Tracking the Chupacabra

[lancemoody]

---

 

[Angel of Ioren]

This was an excellent show.

It started it off really well with Chris and Gene discussing Dr. Sauder's interview. It was good to hear them sum that up.

Ben Radford was a great guest. It was nice to hear someone put forth the skeptical point of view with out coming off sounding like an asshole. Hopefully some people here will check out his excellent podcast as well.

Well done guys.

 

[trainedobserver]

A great show all around. The discussion about the Sauder episode was great including the alternate explanation of the buzzing sound.

I especially appreciated Chris's contribution to this episode and the discussion about exsanguination claims. The guest has to be one of the better of late particularly in the way he presented his ideas and the evolution of the Chupacabra legend. The TV series Bones just ran a episode dealing with mythmogering the Chupacabra which wasn't that bad.

 

[J.T.]

Terrific episode, nice to hear both sides discussing the subject intelligently and respectfully. Radford came across as a true skeptic, curious and objective. It was very good to hear that both 'sides' knew each others' work, and were able to not just find common ground, but to consider all open options.

Also kudos to Chris for being willing to answer Ben's question with his thoughts on the power of collective thought… I'd be very interested in hearing more on that particular subject from Chris, Nick Redfern, maybe Jon Downes, and maybe have a table discussion about it with a smart skeptic like Radford.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Terrific episode, nice to hear both sides discussing the subject intelligently and respectfully. Radford came across as a true skeptic, curious and objective. It was very good to hear that both 'sides' knew each others' work, and were able to not just find common ground, but to consider all open options.

Also kudos to Chris for being willing to answer Ben's question with his thoughts on the power of collective thought… I'd be very interested in hearing more on that particular subject from Chris, Nick Redfern, maybe Jon Downes, and maybe have a table discussion about it with a smart skeptic like Radford.

I just want to add that Radford is the type of skeptic I think of when I say skeptic. I don't think I've ever heard him say something I disagree with on his show or in writing. I maybe biased though as I am a bit of a fan...

 

[stphrz]

I especially appreciated Chris' comment on how many sociologists, psychologists and folks who study myths underestimate the sheer power of mythology. Is it powerful enough to actually manifest, at least in part, specific instances, sightings or other sensonry experiences of a phenomenon? Is it powerful enough to even manifest a real solid three dimensional object or creature? Is there actually a core phenomenon at work that provides the skeleton that our collective belief systems and concepts flesh out and dress up?

I think some serious research into answering these questions is important. At least as important as the search for actual physical evidence. Right now it is being seriously neglected.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Is it powerful enough to even manifest a real solid three dimensional object or creature?

That's sort of what Noetic Science is about. There are some interesting theories with regards to that. I don't think there's anything that points to it even being theoretically possible, but no one thought that multiple universes were either.

 

[dyingsun]

Have to chime in and agree, good show. This one was also really nicely balanced between 'both camps' (reducing oneself on so called paranormal subjects, except for the ease of categorizing which is all kinds of...., to a 'skeptic' or a 'believer' still makes me cringe).

( I parenthesize a lot..)

Good show, kudos to Mr. Radford and our hosts, really informative and he seemed to have a good sense of humor.

 

[softbeard]

Radford came across as a true skeptic, curious and objective.

Yeah, well from my brief back & forth with Mr. Radford, I form a different opinion of him. I find Mr. Radford is not a skeptic. He is a believer. He uses his faith-based belief as any religious person would. He claims he performs his research scientifically. His approach, I found, is anything but scientific. His arguments are simplistic and qualitative with little or no use of math or logic. He forms qualitative opinions based on his beliefs and uses technical-sounding language to push them. He appears really fond of using straw-man arguments on you when his viewpoints are stressed, as you would expect from someone with his degree in psychology.
Again, my opinion of him, is formed from my brief interaction with him and from his other writings. Every encounter since then has been consistent with the opinion I originally formed. I understand, Ben makes his living from his beliefs. So it may not be all that surprising that he counters with hysterics when some of his arguments are exposed as hot air. Still, press this guy a little and you may be in for an eye-opener as to his reaction.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Yeah, well from my brief back & forth with Mr. Radford, I form a different opinion of him. I find Mr. Radford is not a skeptic. He is a believer. He uses his faith-based belief as any religious person would. He claims he performs his research scientifically. His approach, I found, is anything but scientific. His arguments are simplistic and qualitative with little or no use of math or logic. He forms qualitative opinions based on his beliefs and uses technical-sounding language to push them. He appears really fond of using straw-man arguments on you when his viewpoints are stressed, as you would expect from someone with his degree in psychology.
Again, my opinion of him, is formed from my brief interaction with him and from his other writings. Every encounter since then has been consistent with the opinion I originally formed. I understand, Ben makes his living from his beliefs. So it may not be all that surprising that he counters with hysterics when some of his arguments are exposed as hot air. Still, press this guy a little and you may be in for an eye-opener as to his reaction.

