I never fail to enjoy a Peter Robbins conversation on any of the myriad podcasts I listen to. He's such an intelligent, thoughtful and articulate gentleman. I like his openness and honesty when it comes to many of the admittedly speculative opinions he holds. I tend to agree with him more often than not, or, at the very least, acknowledge his speculations have some merit in most cases. Where he does lose me is when he praises individuals like Stephen Bassett for essentially being a fanatical "true believer" (my words, not his). Whenever I think about Bassett and the interviews I've heard on recent podcasts where he's spewing his unhinged, and frankly, comical beliefs, I often recall one of my favorite lines from the HBO sketch comedy series, Mr. Show w/Bob & David, "Don't shit in my mouth and call it a sundae." Essentially, a more disgusting version of "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." That, to me, neatly sums up Bassett's BS. The fact that someone as seemingly level-headed and informed as Robbins could respect him is troubling, though probably a testament to just how nice of a man he (Robbins, not Bassett) really is.
Other than Rendlesham, which was avoided per the guest's insistence, I felt that there were some areas missed in the discussion. Per my questions submitted prior to the conversation, I would have loved it if Gene had ever-so-gently inquired about his subsequent feelings, post-Warren breakup, about Nick Pope, Robbins thoughts and stories about the controversial Wilhelm Reich, and perhaps revisiting some of his sister Helen's abduction experiences back in the day in NYC.
On a somewhat tangential note, a recent trend I've noticed, not just by guests visiting The Paracast but on several other paranormal podcasts as well, is guests seem to be throwing around the term "scientific" these days, as it relates to several researcher's efforts, when I don't see anything remotely "scientific" that could be attributed to that researcher's work. None are even scientists. That's not to imply their work isn't interesting, valid, or even credible, just that it is in no way "scientific," which by definition means "based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science." Robbins made a reference to, I think, Budd Hopkins' work being "scientific." What is "scientific" about the process of an art history major, painter, sculptor and self-taught hypnotist, interviewing alleged UFO abductees like he's a qualified psychotherapist? I'll save you the time, nothing! He suffers from the same sort of lack of scientific credibility as his protege, retired history professor David Jacobs. Anyway, it's something I've noticed many people saying when referring to a particular researcher's work when there is really nothing remotely scientific about their process. The word is just being misused in an attempt to add credibility to said researcher's efforts. I bring it up only because I think its misuse should be called out and questioned by hosts when they hear it being flagrantly used and with little evidence supporting the claim.
#EndRant
Again, an enjoyable episode. I was a little sad to see Gene handling host duties all by his lonesome but being the consummate professional he is, the conversation was well-handled. As for ATP, I always enjoy Greg Bishop's take on almost anything UFO and paranormal related. We both live in Los Angeles, I want to take him and Walter Bosley to lunch or dinner one of these days...