Comment about C2C

[BrandonD]

Hi all, I've noticed lots of derogatory comments about the C2C radio show on this forum and on the Paracast program occasionally. I personally think that, whatever its faults, the C2C program actually provides a useful service to the paranormal field and I'd like to illustrate why I think this.

In our normal media, any story about something strange or odd is told in a completely tongue-in-cheek fashion. The air of ridicule is the single largest factor that keeps participants of paranormal phenomena from coming forward and speaking about them. It is humliating to speak about something you experienced and be treated as a joke.

In the C2C program, however, Noory and Bell will listen to their guests' and callers' stories completely without judgement or ridicule. I think this goes a long way to encouraging others to speak out about these strange subjects.

If the C2C program did not exist, I think that less people would speak out because they would not be hearing such weird things from other people on a regular basis. They would think that they are a lone nut, and would be treated as such if they dared to come out with their experiences.

I say all of this because I had first-hand experience with it. I had a very strange encounter when I was young, it certainly doesn't fit neatly into one of the models of paranormal encounters that we're familiar with. But I wanted to tell someone, so a while back I decided to call C2C. I got through to Mr Noory and I was nervous as I was telling the story because I thought "Surely he is not going to believe me, he is going to think I'm crazy."

But he listened to my story and did not raise a skeptical eyebrow throughout the whole thing. Afterwards I felt so relieved that I could tell my story and someone would actually listen without thinking it was some sort of joke.

In conclusion, what I'm trying to say here is that I think programs like C2C and programs like the Paracast actually perform 2 totally different functions. C2C helps to encourage experiencers of paranormal phenomena to come out and speak without fear of ridicule, and the Paracast is more for the people who want to delve deeper into the subject and analyze the data and experiences to recognize a larger pattern.

 

[interestedINitall]

I don't buy this for an instant. I think accepting every cockamamie story is just as unwise as dismissing every story out of hand. For every person the Coast to Coast show helps of out the paranormal "closet", hundreds more kooks, frauds, and idiots are validated by its flaccid approach and continue to pollute the field with their nonsense.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Hi all, I've noticed lots of derogatory comments about the C2C radio show on this forum and on the Paracast program occasionally. I personally think that, whatever its faults, the C2C program actually provides a useful service to the paranormal field and I'd like to illustrate why I think this.

So you don't deny it has room to improve?

In our normal media, any story about something strange or odd is told in a completely tongue-in-cheek fashion. The air of ridicule is the single largest factor that keeps participants of paranormal phenomena from coming forward and speaking about them. It is humliating to speak about something you experienced and be treated as a joke.

In the C2C program, however, Noory and Bell will listen to their guests' and callers' stories completely without judgement or ridicule. I think this goes a long way to encouraging others to speak out about these strange subjects.

I've heard Art be judgmental and hang up on callers. Art has also ridiculed people. I am not as familiar with Noorey since I rarely listen to the show these days.

If the C2C program did not exist, I think that less people would speak out because they would not be hearing such weird things from other people on a regular basis. They would think that they are a lone nut, and would be treated as such if they dared to come out with their experiences.

C2C is not a must. My position and that of others is the show needs improvement. It can be BETTER. It can have less frauds on and not be a plug for consumer fraud and inaccurate info and sometimes out right lies.

I say all of this because I had first-hand experience with it. I had a very strange encounter when I was young, it certainly doesn't fit neatly into one of the models of paranormal encounters that we're familiar with. But I wanted to tell someone, so a while back I decided to call C2C. I got through to Mr Noory and I was nervous as I was telling the story because I thought "Surely he is not going to believe me, he is going to think I'm crazy."

But he listened to my story and did not raise a skeptical eyebrow throughout the whole thing. Afterwards I felt so relieved that I could tell my story and someone would actually listen without thinking it was some sort of joke.

You sure he really listened, or did he just act like he listened and cared? They aren't the best people to contact and they aren't the worst perhaps. At least some of the time.

