Radio Misterioso on Mothman and stuff...

[AdamI]

Just listened to the latest Radio Misterioso about mothman and... stuff...

Radio Misterioso Andy Colvin: Mothman And Beyond

I am just... wow... like... umm... I cannot express this any other way...

 

[dyingsun]

Thanks dude...my stomache is copying this atm it seems...huargh.

 

[paraschtick]

Thanks dude...my stomache is copying this atm it seems...huargh.

Thank god ... I'm not mad after all. I've heard Andy Colvin a number of times chatting with Vyzygoth on his Grassy Knoll programme (and his other progs), and I've never understood a word he was saying. Its like he talks for hours and there's nothing there. He uses words but somehow they don't connect to become anything comprehensible. I thought it was just me. Vyz seems to understand him ok but then again Vyz can understand Paul Sandhu too (more on him here: http://signsoftheend.net/) ... so maybe thats not such a good thing.

I'm so glad that someone has finally put my mind at rest. Maybe I'm not mad after all ... maybe

ps more Colvin and Sandu here on Vyzygoth's latest website, Think or Be Eaten: http://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/theknoll/radio2010p3.html

 

[FletcherMunson]

Thank god ... I'm not mad after all. I've heard Andy Colvin a number of times chatting with Vyzygoth on his Grassy Knoll programme (and his other progs), and I've never understood a word he was saying. Its like he talks for hours and there's nothing there.

You know, it is good to hear others voice that POV. I made the mistake of purchasing Colvin's "Mothman's Photographer" DVD set, because I have a soft spot for fuzzy winged creatures with huge red eyes. But that "documentary" was more of a home movie with nausea-inducing camerawork and a lack of meaningful, coherent content. Of course, it was called the "research edition" (or other such nonsensical name), so I expected some rambling and blind alleys...just not all rambling and blind alleys.

 

[Gareth]

Hmmm.

My internet is capped at the moment and I had chosen this episode of RM as my podcast to download. So its no good? Im sure Greg and Walter wouldnt let a bunch of BS go unchallenged would they? (Ok I guess I can see it maybe happening... Gregs interviewing technique is to allow the guest much time to talk -and if necessary hang themselves).

 

[Walter Bosley]

Having been in the room, and having lived in the area of question during the years much of it was going on, then having lived there again 73-75, I guess I understood what he was saying. I think describing Andy as incoherent is a bit extreme for simply not agreeing with his conclusions. True, I never met the guy before last Sunday night nor read his books nor ever heard him on any other show, so perhaps he didn't speak a known human language those times.

I'll have to read one of his books before I judge them, and then who am I to judge?? LOL I ordered one last week, Mothman II.

It was actually an enjoyable show, for me. I like when Greg has guests or interviews. I don't find confrontational radio to be entertaining personally (Obviously LOL !!). Personally, I don't agree with an ethic of inviting a guest on your show to let them 'hang themselves'. I find that distasteful and cheap. Hosts who operate that way ought to tell their guests so. If I knew a fair portion of my audience hated a particular topic, I'd consider not having that guest on OR I'd give advance notice so that the disapproving portion could go piss up a rope that night. I don't think Greg finds what Andy does or talks about to be bullshit.

My mistake has been the assumption that shows asking me to be on are doing so because their listeners are generally interested in what I have to say. I've learned that's not the case with some hosts. Mea culpa, indeed. I would venture to say that most of Greg listeners found Andy or at least the topic interesting and appreciated the show. I must say, Mothman is a HELL of LOT more interesting than UFOs, to me personally. Of course, I had the benefit of off the air commentary and discussion at House of Pies afterward.

 

[FletcherMunson]

I think describing Andy as incoherent is a bit extreme for simply not agreeing with his conclusions.

Okay, let's not play telephone, here...

Firstly, I did not listen to the Radio Misterioso program featuring Colvin. And, furthermore, I was not commenting on that show. (I'm telling you this because you brought up the word "incoherent", and since no one else besides me used any iteration of that word...)

Secondly, I find the Mothman subject extremely interesting. Keel's book (even with Barker sniffing around it) was a great work. I have not read Colvin's books. I have only seen his DVD set. And, as a person who is interested in the subject, I found that I did not know what the hell I was looking at most of the time--let alone know what was going on in the "programs". I had no problem with his conclusions because I really couldn't tell what they were from that DVD set.

I stated that the Mothman’s Photographer DVD set lacked “meaningful, coherent content” because, most of the time, it was hard to tell how a particular story pertained to the Mothman; or if you were coming in on a story in the middle; or how this patch of trees that you were looking at through an SUV window actually related to the story being told.

Oh, wait...I'm getting a misty view from the future...it looks like your next post...what does it say?...damn Trickster…oh...it says:

"Maybe you should go and read Mr. Colvin's books and listen to his Radio Misterioso interview and not judge him based on a single work."

You know what, Future AdventureMan, you might be right about that. After all, it could be that Mr. Colvin explains himself better in print or (although current external reviews stress the contrary) on the radio. And, I might find something truly interesting in his books or his interviews. But I wasn’t commenting on those, was I?

