SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!
I guess you didn't watch the video trainedobserver posted last time. I'll post it again to explain to you how I feel about this stuff. I am not biased. If he were to show something that proved it to me that there was a good theory there, you know, like evolution and all those awesome fossils that prove it, or like the lab experiments that point to quantum mechanics I would happily accept it.Yes your bias is easily and nicely summed up, no problem
This is a sad reason why I feel that the UFO circles need to get the crazies out. The Reality TV mindset would does more harm to investigations then the old style skeptical crazies.It's not that he is blocking other investigators, but the people who live in that area who don't want to see it become fodder for reality TV. At least that's the explanation. Let's see what happens when more material is publicized.
No Gene. The problem is that "scientists" aren't involved. As we all should know by now, there is no such thing as the paranormal so therefore Ted Phillips is wasting his time and has been for a number of years. He should just disregard all of the evidence he has collected and just give up. As we all should.
Now if he was a "scientist", or had a mate who is one, he would have quickly debunked himself and this would've been all over, red rover.
Three points:I focused in on the evidence claimed instead of all the blah blah about how respected Phillips is, etc.
. . . .
To me, his self-importatnt ("a modern-day Inidiana Jones") claims don't jibe with his lackluster lack of evidence after 12 years (I also watched several video presentations with Phillips that are equally light on tangible evidence).
To Phillips' credit, at least he made a claim that contained evidence at all, unlike a large selection of guests who pontificate endlessly with uncheckable, unsupported and unchallenged assertions.
. . . .
Lance "Modern-Day Robert Redford/Doc Savage" Moody
Yes, I have to admit this is unfortunately the typical scenario. But, Ted Phillips has never done it. I am not yet too cynical to dismiss him out of hand. Remember, this is a guy that is a recluse paranormal investigator. He is uncomfortable on stage or in large groups of people, soft spoken, and has always been honest. He has written 2 books (1983, 2000) in 40 years and neither are in print and he didnt even push them on his previous website. So, precisely what is his motivation for B.S.? He isn't getting wads of cash for book deals or speaking engagement and to my knowledge he isn't trying to sell the metatron harmonizer.Hasn't anyone learned by now - The game is played as follows:
1) Incredible accounts of fantastic pictures and videos of a "compelling new case" are mentioned somewhere like ATS. Perhaps a few low-res phone cam images are included, with "better and clearer" examples coming soon.
2) Temporary interest is generated in the UFO community, including a sharp spike in blog posts and forum threads. Strieber, Howe and Rense latch on in support of the case.
3) Technical delays, NDAs, "sensitivities to the participants" and "awaiting lab results" and/or "the lab [suspiciously] lost the samples" are typically cited as to the reason no further hard evidence is immediately forthcoming or that real people's names are not given.
4) At some point the full "evidence" might eventually posted, but soon proves to be underwhelming/inconclusive at best, and laughable at worst.
5) After several months of the topic being debated on various forums, interest wanes and the community moves on.
6) The UFO community urgently waits for the next explosive case to make the rounds.
7) go to step 1 (rinse and repeat)
* Alternately, the pictures and video are released right away, but quickly prove to be intentional hoaxes (ie Drone Photos/Caret, Serpo, etc)
Yes, I have to admit this is unfortunately the typical scenario. But, Ted Phillips has never done it. I am not yet too cynical to dismiss him out of hand. Remember, this is a guy that is a recluse paranormal investigator. He is uncomfortable on stage or in large groups of people, soft spoken, and has always been honest. He has written 2 books (1983, 2000) in 40 years and neither are in print and he didnt even push them on his previous website. So, precisely what is his motivation for B.S.? He isn't getting wads of cash for book deals or speaking engagement and to my knowledge he isn't trying to sell the metatron harmonizer.
I am all for calling B.S. when it shows itself but in this case it is undeserving. Now if his evidence is crap and he never gets the information online and continues to talk about how it is just a few weeks away then I will change my tune. Or if he comes out with some legal B.S. about how he cant show the images and video then I will throw him directly under the bus. Until then lets just wait a couple weeks. Whats the problem with that?
That could be one reason, but if things are so astoundingly strange in that area, why hasn't word gotten out to the government. Or is that beyond them. That's what I find funny - the government has access to extra-terrestrial technology, they know aliens are coming, etc, but they don't know about "Marley Woods." I just find it funny that the paranormal "theories" are so much like religions - if one is true, then the other ones are mostly false. Not so with science - there are competing hypothesis, but once one is proven, it has to become accepted unless proven wrong. I like that type of logic a lot more.