In conclusion, what I'm trying to say here is that I think programs like C2C and programs like the Paracast actually perform 2 totally different functions. C2C helps to encourage experiencers of paranormal phenomena to come out and speak without fear of ridicule, and the Paracast is more for the people who want to delve deeper into the subject and analyze the data and experiences to recognize a larger pattern.

People are well aware of the differences between paracast and C2C. That's why there have been the remarks made that you seem to be commenting on. I'm a little puzzled as to why people are acting as if we think the shows are the same, yet pick on C2C and not Paracast. We know the big difference hence many of the remarks.

 

[CapnG]

But he listened to my story and did not raise a skeptical eyebrow throughout the whole thing. Afterwards I felt so relieved that I could tell my story and someone would actually listen without thinking it was some sort of joke.

It's very simple, the reason he "listened" so intently is because you were providing free content for his program. Understand? You tell your story and he gets paid to sit there and listen to it.

 

[Tom Levine]

...Well, at least it's not Dr. Laura from 10 to 2 every night on the clear channel network.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

...Well, at least it's not Dr. Laura from 10 to 2 every night on the clear channel network.

But the network C2C is on is owned by Clear Channel

 

[interestedINitall]

...Well, at least it's not Dr. Laura from 10 to 2 every night on the clear channel network.

True, but it might as well be. Have you noticed what shills for right wing ideology Bell and Noory are?

My favorite was the episode in which a remote viewer told Bell that the sounds of a drowning woman on an EVP (yes, they were double-dipping that night) was . . . an aborted fetus.
Bell just sighed mournfully and then went to commercial.

You could practically hear the Tupperware falling to linoleum floors all over the country.

 

[Tom Levine]

My favorite was the episode in which a remote viewer told Bell that the sounds of a drowning woman on an EVP (yes, they were double-dipping that night) was . . . an aborted fetus.
Bell just sighed mournfully and then went to commercial.

You could practically hear the Tupperware falling to linoleum floors all over the country.

Say, I think I heard that very same caller on Dr. Laura...

 

[interestedINitall]

How funny.

 

[Tom Levine]

@BrandonD
Great posting !!!!


tomlevine1, I believe it doesn't matter. If a person feels to tell a story, it doesn't matter of her profession, knowledge, belief-system or whatsoever. One person is entitled to use all possibilities and resources. Oh, and by the way, never accept things at face value.

GWOPS, when have I ever accepted anything at face value

.

 

[BrandonD]

I've listened to all your responses, which I think are valid.

But in my opinion the faults you guys are finding is not with the program, but rather with people.

Take it from an abstract perspective: A radio program which has been identified across the world as a venue where people discuss "odd subjects" provides a open door for people with "odd experiences" to speak out - people who would otherwise be silent. This slowly brings unrecognized aspects of our reality from out of the closet into the light. This is hard to refute.

The problem here is that most people possess no critical faculties, and are very suggestible. This is the main factor that makes the program of poor quality. The larger circle of people it encompasses, the more dumbed-down it becomes.

What I'm trying to say here is that I actually think that the C2C program is a good thing conceptually. C2C is the larger circle which introduces the masses to the idea of a greater reality beyond the consensual one.

What makes the program appear bad is the fact that most people have no critical thinking abilities and are stuck in this big circle indefinitely. Those that have a greater ability to reason and wonder why move into the smaller circles of criticism and study. I can't see how this arrangement will ever be any different until people en masse become smarter.

The reason I even brought up this subject is because I think this Paracast program taking the stance of being "against" the C2C program is not productive. It is similar to the ufo investigators who are strictly "nuts and bolts" being against the ufo investigators who think it contains a spiritual element. They probably both have sound reasons to hate the other side, but if they were to recognize what they have in common the entire cause would be stronger and less energy would be wasted.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I've listened to all your responses, which I think are valid.

But in my opinion the faults you guys are finding is not with the program, but rather with people.

