• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus 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! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Nov 30th show:Don't slit your wrists David!

Free episodes:

I can't believe this post is continuing, kind of reminds me of the most recent show actually, little substance being drawn out.........................

Here is a little anecdote that might be insightful for those that think this most recent show went too far to 'negative town'.

My father was a really accomplished journalist and interviewed a ton of people and treated them all the same, from A list celebs to elementary school teachers.

One time he got to interview his child hood idol who was a top 20 all time Hall of Famer ball player I won't name. My dad idolized the guy. During the interview, my dad asked him some relevant questions about a book he 'supposedly' wrote and he couldn't answer them (presumably because he didn't write the book!) and started getting defensive.

My dad could have kissed his ass and defused the situation with a super friendly tone, after all it was his number 1 idol of all time! But my dad did his job and continued to press him to try and get a good interview. Cut to the chase, my dad brings home the cassette of the interview which we listen to in the dining room and the ball player and him are basically verbally sparring. Now I'm not saying that being an interviewer gives anyone a license to be a dick in tone, but................ a good interviewer asks the tough questions which can mean challenging defensive guests who are reluctant to answer a relevant question. And that's just in a mainstream forum trying to get someone to give their opinion on something, which is different than the paracast forum which is more challenging.

Could you imagine half the guests on the Paracast getting the same respect from David and Gene then if they were interviewed by someone from the New York Times? They would be laughed out of the room most of these guests, unfairly of course.

I could not sense anything mildly mean about this most recent interview. The Paola Harris interview did take a turn to negative town, but I think that is the nature of this show, people are called out on their fluff. IMO, outside of this niche paranormal world, most of these people are completely ignored or laughed at by mainstream media, so they often live inside a little bubble of preaching to the choir.

Think of how many people in broadcasting take the trip to negative town all the time and that is why they are successful. Of course IMO, you don't want to be a Bill O'reilly and be a dick for the sake of your own ego, but you also don't want to be Ryan Seacrest either, at that point or your just someone who works in PR.

David takes this subject very personally, which means he will get emotional about stuff he perceives as BS, which can be interpreted as unprofessional (not Ryan Seacrest!). I think this can result in some uncomfortable moments with guests who seem friendly and think they have good intentions, but at the end of the day, we all get way more useful information from this show on this topic than any other show IMO. If some new age peeps feel angry about how they are treated, it's a free country, they can go back to their bubble.

But of course, the message board is open to all opinions so that's cool too!
 
Honestly, claiming that David has been reluctant to share experiences on the Paracast is just fucking moronic. Hes spoken in depth about 5 or 6 (that I can recall) intense experiences covering a range of 'paranormal genres'. Its up to you to be informed so dont have a cry when He gets upset after you claim he hasnt spoken of anything personal.

And for you to not be able to read is "fucking moronic." Read the second sentence of my post. I say that maybe I just haven't heard those episodes. All he had to do was tell that I was wrong and point me to those episodes where he does. Not so hard.

The context was about Holzer not detailing her personal experiences, not me crying about them not detailing theirs.
 
I can't believe this post is continuing, kind of reminds me of the most recent show actually, little substance being drawn out.........................

Well, not everyone listens to the show at the same time. For example I'll listen today while I do some work, so long as my internet works. I might have something to say afterward.
 
Well, not everyone listens to the show at the same time. For example I'll listen today while I do some work, so long as my internet works. I might have something to say afterward.


Dammit LeClair.................... you make a good point. Yeah, I think I'm just surprised at the length of the ongoing dialogue about the tone of this particular show, I don't get it, but I also didn't get email when it first came out either :)
 
Dammit LeClair.................... you make a good point. Yeah, I think I'm just surprised at the length of the ongoing dialogue about the tone of this particular show, I don't get it, but I also didn't get email when it first came out either :)


It might die down after Sunday's show with Jerome Clark.
 
I'm around 50 minutes into the show and was wondering about something. This lady is an intuitive? Or a medium? Is this correct? I'm working, and she isn't keeping my interest, so I might have got the wrong impression. If she is, did David or Gene test her before letting her on like they've mentioned they do with other alledged psychics?
 
Wow, first I've heard David talk about the ufo question he posed to George Anderson. Maybe ask Joel Martin about it if you have him on again. Or, have George on himself if he is willing to be tested of course.

I too was impressed with George and read 2, maybe 3 books about him. Til I saw a show redoing some brain tests and showed nothing abnormal as was previously found. Then I saw how much he charges for a reading and was like, WTF. So there's doubt in my mind about him these days.
 
