the most polite of the bunch, in my opinion. I thought he seemed to be a likeable fellow, even though he's clearly ignorant about the UFO data.

I heard Shostak on C2C debating Stanton Friedman. Clearly, he knows absolutely zero about UFOs, no question there. Still, I like the guy. I also like SETI, though I dislike their silly bickering with the UFO folk. Others have said that the two groups should work together. I think Paul Kimball or Mac Tonnies said this once on the show, no? I agree with them.

James McAsshole is the worst one of the bunch, then Bill Nye, Shermer, and Shostak.
 
Back
Top