Take it from an abstract perspective: A radio program which has been identified across the world as a venue where people discuss "odd subjects" provides a open door for people with "odd experiences" to speak out - people who would otherwise be silent. This slowly brings unrecognized aspects of our reality from out of the closet into the light. This is hard to refute.

The problem here is that most people possess no critical faculties, and are very suggestible. This is the main factor that makes the program of poor quality. The larger circle of people it encompasses, the more dumbed-down it becomes.

What I'm trying to say here is that I actually think that the C2C program is a good thing conceptually. C2C is the larger circle which introduces the masses to the idea of a greater reality beyond the consensual one.

What makes the program appear bad is the fact that most people have no critical thinking abilities and are stuck in this big circle indefinitely. Those that have a greater ability to reason and wonder why move into the smaller circles of criticism and study. I can't see how this arrangement will ever be any different until people en masse become smarter.

The reason I even brought up this subject is because I think this Paracast program taking the stance of being "against" the C2C program is not productive. It is similar to the ufo investigators who are strictly "nuts and bolts" being against the ufo investigators who think it contains a spiritual element. They probably both have sound reasons to hate the other side, but if they were to recognize what they have in common the entire cause would be stronger and less energy would be wasted.

We aren't so much against C2C as we disagree with a host just sitting there, letting people make the most outrageous claims (and sometimes attacks on people) without questioning them. That may be their philosophy -- to give people a place to talk without the hard questions -- but it's not our way.

In saying that, I'm sure the folks at C2C are basically good people, and people who manage to succeed in this hard business deserve their success.

Are we clear now?

 

[Paul Kimball]

C2C isn't perfect - no program is, including the Paracast. ;-)

But it does provide a platform for more than just the shills and the wackos. Noory had me on for 3 hours last year, time where I was given the chance to provide the "other side of the truth" about UFOs and ufology, and talk about some serious cases, etc., etc. They've also had folks like Michio Kaku on, and space historian Robert Zimmerman, and...

Best of all, no anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, like a certain other late night radio show.

Is C2C must listening? No. Nothing is. There are episodes of the Paracast I haven't listened to, nor am I likely to ever listen to (Sean David Morton and Michael Horn pop to mind). But there's good stuff there, and people can and should tune in when it's on.

My two cents.

Paul

 

[Aaron LeClair]

C2C isn't perfect - no program is, including the Paracast. ;-)

But it does provide a platform for more than just the shills and the wackos. Noory had me on for 3 hours last year, time where I was given the chance to provide the "other side of the truth" about UFOs and ufology, and talk about some serious cases, etc., etc. They've also had folks like Michio Kaku on, and space historian Robert Zimmerman, and...

Best of all, no anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, like a certain other late night radio show.

Is C2C must listening? No. Nothing is. There are episodes of the Paracast I haven't listened to, nor am I likely to ever listen to (Sean David Morton and Michael Horn pop to mind). But there's good stuff there, and people can and should tune in when it's on.

My two cents.

Paul

Next time you're on C2C. Ask the host if he'll ever have Royce from Watchdog on to speak about Morten

 

[DBTrek]

Sometimes the two shows are different; and sometimes one is hosting the wedding cake photo guy and the other has people on mescaline seeing UFO's.



-DBTrek

 

[Tom Levine]

Sometimes the two shows are different; and sometimes one is hosting the wedding cake photo guy and the other has people on mescaline seeing UFO's.



-DBTrek

I'm going to kick myself for saying this, but Gene, he does have a point

 

[Tom Levine]

Next time you're on C2C. Ask the host if he'll ever have Royce from Watchdog on to speak about Morten

He's had that Bad Astronomer dude,Philip Plait, on a few times...I like that guy. He's sort of the Royce Myers of astronomy at least, in a way, kind of, okay well no not really like Watchdog at all, but still, he's a good guest, oy, I'm ranting on again without completing my sentences aren't I, argh! STOP! Too much Mescalline...Anyway, I like Plait.

