July 4, 2010 Episode - Walter Bosley

[Angel of Ioren]

So this week's episode was interesting, with Walter Bosley making a quick return appearance to the Paracast. There's lots of interesting stuff that was discussed, and I must say that I really liked Gene's hosting this week, more so than usual (not that it's ever bad, Gene).
So, lets' get to it:
It annoys me to no end that Mr. Bosley takes issue to someone questioning his claims on an internet forum when that person is anonymous. To me, it makes no difference that you know that my name is Angelo Fiorentino. I'm not anyone famous, and if you google my name, the first hit is someone else's facebook page. Anyway - I'm sorry I don't agree with the way you interpret the things you've seen, and that my use of logic and reason bothers you - I am sincerely sorry, and I'm not aiming to offend you. I'm just one that questions something when it doesn't jive with the way I see things. I also don't claim that I'm right - I can be completely off base. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there's anyway of convincing me short of me bing with you when you experience something. We can still discuss it though.

I'm fascinated by the paranormal because I wonder why people think about it in so many different ways, from total skeptics (like me) to true believers - that gives a skeptic like me as much right as anyone to be here. I think I behave in a civil manner, otherwise I would have been booted off long ago. It's really not the same thing as being in a soccer forum when you hate soccer.

An other interesting point, I'm panned for questioning Mr. Bosley's stories, but it's okay to question the way I think? That's a little unfair. He even admits that he doesn't believe one of the stories he's written about - the Roswell thing. Honestly, it would make for a fantastic script, and I can't say that it's a bad story.

Anyway, one last thing before this hopefully opens up a good and civil discussion. Mr. Bosley brought up an interesting point. He explained that if one approaches the paranormal and expects nothing to happen, nothing will happen. So the opposite holds true, no? I do believe that's confirmation bias, although please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm looking forward to hearing the discussion on this great episode. Thanks again to Gene, Greg, and Walter for another interesting discussion.

Also, let's stick to what was discussed on the show (we're all guilty of meandering) - no one should question Mr. Bosley's credentials and background. It's been verified by the hosts, so that should be good enough for the forum.

 

[Ron Collins]

Mr. Bosley brought up an interesting point. He explained that if one approaches the paranormal and expects nothing to happen, nothing will happen. So the opposite holds true, no? I do believe that's confirmation bias, although please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, Ritzman used to tote this line often. He used to encourage people to look for the phenomenon. Now this was not as erroneous as it might sound. He had a theory that the phenomenon needed our attention focused on order to manifest. Though an interesting theory, it has never moved beyond the "intresting" realm for me.

Anyway, I think there are 2 ways of looking this portion of Mr. Bosley's interview.

1) Going into situations expecting/hoping/knowing/believing what you are about to see is a powerful force. Especially when such an expectation supports your overall world view. A symptom of this is also what I believe corrupts many good researchers in ufology after prolonged engagement in the field. If you immerse yourself in Aliens, spaceships, conspiracies, etc. then it is easier to let your guard down and accept things as truth that may not have the benefit of your full objectivity. At that point any other like phenomenon begins to take on a luster it may not have. This could be the case here as the number, frequency, precision of recollection, and vivid nature of the events are all easily in the top 99th percentile.

or

2) The next time you drive to work or home start counting the white cars or counting the number of Audi's, Bentleys, Porsche, or whatever. The point being that when you make that same drive every other day these same cars exist in comparable numbers and frequency. Yet, you are consciously unaware of them. The phrase "cant see the forrest for the trees" is a good one to describe this. I think you could assume this is the angle he was trying to take rather than the confirmation bias route.

I personally tend to lean more towards #1 on this simply because of the number and quality of the encounters. Extreme multiple encounter situations (I term this as 4 or more in a lifetime) are so rare and 70 - 80% of these I have looked into have had problems. (Caveat: I mean separate kinds of incidents. A prolonged abduction scenario I term as 1 event.)

 

[Poi]

Ron said:

1) Going into situations expecting/hoping/knowing/believing what you are about to see is a powerful force. Especially when such an expectation supports your overall world view. A symptom of this is also what I believe corrupts many good researchers in ufology after prolonged engagement in the field. If you immerse yourself in Aliens, spaceships, conspiracies, etc. then it is easier to let your guard down and accept things as truth that may not have the benefit of your full objectivity. At that point any other like phenomenon begins to take on a luster it may not have. This could be the case here as the number, frequency, precision of recollection, and vivid nature of the events are all easily in the top 99th percentile.

