• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Keep the guests on topic

Gary

P.E.
My name is Gary, I'm from Maine and have been an on and off listener to the Paracast as well as a couple other podcasts for 4 or 5 years. I recently got back to the Paracast and after catching up on the last few months worth of programing I felt I had to point out something that I feel is a big turn off. There's just too much time spent discrediting others in the field. When this goes on for 30+ minutes it gets very tiring. It seems that's a trend in this community, perhaps for the drama, maybe as a response to back stabbing or whatever the reason but as a listener it isn't entertaining or informative. It is enough to state that so and so can't produce his MIT degree and no one can find such proof then move on.

I think you get some very interesting guests on your show and it would be nice to hear them talk about their specific fields of interests rather than egg them on to offer up dirt on this guy or the other. You do a great job when you stay on topic.

I used to work as an industrial automation engineer and sometimes I would get feedback from customers who would tell me how some competitor said something to discredit my work or advice. I would explain that this is just a case of someone trying to make me look bad in order to make themselves look good with little effort as possible - which is a pretty sorry way to promote themselves.

Being that this is still the best podcast around, it could be better and would be more professional and much more interesting if you kept the guests on topic. I think that David Childress's hollow moon ideas are plain nonsense but this is what I "tune in" for and I find it entertaining. He does make you at least consider his ideas if for no other reason then to debunk them in your own mind. That's the kind of thing that forces us to push the envelope, like a mental downhill run on a roller coaster.

Thanks for listening...

Best regards,
Gary
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
Gary,

Isn't there something to be said for honesty in open discussion though? I cannot understand why it is that people would want to listen to a two and a half hour program on plain bullshit. In my opinion I believe you are getting mixed up between a show like the Paracast and something like Coast To Coast Am. The Paracast will not sit back and allow a guest to spew forth nonsensical hogwash for the sake of wasting everyone's time, no matter how much it might seem a form of entertainment.

Then there is the "discerning" of credit where credit is due. In the real world that we live in, sometimes it is necessary to weed out the bad eggs in order to get a better dozen. Skepticism and knowledge/attainment verification is a must when looking to properly focus upon any method of attaining a rational for the irrational. When we speak about something so off handed as extraterrestrials, and have someone on the Paracast who spends a good half an hour explaining how the use of a Crystal Skeleton puts them in direct communication with E.T., I and I am sure many others want to know just how this is done, and by what type of individual the fete is completed by. This means looking into the persons background, investigating the methods for the supposed procedure, and then perhaps taking a controlled environment and attempting to duplicate thus.

If instead the listener wants a good "yarn" to fall asleep by, I could understand why it is that delving into educational achievement and methodology would be a boring time of it.

Perhaps it would be better for you to listen to C2C instead?
 

Gary

P.E.
PRS, you bring up verification, investigating the methods and procedures of a speaker etc. so I'll add this... I understand and agree with the need to research and qualify a speakers credentials prior to any kind of engagement. I expect they did this when they invited guest Jim Moseley, from Key West. On the podcast they asked him for "dirt" on this guy and that. This is part of the methodology and he was considered a qualified, no hogwash egg from the "better dozen"? This man is mentioned in the Wikipedia and the very first line says he perpetrated fraud in his career. He is not a credible source no more then a $5 Internet search on some one's MIT degree. What does "the gold standard" refer to?

If you find a discrepancy after the fact put the question out there. There's no need to make a 30 minute segment on it, invite your guest to participate, or ask them for dirt on others. This is not professional or interesting. We want to hear about a person's experience and research and it seems reasonable to expect that this is why guests are qualified and invited to speak.

I suggest that they review what the gold standard means and adhere to it. I provide my input with no expectations from anyone because this is my opinion and I don't ask anyone to agree with me. I put this out because this is how we learn. Do with it what they like...

Best regards to all,
Gary
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
Gary,

In a perfect world we could expect that form of dedication.....The pre-show investigatory workload, the adherence to just one formatted line of query when hosting, the abidance to a directive which mandates a formula then specified as singular in context; focused as an entire show's subject matter and only "a" listed topic of the very same. But dare I say it, we are not in a perfect world. Gene and Chris wanted to gain further information about a subject by which they felt their listeners would be interested in. They went with it and determined it was worth the time it took to clarify it's directive and future reference. In reading the forums before that week's broadcast, it could be argued that many of the more dedicated listeners came up with interesting ideas, theories and perhaps inferences which both the Paracast's hosts thought would add to the conditioning of the evening's total gain.

