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

[Shannon]

That makes more sense-thanks

 

[Cybernia]

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.

 

[Cybernia]

Wow-I can't believe that woman! First off, I don't see how she could consider the interview rude-it wasn't. I don't understand these people-who gives her the authority to help the living & dead? Seems to me she is just cashing in on her father's fame.

Hans Holzer:
"When the other side decides some individuals have very good minds and good hearts, then they are given talents with the proviso that they will use those talents for the betterment of the world and mankind. If you don’t, they won’t like it. So they make it very plain: you have a gift. Use it. I found out early enough that they had something in mind for me. I accepted that it’s an assignment."

After reading these comments and how our hosts said they held it out of deference to her father and how many here have disparaged Alexandra, I did a little looking for Hans interviews. He talks about a lot of the same stuff for which you guys are savaging Alexandra.

I listened to most of the interview again, just to make sure, and I don't think she was that bad. I found her entertaining with a good sense of humor. She just comes at it from a different perspective...a perspective very much like her father's from the interviews I've been reading.

And speaking of the interview, she did talk about experiences. Maybe not in detail, but she gave some examples. Given David's and Gene's reluctance to share their experiences, it seems kind of hypocritical to slam Holzer for the same thing.

As to the medium skepticism and instrument corraboration with which David has a problem:

"There are many well meaning young people who like to do ghost hunting, my advice is simple. Find yourself a good, proven, deep trance medium and work with them. Because all the apparatus that you bring to find cold spots and all this nonsense about electronic this and electronic that is a waste of time and lack of academic knowledge." Hans Holzer

I've listened to many of the shows now and I enjoy them, but I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on true scientific method may not work with the paranormal. As others have said, maybe we don't have the tools do research it properly. To me, science is simply science as we know it.

I have this feeling that if David and Gene did interview the old man, they would have had the same reaction as they had with his daughter.

 

[David Biedny]

Given David's and Gene's reluctance to share their experiences, it seems kind of hypocritical to slam Holzer for the same thing.

Are you kidding? I've put my ass on the line, I've devoted entire episodes to describing my personal experiences in extensive detail, brought on corroborating witnesses, taken the personal/professional hit in doing this, and you somehow find it reasonable to make that statement?

For fuck's sake...

dB

 

[AdamI]

I really hope you guys don't hang it up... you are the only people on Earth who do this. Everyone else is either a True Believer or a dogmatic debunker, pretty much without exception. All the other shows just let people talk, and they never ask interesting or challenging questions.

I didn't think this show was that bad, though I did get the feeling I was listening to some woo. But that's the point... you need to interview many people with many points of view to get to where the woo is and where the interesting and possibly enlightening stuff is.

If you're having some trouble getting good guests, I'd consider a few options:

1) Try branching out a little into science and technology where it relates to the paranormal in one way or another... topics like space travel (I suggested Project Orion and nuclear propulsion a while back as a show topic), artificial intelligence, life extension, neuroscience, scientific parapsychology, etc.

2) I'd love to hear more shows discussing hard evidence, or at least *claims* of hard evidence. There seem to have been a lot of UFO incidents in the past few years... try getting together a round table of witnesses around those incidents and then try to really ask hard questions.

3) You guys have never really touched much on the conspiracy theory / parapolitics area. There is a lot of interesting stuff there, and there is also a ton of baloney that ought to be aired and debunked. I know you like to avoid politics, but it seems to me that some of the more "deep" topics in this area are a lot more interesting than blathering about Democrats and Republicans. I'd suggest having Daniel Hopsicker on to talk about the background of the 9/11 highjackers in Florida... he's been on a show called Dave Emory in the past, but I'd love to see you guys ask him some really tough questions and see where it leads.

Here's some specific guest suggestions:

Christopher Knowles - Jungian archetypes, deep politics, tons of other stuff (secretsun.blogspot.com)
George Dyson - Project Orion and nuclear propulsion, the feasibility of interstellar travel
Daniel Hopsicker - Real 9/11 investigative journalism... not the "truther" stuff (Welcome to The MadCowMorningNews)
Ray Kurzweil - I'm not a fan of the "singularity" idea, but it'd sure be interesting
Phil Plait - Very knowledgeable skeptic in astronomy (Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine)

 

[Cybernia]

Oh come on David, I've heard you guys say it time after time. Maybe I just haven't heard the episodes yet where you do talk about it at length. But you guys do say how reluctant you are to talk about them.