Lastly, the “I guess you had to be there” and the “who am I to judge” defenses are getting a bit stale. As a listener, I’m already tired of hearing that I can’t make a judgment about someone’s credibility or their critical thinking skills based on what I heard on a podcast or saw in a “documentary” because A) I didn’t live in the area in question or B) I didn’t go hang out with the subject at the House of Pies, afterwards.

Look, the podcast (and the works that they sell) is all I have to go on. I don’t have Mothmen or Mountain Gods following me around, so I apologize if my lack of understanding sometimes shows through as critical thinking or (gasp) judgment.

I might have misunderstood the podcast/forum dynamic entirely, though. It was my understanding that a person would present his or her conclusions, cases, or whatever, through an interview, and then we, as non-lobotomized listeners, would have the opportunity to ask questions, to draw conclusions about the guest or his or her theories out loud, or, together, to exercise our critical thinking skills to decide if those theories are useful.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe by tuning in, we’re just supposed to believe what we hear, and go out and buy the book or DVD or divining rod or whatever. If that’s the case, I’d like to know. I’m much better at playing a game if I know how it’s scored.

 

[tyder001]

I must say, Mothman is a HELL of LOT more interesting than UFOs, to me personally.

I agree. I find many "paranormal" subjects more interesting than ufos. I honestly think the Paracast is a good show but I find the "name" a little bit of a put off. Simply because the paracast is more "ufo" than "paranormal." I think "Ufo's tonight" or Ufonaught would be a better name. Still, nobody makes me listen and nobody makes me post so I'll hush now. I just don't really buy the "nuts and bolts" aliens are among us idea. Still, I have heard a pilot or two and even police officers that have made me stop and think.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Although The Paracast is heavily UFO oriented, we've always taken the position that the UFO mystery appears to extend beyond simple nuts and bolts. We've also explored other facets of the strange and unknown, so we don't want to be pigeonholed. The Paracast name has served us well, so I'm not about to change it at this point in time.

 

[tyder001]

Well don't change it them Mr. Smarty Pants!

I'm about to download the latest show on itunes once I get home today.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

Well don't change it them Mr. Smarty Pants!

I'm about to download the latest show on itunes once I get home today.

I meant change it "then" not them.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Why, Fletchy...Are you really serious...?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Personally, I don't agree with an ethic of inviting a guest on your show to let them 'hang themselves'. I find that distasteful and cheap. Hosts who operate that way ought to tell their guests so.

I agree 100%!

 

[FletcherMunson]

Not entirely serious, AdventureMan. I'm just not very good with smiley faces. [oh, uh... ]

Seriously, though, I would say that I should take two drafts before posting anything to a forum like this. I'm pretty new to these types of things precisely because I get a little wound up sometimes. You couldn't tell that, could you?

So, I really wasn't spoiling for a fight so much as saying that I'm not sure about Colvin's conclusions based on what I've seen from him. While I think the Mothman and other such highly strange events are very interesting, I found Mr. Colvin's DVD set confusing--except for the interview segments with John Keel, which I forgot about earlier.

Look, as far as the last half of my previous post is concerned, I think I was lashing out a bit too much. But I really am at a loss about how the podcast/forum dynamic works, though. Granted my tone sucks most of the time [I've heard it called "combative smarminess" somewhere... ]. Nevertheless, I still wonder what (if any) role the listeners have when it comes to a podcast and its accompanying forum.

As a listener/reader/viewer, I am judgmental. And, anything I write in response to the things I hear, read, or watch is going to be limited by that judgment--at least until I learn more and make a new judgment. What's more, you're right, that judgment will only be my opinion of a situation. And, that, plus a dollar will get you a soft drink of your choice in most the continental United States.

I also agree that you shouldn’t be impressed with me. I’m not very impressive.

Like many people who study the paranormal and UFOs, though, I’m frustrated. I don’t have any answers and neither does anybody else. But sometimes, it seems like the people who might be in a position to find out something real are circumspect and elusive about their cases. And, sometimes, they just flat out promise something that they never deliver.

This Ted Phillips stuff on the forum is a prime example. For myself, as skeptical as I am of what Phillips is saying, I want that photo of the huge canine-like creatures to be real. But that doesn’t mean I’ll just accept whatever he throws up on his site. Or, if he doesn’t get around to posting that picture at all, I’m not going to just take him at his word.

I know, I know… If I want answers, I’m probably barking up the wrong tree, and I should be happy and satisfied with the journey of studying the paranormal and UFOs. But that doesn’t keep me from wanting an answer here and there sometimes. You only ask a question to get an answer, right?

Hell, I don’t even need answers…just some traction somewhere.

So, hey, I probably took your post a little too personally—at least, the first draft “me” did. I’m sure we’d fare better face-to-face. I usually work a room a little better than I do a discussion forum.

Oh, and thanks for confirming the twit thing. I called myself that when I looked in the mirror this morning, but my reflection didn’t believe me.