I for one found the information they were able to find from the questioning very interesting. Sometimes it takes ignorance to prove a point, especially when it derives from a subject matter the guest might have access too, or somehow influence, or be influenced by.

I have never lost sight of the subject matter in conjunction with the Paracast's "Gold Standard", yet have found times in which I wish I could have reached in my desktop speakers and just bitch slap a few hosts in the face of other radio pod casts, those whom completely loose sight of the originating subject matter, and for this I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Where we tend to disagree is that this happens continuously in the Paracast. Perhaps the justification in your point of one or two weeks material isn't enough to set a judgment call for the entire Broadcast's otherwise excellent agenda?
 

Gary

P.E.
PRS, in one respect Hawking was right when he thought information was being permanently lost - there are some minds that are intellectual black holes and it is human nature to gravitate to the lowest common denominator when treading on these horizons. Gene and Chris are obviously intelligent men and very capable hosts but like anyone they can find themselves backsliding to someone elses level. As you pointed out, this is a small production with limited resources and a loose helm. Constructive criticism is a free resource though.

You are right on to question how many podcasts I have listened to. I sampled perhaps 6 in the archives between early July to the most recent. This is probably more then most new listeners would hear before forming an opinion though. Also if you listen to the podcasts back to back as I did patterns become more evident.

If the discussion is on the table and people are willing to consider new directions I would be happy to offer at least one suggestion. Where this community is as interested in the facts regarding the validity of a speaker as you suggest, why not invite them to do some research in advance? When the guest appears they can ask him to explain any discrepancies in his resume or if they are aware that someone has labeled them as a fraud in the Wikipedia. It took me literally seconds to find this Wiki entry on Mr. Moseley so imagine what a dedicated group in this forum could research. Doing this after the fact is no easier and at the very least isn't fair to the guest is it?

I do appreciate your thoughtful comments and as always, best regards to all...
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> So here we have the difference between informed, accurate analysis, researched material attained for an anticipatory broadcast in the queue, held against a live current, which can move upon many routes within the fiber of a multi-facetted, subjective schema.

You state the hosts, namely Chris and Gene should, “explain any discrepancies in his (the guests) resume or if they are aware that someone has labeled them as a fraud in the Wikipedia.” I replied earlier that it wasn’t necessarily the inference of “dirt” which was the main factor in their inquiry, but instead a subjective “feeler” which had within thus a more “abstract” or diverse meaning for the context of the programs complete intention. Because of this, I further committed the reasoning for the “all inclusive” basis as one which earlier incorporated the intentions of the forum’s dedicated member’s, and that there were levels of rationale behind what could otherwise be construed (by the unaware or less informed listener) as myopic dogma.

Lastly, I felt that a constant was necessary in order to fairly judge against the critique, and that constant was to have been privy to many of the broadcasts presented in the past. The answer to this was that, “I sampled perhaps 6 in the archives between early July to the most recent”, and that, “patterns become more evident.”

Honestly, even though 6 samples does not a fair conclusion make, I would be seriously interested in knowing which of the 6 (the actual examples within the pod casts) you had in fact listened to, so as to fairly critique within a more genuinely fair review. You see, I have listened to every Paracast podcast (all in a row) for a lot longer and cannot find a pattern in the light of your example. I do find a form of inquiry utilized to warrant a more open ended answer, one which the guest might find a little surprising, or not expecting. But this in fact considered long before the broadcast, and done in such a way as to create a basis for furthering a wider, more subjective significance, and still include the usual, “multi-played” subject matter.

I will close with this point.

If by asking a question that might be deemed as unfair, dirt digging, or not within what a majority of listeners would consider a fair basis, then why would you think someone of Gene and Chris’s level of achievement and caliber would do so? What could they possibly gain by such a negative parlay instead of “snooooorying” through the session as if acquiescing and cow towing for that easier, more politically correct mode of engagement?

One would think it would be anathema to their very intention….
 

Gary

P.E.
PRS, your exact points were lost to me in your prolix style though I got the basic message. You believe there is some extraordinarily complex process and reasoning for what I consider inappropriate discussion. While that is possible it doesn't make it acceptable to me. Your closing point based on the hosts' infallibility is based upon your own subjective impression (opinion) of them. Opinions by definition can not be right or wrong. I said earlier that this my opinion and I don't ask anyone to agree with me.

I do enjoy a discussion but continuing this one would result in browbeating the hosts since they were the intended recipients of this post. These gentlemen offer a free service to the public and I provided honest feedback in return. With that in mind I feel enough has been said.

Best regards to all...
Gary
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
No, I just think you judge people's work to over zealously, and this without the advantage of understanding the entire picture.