I have to agree with some of that, given that I think I've had more than four experiences in my lifetime. I'm sixty so maybe that could account for a slightly higher number, but after the first event (not an abduction) my world view was changed. I think there's more than meets the eye than just the power of belief.

But it's very difficult to steer clear of belief systems after an event, of course. In fact, it's better to dismiss one's world view, but that isn't completely possible. We're changed by our circumstances even if we don't understand them. Once changed, we're never the same so it may be impossible to NOT consider wider suggestions for explanation. When one figures out how much he doesn't know, what there is to learn appears as an abyss.

So I guess the only thing I've adopted as a sure thing is that if one is fortunate enough to have faced that abyss, he's better off exploring it, with the understanding that his perception of events will probably not match that of another explorer. Our baggage makes for variety or maybe each of us is truly on his own. Don't know which.

 

[trainedobserver]

What can be said about the repeated denigration and misrepresentation of forum members and their comments who dare question or offer alternatives to someone's interpretation of their unusual experiences, ...other than it is insulting and boring?

I get it. Walter wants to be able to say whatever he cares to on the air and not be presented with logic or reasonable discussion because he's just not into that. I get that he wants to create an air of mystery about what he has experienced and what it means to him, after all he's an author with books to sell, and that is entirely understandable and acceptable.

For the record I identified myself to Walter and attempted to get him to make clarifying statements about his experience but he left the forum to air his opinions in a format where none of us from the forums would have any recourse or response. I thought Walter's backpedaling on his Agnostic vs. Atheist opinion when Greg had something to say about it pretty telling.

If he actually wants to discuss his experiences and his thoughts about them rather than opine and generalize about people who may hold an alternative view he might actually be interesting. However, I personally have heard enough from Walter and his opinions about logic, debate, and reasonable discussions about the strange and unusual. I'm ready to hear from someone else.

Rick Poole

 

[Kandinsky]

Angel of Ioren, I tend to agree with you. I listened to a Bosley interview on either Paracast or DMR a few weeks ago. It was interesting and worth listening to through to the end. As the show wore on, I found it more and more difficult to relate to his perceptions of the world or his accounts.

The abundant synchronicity of his experiences suggested, to me, that his thinking is biased towards seeing and seeking patterns in events. As one pattern is discovered, it confirms the bias and sets up the observer to chart ever more patterns with increasing confidence. In a sense, it's solipcism that generates multi-dimensional complex realities that forever revolve around the observer.

In basic terms, by looking for confirmation of beliefs we can find it and expand into ever more elaborate beliefs. Self-perpetuating.

I can appreciate why some might interpret the above as the words of some arrogant skeptic or debunker. Maybe I am? I'm not sure. For a period of time, I held a similar view of the world and recognise it in others.

I haven't listened to other Walter Bosley interviews for these reasons. Maybe you've called it wrong...maybe I have too? At the end of the day, it hardly matters to you, me or Walter Bosley. We take life on our own terms and interpret it accordingly. So it goes...as Vonnegut might say.

 

[NTS]

On the anonymity thing, Bosley would be right if we were writing letters to him and refusing to identify ourselves. But blog posters generally are talking with each other rather than with the subject of their posts, and some anonymity is the norm on blogs. We probably don't have as much as we think anyway. And to the extent that Bosley has revealed his experiences and beliefs on a radio program, he has made himself a public figure and opened himself to discussion (and criticism).

 

[Ron Collins]

On the anonymity thing, Bosley would be right if we were writing letters to him and refusing to identify ourselves. But blog posters generally are talking with each other rather than with the subject of their posts, and some anonymity is the norm on blogs. We probably don't have as much as we think anyway. And to the extent that Bosley has revealed his experiences and beliefs on a radio program, he has made himself a public figure and opened himself to discussion (and criticism).

I completely agree with that. If you are going to throw yourself out there then be prepared to be challenged. This sort of thing has always bothered me. A guy will certainly accept your money for their book or to attend their lectures and then they become indigent when their view is challenged. You often hear the argument "Well you write a book and then you can ...". It's a cop out. You put your stuff out there then accept the critique. Even if it comes from the anonymous or those who haven't authored a book.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I completely agree with that. If you are going to throw yourself out there then be prepared to be challenged. This sort of thing has always bothered me. A guy will certainly accept your money for their book or to attend their lectures and then they become indigent when their view is challenged. You often hear the argument "Well you write a book and then you can ...". It's a cop out. You put your stuff out there then accept the critique. Even if it comes from the anonymous or those who haven't authored a book.

