• 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!

5-11-08 Derek Bartholomaus, IIG Interview

Forums New posts
Paranormal Packrat said:
The problem with intelligent design by ets is you're left with trying to figure out who created them. God, evolution, both? Something else?
Click to expand...

if you're taking a stern stand and saying we only exist because aliens created us, then yeah...

....but most of the theories that i've come across say that we most likely evolved under typical circumstances for billions of years until aliens genetically altered us (during those missing link years) and sort of sped up our already naturally occuring evolution

which would make more sense to me....
 
The hosts said they wanted to challenge a real psychic on the show, have you tried John Edward?
http://www.johnedward.net/JOHN_EDWARD_2008/JE_home.html

Not that I believe him, just saw him on Glenn Beck show once, seemed like a pretty big deal.
 
John Edward (not Edwards - that's the politician) was included as part of one of the IIG's investigations. An article about it can be found here: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-09/seeing-dead-people.html and was also part of the premiere episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! called "Talking To The Dead" that the IIG assisted with. http://www.tv.com/penn-and-teller-bullsh!/talking-to-the-dead/episode/238519/summary.html?tag=ep_list;ep_title;0

-Derek
 
banning said:
derekcbart said:
banning said:
oh man i miss "Bullshit!" that was such a bad ass tv show
Click to expand...

The new season should begin soon. They were delayed due to the writers strike.

-Derek
Click to expand...

i'll have to get cable tv one day LOL
Click to expand...

Bullshit is a terrible show. Their idea of debunking something is finding the craziest proponents, interviewing them, and then attempting to discount everyone else by association. I remember a segment they did about 9/11 conspiracies. It consisted basically of interviewing an obviously insane maniac and then implying that the entire 9/11 issue is just like this guy. Plus, Penn Jilette is a pompous ass. He did a show and in his introduction said "God is bullshit!" His idea of proving that God is bullshit? Talking about dumb religious fundamentalism and neglecting any of the serious religious philosophy that has been done throughout the centuries. If you want to prove that God is bullshit, you have to take on serious minded people, real thinkers.

What an idiot Penn Jilette is. I hate that pretentious ass.
 
Miah said:
The hosts said they wanted to challenge a real psychic on the show, have you tried John Edward?
http://www.johnedward.net/JOHN_EDWARD_2008/JE_home.html

Not that I believe him, just saw him on Glenn Beck show once, seemed like a pretty big deal.
Click to expand...

George Anderson would be better.
 
Chuckleberryfinn said:
Bullshit is a terrible show. Their idea of debunking something is finding the craziest proponents, interviewing them, and then attempting to discount everyone else by association. I remember a segment they did about 9/11 conspiracies. It consisted basically of interviewing an obviously insane maniac and then implying that the entire 9/11 issue is just like this guy. Plus, Penn Jilette is a pompous ass. He did a show and in his introduction said "God is bullshit!" His idea of proving that God is bullshit? Talking about dumb religious fundamentalism and neglecting any of the serious religious philosophy that has been done throughout the centuries. If you want to prove that God is bullshit, you have to take on serious minded people, real thinkers.

What an idiot Penn Jilette is. I hate that pretentious ass.
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone here is on the same page as me.
 
Chuckleberryfinn said:
Bullshit is a terrible show. Their idea of debunking something is finding the craziest proponents, interviewing them, and then attempting to discount everyone else by association. I remember a segment they did about 9/11 conspiracies. It consisted basically of interviewing an obviously insane maniac and then implying that the entire 9/11 issue is just like this guy. Plus, Penn Jilette is a pompous ass. He did a show and in his introduction said "God is bullshit!" His idea of proving that God is bullshit? Talking about dumb religious fundamentalism and neglecting any of the serious religious philosophy that has been done throughout the centuries. If you want to prove that God is bullshit, you have to take on serious minded people, real thinkers.

What an idiot Penn Jilette is. I hate that pretentious ass.
Click to expand...

well when you put it that way i feel like not liking it now either :( really the only one i ever saw was when they called bullshit on peta
 
Bullshit can be hit and miss. I think the first two seasons were the strongest and the last season (fourth) was the weakest.

And, yes, they do have writers. Not for any of the interview/field segments, but for all of the host wraparound segments. Those sections are covered by the WGA, so that is why the writers strike delayed production on the new season of the show.
 
I may have missed the answer to the question in the interview, but can some one answer it for me. The question was why the group tends to go after the low hanging fruit?? I remember that Derek was saying the group is full of volunteers and that they were really busy, but that didn't really answer the question.

And then it was brought up again, I think, when Meier was discussed. The question didn't seem to be answered and then Derek went into how and why he became involved in this case. Was this question answered??

Also I'd like to note that just because someone says they hoaxed something doesn't make it so. People sometimes fess up to things they didn't do. I'm not saying the Patterson film is authentic, but one item of interest is that Heironomous was very short. And the "bigfoot" seemed much taller and more cumbersome than him. Anyway, I'll have to look back at that stuff, but I do remember that argument. Point being, hoaxes aren't neccessarily a hoax just because someone confesses. And the media made this out to be a blanket statement: "There is no bigfoot!!", just because of one persons "confession".