My "prolix" style might have fallen on topical ears here, but I assure you of one very important point within all of this banter....

You won't find a more complete and fair organization of hosts out there today than you will within the Paracast, even if you were to be a plant of another podcast looking to drum up trouble.

Well, maybe then....Savy?
 

Schuyler

Misanthrope
Well, I duplicated Gary's search of Moseley. Indeed, in seconds I found the index entry on Google that says, "He has exposed UFO hoaxers and perpetrated fraud in his career and, ..." Wow! I guess that just says it, doesn't it? We can just stop right there and realize that Google index entries can provide instant confirmation that Moseley is a fraud!

Now first of all it is a rare researcher that will use Wikipedia as a definitive source. It's pretty good at answering factual questions such as, "How many square miles in Tacoma, Washington?" but when Wikipedia starts making value judgments, you'd better watch out. Gary seems to feel his research is erudite, but I doubt he even bothered to read the article on Moseley. His source for Moseley being a "fraud" is the Google index entry (or was it Bing? Doesn't matter.) Had he taken a few MORE seconds to actually read the article, he would have found what all that "fraud" was about:

"Moseley was long suspected of having co-created a phony 1957 letter as a prank against Adamski. After years of denying the charges, evading the subject, and hinting at responsibility, Moseley admitted to the hoax in 1985 (Clark, 2005; Moseley and Pflock, 2002).
In 1957, Barker acquired some blank U.S. Governmental letterhead stationery and envelopes from a friend. During an alcohol-fueled weekend, Moseley and Barker wrote seven letters, each using this official letterhead. Five of the letters were jokes to friends; only two of the letters were outright hoaxes, the Adamski letter and one to Moseley's father.

The letter to Adamski was signed by the fictional "R.E. Straith", a representative of the non-existent "Cultural Exchange Committee" of the U.S. State Department. Straith wrote that the U.S. Government knew that Adamski had actually spoken to extraterrestrials in a California desert in 1952, and that a group of highly-placed government officials planned on public corroboration of Adamski's story.
Adamski took great pride in the Straith letter, and publicized its contents. FBI agents investigated the letter, and, since none of the claims were genuine, asked Adamski to stop publicizing the letter. Adamski refused.

FBI agents also questioned Barker and Moseley about the matter, but no criminal charges were filed." (From Wikipedia)

So Moseley, and the legendary Gray Barker, were playing a joke on a real fraudster, Adamski. The article itself is mildly negative, probably at least in part because the main source is Jerome Clark, who does not think highly of Moseley. It's also a "Start Class" article on the quality scale. In other words, it doesn't rate all that highly.

Anyone who is at all familiar with the UFO literature will recognize Moseley and Barker as a couple of characters in the field who take a light-hearted approach and like to have a little more fun than more "serious" researchers. To jump to the conclusion that Moseley has somehow been discredited is not at all justified.

This really does show that someone cannot jump into the field for a few seconds and become an instant expert. It represents sloppy, sloppy research. The joke is on Gary here. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
 

Ron Collins

Curiously Confused
He is not a credible source no more then a $5 Internet search on some one's MIT degree.
I just reread this entire thread and saw this. I must have skimmed this when I read it before because it didnt stick with me.

So Gary, should I take it that you are an Imbrogno supporter? Oh, and it was $7. But only if they returned a result. Which they didn't. Because he never went there. So technically.... it was free.

Just thought I would point that out.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------

He ought to be ashamed of himself.
And the sad truth is that he probably isn't.
 

Gary

P.E.
Ron and Shuyler you completely missed the irony of countering one puerile Internet source of information with another. The joke is on who Shuyler?

As for PRS's most recent post and that of Shuyler; one of you implies that I am with another podcast and the other says that I have but a few seconds of experience in an unspecified field. You close your arguments with these ad hominem remarks as a reason to believe some point you are trying to make. Although this isn't the lowest form of disagreement, you are getting close and I won't participate at that level. Perhaps you three can chat with each other...

This does explain why these forums have so little activity.

Regards to the rest,
Gary
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
Ron and Shuyler you completely missed the irony of countering one puerile Internet source of information with another. The joke is on who Shuyler?

As for PRS's most recent post and that of Shuyler; one of you implies that I am with another podcast and the other says that I have but a few seconds of experience in an unspecified field. You close your arguments with these ad hominem remarks as a reason to believe some point you are trying to make. Although this isn't the lowest form of disagreement, you are getting close and I won't participate at that level. Perhaps you three can chat with each other...

This does explain why these forums have so little activity.