I'm sorry, but I'm with Walter on this. Not that anonymous posters can't criticize to their heart's content, but I take them less seriously than I do someone who is willing to sign their name to what they write. I know that's old school, and not in step with the way the Internet works these days, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right way to do things. Honestly, unless you are hiding some deep, dark secret, why the anonymity? It's just a paranormal message board, for Pete's sake.

 

[marmer]

I'm sorry, but I'm with Walter on this. Not that anonymous posters can't criticize to their heart's content, but I take them less seriously than I do someone who is willing to sign their name to what they write. I know that's old school, and not in step with the way the Internet works these days, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right way to do things. Honestly, unless you are hiding some deep, dark secret, why the anonymity? It's just a paranormal message board, for Pete's sake.

Not that I have a dog in this hunt, but I've been around the interwebs since the days when it wasn't recommended to use your own name freely. Even back when a lot of systems didn't support long enough usernames for most people to use their full names. Facebook has sort of desensitized us to the kind of concern for our own privacy that used to be routine. I'd like to think that whatever meager reputation I may have earned from participation in various online communities (I have no illusions about how significant it is, don't worry. ;-) ) I have earned from the value of my posts rather than my full name, and I always use the same username or as close to it as I can everywhere. If you see "marmer" somewhere there's a pretty good chance it's me. But I really wonder why anyone needs to know my real name unless they want to take some kind of interaction to a more personal level. That's what PM's are for; beyond that it's a little creepy.

 

[Kieran]

When Walter was outlining the story his father told him, that is the People who live below ground. I was fascinated, but i was slightly taken aback when he tended to have more believability in the alternative story that is publicised by Mr Farrell. I found it odd he would do this, considering it was his"Father" who told him down through the years these stories, and Walter went on to say "My father was emotional when i talked to him 'one time about his friend being killed, and he truly believed this occurred, he was there. I could speculate on what kind of relationship he had with his Dad, but that is not the right thing to do. But if my Dad Told me this story. I would believe what he told him over someone like Mr Farrel, who i have never met.

I see no problem with people posting anonymously up to a point. I would presume most People have no problem revealing, who they are, if asked politely and in the right circumstances? Obviously, we do have an odd few who are hiding their background, for some reason, which is only know to them?
I personally have no problem revealing my second name in private. Why hide my second name. Well I'm not hiding some dark secret, if that is what your thinking.

I just live in a area were most people are not aware, i have an interest in these subjects. I would have many acquaintances and Friends at work and at home. I guess this might be viewed as cowardly to some of you, when i say this? But such subjects as this do attract the wrong attention and having my full name associated with a site that is "PARANORMAL" in outlook. I just whether avoid the uncomfortable questions, or the weird looks if someone was by chance to read about what i have seen down through years. That is as honest as i can be with everyone here.

I think Walter is right, if you are going to question his experiences. Well then you have to play on a level playing field with Walter. You have to state who you and were you come from and some other information that Walter might require, before talking to you. It's called respect.

 

[NTS]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. In reading blogs I judge the poster based on the posts, not on the name he/she uses (except maybe in the case of an obscene or ridiculous one). In fact it's jarring when a poster uses what looks like a full real name, even though I have no way of knowing if it's real or not.

 

[Kieran]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. In reading blogs I judge the poster based on the posts, not on the name he/she uses (except maybe in the case of an obscene or ridiculous one). In fact it's jarring when a poster uses what looks like a full real name, even though I have no way of knowing if it's real or not.

Well your IP address would narrow down your location, wouldn't it. Someone who lied about there location would be found out fairly quickly. Well if people, put down the name of Chris, when they are really Mike. Then that person is only fooling his/her self not anyone else.

 

[NTS]

True, but I've never been concerned enough to try and trace anyone's IP address either.

 

[CapnG]

I enjoyed the episode although I have to take issue with a couple of things:

1) Slagging people who like to use logic. As opposed to what, exactly? Your gut? Blind faith? Tea leaves? Divining rods? Beliefs are for children, adults want to KNOW things.

2) Agnosticism is not a cop out. When neither side of an argument provides sufficient weight to sway your opinion, the only rational recourse is agnosticism. Otherwise what are you basing your decision on? A whim? Popularity? A coin flip? To me THOSE are cop outs.

