Best and Worst Episodes of the Paracast

[TClaeys]

All right, I'll have you guys (David and Gene) know that I have now given several entire days to listening to your show.I've listened to every one except for a few current ones I am behind on. I'm sure I'm not alone.

That being said, I do want those days back whenever we master time travel. If you could put the word in to Dr Goldberg I would be much appreciated(oops don't mean to give to much away here)

In the meantime, for all those die-hards I'm wondering what your best or favorite episodes are and what the worst or least favorites are as well. Perhaps this might help newcomers looking into older episodes.

I'd like to think that everyone, including Gene and David, has learned a lot from your interviews, if only about the personalities in this field. Anyway I have my favorites and duds, but I'll let everyone else take a stab first.

 

[Rick Deckard]

The best - Michael Horn interviews.

The worst - Michael Horn interviews.

 

[BrandonD]

My favorites are the ones in which Jeff R and David B describe their own personal experiences. I also really like the episode with Brad Steiger and Allen Greenfield.

My least favorite episodes are probably the ones interviewing people who have no actual personal experience with the phenomenon they are talking about. People like Paul Kimball. I love his documentaries, but interviewing a person like him is more or less like interviewing a dude on the street. An outsider with his own pet theories and opinions, but no personal experience.

That said, I even enjoy those interviews... they're just at the bottom of the favorites list.

 

[Siani]

My personal favourites (UK spelling!) are also the episodes where David and Jeff discuss their personal experiences. I also enjoy shows which feature Joel Martin and Stan Friedman. My least favourite episodes are where guests have either been a bit too 'woo-woo' for me, or where they've told incredible tales, and offered little, if anything, substantive to back up their claims. I'm talking about people like Bruce Goldberg, the Horned One and to a lesser extent, Dr. Richard Sauder.

 

[Graphimancer]

I didn't dislike the Boyd Bushman episode as much as Gene and Dave apparantly did. I guess that's because I went into it knowing not to expect certain things.

The episode with the French guy who saw the Blue Meanys--That I did not like.

Bruce Goldberg: I figured out it was BS by a BS artist pretty quickly, but it was halfway interesting BS. If Goldberg wrote science fiction with the same zeal that he pushed astrally projected time traveling whatsis, he would have a following.

 

[Koji K.]

I like the episodes which make me think, whether they be "credible" guests or perhaps slightly more fantastical ones. As an example, I first found the paracast when looking for material on the Skinwalker Ranch and I loved that episode, if only because the subject was so fascinating- even if I'm a bit skeptical of the whole Skinwalker Ranch situation in light of the way it was presented and handled by various parties.

Favorite guests include Jeff Ritzmann, Mac Tonnies, and Nick Redfern. I also like Brad Steiger about half the time. Scott Corrales was good. Richard Dolan also good. I think my perfect guest, as it were, would be the ones that admit up front to not having any *specific* answers but are still willing to discuss and debate issues out of a genuine intellectual curiousity.

My least favorite shows are ones where the guest seems more interested in espousing some one-size-fits-all "answer" than having an honest debate. Bruce Goldberg definitely fits in that category (among others). Dr. Roger Leir I could have skipped.

Boyd Bushman on the other hand I found interesting, if a little frustrating, he struck me as actually very intelligent and just basically enjoying his retirement by letting his mind run free without saying anything that would ultimately compromise him.

 

[spookyparadigm]

The best ones are those where someone has done a lot of in-depth research comes on, and the question-style gets new insights or ideas out of them. This doesn't work with the carnival barkers, and yes there have been some on the show, who know how to basically give an answer to any question with the only consideration being that it sound neat. But with those that have done a lot of work, the back-and-forth allows them to draw on their research in ways that the typical questions and "I've got a book coming out" routine elsewhere, even if well-meaning, can't.

So, #1 has to be the Richard Dolan interviews, because they epitomize this kind of positive show.

For the bad, I'll go with the carnival barkers I've already mentioned. There were worse than Brad Steiger in this regard, but he's the one that sticks in my mind as really annoying me. Perhaps because I then become baffled by the love for his stuff. In that sense, the truly awful guests, become like Z-grade movies, bad but they have to be taken for what they are. Steiger, by contrast, is like a stinker A-budget hollywood movie, so infuriating because it's supposed to be a major epic or blockbuster, and not an Ed Wood movie.

As for the experiencer/researcher divide noted above, I can find experiencer episodes interesting (in particular Biedny's because it informs where the show is coming from, but it isn't being used to sell the show in my opinion). But I prefer the recognition of patterns or attributes that careful research can bring.

 

[TClaeys]

Anyone that peddles books, videos, or whatever starts to bug me. I understand a plug for something, but some guests are too self promoting for my stomach to handle. Kenn Thomas, Bill Birnes, and Dr Goldberg (do you ever wonder how some people become doctors?) And I do tire of Stan sometimes because I think I've heard the same stuff too many times (yes we know you were a nuclear physicist many years ago, yes we know the Friedman "rules", etc) And we really never get anything new. And I really don't care for the Betty Hill saga.

As I look back at previous episodes I know that I really enjoyed the Joseph Citro show. I just liked the things he said, and that he turned down authoring a book for Frank and Lorraine Warren because he wasn't convinced of authenticity. I thought that carried a lot of credibility and integrity. I, of course, like listening to Davids experiences. The genuineness of him, his stern skeptical nature, and the lack of devotion to any certain "answer" leads me to think there really is something to this phenomenon and is a main reason for listening. Also the first Ritzmann show made my hairs stand on end.

Other duds Eric Julien, Lloyd Pie, Dr Leir

Other good ones -- Dolan, Greenfield, Flaxman