David M. Rountree-December 15, 2013

[wwkirk]

David sounded fairly sophisticated. His wormhole theory sounds interesting. I wish him success in attracting scientists to the study of EVPs and similar phenomena.

 

[TheJCBand]

I just listened to the first few segments on my way to work, and my BS meter went off the chart when he refused to say where he got or is getting his graduate degrees from. I'm currently 3 years into an engineering Ph.D. program, and I can assure everyone that the people who would be taking the calls confirming that graduated/is a student there 1) have no idea who he is, 2) have no idea what he is working on, and 3) don't care. The idea that he had conversations with administrators at universities who asked him specifically not to mention that he is a student there on any paranormal radio shows is ludicrous. I am extremely skeptical of this guy so far.

I did find the information that EVPs are only present on digital recordings and thus not caused by any mechanical pressure waves to be very intriguing, however it directly contradicts what other researchers have said in the past (maybe even Fusco last week, can't remember).

I will post more reflections when I hear the rest of the episode.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I've not listened yet but at the very least, it sounds like this show will generate some discussion pro/against !!

 

[Jimi H.]

I just listened to the first few segments on my way to work, and my BS meter went off the chart when he refused to say where he got or is getting his graduate degrees from. ...

Yea, my BS meter was ringing loudly from the start. For me it culminated with the way he skirted questions about his methodoly, or lack thereof, and his unreflected assessment that electro-magnetic interference = paranormal activity. He didn't even attempt to justify that in any way, but thus concluded that paranormal activity was described in the scientific/engineering literature!?!? That was pretty aggravating to me, the same kind of non-argumentation as a Bible-thumper might make use of.

Basically, he either seemed to not want to answer, or he simply didn't understand why he should answer theoretical questions.

Two thumbs down for me.

 

[TheJCBand]

So at 1:38, he confuses wave-particle duality with the uncertainty principle. He then mentions "Schroder's cat". I am highly doubtful this guy has a degree in physics and am way more doubtful that he's in the midst of pursuing a Ph.D.

EDIT: His linkedin page lists his academic credentials. (David Rountree | LinkedIn). I see an M.S. in electrical engineering, but nothing about physics.

 

[TheJCBand]

Yea, my BS meter was ringly loudly from the start. For me it culminated with the way he skirted questions about his methodoly, or lack thereof, and his unreflected assessment that electro-magnetic interference = paranormal activity. He didn't even attempt to justify that in any way, but thus concluded that paranormal activity was described in the scientific/engineering literature!?!? That was pretty aggravating to me, the same kind of non-argumentation as a Bible thumper might make use of.

Basically, he either seemed to not want to answer, or he simply didn't understand why he should questions about methodology.

Two thumbs down for me.

Yeah, another problem was his answer to your question regarding faulty pressure readings due to weather effects. He responded by saying he takes pressure measurements of the whole room, and he considers a different reading in a certain spot to be unexplainable. Well there are a number of possible causes for that which he didn't even acknowledge. Is he using a single sensor? If so, there could be a pressure change across the whole room in the time it took to go from location 1 to location 2. Is he using multiple sensors? Could be a calibration issue. I wish Chris had asked my question about his sensors at that point. Oh well.

 

[Pararescueman]

My BS radar went off the charts. For one the shady excuses for not giving more information about his educational background. If he actually paid for Physics degree, he should seek a refund. Apparently he did not learn anything.

He stated that sound traveled at 660 mph at sea level. Wrong speed of sound at sea level 761.2 mph.

Very disappointed in the approach the Paracast has taken with guests in recent weeks. Where is critical thinking, the hardnose questions? You are openly critical of other paranormal show hosts whom fail to ask the tough questions. I honestly see little difference between Paracast recently, and Coast to Coast.

Add to that, to defend last weeks guest. The guy's science is bunk, plain and simple. Its become more about hits and downloads than the truth anymore.

 

[Jimi H.]

Yea, he got away with it pretty easy.

Btw., it appeared to me he's a spiritist, he mentioned that he believes that our souls are brought here at birth through a wormhole..

 

[Muadib]

Its become more about hits and downloads than the truth anymore.