But your response is exactly what I was talking about in a polite way in another post in regards to the way you react. Do you like alienating people? Weren't you ever taught that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? There is a better way you could have responded to my post, but you got all nasty. You could have pointed me to the episodes where you did so. Instead, you got all belligerent. I suggest anger management classes.

You're new here, aren't you?
 
There is such an institution as the School for Applied Sciences in London. Had you looked a little further he mentions it in other interviews.
I have looked a little further. There is a College of Applied Sciences in London that specializes in business and IT courses and offers up to a Masters Degree. That would be here: http://www.collegeofappliedsciences.co.uk/. There is also a School of Engineering and Applied Science, a part of Aston University, in Birmingham. There does not appear to be a 'School' of Applied Science in London. Of course, perhaps there was in the past. You can also get a one year certificate in 'Applied Science' from Sacred Heart of Mary Girl's School in London, and the words appear in several high school curricula as well.

Think about it. What is 'applied science'? In conventional terms it appears to be the application of a science to technical issues. So we have engineering associated with 'applied science.' We also have Information technology, the technical aspects of business management, and so forth. If you don't believe me, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science. 'Applied Science' has never included parapsychology. It's used in Great Britain more than the US. Here's a site that explains it: http://www.gcseinappliedscience.com/. If you can get from there to parapsychology, good luck.

Yet we have Hans Holzer himself claiming to have both a Masters in Comparitive Religion and a PhD with an emphasis in parpsychology from the 'London School of Applied Science.' He says so here: http://www.ghostvillage.com/legends/2005/legends35_02072005.shtml.

He also says he:

1) Studied ancient history and archaeology at the University of Vienna.
2) Spent 3-1/2 years at Columbia studying Japanese.
3) Is a graduate of the Academy of Journalism in Vienna.

However, he also says, "In 1938, 18-year-old Holzer saw a very big war coming to his region. He figured being that close to Nazi Germany while a World War was brewing wasn’t healthy, so he and his brother came to New York. He’s lived in New York City ever since."

Now number 2 makes sense. he could have come to NYC, entered Columbia, and done his Japanese schtick. So we have to assume that he did #1 and #3 prior to his emigration to the US--quite an accomplishment. And if someone can find an 'Academy of Journalism' in Vienna, past or present, that would help to prove such a school existed at all. We also have the problem of his somehow earning both a Masters and a PhD in London while he was living in NYC.

The time doesn't add up. The courses don't add up. The locations do not add up. And the schools do not add up. Unless someone can come up with a now-non-existent school in London that taught comparitive religion and at least entertained parapsychology enough to grant a 'specialty' in 'the field' and awarded both Masters and PhD degrees in the time frame we're talking about, plus is able to place Holzer in London for long enough to earn said degrees, then this educational history is bogus.
 
I think it would be fun to round up a bunch of known phonies and rip'em a couple of new ones. Just for laughs. Don't tell'em it's the Paracast. Tell'em you're Canadian and go all Noory on their ass...pretend you believe and sympathize with every ounce of nonsense you can squeeze out of 'em. Just say "Wow, that's fascinating," anytime you feel your blood pressure start to rise.
 
Hi guys,

I've been listening to the Paracast for a while but just now joined the forums.

I think Gene and David were perfectly accommodating and respectful with Alexandra. I've heard her on other podcasts, and I think her defensiveness comes about because Gene and David asked questions she doesn't seem equipped to answer and she's used to interviewers buying her fluff word for word.

I looked at her MySpace page, and she comes off to me as being just a little too self-aggrandizing. Nauseatingly so, actually. It seems blatantly obvious that she's the one with an agenda. It really looks like she's trying to build a career off the fact she's Hans Holzer's daughter, without anything else to back it up.
 
I have listened to this show twice now. The first time I listened to it, I had not yet visited the boards or had been aware of the flap developing over this show. After reading Alexandra Holzer's complaints about how she was "treated" by the Paracast (and I suppose David specifically) I went back and re-listened to the show, trying to catch any incidents of rudeness or snideness in the tone of Gene and David. Besides realizing that she babbled endlessly for 2 hours without taking a breath, had no concrete knowledge to share, and made use of cliches to an annoying degree, I could not find one example of the hosts being less than cordial to her. Both Gene and David, in my perception, were unfailingly kind and patient with her. I did not pick up on any snide "tone" or condescension in their dealings with her, despite the drivel she was spouting. The whole basis for her venomous attacks on David are unfounded and puzzling.