And what's this "ass on the line" business? You've taken personal/professional hit for doing so? Are you serious? If that's true, what kind of nitwits do you associate with? I have never been looked at askance when I've related my experiences to people. That includes, friends, acquaintances and strangers alike. Most people, even if they haven't had a personal experience, know people who have and if they don't, they don't immediately dismiss the idea of paranormal experiences. So, I question the veracity of that claim.

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.

 

[AdamI]

Oh come on David, I've heard you guys say it time after time. Maybe I just haven't heard the episodes yet where you do talk about it at length. But you guys do say how reluctant you are to talk about them.

And what's this "ass on the line" business? You've taken personal/professional hit for doing so? Are you serious? If that's true, what kind of nitwits do you associate with? I have never been looked at askance when I've related my experiences to people. That includes, friends, acquaintances and strangers alike. Most people, even if they haven't had a personal experience, know people who have and if they don't, they don't immediately dismiss the idea of paranormal experiences. So, I question the veracity of that claim.

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.

I agree that Gene and Dave can be really harsh, but I still really appreciate the show. As I said above, they're the only ones who *ever* ask hard questions in this field. So they're a bit abrasive... at least they actually try to dig and aren't satisfied with fluff and evasion and nonsense. Our culture could use a bit less honey and a bit more vinegar in a lot of areas in my opinion...

I can also totally imagine taking a hit professionally for relating paranormal experiences. There are a lot of ultra-conservative people out there who will ostracize you for walking on the grass.

 

[Cosmic Ejaculator 1814]

And speaking of the interview, she did talk about experiences. Maybe not in detail, but she gave some examples. Given David's and Gene's reluctance to share their experiences, it seems kind of hypocritical to slam Holzer for the same thing.

Hah! That ranks among the most laughable things I've seen posted here in a long time.I think you'll find that one of the reasons people love to listen too this show,and post on these boards,is exactly because Gene & Dave aren't afraid to get personal and lay it all out there.I'll just speak for myself here and say that,after having been regular a listener for over a year,now,I feel like I've gotten to "know" G & D and their perspectives pretty well,and I thank them for making this forum a place of learning and inspiration - Thanks Gene & Dave!

 

[David Biedny]

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.

I have no problem alienating clueless idiots.

So, pretty please and with sugar on top, fuck off.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tN-iWk1zUI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tN-iWk1zUI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

dB

 

[marduk]

I've listened to many of the shows now and I enjoy them, but I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on true scientific method may not work with the paranormal.

I have to challenge this one a little bit. The concern I see being raised here is the method.
The beauty of the scientific method is that it works regardless of your belief system. Here is the method in a nutshell:

1. Form a theory
2. Form a way to test that theory
3. Test and either add evidence for your theory or go back to step 1.

The tricky thing about part 2 is that it should be repeatable. This is what most "mediums" etc pick up on and get upset with. This is something I have trouble with and I think is just a cop-out. The weather is not repeatable on demand. Volcanoes aren't repeatable on demand. Fits of rage or terror are not (ethically) repeatable on demand. But all of these have been and are domains served by the scientific method.

Ghosts are actually generally better candidates for the scientific method than are UFOs in my opinion. They generally are located in the same spots over and over, and quite often at the same time of year or day. Correlations with geological phenomena have also been noted. All valid lines of scientific inquiry.

As others have said, maybe we don't have the tools do research it properly.

I think this is a failure of imagination. One cool offshoot of the scientific method is the generation of new tools to measure the test you're trying to do in part 2. However not all tests require a tool at all; for example you could simply apply a statistical test to reported events.

To me, science is simply science as we know it.

This is the point, no? To push forward the frontiers of what we know? Science by it's definition is the study of reality. If these things are real then they are the domain of science. If they aren't, then they are the domain of fiction, religion, ethics, morality, belief system, entertainment (IMHO), etc...