Regards to the rest,
Gary
Wow,

For someone who doesn't want to "further" dirty him or herself with such frivolous, or "prolix" type implications, it's surprising how fast the winds can change direction.

My intention was to clearly show how fast and easy it is to jump on the critique bandwagon and judge a work ethic, without initially understanding the entire intent or justification for the formats approach in the first place.

This is normally done by those trolls who seek attention on this and many forums without any regard for the passionate effort and dedication it takes to perform such a fete.

Angelo, Ron and Decker have volunteered their time and effort to make this forum something worth taking the time out to read and take part in, and they do one hell of a job, even if I don't always agree with them. I can take their critique because they earned this with me, from the many nights they sat here and wrote within the subjects of the ups and downs of the show, to battling it out with many arm chair know it alls, who jump on to spew forth rants without much weight behind what they have to say.

To me and I bet many many people out there reading this at the moment....

What all of them, Gene, Chris, the Moderators and everyone who takes the time out to be involved....Hell even Lancemoody who I find has a clear sense of opinion and purpose....What ALL of them has is a clear and honorable regard for this show as one of the best out there today.

And lastly, it's not that I found your comments so bad that I wasn't willing to give them the time to sink in and review....it was the fact that you did it without any regard to everything else which is maintained here in order to bring you this "free show"....

There was not one bit of thanks for the design work, the new and informative guests, the moderation on the forums, all this volunteer work and everything which goes into a presentation such as this one.

So do me a favor, take your own advice and if you don't like it....MOVE ON. I guarantee you the entire broadcast will roll on being the Gold Standard it is.
 

Gary

P.E.
PRS,you're upset because I didn't thank the designers and forum moderators of this website, the hosts and four other individuals you mentioned by name when I started this thread? Please link an example of a first time post with such dialog and I will be happy to correct my error.

Also you could show where I wrote anything that resembles this: "Doesn't want to further dirty him or herself with such frivolous, or prolix type implications". I have no idea what a "prolix type implication" is nor have I never see the use of the adjective as written. My guess is that this is a misquote of when I said I did not want to discuss the hosts any further which was out of regard for them on my part - and that still stands.

Now my opinion... I believe all the flag waving and "honorable regard" is your battle cry while invoking the name of the moderator and the others to come to your aid. Your misquote and accusations are your "cause". It is all very childish and petty; reminiscent of schoolyard shenanigans.

Prove me wrong and link an example of a proper and thankful fist time post that mentions your list of recipients and I will apologize for this opinion and modify it accordingly. Surely at least one such thread must exist for every member of this forum.

What strikes me as quite funny is that these attacks on me are in response to my feedback which was against attacks on people. You have provided for me a good laugh so I reciprocate by bestowing upon you a longer reply to fume over...

Enjoy and as always...
regards,
Gary
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
Also you could show where I wrote anything that resembles this: "Doesn't want to further dirty him or herself with such frivolous, or prolix type implications". I have no idea what a "prolix type implication" is nor have I never see the use of the adjective as written.
As Prolix can be defined as "long winded", let's supplement for the sentence....

"Doesn't want to further dirty him or herself with such frivolous, or LONG WINDED type implications".

Now my opinion... I believe all the flag waving and "honorable regard" is your battle cry while invoking the name of the moderator and the others to come to your aid. Your misquote and accusations are your "cause". It is all very childish and petty; reminiscent of schoolyard shenanigans.
LOL! Oh you have to be kidding me here on this one! ROTFLMAO!!!!! Did you hear that Angelo and others? This guy is actually stating that I in some way am looking for your "aid". Gary, you obviously haven't been on this forum before, or at least not in the last year or so; no less 6 months while listening last as you aspire to. If anything this setting is normally the exact opposite when I am involved. The Moderators on this forum usually have conflicts with me 75 to 80% of the time, but as I mentioned before, I actually work with them on it, mainly because what they have to say is earned and established as worth not only my while, but also those who happen to agree with them. They don't troll for kicks here and actually care about this site and it's members.

Prove me wrong and link an example of a proper and thankful fist time post that mentions your list of recipients and I will apologize for this opinion and modify it accordingly. Surely at least one such thread must exist for every member of this forum.
Huh? "Fist".... I believe you mean, "first time post" and honestly, what ridiculously nonsensical meandering is this supposed to prove? A "proper" post? My intent was to convey a form of respect given and taken by two people involved in the same interest, and that being the Paracast. What possible reason would I or any of the people mentioned, care about the form of this conveyed respect, as long as it was in fact conveyed? Some would begin the post by exclaiming, "Thanks for the hard work you do here", or, "Thank you for your ongoing efforts in bringing the paranormal community something interesting to hear every week", etc. They would then propose an idea for a change, or maybe present a little more than a one quick and very badly researched example of a problem of which they felt was in need of improving. But the key here would be they would do so without walking all over the entire format and thus men and women who care time and time again every week, to bringing this free service to such grateful listeners such as yourself. I pray you get this now, because if not, there are many more superlatives we can study in the dictionary tonight to supplement this waste of time.

