Much Respect, But What's With All The Tittle-Tattling?

[Empty Planet]

Hello one and all.

This is my first post. I have a comment and a bit of a critique. My comment is laudatory though I'm afraid my critique, as critiques tend to be, is not quite so.

The comment is that I'm quite delighted to have found The Paracast. I've tried a few of the other podcasts which treat the paranormal as subject matter and I'm afraid I've found them wanting. Whatever. Personal taste. But I'm consistently impressed -- for the most part (see below) -- with the level of discourse found on The Paracast. It's refreshing, and it actually gives me a bit of hope to see its two hosts be not only so intelligently inquisitive and skeptical, but so self-questioning as well. Not to mention the level of commitment it requires to put out a freaking two hour podcast on such a schedule. I'm full of admiration (and gratitude) for both of them and their work.

A recent episode, however, had me knitting my brows and wondering what on earth was going on. This was the one with a UFO documentary maker (who seems like a very personable and intelligent individual, btw). He had some things to say about someone who had clearly impugned him in some fashion or other, and I thought, fine, have your say. But then it went on. And on. And on. "This person does" such and such. "This person has no" so-and-so. Five minutes. Ten minutes. Commercial break. And then it resumed. "He said" so and so. "He said" such and such.

Okay, I thought to myself. Yes, I get it, I can see how the UFO and paranormal community could become obsessed with the subject of credibility. But this "tittle-tattling" continued way beyond the point of clearly stating one's case, on to the point where it all started to sound like high school kids ragging on the boys who lived in the next neighborhood over.

I'm going to go on a brief tangent, but it's quite related. I hear the web page "Hall of Shame" mentioned repeatedly, so I mosey on over. Oh my God, it's the same thing. Now I'm not saying that these allegations aren't true, but I am saying that the tone of those endless pages of allegations, often delivered with mocking asides (as was that lengthy segment of The Paracast I heard) gives one the feeling that one has blundered into an extremely cliquey schoolyard gossip session. Actually, the term "puerile" would not be an inaccurate adjective.

Look, it's not so hard. Really. How about some citations? If the tone of that page were simply brought up a few levels on the Mature Discourse Scale, and citations were added, links to actual data, it could actually become a valuable resource. It could actually help separate wheat from chaff. And I couldn't help but feel the same way about The Paracast episode I heard. A clear statement of what was said or not said, a place to find the evidence referenced, and move on to something that rises above the level of gossip and, well, mudslinging.

I guess it just disturbs me that this aspect of the UFO community, this internicene fighting, is so prevalent, and that The Paracast isn't able to raise itself up above it. Yes, credibility is critically important, but come on, questions of credibility can be handled in a mature, professional fashion, also. The level of discourse I've seen demonstrated on that page and in that episode was more in the Shooting-Ourselves-In-The-Foot Dept.

I do apologize for my first post being such a prickly one. Maybe I'm just not seeing something in the proper light and there's something someone can say that will set me right. I really actually do admire The Paracast and the tone it usually manages to achieve, the questions it manages to ask. I really think it raises the bar for the entire field of paranormal studies. Maybe that's why it was a bit upsetting to see what I perceived as a lapse in this standard.

Anyway, please forgive the length of this hideously long post. I just feel it's an important point.



Cheers to all.

 

[CapnG]

Look, it's not so hard. Really. How about some citations? If the tone of that page were simply brought up a few levels on the Mature Discourse Scale, and citations were added, links to actual data, it could actually become a valuable resource. It could actually help separate wheat from chaff. And I couldn't help but feel the same way about The Paracast episode I heard. A clear statement of what was said or not said, a place to find the evidence referenced, and move on to something that rises above the level of gossip and, well, mudslinging.

I don't know what website you were looking at but the UFOwatchdog.com I've seen is replete with citations. The analysis of SDM alone provides a sheer glut of evidence exposing his fraud. In fact, almost none of those who occupy the Hall of Shame do so without citation.