While I agree completely with what you said about this weeks guest and last weeks guest, I have to say that this (the quoted part of your post) is a little harsh and very over dramatic. If you go back through the archives, you can find all kinds of guests with similar silly views and less than stellar science backing up those silly views. Like Chris O'Brien says, "You can't please everyone all of the time." I agree with him 100% and try to keep that in mind when I find a show featuring a guest that sends my BS meter into the red zone.

Look at it this way, at least they're not interviewing Lynn Marzuli again, or god forbid, Mr. Deep Analysis himself, Aaron Kaplan. Usually, these type of guests are one offs, though looking through the archives it seems last weeks guest has been on the show before. Whatever, the point is, we need to show a little flex, you can't have a dynamite guest every time on a weekly podcast.

 

[Para Truma]

Wow, I am getting so tired of this whole amateur/academic nonsense. All scientific research into new areas, is amateur research, although a stronger understanding of main stream science will help from avoiding misinterpretation.

Probably one of the most notable cases of this is Michael Faraday (a non-academic), who defined the measurement and mechanics of electromagnetism and electrochemistry. Which was latter defined by mathematical equations by Maxwell. Yet since his death in 1867, our fundamental understanding of what electromagnetism is, still evades us. Even today, an experiment by Faraday discovered that if you attached a magnet attached to a copper disc no electrical current is detected, yet if you spin both of them together it generates a current. Yet with all are understanding of physics down to the quantum level can not explain it (Interaction with the earths magnetic field does not account for the levels measured.)

Yet still we have attacks on research/hypothesis, such as with Thomas Fusco.

So lets look at a bit of what most people think of as hard core science, the big bang theory. Now we can talk about red shift and back ground radiation as much as you want, using pages and pages over very difficult mathematics. Yet if you look at it's time line, the details of the theory has changed as often as the narrative from a bad liar. Even today for the big bang theory to work, Dark Matter (absolutely no evidence of it exists) is required to make up 80% of the universe. Yet should any other theory be raised (even from academia itself), it is attacked with the same ferocity as the church attacked Nicolaus Copernicus, when he theorised that the earth rotated around the sun (we are talking about hundreds of millions in research grants every rear after all). At the end of the day we are still trying to predict the model of the universe using data that is equivalent to predicting all global weather from the readings taken in your garden.

So for a bit of fun let's look at the David Rountree's statement that the stone memory theory is nonsense, yet at the end of the show, he states he is researching psychometry?

If I take a magnet (an unknown field) and run it along an iron bar, it will leave an (predictable)organised magnet field on to it. Yet he claims that a paranormal event (an unknown field) cannot leave/organise an impression on a stone. So while there is no physical evidence to support it, until we understand what 'paranormal is', it cannot be disproved either. So we can have to rely on the interpretation of personal experience of mediums ands personal observation.

Moving on let's look at David's theory that uses Worms holes (which he backs up using Stephen Hawking belief in them, the man that gives us the big bang theory, for credibility).

Regarding his MARK II Wormhole Detector, the EMF Quadrangulator. First he talks about measuring Gamma bursts, yet his device does not measure gamma radiation, it only measures EMF up to the resolution of the attached analogue oscilloscopes. To measure radiation you would have to use a Geiger Muller tube. I think that he is confusing measuring electron spin with radiation detection. That said, if he used digital oscilloscopes to log EMF events, it could be used to triangulate the its location. However given that, a device he created (no longer on his web site) which consisted of two crystal oscillators that where not shielded from EMF, temperature changes and on long runs of wire (A mistake a first year electronic engineer student wouldn't make) to measure the frequency differential. This leaves me with the impression that he is using stage props to make him look credible. Talk about drama. which brings to mind that there is a very good reason to investigate during the night, it quieter; audible, vibration and EMF (especially) background noise is much lower.

Then he moves onto Magnetoception, which a quick look on Wikipedia would have clarified that this is yet another 'It has also been commonly hypothesized in birds, where sensing of the Earth's magnetic field' unfounded theory. So while there is evidence of Biomineralization of ferrimagnetic magnetite in all brains/organisms, it only provides plausible theoretical mechanisms and I would love to see the data or a study relating to the paranormal. Yet David then goes on to ridicule training dogs as paranormal detectors?