What strikes me as quite funny is that these attacks on me are in response to my feedback which was against attacks on people. You have provided for me a good laugh so I reciprocate by bestowing upon you a longer reply to fume over...
Oh Your Majesty, thank you ever so much for enjoining us peasants with both your time and royal effort. We are not worthy of your grace and respectfully plead that you waste not one iota more on us undeserving "prolix" style unter menches.

I was "looking for the Moderator's to come to my aid".......Oh don't get mad Ron, I do like the Moderators on this forum, I just thought this was too much tonight. ::)
 

Gary

P.E.
PRS, admission that you are a source of irritation for the moderators 75% to 80% of the time makes obvious your need to counter this behaviour with praise for their efforts. I will do the same:

Thank you moderators for keeping Pararealitysaint restrained. :redface:

I am always happy to offer gratitude or praise when appropriate but I don't use such flourishes frivolously. At the very beginning of this thread I did state that the hosts do a great job and they have interesting guests (which is a credit to the producers). I don't believe that my expression of gratitude is the real issue. I do believe that I am under fire for daring to speak my opinion and there is no limit to what you will create as fodder.

Huh? "Fist".... I believe you mean, "first time post" and honestly, what ridiculously nonsensical meandering is this supposed to prove?
Feigning incomprehension followed by comprehension to use a simple typo against me? Theatricals like this to make me seem less credible is grasping at straws to the extreme. In the same sentence you proceed to blame me for this "nonsensical meandering" when it was you who brought up the subject - in the form of an accusation. So here you accuse me of something then deny me access to the topic by virtue of its stupidity. Okay...

As Prolix can be defined as "long winded", let's supplement for the sentence....

"Doesn't want to further dirty him or herself with such frivolous, or LONG WINDED type implications".
You have a remarkable way of mishmashing the English language. A "supplement" is something added to a thing and does not describe the act of replacing one word for another as in your example. Granted, the portion of your phrase which reads "Long winded type implications" is coherent if expressed within some intelligent context. But I fail to see how someone could be at risk of getting dirty from "Long winded type implications" nor did I say anything that even resembles that.


LOL! Oh you have to be kidding me here on this one! ROTFLMAO!!!!! Did you hear that Angelo and others? This guy is actually stating that I in some way am looking for your "aid".
You are calling on your friends to support you against my assertion that you were calling on your friends for aid? No need to comment further on this one.


Oh Your Majesty, thank you ever so much for enjoining us peasants with both your time and royal effort. We are not worthy of your grace and respectfully plead that you waste not one iota more on us undeserving "prolix" style unter menches.
I'm pleased you took my final paragraph with the touch of humor in which it was intended. There's just one last thing that seriously grates against my senses however. You don't add the suffix "es" to make a plural form in the German language. You use "en" in this case and the two words are written as one, i.e. untermenschen. Furthermore untermenschen is a racial slur made infamous by the Nazis in reference (primarily) to the Jews. I hope it is simple ignorance of this fact that allows you proliferate such an expression.

You have a great day and best regards to all,
Gary
 

PararealitySaint

An Open Minded Skeptic
Ok, I get the point.

Acknowledging futility for the simple fact that not doing so is indeed a leading cause for a terrible waste of time, is something I've never learned well in my life, and perhaps now it's necessary to wake up and see just how real the pattern is.

I can rinse and repeat the reason why I replied to Gary's initial post over and over again. I can state how it wasn't unjustified for this reason, or sadly misinformed for that reason, but no matter what it is I state, I should know when the time is to stop, because no matter how much I rinse and repeat, the stain never seems to go away.

I should have watched as Angelo and all the Moderators began to ignore this thread about two days ago and took the hint....

I should have realized why it is that many of those member's who normally reply to my threads with interesting ideas, opinions and advice, just seemed to completely ignore this bullshit and instead realize just who "the Gary's" of his world really represent and move on.

So instead of siting here and dissecting yet another rant, I think I will finally learn from my mistakes, let the troll back in his cave, acquiesce in abstentia to the next reply which will call me the "cop out" or "lame defender" or whatever, and go find something more worthy of discussion.
 


Top