November 12, 2017 — MUFON's Jan C. Harzan

[ChrisJohnsen]

I'm simply tired of constantly being criticized, second guessed, and vilified for whatever reason. It gets old after awhile and I sure as hell ain't getting paid enough to stand up and play the target. I'm sorry if you think I overreacted. My invitation for you to participate in ANY show of your choosing was sincere. Since you seem to have a problem w/ my role here in some episodes (recuse myself?!) the invitation is open for you to jump in at any time and get involved. FYI: a sizable percentage of guests we have on the show I've known for years. This job ain't easy, we just make it look like it is...

It's more than evident you and I have come to an impasse. In every response to my posts in this thread you have twisted what I wrote, or put words in my mouth, to make whatever point you felt the need to emphasize in order to push your narrative of being the target of unfair criticism. Let's be clear about what kicked this all off. I made two simple points:

1) Your statement to Gene during the intro of the show, a show that you knew going in might be contentious given the frequent and vocal criticisms both of you had repeatedly voiced on numerous previous episodes, that he would have to shoulder the burden of grilling Harzan because you two are friends and he's been an avid supporter, led me to comment that perhaps a guest host would have been a prudent choice on this occasion. That is in no way critical of you. Yet you seem to have taken it as a personal affront. My only thinking was "who wants to be in the position of having to mix it up with a friend and supporter?" Of course you have many friends but few come on the show poised for the hot seat. That's rarely the dynamic you and Gene have with guests. That was the only point I was trying to make with that comment/suggestion.

2) I shared my opinion that I didn't feel Harzan was adequately followed up on when discussing some of the major issues that have been discussed on the show and in the forums. I felt that he was given a pass after tossing out some incomplete, misleading or deflecting answers. There was nothing personal in my critique. It did not come off as inflammatory or overly harsh, nor was it meant to be. I just shared my frustration with the way the guest was handled. I thought it a fair assessment. You and Gene clearly disagree and expressed as much, each in your unique way.

That's it. I didn't target you specifically in my criticisms. It was an observation of the entire show. Gene responded the way Gene often responds to criticism and you have responded as you often respond. Offended that anyone has the temerity to critique a show. I got it. Less than positive comments are not appreciate and should not be shared with the class. Seriously, it will not happen again. I will also reiterate, before I shut up and move on, that I think you and Gene, on balance, do a terrific job. The Paracast is my favorite podcast specifically because of the hosts. It is why I am a subscriber and not simply a freeloader. I'd give more if I could afford it. So put that in your metaphorical pipe and smoke it so we can move past this contentious discussion and engage in friendlier interactions in the future.

 

[Lou_Sheehan]

There IS a documentary out there about Rendlesham (and there is an Unsolved Mysteries episode):

Of course, it could be updated. Heck, I believe there were thousands on the base ... there are probably MANY more witnesses out there.


SciFi Channel's UFO Invasion at Rendlesham, 12 December 2003 (US), 1 December 2005 (UK)
SCI FI PR:Bryant Gumbel to host UFO special

Host Bryant Gumbel unlocks the mystery behind 'UK's Roswell' in a SCI FI Channel original exposé.

SCI FI Channel crosses the Atlantic to expose one of the most notorious UFO incidents of the twentieth century in UFO Invasion at Rendlesham. Hosted by Bryant Gumbel, this original two-hour documentary special premieres Friday, December 12 @ 9 PM (ET/PT) exclusively on SCI FI Channel. UFO Invasion at Rendlesham is part of the SCI FI Declassified franchise, a series of specials that demystifies the place where science fiction meets science fact.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

It's amazing how someone as intelligent as Jan (and he has been in senior mgmt and heads up a large organization etc) can be so wanting in the realm of critical thinking and scientific method.

And he is not on his own, pretty much any proponent of the ETH as empirical reality makes the similar errors...

Take for example when he mentions a witness who saw a UFO with pulsing glowing engines. Straight away he is assuming that the light coming from this object plays in some way to the propulsion of the craft, it could have nothing to do with the propulsion. It might not even be a craft and if it is it could be an attempt at communication via light signals, who knows!?

From the evidence Jan has I could theorize that the US has created a new type of stealth that projects an image around a conventional plane to make the object appear as anything that the US military can program into the imaging software. My claim and Jans has equal scientific evidence to support it = zero. Jans just happens to fit his preferred paradigm of ETH so it must be engines from an alien species.

The point being, its not scientific to draw conclusions off an incomplete data set and make assumptions. You would have a strong case in my opinion to say someone who is this far from the scientific method is ill fit to be the head of a body who claims to be about scientific study of a phenomenon... he wouldn't know what that is!