Can you please provide examples? I've been following Radford for a while in writing and on his podcast and he has never come across as hysterical. Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?

 

[softbeard]

[

Can you please provide examples?

Check some of the old ATS threads re the Jerusalem UFO; I don't know if they're still available. A lot appeared to have been taken offline. Check some of his 'answers' to my points (again regarding Jerusalem). Look at the comments section in the Ben's CBS article re Jerusalem. Again, the question is not whether Jerusalem was real or not; that is irrelevant. There is no definitive proof either way. Rather, it is the approach and the logic being used.
What ircks me is that Ben is intelligent enough to fully know the logic he uses in his arguments is flawed, yet he proceeds with them. He attempts to denigrate people not agreeing with his viewpoints using, not legitimate arguments, but again, flawed logic. He should know better.

Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?

That is a silly question, Angelo. Read Ben's CBS news and Discovery articles. You know the answer, why ask the question? But I take it for the point you are trying to make.

 

[J.T.]

I admit my opinion of Radford is strictly from listening to the episode, so it's hardly well documented or peer-reviewed. But he came across well, and in the context of the episode I appreciated his approach.

I know I felt the same about Wiseman and Dawkins when I read their works. Took me a while to find out I was wrong. Same is true of the 'believer' side. There's a lot of apparent rationality disguising dogmatism.

So who could we position in the excluded middle? Those who stand in the gray area. Curious and not gullible. Scientific, but not religiously so. Anybody both 'sides' could agree on?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

[
Check some of the old ATS threads re the Jerusalem UFO; I don't know if they're still available. A lot appeared to have been taken offline. Check some of his 'answers' to my points (again regarding Jerusalem). Look at the comments section in the Ben's CBS article re Jerusalem. Again, the question is not whether Jerusalem was real or not; that is irrelevant. There is no definitive proof either way. Rather, it is the approach and the logic being used.
What ircks me is that Ben is intelligent enough to fully know the logic he uses in his arguments is flawed, yet he proceeds with them. He attempts to denigrate people not agreeing with his viewpoints using, not legitimate arguments, but again, flawed logic. He should know better.

That is a silly question, Angelo. Read Ben's CBS news and Discovery articles. You know the answer, why ask the question? But I take it for the point you are trying to make.

I actually didn't know the answer, but since you've been so adamant about that sighting, i figured your ire was all about that thing. Pretty simple.

---------- Post added at 11:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

Anybody both 'sides' could agree on?

No one is ever going to please everyone all of the time.

 

[softbeard]

@softbeard

Again, is there any chance of examples?

Lance, ok you're asking me to do the digging. Fair enough; I brought it up. Still, be more specific in your question. Example of what? Of Ben acting badly? Check the CBS news articles as a start.

Same is true of the 'believer' side.

I don't fault Ben for being a believer or his viewpoints. But he should not attempt to disguise his faith as skepticism.
Why do I say Ben is using faith? Because, from my interaction with him, his ultimate arguments were faith-based. I do understand Ben's reactions since his arguments are also putting food on the table. But I also believe belief in his analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Here's Mr. Radford's article from Discovery. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Softbeard, it seems that you will not listen to anyone dismissing the Jerusalem UFO, so I think you may be the one that has the issue. Say what you will, but he does not sound hysterical in the article below.



Jerusalem UFO Video: Case Closed : Discovery News



In January of this year, a series of videos showing what appeared to be a UFO hovering over Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock caused a stir. As Discovery News space producer Ian O’Neill wrote, "The footage shows the light drop and seemingly hover just above the shrine. After a few moments, and a brief flash of a strobe, the light took off, disappearing into the night sky. Videos have surfaced of the event and have since gone viral on YouTube."
Based upon my experience investigating images of UFOs and other "unexplained" phenomena, O'Neill asked for my analysis. I researched both the video and the circumstances surrounding it, and provided a list of reasons why I concluded that the videos were "almost certainly a hoax."

<small></small>​

The reaction among UFO believers was both swift and dismissive. O'Neill's column on the topic generated more reader comments than any other at the time, and remains one of the most-commented pieces to date. The post soon made it to CBS News.com, where it generated even more controversy, with nearly 100 posters there commenting on my analysis of the video. Some expressed reservations about the authenticity of the video, but the vast majority dismissed my analysis and claimed that the video was authentic.


My skeptical explanations were ridiculed as biased and uninformed. Typical comments included: "Multiple witnesses, different video angles from different nationalities. If it is a hoax, then it would be the best of all hoaxes. I believe it is real..."; "that was the most lame explanation for these videos being a hoax..."; "I am really growing tired of you idiots attempting to debunk UFOs with your casual investigations..."; and "This is a PROPAGANDA article. People realize the truth! I wish this was a hoax. This is the unknown."