Actually, I have a love hate relationship with him. I was posting on his forum about "Life on Mars" issues a few years back, we got into a heated debate, and then we ended up yelling at eachother via email for like a week.

It ended, naturally, with him sobbing and apologizing and begging me to come back, and saying that I was right and he was wrong, and he should never have doubted me...NOT!

The crux of the argument, you ask? I think there's life on Mars, and he doesn't. I think that the ESA correctly analyzed the existence of Methane in its atmosphere, to be a clear indication that Life probably exists, and I compared those measurements to the exact measurements of cave-dwelling mirobes and the methane that was extracted from those caves down in, what was it, South America I think...Plait was a stubborn Ox. What a dork. Okay, I still kind of like him...But he's wrong about Mars. There is good evidence that life exists there. Ask the Europeans. They're eons ahead of NASA.

Peace out! Back to my mescaline.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

Take it from an abstract perspective: A radio program which has been identified across the world as a venue where people discuss "odd subjects" provides a open door for people with "odd experiences" to speak out - people who would otherwise be silent. This slowly brings unrecognized aspects of our reality from out of the closet into the light. This is hard to refute.

Actually, it's pretty easy to refute, since C2C seldom features credentialled, published, peer-reviewed scientists who have hard data to back up their opinions. A radio show that refers to Dick Hoagland as "science advisor" is setting itself up for pillory. A show that gives credibility to Alex Jones, Sean David Morton, and Sylvia Browne is ripe for discredit.

It should concern every C2C listener that so many of its regular guests are featured in the UFO Watchdog's Hall of Shame. When a paranormal believer finds so much to laugh at that he devotes a Hall of Shame to contain it, that's bad. That's really bad.

The problem here is that most people possess no critical faculties, and are very suggestible. This is the main factor that makes the program of poor quality. The larger circle of people it encompasses, the more dumbed-down it becomes.

Listening to C2C - or anything else - only improves one's critical thinking skills if you actually use critical thinking when listening to the show, and are willing to apply it to what you hear, reagardless of cherished beliefs.

C2C is the larger circle which introduces the masses to the idea of a greater reality beyond the consensual one.

C2C provides zero hard proof for any of its (or its guests' claims). Whatever "greater reality" it's propounding is unproven and devoid of hard evidence. C2C has actively promoted and participated in fraudulent cases that have cost people money. Tom Biscardi, anyone? He Who Shall Not Be Named, anyone?

The reason I even brought up this subject is because I think this Paracast program taking the stance of being "against" the C2C program is not productive.

I've only heard the hosts - rightly - decry the lack of skepticism so prevalent on C2C. I've not heard them say anything really derogatory about the show.

I'll say it, though. C2C is an intellectual sewer, redeemed only by the occasional clear thinker featured in - what? - one out of twenty shows. I used to be astonished at its ratings, until I remembered that before C2C, when I worked third shift, all there was to listen to at night was The Trucking Bozo on WLW. If C2C competed in daylight, against formidable opposition, it would wither. There isn't a whole lot of nationally syndicated, live competition late at night.

It is similar to the ufo investigators who are strictly "nuts and bolts" being against the ufo investigators who think it contains a spiritual element. They probably both have sound reasons to hate the other side, but if they were to recognize what they have in common the entire cause would be stronger and less energy would be wasted.

I need an aspirin.

 

[interestedINitall]

I've listened to all your responses, which I think are valid.

But in my opinion the faults you guys are finding is not with the program, but rather with people.

Take it from an abstract perspective: A radio program which has been identified across the world as a venue where people discuss "odd subjects" provides a open door for people with "odd experiences" to speak out - people who would otherwise be silent. This slowly brings unrecognized aspects of our reality from out of the closet into the light. This is hard to refute.

The problem here is that most people possess no critical faculties, and are very suggestible. This is the main factor that makes the program of poor quality. The larger circle of people it encompasses, the more dumbed-down it becomes.