Take Kev Randle as a comparison who is completely grounded in what the evidence can tell him. He stops drawing conclusions when there is a lack of evidence to allow him to conclude and leaves the unknowns as exactly that. He would be a MUCH better fit for an organisation that wants to scientifically explore the phenomenon.

Well Jans already made up his mind because ben rich made some generic remarks and because eye witness reports and because PREPONDERANCE OF THE UFO MEME and it has no scientific grounding.

He seems like a nice bloke and I cant see what benefit it would have been to grill him harder, he is not a man of science and MUFON is not an organisation of science, so if science is what you are after it's best just to ignore them both.

 

[matthew1977]

my favorite part of this interview was Chris suggesting to be a liason to get Ray Stanfords to be speaking at events. we need his data to become available sooner vs. later! Kudos Chris!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I find it rather disingenuous for you to color yourself as the "victim" of unfair criticism when you began the show with a rather sweeping disclaimer that it was going to be Gene's job to be tough because you have a "relationship" with Harzan. I also think it's willful misdirection to imply that what I was criticizing you and Gene for was that you didn't "rip his jugular" out, when I acknowledged quite the contrary in my original comment about the episode. There was a perfectly respectful, but firm and thorough approach, with detailed follow up, that I simply feel, in my singular opinion, was not taken and that is what I clearly expressed. I also made no reference to needing to "nail" Harzan on any given issue, I was merely looking for the hosts to hold him accountable by being asked, and pressed, if necessary, to fully explain actions, decisions, participants, etc. that we have all had questions about on the show and in the forum. My critique of the hosts' performance repeatedly focused on getting Harzan to fully engage on several of the major issues in detail, and not be let off the hook with pat or insufficient (in my mind) answers, which I feel he was allowed to do.

I also suggested, at the very beginning of my original comment about this episode, that perhaps it was not the best choice to have you participate in this particular show given your long-standing relationship with the guest. A guest host would clearly have been a better choice. I don't fault you one bit for not wanting to possibly have to get confrontational with a longtime colleague and friend. It was a conflict of interest and it showed, quite frankly. You should have never have been put in that position. Whatever, it was what it was. The Paracast is not 60 Minutes. You'll go back to talking about aliens, UFOs and cryptoids next week and all will be well.

Why can't the Paracast Show aim high ? and sixty minutes is good show . Science based show with section for unknowns which traditional science will not touch due to funding. When NASA & SETI does strike gold regarding finding some intelligent life forms (which some more open minded scientist are suggesting life forms in our Solar System . For example fish type creatures) in our Solar System or beyond the science community will flood into this field not for the left field rather the science based enuiry.

 

[Lou_Sheehan]

I think it is fair to expect the hosts can't cover every angle in every possible way. As for MY constructive criticism, I would urge the hosts to ask the head of MUFON-- the next time he is on -- about the UFO cases that the organization has identified as the best reported to it (as Harzan touched upon the last time he was on the Paracast).

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Does it matter? Really! Does anything that MUFON does advance the goal of discovering more about the subject?

 

[Lou_Sheehan]

Better to ask and find out.

Something I wish I had learned -- or been taught -- when I was younger is that just because part or parts or individuals within an organization don't measure up, I shouldn't reject the entire organization because of same! If I had been more at peace with that realization, at an earlier age, I would have been happier and probably more successful. That doesn't define exactly where to draw lines, and -- seemingly -- your blanket rejection works for you -- but for me I am open to broader inquiry vis-a-vis MUFON.

 

[pigfarmer]

Does it matter? Really! Does anything that MUFON does advance the goal of discovering more about the subject?

Nope.
My only concern involved a few casual statements that I already outlined earlier. Criticizing other groups in light of those is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black

 

[Randall]

I nailed him good on several points, I was polite about it, but I got strident several times. But that doesn't matter because I didn't attempt to rip out his jugular ala Beidny. Can't win for losing. Doesn't matter what we do, or how we do it, someone's gonna take as to task... I've known the guy for almost 20 years! How would YOU interview someone you've known for 20 years? Someone that has enthusiastically supported your work and helped raise $$$ for your project? Oh, Jan worked in upper management at IBM for many years...

I just caught up with this episode today and thought you and Gene did an excellent job. I appreciate the position you were in and although I wasn't sure how it would go at the start, I don't think you compromised yourself, your questioning or the expression of your concerns. Harzan on the other hand was very good at deflecting the issues by reframing the questions in terms that were comfortable for him to answer. In his own way it seems he's doing what he thinks is best for the organization, but as with all politics ( and he came across very much like a politician in his answers ), the PR image and what goes on behind the scenes are probably two very different worlds.