The fact of the matter is this: The paranormal is to say the least, a field rife with controversy. In that atmosphere, fools should not be tolerated lightly and frauds should be exposed immediately and thoroughly, the corpses of their lies impaled on pikes and prominantly displayed for all to see.

Finding any sort of tangible truth in this field is hard enough without having to worry about tripping over the detritus left by these charlatans. Better to point it out as often as possible so that we can avoid falling flat on our faces, I say.

 

[Empty Planet]

Thanks for the response, CapnG!

And yes, I agree with every point you made, save one. The citations. Yes, there are citations, but they are few, and reference only a very small percentage of the allegations actually made. In the first paragraph alone, I counted nearly a dozen (quite harsh) allegations before a citation ever made an appearance. Again, I'm not saying these allegations aren't true. I'm only saying that until there's something to back it up, it's just a page full of mostly hearsay. I think this is a bit of a tragedy, and a missed opportunity to do some real good.

It's very simple. You make a claim or present an accusation, you back it up. Every claim requires a citation. At that point, the Hall of Shame raises itself above the level of a page full of accusations, and becomes an actual resource.

As to your other points, I couldn't agree with you more strongly.


Cheers.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Maybe they critique what they do for the same reason you are critiquing the show.

 

[Rick Deckard]

A recent episode, however, had me knitting my brows and wondering what on earth was going on. This was the one with a UFO documentary maker (who seems like a very personable and intelligent individual, btw). He had some things to say about someone who had clearly impugned him in some fashion or other, and I thought, fine, have your say. But then it went on. And on. And on. "This person does" such and such. "This person has no" so-and-so. Five minutes. Ten minutes. Commercial break. And then it resumed. "He said" so and so. "He said" such and such.

I must admit I was a little disappointed too - if you listen to the early shows, David B often steered the conversation away from personality issues and back to the topic of discussion. He quite rightly recognised that the 'charlatans' often dodged difficult questions by attacking the questioner and focusing on personalities (see MH/BM/FIGU). You'll find some of the larger threads on these forums are just 'bickering' - no actual progress in the discussion of the topic is made.

I think it's because in the last few months that David B's name has really been 'dragged through the mud' by those he has criticised and that has pulled him down to their level. But, on the whole, if you listen to all the shows, you'll see that the majority of the guests are kept 'on track' and I'm hopeful that the trend is maintained in future shows.

Good first post Empty Planet. Oh and welcome

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I must admit I was a little disappointed too - if you listen to the early shows, David B often steered the conversation away from personality issues and back to the topic of discussion. He quite rightly recognised that the 'charlatans' often dodged difficult questions by attacking the questioner and focusing on personalities (see MH/BM/FIGU). You'll find some of the larger threads on these forums are just 'bickering' - no actual progress in the discussion of the topic is made.

I think it's because in the last few months that David B's name has really been 'dragged through the mud' by those he has criticised and that has pulled him down to their level. But, on the whole, if you listen to all the shows, you'll see that the majority of the guests are kept 'on track' and I'm hopeful that the trend is maintained in future shows.

Good first post Empty Planet. Oh and welcome

I think one thing that put off David during the Pye interview was the talk about this special edition of the Starchild book, and how buying the signed and numbered versions would get you something that would appreciate in value over time.

Listen, that's almost like saying the book is an investment of some kind, and, as most of you know, David and I have written a number of books for major publishers over the years. Let me tell you now that very, very few books deserve to become collector's items, and I doubt that the Starchild would fit into that category. David has one Photoshop-related book that's a hot item in the aftermarket. But my computer books are all gone and forgotten now, not even worth $1.00 on the discount shelves, and some of them sold real well in their time.

I remember as a teenager buying lots of UFO-related books for a dollar or two, in the closeout racks. What makes Pye think he'll possibly do any better? The answer is he won't -- unless the Starchild is shown to be what he claims it'll be, and maybe not even then, because the scientists will co-op that research.

 

[Empty Planet]

...if you listen to the early shows, David B often steered the conversation away from personality issues and back to the topic of discussion....

Ah, that's good to know!