What I'm trying to say here is that I actually think that the C2C program is a good thing conceptually. C2C is the larger circle which introduces the masses to the idea of a greater reality beyond the consensual one.

What makes the program appear bad is the fact that most people have no critical thinking abilities and are stuck in this big circle indefinitely. Those that have a greater ability to reason and wonder why move into the smaller circles of criticism and study. I can't see how this arrangement will ever be any different until people en masse become smarter.

The reason I even brought up this subject is because I think this Paracast program taking the stance of being "against" the C2C program is not productive. It is similar to the ufo investigators who are strictly "nuts and bolts" being against the ufo investigators who think it contains a spiritual element. They probably both have sound reasons to hate the other side, but if they were to recognize what they have in common the entire cause would be stronger and less energy would be wasted.

What was it that Truman Capote said, "That's not writing, that's typing."

OF COURSE, we're talking about the people who host to Coast to Coast and not the show as a concept. A show is only as good as its hosts.

That said, I couldn't disagree more with lauding a show just because it could be worse. This reminds of people who say that a terrible film wasn't all that bad because at least it wasn't "as bad as some of the stuff I've seen recently." Huh? What the heck does one really have to do with another? That just seems like a culturally acceptable reason to applaud mediocrity.

Speaking of mediocrity, Coast to Coast is generally a waste of time. If Paul Kimball managed to make it through the intellectual fog over there then that's great but that's less a point in its favor and more a matter of odds. Coast to Coast is bound to have some guests who aren't kooks and, I'm guessing, that just happened to be such a night.

I would argue that the hosts of Coast to Coast aren't that bright (see the Rosetta Stone story I mentioned on another thread) and therefore aren't capable of putting guests through the paces that Gene and David usually do. Note that I said usually. I'm aware of recent complaints.

It could just be my interpretation of your statements but it seems like you're advocating a "new education" approach to radio hosting. Let's not correct any of the students because it will make them feel bad and alienate them from learning. One of the problems with that approach is that it produces college students who, as a friend of mine who teaches college here in the city learned, begin book reports with atrocities like "Firstable, The Great Gatsby is about a drink called prohibition. . ."

She was told by the college administrators not to correct any of that.

I guess she's ready to have a paranormal show on ABC radio now.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Actually, it's pretty easy to refute, since C2C seldom features credentialled, published, peer-reviewed scientists who have hard data to back up their opinions. A radio show that refers to Dick Hoagland as "science advisor" is setting itself up for pillory. A show that gives credibility to Alex Jones, Sean David Morton, and Sylvia Browne is ripe for discredit.

It should concern every C2C listener that so many of its regular guests are featured in the UFO Watchdog's Hall of Shame. When a paranormal believer finds so much to laugh at that he devotes a Hall of Shame to contain it, that's bad. That's really bad.



Listening to C2C - or anything else - only improves one's critical thinking skills if you actually use critical thinking when listening to the show, and are willing to apply it to what you hear, reagardless of cherished beliefs.



C2C provides zero hard proof for any of its (or its guests' claims). Whatever "greater reality" it's propounding is unproven and devoid of hard evidence. C2C has actively promoted and participated in fraudulent cases that have cost people money. Tom Biscardi, anyone? He Who Shall Not Be Named, anyone?



I've only heard the hosts - rightly - decry the lack of skepticism so prevalent on C2C. I've not heard them say anything really derogatory about the show.

I'll say it, though. C2C is an intellectual sewer, redeemed only by the occasional clear thinker featured in - what? - one out of twenty shows. I used to be astonished at its ratings, until I remembered that before C2C, when I worked third shift, all there was to listen to at night was The Trucking Bozo on WLW. If C2C competed in daylight, against formidable opposition, it would wither. There isn't a whole lot of nationally syndicated, live competition late at night.



I need an aspirin.

Royce isn't a believer.