 

[kipspritely]

My main problem with Walter's view is this: why re-invent the wheel? Why not take what others have discovered about this topic (or any topic for that matter) and expand on it? I listen to the Paracast for compelling insight. I also do research on my own on topics that interest me.
In listening to the Paracast, I have heard accounts that otherwise would have eluded me.

Is Walter saying I shouldn't have listened to him as well? He did say no answers can be found listening to this show. Maybe he is right and is a waste of time after all.
Maybe he is just stirring the pot.
Rudolph Pokorny

 

[jpw.in.wi]

I enjoyed the episode although I have to take issue with a couple of things:

1) Slagging people who like to use logic. As opposed to what, exactly? Your gut? Blind faith? Tea leaves? Divining rods? Beliefs are for children, adults want to KNOW things.

Yes, a very fun and entertaining program, but there wasn't much to learn from it. The whole "What is Truth?" thread that runs through Mr. Bosley's discussions gets to be a bit frustrating.

Thanks for reminding us of that old Paracast slogan, Capn: "I don't want to believe, I want to know!" We all can't become experts in all of the sciences, philosophy, theology, detective work, etc. so that we may each uncover the "Truth" for ourselves, as Mr. Bosley advocates. We need a community of thinkers and investigators working, sharing, and communicating together to keep us moving down that path of discovery.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I find it amusing that the sceptics feel upset about being taken to task as they are the first ones to take someone to task. It's okay for them to interrogate and question and cast aspersions but "...Oh the outrage!!!" when it happens to them! If you want to fire bullets, expect hand grenades in return!! Toughen up boys and girls!

Experiencers have been copping intense scrutiny and critisism for the longest time and the minute a sceptic/debunker cops a little flak, they go and toss their collective skirts over their heads and run around like James Randi with his head cut off.
It takes a lot of guts to go public with their experiences, and little or no guts to tear them to shreds, publicly. I suppose if you haven't had a real paranormal experience you wouldn't understand.

Of course people like Walter should have these accounts questioned, it should be actively encouraged, but at some point in that discussion it should have become evidently clear that neither side was going to shift from their point of view. Instead the sceptics kept hammering away to the point of merciless interrogation, which was just rude and disrespectful.

I agree with those who dislike screen names. I would happily exchange my screen name for my real name (it's just under it) as long as i could keep the statistics i have built up over the last 3 years.

Originally Posted by Angel of Ioren. An other interesting point, I'm panned for questioning Mr. Bosley's stories, but it's okay to question the way I think? That's a little unfair.

Why is it unfair? If you publicly go on the record and pass judgement, give your opinion, about a certain person or their experiences, as you did, then of course these opinions or judgements should be questioned. What did you expect? That everyone should just fall into line with your assessment or the way you think?

Originally posted by Trainedobserver. If he actually wants to discuss his experiences and his thoughts about them rather than opine and generalize about people who may hold an alternative view he might actually be interesting. However, I personally have heard enough from Walter and his opinions about logic, debate, and reasonable discussions about the strange and unusual. I'm ready to hear from someone else.

I thought that was what he had intended to do before the interrogation and grilling set in.

 

[alzo]

I completely agree with that. If you are going to throw yourself out there then be prepared to be challenged. This sort of thing has always bothered me. A guy will certainly accept your money for their book or to attend their lectures and then they become indigent when their view is challenged.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

Regarding Walters lack of "love of logic".... I would have thought a long career in the Airforce, followed by the FBI would have required the use of logic on a daily basis.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Why is it unfair? If you publicly go on the record and pass judgement, give your opinion, about a certain person or their experiences, as you did, then of course these opinions or judgements should be questioned. What did you expect? That everyone should just fall into line with your assessment or the way you think?

No, I'm not saying it's unfair to question what I think - by all means I welcome it. That's how we learn new things. What I find unfair is that it's okay to question what I think, but Mr. Bosley was up in arms when I thought that there were other ways to interpret what he has seen.
Another thing, I am in no way feeling challenged as a skeptic. The burdon of proof is always on the person making the claim. Until that person provides actual proof, what they claim are just entertaining campfire stories. With that being the case, Mr. Bosley has plenty of good ones.
I welcome evidence being put forth - like most skeptics that participate in these discussions, I want to find out if these events are true and believe in them as much as people on the other end of the argument.

 

[Walter Bosley]

You guys are a crack-up