And I hadn't known about anyone dragging David B's name through the mud. Disappointing that someone would feel the need to do that, but to be expected, I suppose.

I imagine it's quite difficult to keep one's self from being pulled into a "he said, she said" type of discourse in that sort of circumstance.

Thanks for your comments, gentlemen! And thanks for the welcome, Rick. (Btw, is it true that you, irony of ironies, are actually a Nexus 6 yourself?)


Cheers.

 

[jritzmann]

Empty Planet-
One thing to realize is like you said, we're dealing with a credibility issue in UFO paranormal stuff. But moreover it comes down to responding to who's attacking you, and citing the reasons why (insert whomever here) is saying what they are.

However as someone who went round after round with a certain contactee case that didnt deserve the time of day, I can tell you it becomes almost an addiction to protect yourself and defend your work.

But...
What one ends up doing is giving more attention to the foe, and in effect (unwittingly) validating their comments. Even if such comments are only done in poking fun at such ridiculousness, it only serves to entice more garbage to be thrown your way.

Some people are desperate for *any* attention, and giving it to them validates them as relevant.

I learned my lesson. Present the data and let it do the talking. Past that, it's just noise, and we already have enough noise in this field. Respond this this crap and you'll be doing nothing but responding...and that aint what we're here for.

 

[David Biedny]

Empty Planet,

Welcome to our humble forums, and thanks for all your thoughtful feedback.

I agree that the tone of that episode with Kimball and Randle was a little dark and negative, but the guy we were talking about has really been pushing some of my buttons, and writing stuff about me that is truly heinous. I've never claimed to be calm and collected - in fact, I was quite the fighter in my earlier years, and ran with a fairly tough crowd. I have the scars to prove it, too, but I've really mellowed out in my old age. Anyway, I'm really, truly trying to control my temper with regards to this moron, but I'm human and perhaps I should think more carefully before hitting the Send button. Or opening my mouth on air.

Oh well.

It's fairly obvious that the paranormal world - and the realm of UFOs in particular - contains a ton of charlatans, predators, lunatics and worse. I suppose I should have expected to be attacked for my strong opinions, and sometimes caustic style, and I suspect that the fact that the Paracast has made quite a splash in our first year, has really put some people on the offensive. On top of all of this, I've been somewhat under the weather recently, as well as suffering from some fairly nasty pain, which hasn't helped my overall state of mind.

You'd all get a big kick out of my emails the last couple of days with StarChild guy, it's not been pretty. The thing is, no one seems to have the balls to confront some of these folks, with their sometimes outrageous claims and lack of a desire to deal with any kind of objective truth. Everyone has got a book to peddle, a seminar to sell, I sometimes get the feeling that some of these people end up in the paranormal world because they've found lots of decent but desperate folks here, looking for ANY answer, especially easy ones, and who will pay $$$ for just about any ridiculous crap.

The Paracast ain't C2C, of Rense, or any of those other cheerleading squads. We're seemingly the only place to ask tough questions, and sometimes we can be a little less than diplomatic. To be perfectly honest, I'm not much of a fan of political correctness and subtlety, seems to me that sometimes bullies need to be dealt with by an equal and opposite force. Like always, I reserve the right to be wrong.

dB

 

[Paul Kimball]

I wish I didn't have to talk about Korff at all, but if you examine the history of my interactions with him, you'll see why I have discussed him from time to time. But yes, I agree, someone like him is a distraction, and I'd much rather do what I spent the second half of the show doing, which is discussing good cases, and trying to bring them to a wider audience.

This kind of thing, by the way, is not peculiar to the study of the UFO phenomenon - it exists in every walk of life.

As for what Korff has done since with David, it's beyond the pale. As Korff is still a public figure, with a platform from which he spouts this nonsense, including a syndicated radio program appearance once per week, it's important to counter stuff like this. I prefer to use humour, David goes at it from a different angle. To each his own, but if you let bullies like Korff run over you and spread lies and defame you and distort the truth, then their voice is the one that's eventually going to be heard, not only about that, but about everything else. And that would be a shame, because guys like Mac Tonnies and Kevin Randle and Gene and David have more to offer the study of the paranormal in five seconds than Kal Korff has in his entire "career".

