February 13 Jari Mikkola

[Angel of Ioren]

Yup. I totally thought it was a picture of Lance having scored a touchdown after an epic catch during a game of flag football at a family reunion BBQ.

 

[Dave Murphy]

I think we should all realize that we don't expect guests on The Paracast to agree with our points of view 100%. If that were the case, we'd have no guests. There is no litmus test of that sort, nor can there be. I agreed with some of what Jari said, and I'm not so impressed with his viewpoints about the moon landings, or Stan Romanek for that matter. But let's not use that as ammunition to dispose of everything else he talked about, nor of the evidence he presented from his own personal investigations.

Interesting episode, thanks! This interview was a great case study on how one's worldview is formed from both from objective personal experience and subjective opinion. As with many of your other guests, I found Jari's personal experiences presented from his own inquiry and investigation far more interesting than his opinions on subjects he was further from and knew less about. With paranormal events there seems to be some sort of proximity effect, i.e. an inverse-square law, where high-strangeness increases as one gets closer to the source. Because this proximity most profoundly effects field researchers and those closest to these sources, their descriptions of the events may seem incredible (or incredulous) to those whose personal experiences lie further away, especially those who seek to subjectively rationalize their own worldview. It's also interesting that those who make the most effort to investigate anomalous phenomena, getting as close as possible to the source to satisfy their own curiosity and report their findings to the rest of us, become the targets of those who make the least.

Seems it's easy to explain away convoluted cases like Stan Romanek or Robbert van den Broeke (one minute on James Randi's website should do) until you actually make the effort to go there and see for yourself as many have done at great personal expense over the years. Jari Mikkola made the effort, was on-site with Romanek, did he imagine or fabricate the high-strangeness he witnessed there first-hand? I think not. Conversely, though he never met with or researched the Robbert van den Broeke case, he was happy to report that it had been debunked. What he stated as fact was, in fact, his opinion based on a debunking article written by Rob Nanninga (editor of Skepter) in 2005 and later enhanced by James Randi in 2006. Inspection of Nanninga's piece reveals his thin assertion, after Googling “geneverbrander" that van den Broeke had in fact previously done the same in preparation for an interview and omitted an "e" in the archaic Dutch term, thus misstating a dead relative's occupation; the fraud busted, case closed. Strangely, I know for a fact that Robbert van den Broeke did not have or know how to use a computer in 2005 and there was little or no mention of the other high-strangeness that, for years, has surrounded this particular case.

Subjective skepticism is pointless. Your best guests, on the other hand, may not have all the answers but at least they bought a plane ticket and got as close as they could.

 

[Will Penguin]

That would only be entertaining if someone who had views that opposed his were also on. Matthew Williams (whose hatred of all things Apple will probably keep him off this show unfortunately) or Candi Sworlen would make good ones I'd think. I personally have no desire to hear yet another radio show where true-believers in crop circles like Colin prattle on about their pseudo-science without a sufficiently prepared opposition to challenge them. But that's just me I guess.

I don't really know ton of background on Andrews but hearing him interviewed made me interested in a subject I previously wasn't especially drawn towards- and I just found him engaging in general. I think he'd be fine as a solo guest with just Gene and Christopher, but sure, a pro/con episode would be fine as well. As long as "pro/con" didn't equal an hour of people trying to talk over each other.

 

[trainedobserver]

I don't really know ton of background on Andrews but hearing him interviewed made me interested in a subject I previously wasn't especially drawn towards- and I just found him engaging in general.

Yes, that is his thing. That is what he does. He is researching essentially yard art and graffiti and presenting it as mysterious and other worldly products of non-human intelligences. He has to be a talented speaker for sure.