There were some good topics presented here that I hope get discussed again on the Paracast, particularly the idea of god and how science deals with it's concept. While many scientists are atheists, there are also a good chunk that are "theistic" for lack of another term. It would be awesome to hear from someone like Francis Collins ("The Language of God") or Ken Miller ("Finding Darwins God"). Both prominent scientists that find compatibility with theism and what we know of the natural world. And there are others in this camp as well. A very interesting topic.

One more thing. I really think that a "skeptic" would loathe the situation where there really was something paranormal concluded. This would be the worst case scenario for them, and I think they would not "welcome it" like many say, but throw up instead. They would absolutely HATE IT. Don't you think??
 
Rather than an "open minded skeptic", Bartholomaus came across to me as just another debunker.

He too easily dismisses psychic phenomena and mediumship, using the same tired line debunkers often use. He claims that in 100 or 200 years of study, not one person claiming psychic abilities has successfully demonstrated they possess such powers.

This is disinformation. His claim ignores dozens or scores of SUCCESSFUL telepathy experiments conducted over decades, in scientific studies, often under the auspices of university departments.The history of parapsychology research is NOT a history of failure or fraud, but of overall success.

The main "failure" is debunkers' failure to accept scientific evidence that runs counter to their cherished fundamentalist-materialist belief system.

In his blanket dismissal of mediumship, he neglected to mention or address perhaps the major scientific study of mediums' abilities conducted by Dr. Gary Schwartz of the U. of Arizona. Schwartz designed studies that eliminated the
possible weaknesses Bartholomaus cited: of "cold reading" ( 'cause medium and sitter were separated, invisiblre to each other, with sitter was forbidden to speak during the reading. So there was zero feedback, which is what cold reading fakery would depend on). Bartholomaus also cited Von Praague's TV show taping that included successful hits and edited out misses.

But Schwartz tallied both misses and hits, and misses reduced scores.
Schwartz's mediums repeatedly demonstrated abilities to access info. about deceased relatives and of sitters, at rates statistically far beyond what sheer blind chance would expect. Often this included very detailed, unique, idiosyncratic pieces of info, that blind guessing does not adequately explain.

To me, Bartholomaus came across as just another debunker, a pseudo-skeptic, whose mind is apparently already made up. A debunker who, as debunkers like to do, places his hands firmly over his eyes while chanting the debunkers' mantra
"I DON'T SEE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE!"
 
Okay, I take it not everybody is aware that the forum user 'derekcbart' participating in this thread (and others) is the guest in question?

You can pose your questions about that particular show directly to him, although he's obviously not obliged to answer.
 
banning said:
I think that if we evolved from monkeys then im pretty pissed because i want to know what the hell happened to the opposable thumb on my foot... personally i think it would kick ass to have one, where the hell did it go?
Click to expand...

If we evolved from monkeys...

...why do we still have monkeys?

We share about 95% of our DNA with monkeys...

...and we share about 65% of our DNA with bananas.
 
Hi there.

I've been too busy to post for a few days, but I wanted to address some of the questions/statements made about some of my statements.

The one that seems to have caused the most controversy is my statement about having no verified proof of psychic abilities after over 100 years of legitimate scientific testing. People have brought up PEAR and Gary Schwartz's work as examples of proof of psychic phenomenon. Unfortunately, these tests were not conducted properly and/or their results have been misinterpreted as being better than they actually were.

Gary Schwartz's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz does a pretty good job of detailing the problems and biases of his studies. Even former test subjects and colleagues do not agree with his research. The main issue with his research is his not filtering out the possibility of "subjective validation". This link: http://skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html provides a good overview of what subjective validation is and why it needs to be filtered out when examining psychics.

Next, The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) has been touted as providing proof of psychic/precognitive abilities, but the actual results do not appear to support that claim. Wikipedia provides a good overview of the organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research and this link: http://skepdic.com/pear.html provides a good overview of the testing results and the problems with them. The biggest issue with the PEAR results seems to be in the way people interpret this: "In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one." Please keep in mind that chance would be 50%. Well, the actual percentage from the tests was, according to Dean Radin, "just under 51 percent." So, in one line of the analysis it sounds like a statistically significant result was reached, but another line of the analysis says that there was no statistical difference beyond chance.

As far as the "low hanging fruit" question goes, the IIG has not actively sought out cases to investigate as much as I would personally prefer. Most, not all, but the vast majority of the cases the IIG has investigated are ones that were brought to us by individuals asking for our help or from people applying for the $50,000 Paranormal Challenge or the JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Finally, personally I, and many others in the IIG, would love to come across something that we couldn't explain. It would open the door on entirely new lines of research. BTW, it would probably be levels of research that the IIG itself would not be able to do. We would most likely need to hand it off to a university level type of research facility, but it would be great to have discovered it. You can either believe me when I say this, or not, but I would absolutely love to discover proof of a paranormal ability and change it to a normal, albeit rare, ability.

-Derek
 
Back
Top