As for citations, you can find them all at my blog, www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com, which I'm pretty sure we mentioned on the show. Type "Korff" in the search engine, and head to the post that started it all, at least for me, about his bogus claim to have been an "expert witness" in the OJ Simpson civil trial. You'll find all of the citations you want.

Paul Kimball

 

[dorkbot]

The Paracast ain't C2C, of Rense, or any of those other cheerleading squads. We're seemingly the only place to ask tough questions...
dB

This is the main reason I listen to you guys. Those other shows aren't even worth the trouble. I feel any subject in the paranormal realm should be on the table, no matter how initially wacky it may sound to consensus reality but you have to be able to at least build a plausible case that a thinking person can follow along with. Chomsky makes a good point about television demanding concision and the medium can be very prohibitive of introducing a new or strange idea in a 30 second soundbite as you don't have the time to present the context necessary to prevent you from sounding like a nutjob. However, with one or two hours of nearly solid discussion there is little excuse.

It's infuriating to me to see interviewers on any kind of show permit people to make statements and arguments that are not even internally consistent without batting an eye. Even the so-called "serious" Sunday morning political talk shows are mostly just a platform for a constant stream of circular, ad hominem, straw man rhetoric that is being stoked by the hosts. In many cases they are some of the most powerful people in the world and they are allowed to dispense statements unchallenged that would earn an F in Logic 101.

I'd love to see you guys print out a big list of all the logical fallacies used in debate, have it visible during the interviews and just call people out when they start wasting everyone's time.

I keep hearing you guys saying on the show that you are "getting a reputation" and I can't imagine that being anything but a good thing if it keeps the idiots away. Stick to your guns. You are headed in exactly the right direction.

 

[pixelsmith]

maybe we need a Paracast Hall of Shame.
or better yet a Hall of Fame and post names of people who are or have been a Positive influence in this field.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Thanks for your comments, gentlemen! And thanks for the welcome, Rick. (Btw, is it true that you, irony of ironies, are actually a Nexus 6 yourself?)

Actually, I'm the prototype for the new Nexus 7 model

 

[Rick Deckard]

I think one thing that put off David during the Pye interview was the talk about this special edition of the Starchild book, and how buying the signed and numbered versions would get you something that would appreciate in value over time.

Listen, that's almost like saying the book is an investment of some kind, and, as most of you know, David and I have written a number of books for major publishers over the years. Let me tell you now that very, very few books deserve to become collector's items, and I doubt that the Starchild would fit into that category. David has one Photoshop-related book that's a hot item in the aftermarket. But my computer books are all gone and forgotten now, not even worth $1.00 on the discount shelves, and some of them sold real well in their time.

Hey, I'm with you 100% - in the early days of this forum I was very critical of individuals who seemed to be primarily interested in self-promotion of books and DVDs. I remember Paul Kimball's first post was about his latest film and I jumped on that immediately - I regret it now, but in my defense, we had just had the MH/BM fiasco and all his production promotion 'stunts'.

 

[Empty Planet]

Wow, a lot of civil, thoughtful input here. Thanks all of you for that, especially David and Paul.

I can see that the deeper I get into the backstory, the stickier the wicket.

Hmm.

 

[derekcbart]

I'd love to see you guys print out a big list of all the logical fallacies used in debate, have it visible during the interviews and just call people out when they start wasting everyone's time.

Here you go:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

It is a list of the "Top 20" Logical Fallacies. I try to always refer to this list when corresponding with people promoting paranormal beliefs without any evidence.

 

[DBTrek]

Just my $0.02 on the back and forth mudslinging between the Paracast and other personalities.

Pragmatically speaking the Paracast isn't large enough to simply ignore attacks from entities with an audience as large or larger than itself. It's one thing for a juggernaut like C2C to ignore criticisms levelled at it by "small fish". They have the ears of millions of people while their critics have just a fraction of that. Not so with the Paracast. Taking the 'high road' while people with equal or larger audiences blast the show is a recipe for disaster.

