• 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!

Recent show featuring James W. Moseley and Christopher Roth

Forums New posts
N

Nightwatch

Paranormal Novice
Hi,

There doesn't seem to be a thread discussing the most recent show so i though i would start one. I just wanted to say that i really enjoyed it and think that Christopher Roth had a lot of interesting things to say. I particularly enjoy the shows with a skeptical slant and feel that some of the episodes have started to get a little crazy recently (not a fan of Brad Steiger, Timothy Good, they're to into selling books).

The skeptical angle and tough questions are for me what sets the Paracast apart from other shows.

cheers

clive
 
Did you listen to that complete Brad Steiger episode, if you're open to all possiblities, that was a fascinating podcast. I agree with Timothy Good, can't go along with Steiger, he has some very interesting ideas.
 
I listened to this and I loved Moseley's skepticism about Roswell...but I couldn't shake one early part of the interview while I listened. I couldn't believe how matter-of-fact this hoaxing business was discussed, and there were no questions or disagreements about it at all! How funny (or sad) that in ufology a group of intelligent people can sit around and talk about how hoaxing something in their own field might be a good thing. We are reminded several times that Roth has a PhD, but even he has "respect" for this. I was completely blown away, seriously.

Moseley had a good point that the whole field lends itself to humor, that only people who spend the time and effort to determine what's real and fake will take it seriously. He didn't mention, however, that hoaxing makes it even harder to determine these things...surprisingly neither did the hosts.
Then David talks about the O'Hare photo being tampered with and the interviewees ask "who would do that?"...people like you Moseley!
 
I like Jim Moseley's work. He has been a de facto anthropologist for decades, and from that perspective Saucer Smear and his memoirs are invaluable.

But his activities in South America leave a lot to be desired. I've been tempted to write a commentary on his book for an archaeology publication, to specifically address his confessions about antiquities looting. I want to say that Moseley has largely gotten a free pass for his hoaxing because it happened outside the US, and therefore for many people it doesn't "count." But that wouldn't then explain the reaction to his friend Gray Barker, who appears to be responsible for some of the more memorable aspects of Keel's Mothman experience (in particular, the phone calls). I think that for many people, there is a tacit acceptance of these guys as "tricksters" if they are sufficiently entertaing. Ironically, I'm interested first as a cultural phenomenon, and the hoaxing puts a bad taste in my mouth, I don't find it charming.

On an unrelated but on topic point, has anyone besides David Biedny read E.T. Culture? I read it in the fall. I thought Roth's was definitely the best chapter in there, if for no other reason because I didn't know that Whorf was a Theosophist, or how much race was involved in theosophism (if you want to understand the roots of a lot of what is called paranormal or esoterica or whatever, you need to know at least something about the theosophist movement). I thought Lepselter's chapter was mildly interesting but too stereotypical "important" writing of a sort commonly found in anthropology. I don't think I got through the last couple of chapters, they held little interest from skimming.
 
Fully agree with much of the above - Roth made some interesting points and hoaxing definitely doesn't sit right with me, life's too short :mad:
 
clivecook said:
I just wanted to say that i really enjoyed it and think that Christopher Roth had a lot of interesting things to say. I particularly enjoy the shows with a skeptical slant and feel that some of the episodes have started to get a little crazy recently (not a fan of Brad Steiger, Timothy Good, they're to into selling books).

The skeptical angle and tough questions are for me what sets the Paracast apart from other shows.

cheers

clive
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I would point out that one need not be too much of a skeptic to be skeptical of Roswell - a poor quality case that I wish we could move beyond.

Roth's perspective as a cultural anthropologist is one we rarely come across. If all the Paracasts had such a level of discourse, i would hope to see the Paracast continue indefinitely.

Two anthropologists in a row - is this a new trend? See if you can get Bullard..
 
Back
Top