The point raised about if EMF fields can affect the biological, this can also be answered with not only Magnetoception but also with temperature, think microwave oven and interference with the electrical signals in the brain itself. This comes down to how small of a change is detectable or registered by the brain on the subconscious level and parsed with higher functions. For example Magnetoception and bird navigation.

Has David published the frequencies and signal levels of the (EMF/EEG) field that he measured with the mediums?


Note, I'm not dismissing David's theory or supporting Thomas, merely that one theory cannot be used to dismiss another theory alone.

 

[manxman]

good first post m8.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

My BS radar went off the charts. For one the shady excuses for not giving more information about his educational background. If he actually paid for Physics degree, he should seek a refund. Apparently he did not learn anything.

He stated that sound traveled at 660 mph at sea level. Wrong speed of sound at sea level 761.2 mph.

Very disappointed in the approach the Paracast has taken with guests in recent weeks. Where is critical thinking, the hardnose questions? You are openly critical of other paranormal show hosts whom fail to ask the tough questions. I honestly see little difference between Paracast recently, and Coast to Coast.

Add to that, to defend last weeks guest. The guy's science is bunk, plain and simple. Its become more about hits and downloads than the truth anymore.

It's very easy to explain that we should stop a guest at every sentence and debunk them why they make a mistake or state a possible falsehood. In practice we get criticized if we go too far. So it's a balance. But that's why we have forums, and a place for you to ask questions of a guest. Quite often we provide links to their sites, so you know in advance their positions.

 

[TrivialSublime]

My BS radar went off the charts. For one the shady excuses for not giving more information about his educational background. If he actually paid for Physics degree, he should seek a refund. Apparently he did not learn anything.

He stated that sound traveled at 660 mph at sea level. Wrong speed of sound at sea level 761.2 mph.

Very disappointed in the approach the Paracast has taken with guests in recent weeks. Where is critical thinking, the hardnose questions? You are openly critical of other paranormal show hosts whom fail to ask the tough questions. I honestly see little difference between Paracast recently, and Coast to Coast.

Add to that, to defend last weeks guest. The guy's science is bunk, plain and simple. Its become more about hits and downloads than the truth anymore.

You seem as though you have been reading my mind, I'm glad others are asking the same questions. The intro to the show was a bit much as well. It seems that if you question the guests you are considered armchair quarterbacking, can't remember if that was Chris or Gene. That being said, if you the host are going to criticize other programs for not asking then tough questions and then pretty much folding to what a guest has to say then don't advertise yourselves as the gold standard or get less intelligent and skeptical listeners.

I have experienced both paranormal and UFO activity in my life, I have a degree in physics, I work as a manager in Aerospace. None of these things are conflicting to me or my beliefs systems. I state them as fact and to give an idea that maybe some of us armchair quarterbacks know something. To be very straight forward the field has many kooks and I wouldn’t get involved in it. Plus I have this suspicion that a lot of what we hear and see is disinformation and some of those involved are either manipulated or just don’t know when they are being played. Remember what happened to Paul Benowitz.

Having people come on and get a free or easy pass does nothing except cause more skepticism.

Apparently George "Snorey' as one of the guest spokespeople states isn't the only one that falls asleep at the wheel.
Better guests and more challenges unless they just don't exist.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I appreciate the questions and concerns. We brought on Rountree because Fusco said he worked with him, and we wanted the rest of the story. Again, we leave the forums open for you to ask questions ahead of a guest's appearance, to help us do further research. Where were you then?

And there's something to be said for someone sinking themselves if they say something that may not be true. I think you all know I wasn't convinced that unusual numbers of paranormal researchers are dying because of alleged background gamma radiation, and certainly not Lloyd Pye. Did he become infected by that Starchild skull?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And one more thing. Rountree's Facebook page and a hint or two he dropped on the show should be sufficient to give you some information about at least a part of his educational background, in case someone wants to do the leg work.

 

[Jimi H.]

..

So lets look at a bit of what most people think of as hard core science, the big bang theory. Now we can talk about red shift and back ground radiation as much as you want, using pages and pages over very difficult mathematics. Yet if you look at it's time line, the details of the theory has changed as often as the narrative from a bad liar. Even today for the big bang theory to work, Dark Matter (absolutely no evidence of it exists) is required to make up 80% of the universe. Yet should any other theory be raised (even from academia itself), it is attacked with the same ferocity as the church attacked Nicolaus Copernicus,..