Hell, even the Dalai Lama endorses the scientific method:

The approach of Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, is very close to the scientific approach. According to the Mahayana point of view, there were three major turnings of the wheel, as the three main cycles of the Buddha’s teachings are called. The teachings given during these cycles are literally contradictory. Since all these teachings were genuine words of the Buddha himself and they contradict each other, how do we determine which are true and which are not? Even if we were to make the distinction on the basis of some scriptural citation, then that again must depend on something else to validate its authenticity. Therefore, the final validation must be done on the authority of reasoning and of logic.

Analysis and examination through reasoning, the basic Buddhist attitude, is very important. Once you find a fact through investigation, then you accept it. Because of this, the basic Buddhist attitude is quite similar to the scientists’ attitude. Be open and investigative, find something, confirm it, then accept it. Whichever way you go, there is a strong emphasis upon your own analysis and investigation and not simply a dogmatic adherence out of faith.

http://www.cio.com/article/29803/Th...ological_Innovation_and_Spiritual_Development

One important part that I've missed is that once you have completed your experiment you should publish your results. This invites criticism like we have on the Paracast (others can see mistakes you've missed or results that have been misinterpreted), allows others to repeat your experiment (to validate or invalidate your results), and once your theory is accepted does not make others repeat your line of inquiry just to arrive at the same conclusion. Science moves forward.

In my opinion we haven't moved forward much in the paranormal field since the dark ages by failing to use the scientific method.

 

[Cybernia]

I agree that Gene and Dave can be really harsh, but I still really appreciate the show. As I said above, they're the only ones who *ever* ask hard questions in this field. So they're a bit abrasive... at least they actually try to dig and aren't satisfied with fluff and evasion and nonsense. Our culture could use a bit less honey and a bit more vinegar in a lot of areas in my opinion...

I can also totally imagine taking a hit professionally for relating paranormal experiences. There are a lot of ultra-conservative people out there who will ostracize you for walking on the grass.

I think Gene has a better podside manner than David does. I think David comes off not so much harsh, but nasty, just like he did in his response to me. I'm not suggesting they treat guests with kid gloves, but make the same point without getting nasty. It's the tone. You can tell someone they're full of shit without getting that way.

I know they aren't "broadcasters" as they themselves admit. But the bottom line is they are in broadcasting. I assume they want to expand their listening audience and be seen as serious talkers, so to speak. David's attitude is the weak link. Hanging up when he felt insulted by Birnes? To say that was a juvenile response is putting it mildy and less than conducive to being taken seriously.

Of course, this is just all my opinion and I could be wrong, but I like the show and have never really participated in forums like this. It's because I like the show that I decided to throw in my two cents.

I vaguely remember David mentioning something one time about he doesn't care what people think because it's his show etc. Well, he should care if he wants people to listen and take him and the show seriously.

And I understand what you say about the ultra-conservatives, but I guess I just don't run into them. I have never had anyone, professionally or personally who has had a problem with it. In fact, I've had a few people who were not believers at all who have reconsidered their positions after hearing my stories.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I appreciate your comments, but you also have to bear in mind that David is also the "soul" of The Paracast. Unlike many talk show hosts, there is very little filtering between his brain and his mouth, and thus you get his honest opinions. There's absolutely no spin control, and this is a refreshing alternative in this business.

So I do not expect him to change. I don't want him to change, and I happily accept him the way he is.

 

[David Biedny]

Let's see, I could be a calm, soft-spoken piece of lint, this will make me a better broadcaster and human being.

No one who has ever been harsh, direct, opinionated, controversial, brash or uncensored has ever achieved any modicum of success in broadcasting.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

8)

dB

 

[Cybernia]

I appreciate your comments, but you also have to bear in mind that David is also the "soul" of The Paracast. Unlike many talk show hosts, there is very little filtering between his brain and his mouth, and thus you get his honest opinions. There's absolutely no spin control, and this is a refreshing alternative in this business.

So I do not expect him to change. I don't want him to change, and I happily accept him the way he is.

