Phil (A Pair of Cats), had this to say:
Great, just what we need, a debunking chef!
Debunking? No. Thinking? Yes.
Karl Mamer came across as a bumbling, mis-informed, under prepared, Nabob who showed he hasn't really done any real research into the subject.
You have to understand that "research" means more than just looking for reasons to believe.
If he had he would've been more familiar with the cases presented by Gene and David which are some of the more credible.
I think that since he was asked on the show because he wrote a favourable article about the podcasts and hosts, it seems reasonable to assume that he was not under the impression that he would be discussing anything other than his article.
He's typical of debunkers, who wrap themselves in skeptics clothing, and their lack of real research into the topics they debunk, making sweeping pronouncements and using tired cliche reasoning to blanket denounce any paranormal subject and childishly reducing them to, in their words, WOO.
See above comments.
Bad luck for Karl if he has been lambasted on this forum (and deservedly so). How dare he appear on a show without knowing anything about the subjects presented by the hosts.
Again, he was asked on the show because he wrote a favourable article about the podcast. Not to debunk anything or speak for science.
But don't let that interfere with your righteous indignation.... without any evidence the true beleivers dont get much chance to celebrate. If you need to pat each other on the back for an ambush interview, and then criticise someone who isn't here to speak for himself... well, what ever makes you feel good.
Just because science believes that the recall of a persons memory diminishes over time doesn't mean that what a person recalls from that past event is incorrect or misinterpreted.
Well at least now that makes some sense. The corruption of flashbulb memories is not a given. It can happen, but not necessarily in every case. Finally we have an argument that is based on logic rather than hero worship.
As for Don Ecker. The man is an icon in the field of UFOlogy. I for one would trust his opinion and definately his assessment of Gordon Cooper (seeing how he actually met him and interviewed him, at length).
And that certainly lends to his credibility of the situation, but it does not mean that he is infallible, and curiously, no amount of persona interveriews has produced on single shred of evidence other than... an interview.
Please excuse me if I am not swayed by such an argument. That is not how science works. A very, very credible scientist once claimed to have obverved cold fusion. Other very credible scientists interviewed him and attested to his honesty. They were all sadly mistaken.
How many UFO\Paranormal field investigations have you made MrChef?, or indeed Karl Mamer? It is one thing to disagree with a friend of the show, but quite another to disrespect him.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Ecker is out of line when he asks "Who the fuck is Karl Mamer to.... ". Again, Mr. Mamer wrote a FAVOURABLE article about the podcast and hosts. And I assume that I am not the only one to tune into the show because of that article. But because he does not agree with Mr. Ecker he is to be ridiculed? Again, what ever makes you feel good.
As far as direspecting Mr. Ecker. I dont think I did any such thing. I simply parodied his own disrespectful comments.
Not surprisingly, if an unbeliever even mimics the other disrespectful comments on this forum, he is attacked. But since Mr. Ecker is a believer, his childish behaviour is lauded. Again, what ever makes you feel good.
As far as it goes if you never posted here again the world world be better off. Stick to kitchen with your picture of Gordon Ramsay on the wall next to your pictures of James Randi and Stalin.
LOL. I guess I can see the reference to Ramsay, and Randi, but the Stalin comment is just unfounded (which seems to be a theme here).
I promise, if you take your picture of Mr. Ecker down from between the Darth Vader and "I want to beleive" posters and send it to me, I will put it up in Stalin's place.
Since I did post again, I guess your little world is just that much worse.
There are many scientific forums on the net to discuss UFO's, perhaps you should branch out and join some of them as well? Who knows, you might actually make a difference.
I understand your point, but the "'I'll believe it when I see it' approach," as you put it, is really a weak approach, as we then have to define what we mean when we say "see," as it really isn't self-evident . . . I've never seen a pion (or pi meson, as I guess they're also called), or a black hole, but I'm told by reputable scientists that they have a high degree of confidence that they exist (or in the case of black holes, something like them that exerts weird & wonderful influences on space-time), even though neither have been "seen" directly (if they have, please correct my lack of knowledge) . . .
Now, why is a black hole anymore "believable" as a phenomenon, based on observation, than UFOs, which are based similarly on observation . . . ?