I'm tired of all the bla bla from people who want to sound scientific, but don't respect the scientific method, or the collective work of thousands of peers. Don't go for the scientific angle if you can't go all the way! And few can, if they are not trained. Anyone who understands the collective amount of knowledge that points at Big Bang as a reality should know that you must be exceptionally well-argumented to counter it and receive interest from people who know all the faulty arguments already, from their students' questions or the history of science.

Likewise, if you want to be a tailor but can't sew, don't be surprised to get critizised for your miserable stitching because the professional tailor will know beforehand the clothes won't hold together. If you're going to be a pilot but don't know how to tell airspeed from groundspeed you're going to crash and burn or get fired. And the pros could have told you beforehand, because they've seen it all before. We all start as amateurs, and the pros see all our mistakes. But don't blame the pros, then, blame your own big head.

If you're going to act like your fancy idea is science, but make amateur mistakes, or don't understand how the scientific community generates knowledge more reliably than yourself, you're going to be called an amateur, in a derogative sense. And you won't be exempt from criticism if you call your stuff 'scientific'.

So, for instance, if Roundtree doesn't intuitively know why a discussion on his methodology is crucial, he's too much of an amateur, meaning I can't trust his conclusions.

It's very, very simple, it's about being credible, or not. And it's very childish or arrogant if para-normal promoters think they can get a free pass just because the subject is fringe. Especially, when there seems to be other undisclosed agendas driving the case, e.g. a belief in spiritism or the Bible, then the lack of substance becomes painfully obvious, the hidden motive becomes ever clearer.

Enough with the whining about professionalism and standards.

 

[Para Truma]

I'm tired of all the bla bla from people who want to sound scientific, but at the same time don't respect the scientific method, or the collective work of thousands of peers. Don't go for the scientific angle if you can't go all the way! And few can, if they are not trained, anyone who understands the collective amount of knowledge that points at Big Bang as a reality should know that you must be exceptionally well-argumented to counter it and receive interest from others.

I hear this argument all the time, 'you just don't understand the whole argument'. The simple fact is, nobody does.

Modified gravity (another field which we don't understand at its fundamental level) provides a far more predictable model by equally qualified researchers than dark matter, however due to current dogma, its has been side-lined as interesting but unlikely, due to it's supporters focusing on different data or different slices of the data used to support the dark matter model. That fact is, the dark matter model is also very selective on which data sets and slices it uses to support their model. Given the current selectivity of data usage, you couldn't even do a double blind study.

Would your purchase a drug that faced a only 20% success rate, given that you require 30% to get you past the placebo effect. Unless of course it has a ethereal component that takes it to 100%.

Let me take you back to my earlier point. Can you predict global weather patterns using just the very valid readings taken from just your garden? Something which current climate models cannot do with global readings.

Sometimes before moving forward you have to take a few steps back to see the wood from the trees.

 

[Jimi H.]

I hear this argument all the time, 'you just don't understand the whole argument'.

My argument was that a professional sees all the pitfalls in an argument, which the amateur doesn't.

 

[Para Truma]

My argument was that a professional sees all the pitfalls in an argument, which the amateur doesn't.

Then why do proponents of Dark Matter and Modified Gravity both use different parts of the same data sets to prove their different points? It seems like a very unprofessional attitude to me. You could almost call it amateur, given the lack of foreseeing the pitfall of doing so.

Hence my opening lines.

All scientific research into new areas, is amateur research, although a stronger understanding of main stream science will help from avoiding misinterpretation.

 

[Jimi H.]

All scientific research into new areas, is amateur research..

No, you confuse 'amateur' with 'pioneer'.

I know where you're trying to spin the conversation, but you're wrong, science is very open to new ideas. Thus, even all the buzzwords in the paranormal world are taken from the avantgarde part of the scientific world, we get quantum this and quantum that, and computer souls, and soul-transporting wormholes etc in the para-normal world.

Science versus pseudo-science is a matter of dicipline and professionalism versus cherry-picking and amateurism.