She was talking about the post-show wrap up.
 
Wow... I listened to the show the other night, and to paraphrase the Talking Heads, this woman talked a lot, but she didn't say anything... judging by her responses, the depth of her curiosity into the "other side" seemed to end at the revelation that the dead want to watch TV. Sigh.

As a sidebar from the credibility of Holzer's academic background, solely about Doctorates in the paranormal in Europe, they are indeed conferred by respectable universities. At the University of Edinburgh (where I was doing a psych degree) I shared buildings with what was called the Koestler Parapsychology Faculty (or Unit as it is called now apparently- see the link below). They had an extensive library and about 10 or so postgrads, and were a branch of the university itself- a degree in parapsychology (I am assuming) would have been conferred by the same university.

Here's their website:

Koestler Parapsychology Unit

From their page:

The Koestler Parapsychology Unit (KPU) is a research group based in the Psychology Department at the University of Edinburgh.

Established in 1985, it consists of academic staff and postgraduate students who teach and research various aspects of parapsychology, including:

- the possible existence of psychic ability
- belief in the paranormal
- the psychology of anomalous experiences
- pseudo-psychic deception and self- deception
- the social and historical relevance of parapsychology.


Naturally getting your degree in parapsychology probably would raise a few more eyebrows than if one was doing, say, an MBA, but I can say that they did seem to be a very serious outfit (and they had a very respectable library).
 
LOL,,, you guys have done worse, she wasn't that bad. She stuck to guns and comfort zone. Weasled around questions like a politician. Some sort of standardization for the field is needed if it's ever going to be taken serious, that just a fact of life. Now if your just making money by riding shirt tales or deceiving people then sure you don't want that to happen. However for those who do, everyone needs to be on the same page here.

Dave and Gene,,,, you two got your work cut out for you now. After hearing that last episode and Dave suggesting he may not return, that really hit home. There is growing number of "valid" people to talk to. Most evertything has now been dipped in the piss pool. I don't know how you guys can go out and find something new every week that doesn't reak of Ass!
On that note you have a lot people here in the forums that would be interesting to hear from. I'd like to hear what Aaron has to say.

Anyway,,, hope to see you guys next week. If not I assume you both have bought guitar hero and have given up on reality.

~A♪
 
David and Gene
What is it about this woman surely to prove there are spirits you would take anything that would prove their existence , because if you proved it you would become world famous overnight.
But every time you got the upperhand on this woman she went on the defense by basically saying DO YOU KNOW WHO MY FATHER IS or she would say read my books.
Also its amazing how her friend could hear voices saying turn on the tv?.
For gods sake when did the voice die and had they invented tv and did the voice own one and then there is the case of what were they going to watch (LOST IN SPACE/X-FILES/CARTOONS) .
I have so much to say about this woman but i will go and stand in the corner to calm down.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER MY FRIENDS.

ps: Dave & Gene dont give up the fight we need you both to bring a little sanity to this mad mad world of ours .
I am a 52yr old guy who works in a factory and i subscribe to your podcasts and you help me make it through the day.
 
I haven't been able to read all the eleven pages of this discussion but what I would like to do is to thank David for pushing the topic about the importance of equipment for the analysis of the phenomena. The problem with a lot of interviewees lately is that they have been trying to talk scientifically about stuff from parapsychology to faces on Mars, while there really wasn't anything scientific in their analysis. Just dialogue that anyone with their opinion could have pulled out of a hat. And when someone comes up and downplays or completely ignores the importance of technology and the standardisation of its usage when examining these phenomena it really shows a complete deviation from verifiable, trustworthy evidence as David pointed out. These people are homemade scientists. And when someone intentionally uses poor quality sound recorders to better record EVPs, it's like someone using broken instruments to disprove physical laws with the inaccuracy of the instruments themselves.

Cheers to everyone.:)
 
ps: Dave & Gene dont give up the fight we need you both to bring a little sanity to this mad mad world of ours .
I am a 52yr old guy who works in a factory and i subscribe to your podcasts and you help me make it through the day.

I second that djf.

Mark
 
Incidently Thanks David for the tip on the "Samson h2".

I ordered one yesterday mostly for musical purposes, but also thanks again to The Paracast for having helped me make some new friends here. In particular "Live at the Witch Trials". We are planning on doing a little Ghost hunting ourselves and if we get anything interesting you guys will be the first to hear it.

Peace,

Mark
 
Back
Top