My take on the field investigator vs armchair researcher is this: I do place the field investigator more highly but I think that quite a bit can be learned from reading books, reports, articles, etc. It's fairly irritating when you raise a point you feel is valid and the field investigator you're talking to just shrugs it off without really addressing it and mumbles something like, "You should spend more time in the field and less time questioning those who are." Imo a good point is a good point, regardless of where it originated from. At least the so-called armchair guys do attempt to educate themselves about the subject before discussing it. It can be a lot worse, y'all could find yourself questioned by someone like Seth Shostak, who won't even do any reading let alone field research. I'd personally be fine with Seth if he was willing to first graduate himself at least to the chair before debating the subject over and over again on national television.You're right - we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I think your approach is symptomatic of almost everything that is wrong with paranormal investigation. This should not be taken as me saying that there is no merit from "in the field" investigation - but your views are symbolic of the raising of the "field investigator" to a status above anyone else - something you usually hear from "field investigators" as their last line of defence when challenged as to their work, i.e. something along the lines of: "well, when you get out there and do it, then maybe your views will be equal to mine." I've heard that more than once, including on the Paracast, and it's ridiculous. What matters is the evidence, not the viewpoint of the person who collected it.
One final note: the worst way to assess credibility is from personal interaction, which is purely subjective. Stan Friedman thought Gerald Anderson was credible based largely on personal interaction (and a will to believe); ditto Kevin Randle with Frank Kaufmann for many years. I could go on, because it's a long list. It was only when their records were checked, and cracks showed in their stories that had nothing to do with an assessment of credibility based on personal interaction, that they were discovered for the liars that they really were.
The difference is all those are being tested in a lab, with actual results. This is why there continues to be the search for a unified theory of physics.I think physicists would disagree. Quantum Mechanics is accepted and testable and yet contradicts the also accepted and testable Cosmological model. Enter string theory and M theory and a few less prominent ones that try to explain how its all the same but those are still theory with no peer reviewed laboratory analytics to back them up. We just don't know enough yet to convincingly bridge the gigantic chasm between the two.
So, one could draw a parallel between seemingly related/unrelated paranormal phenomenon. Proclaiming widespread mutual exclusivity in these matters is just not supported when you look at the breadth of the data. Yes, the data can be circumstantial and I know you lend far less credence to the testimonial mosaic than I do, but a large amount information exists for each of these topics. The data still needs to be sorted, sifted, tested and proven. Just like the problems facing physicists in their hunt for a unification theory.
Yes, in the same way that cops tend to view people they arrest as guilty. I'm not saying it's conscious, but I absolutely believe it happens, and far more often than people want to admit. That's why multiple sources of information are critical, that can be cross-referenced with other sources, and then examined and interpreted by others not involved in the actual investigation. It's also why the "Marley Woods" case, and others like it, is in my opinion worthless - its anonymous, and can't be checked by independent investigators or researchers.If you believe that Phillips, Imbrogno or others systemically slant the facts to fit a pre-existing belief, then please kindly say so for all our benefit.
I don't dismiss him out of hand, either - far from it. But his work is repeatedly misrepresented by ufologists as some sort of Holy Grail of hard evidence, when it is anything but, and Phillips has played into that over the years.I am not yet too cynical to dismiss him out of hand.
Sweet Jebus, does anyone around here actually read what I write? Honestly...I disagree with Kimball when he disregards the field investigator off-hand..
LOL!! Jebus? As in THE Jebus...Son of Gosh?Sweet Jebus,
Yeah.....ya know, that really raised red flags for me, too. I was even yelling in my car, "You're not a biologist, Ted!!" while driving down the road.Many thanks for the links you provided above, Paul. Very interesting and, sadly, pretty much what I expected.
I am reminded of Phillips' description of how he scientifically examined the hairs he found: he got hair from his own dog (and other dogs) and compared them to the 400lb. White Wolf-Bear-Ape and confirmed that they did not match! These are the lofty heights of paranormal field research to which a pitiful armchair investigator like me can only hope to rise.
I don't dismiss him out of hand, either - far from it. But his work is repeatedly misrepresented by ufologists as some sort of Holy Grail of hard evidence, when it is anything but, and Phillips has played into that over the years.
Again, you completely misrepresent or misunderstand what I wrote. I don't look down on them - I just don't exalt them the way most people in "ufology" seem to. Indeed, the use of the terms "field investigator" and "armchair researcher" are not-so-subtle ways of elevating one at the expense of the other (well, not-so-subtle for the real world; within "ufology" I guess stuff like that passes for nuance).LOL!! Jebus? As in THE Jebus...Son of Gosh?
Okay, you don't disregard the field investigator, you just look down on them.
Yeah, whether someone is a field investigator or more of an academic doesn't matter to me as much as their common sense, sanity, honesty, knowledge, and intelligence. I mean, does Jerome Clark do field research? I don't know for sure but I can't recall ever hearing that he does. If most of what he does comes from being a book worm that's just fine with me because the end result is a hell of a lot better than many of the field guys out there. I'd take Clark over a tool like Chuck Zukowski, Mr. Star team, any day of the week.Again, you completely misrepresent or misunderstand what I wrote. I don't look down on them - I just don't exalt them the way most people in "ufology" seem to. Indeed, the use of the terms "field investigator" and "armchair researcher" are not-so-subtle ways of elevating one at the expense of the other (well, not-so-subtle for the real world; within "ufology" I guess stuff like that passes for nuance).
Everyone has a role to play. I know what those roles are; it's a shame that others don't get it, and why it's important.