Others called my analysis "classic uninformed debunking," and stated, "Mr. Radford, if you're going to make assertions without doing your homework, then you show nothing but your ignorance." Several posters requested a follow-up: “If Ian O'Neill would comment with some follow-up research and/or analysis, then it would help restore any faith some people may have lost in his journalistic ability."
I'm not even remotely concerned about O'Neill’s journalistic ability, but I am happy to present the conclusion of an independent follow-up analysis: It's a hoax.


A few days ago, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), one of the oldest, largest, and most respected UFO investigation organizations in the world, announced their findings about the Jerusalem UFO. MUFON, though hardly a hard-line skeptical organization, has a stable of experts they draw upon for analysis.


According to a statement, "MUFON's chief Photo and Video Analyst, Mr. Marc Dantonio, stated 'I firmly believe that the UFO was not real, for many reasons...this video and the other Jerusalem UFO Videos are in my opinion hoaxes." Dantonio cited several reasons for his conclusion, some of them echoing points I made in my analysis published in O'Neill's piece six weeks earlier.

It seems that the skeptical analysis was correct after all: The Jerusalem UFO video was a hoax. This of course puts many UFO believers in an awkward position -- unless they assume that the world's largest UFO-promoting organization is also part of the effort to cover up evidence for UFOs...

 

[softbeard]

I actually didn't know the answer

No, Angelo. The answer to the question; "Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?". Of course Ben thought it was bogus. He wrote a whole article (an atricle which myself, along with a lot of other people, thought was completely bogus) stating that he thought the Jerusalem UFO was a hoax.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

No, Angelo. The answer to the question; "Did he think the Jerusalem UFO was bogus (which it is) or something?". Of course Ben thought it was bogus. He wrote a whole article (an atricle which myself, along with a lot of other people, thought was completely bogus) stating that he thought the Jerusalem UFO was a hoax.

Yes, he did write an article about it which is quite articulate and reasonable. You said he sounded hysterical. Look, you can disagree with his conclusions, but they are FAR from faith-based. However, nothing i say will change your opinion, and that's totally fine. It doesn't change anything, right?

I still think that Ben was one of the best guests the Paracast has had recently in terms of how well he interacted with the hosts. Keep in mind, I am really biased in saying that. Judging by the overall remarks though, most people thought he was pretty cool too.

 

[pixelsmith]

lance i deleted my post because i typed before reading. i thought he referenced Discover Magazine. thats what i get for thinking when i am not properly equipped for it.

 

[stphrz]

That's sort of what Noetic Science is about. There are some interesting theories with regards to that. I don't think there's anything that points to it even being theoretically possible, but no one thought that multiple universes were either.

I looked up Noetic Science. From what I was able to gather from it, I don't really think that's what I had in mind. I may have missed something though. I wasn't thinking about individual beliefs or psi abilities. I don't think humans have the ability to create reality or change reality with the power of conscious thought or will. There is zero evidence that is possible.

What I was talking about was based on Jung and the collective unconscious, archetypes and all of that kind of stuff.

Our collective unconscious interacting with a real phenomenon being responsible for real manifestations is more what I was going for.

 

[softbeard]

Yes, he did write an article about it which is quite articulate and reasonable. You said he sounded hysterical.

Angelo, I think you are mis-reading what I said and jumping to conclusions about my statements. I never said his article was hysterical. It probably does not help your career path as a writer to submit articles to CBS news that sound hysterical. What I claimed was that some of Ben's rebuttals in discussions with people, have been hysterical.
His rebuttals to me have never been hysterical; he just dodged the issues and never answered my questions.
Also, Angelo, if you are curious and want to dig deeper, read the Ben's rebuttals in the comments section of both CBS & Discovery articles.

According to a statement, "MUFON's chief Photo and Video Analyst, Mr. Marc Dantonio, stated 'I firmly believe that the UFO was not real, for many reasons...this video and the other Jerusalem UFO Videos are in my opinion hoaxes." Dantonio cited several reasons for his conclusion, some of them echoing points I made in my analysis published in O'Neill's piece six weeks earlier.

This is a perfect example of Ben's use of straw-man arguments. The MUFON investigation looked at a almost-certainly hoaxed and silly-looking CGI video purporting to be a close-up of the Jerusalem UFO. They debunked the video. Then Ben turns around and starts gloating, "Aha! See! It's a hoax, so ìt`s all a hoax!" Frankly Angelo, if you can't see the straw-man in this; well, like I told Ben, "Welcome to the True-Believers club. I`m sure you and your new-found faith will be very happy together."

Note that all this does not mean Ben is not a fantastic guest on the show and does great discussion. Just that his analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.