Fair enough. If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. I just threw in my two cents because I do like the program. I'm not going to stop listening. But I will take issue with "very little filtering between his brain and his mouth." I used to be like that which I guess is the reason I zoned in on it with David. All it did was piss people off. It was a very ineffective method of communication.

 

[Martha162]

David, for what it's worth, I just thought I'd mention that I had listened to only part of the podcast download when all this forum controversy was stirred up, and so I listened extra thoughtfully to the second half or so of the Holzer program and I really do not see where you were at all rude to your guest. I don't know at what point she decided you were rude to her as the program certainly seemed to end on a civil note to me. I was disappointed in the content over all (too much confusion and too many words signifying nothing on her part!), but I have no problems with the questions you posed (for which you got few answers) or with your or Gene's comments along the way.

Please continue to strive to put together a good interview for us to ponder each week and thank you for your passion. I suspect you have many, many listeners who are on your side and appreciate your work, but who never chime in.

 

[marduk]

We have come to a very scary place in our civilization if asking probing questions is being rude.

 

[Cybernia]

Let's see, I could be a calm, soft-spoken piece of lint, this will make me a better broadcaster and human being.

No one who has ever been harsh, direct, opinionated, controversial, brash or uncensored has ever achieved any modicum of success in broadcasting.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

8)

dB

Ouch. Smack! I'm not saying you become a soft spoken piece of lint and I think you know that. You want people to listen to you, not tune you out (and I mean that metaphorically as well as literally).

As I mentioned in my message to Gene, I see in you the way I used to be. It was very ineffective in gettng my point across. People just tuned me out. I learned to tone it down while saying the exact same things. (I learned it from my father and reading Saul Alinsky.) That's all I am trying to say. According to Gene, you won't change your style and he is happy with that, so I guess my point is moot. You seem to have no problem with it, so there ya go.

To be honest, I never expected to set off such a firestorm. I was just giving my two cents.

In regards to your last statement about people achieving success in broadcasting by being those things. Do you really want to be compared with the successful broadcasters whose stock in trade are those things? Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, among others, come to mind.

 

[David Biedny]

Cybernia,

You seem to claim that I was nasty with Holzer in this interview. I'd like for you, or anyone else who thinks this is the case, to please cite some specific thing I said to her that would fall into the brutal or intense categories. I'm serious about this, I listened to 1.36 hours of the show, and I could find nothing that I would construe as nasty, harmful, hurtful or brutal. Please tell me where you feel I was mean to her, and I'll respond - calmly, if possible - to your specific references.

dB

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Cybernia,

You seem to claim that I was nasty with Holzer in this interview. I'd like for you, or anyone else who thinks this is the case, to please cite some specific thing I said to her that would fall into the brutal or intense categories. I'm serious about this, I listened to 1.36 hours of the show, and I could find nothing that I would construe as nasty, harmful, hurtful or brutal. Please tell me where you feel I was mean to her, and I'll respond - calmly, if possible - to your specific references.

dB

Let me chime in here, cause I have nothing better to do right now.

I think David was far more retrained than he might have otherwise been, considering the empty-headed gibberish he was hearing. He could have really pounced on that woman, but chose to keep his cool. On the other hand, make no mistake about his feelings, which were succinctly expressed in a short segment at the conclusion of the episode. These are feelings I share completely.

 

[glenn40]

In a previous post a few weeks ago I was critical of David and how he handed just this sort of person. I have no criticism to relate in how in regards to the show other than the guest was, well I'll just say I found little of what she related helpful.

David and Gene were quite polite and thoughtful, as David pointed out there was a lot of laughter and congenial conversation. More so than in this episode than I can recall. I really feel they bent over backwards to help her express herself and I think that they did that out of respect for her Father. I don't think she deserved it (respect), but from what I hear of her Dad's accomplishments --out of respect for him they really tried. nuff said. I hold no ill will or rebuke towards the hosts. to tell the truth as much as I was annoyed by her nonsense and transparency i did enjoy this weeks show. not because of anything she brought but how much I was in touch with my bs detector this week. listening to the paracast has really helped me become confident with mine.