I too was initially dismayed by the level the show seemed to stoop to when retaliating against other players in the UFO field. I was especially disappointed by the way some of the harshest criticisms of guests were reserved until after the guest was gone and therefore could not defend themselves.

Over time though, the show sort of developed a 'Jerry Springer' like appeal where a paranormal topic would be discussed followed by a feral (verbal) brawl that might last a month or two. Maybe it's not the most high-brow form of entertainment, but it's entertaining nonetheless.

Oh . . . and if the paracast does open a "Hall of Shame" I'd like to petition for entry. It would make a cool resume bullet.

-DBTrek

 

[Paul Kimball]

I've made an offer to Kal Korff by e-mail that we all just declare a truce, and walk away. Frankly, none of us will come out of this looking good, for different reasons, but what's said is said, and what's done is done, and now the public can decide who was right and who was wrong, if they even remotely care, which I sincerely doubt. We should all move on to more important things. This is, of course, the Canadian way!

Anyway, I'll let you know what Kal's response is, if he offers one.

Paul

 

[Empty Planet]

...Pragmatically speaking the Paracast isn't large enough to simply ignore attacks from entities with an audience as large or larger than itself....

I agree completely with many of your points. Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I'm not advocating ignoring attacks. Not at all. But I do believe the charges can be specified, and each one addressed with brevity, and evidence presented, all in a brief and concise manner that will itself raise the level of discourse.

I think addressing attacks with calmness, clarity, and again, brevity, will create an entirely different impression to the listener who, like myself, is new to the UFO community and to The Paracast, who might be put off by behavior that seems more motivated by personal rancor and a desire to "get back" at an attacker. That language is a little strong for what I heard on the show, and is inaccurate to that degree, but it did have an air of it.

Just in terms of PR, who are you going to believe? The one who's ranting and raving and making false charges, or the one who calmly and briefly presents their case before moving on to items more worthy of their intelligence? Which one will win you over? I think this a point worth considering.

Now of course it's no doubt hypocritical of me to say this at all. In similar circumstances I might very well have fared far worse, and reacted with much less grace than did David and Paul. But even so, I do think that it's important for those with a clue to maintain a higher standard. The Paracast and its guests have a real opportunity to change public perception about the quality of discourse in paranormal fields. It's started to change mine. This is a very hopeful thing.


Cheers.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just my $0.02 on the back and forth mudslinging between the Paracast and other personalities.

Pragmatically speaking the Paracast isn't large enough to simply ignore attacks from entities with an audience as large or larger than itself. It's one thing for a juggernaut like C2C to ignore criticisms levelled at it by "small fish". They have the ears of millions of people while their critics have just a fraction of that. Not so with the Paracast. Taking the 'high road' while people with equal or larger audiences blast the show is a recipe for disaster.

I too was initially dismayed by the level the show seemed to stoop to when retaliating against other players in the UFO field. I was especially disappointed by the way some of the harshest criticisms of guests were reserved until after the guest was gone and therefore could not defend themselves.

Over time though, the show sort of developed a 'Jerry Springer' like appeal where a paranormal topic would be discussed followed by a feral (verbal) brawl that might last a month or two. Maybe it's not the most high-brow form of entertainment, but it's entertaining nonetheless.

Oh . . . and if the paracast does open a "Hall of Shame" I'd like to petition for entry. It would make a cool resume bullet.

-DBTrek

I think the comparison to "Jerry Springer" might be a bit much. Unlike most other paranormal shows I know about, we aren't afraid to express our real opinions. Just being a cheerleader for anyone with a strange story to tell isn't going to advance research into the subject one iota. If anything, I think our approach takes the dialog to a much higher level.

As to trashing someone after they've left, I think if David expressed his conclusions to Lloyd Pye before the interview concluded, the discussion might have descended to a very unproductive argument, witness the letters he has sent us since the show. No, we have no plans to quote them here, but I think you can get a sense of what he said, although his language is quite a bit stronger than you might expect.