Unfair stereotype statement from David

[dreampsi]

I have been listening to archived shows for a while and I really like David and Gene's shows. I have, however, not agreed with a few comments in some of those shows, but am just now listening to the Dec. 31st show and I was shocked by a statment David makes. He said, "Everybody's got blinders on. Ufologist don't want to hear anything about spirituality or religions and Newagers don't bother themselves with scientific realities because (imitates a person high) 'well, man, we don't know anything about the nature of the universe,woah! here...have a toke of this' " I was completely taken back by this. This, from a person who talks so much about people and their credibility over and over. I used to think David had some (and still do) but it is certainly being knocked down more and more due to statements like this.
I happen to be a person who embraces "new age" philosophies but in no way does that imply that I smoke pot or don't try to learn about the nature of the universe or anything else. Also, both have mentioned their days of "pot smoking" in various shows, I think this was a totally unfair statement.."dude!"

Edit: Oh, and if you care to listen, it begins at about 47:00 minutes.

 

[daiello]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Well the first step is admitting you have a problem, so as soon as you stop denying the fact that you have a marijuana problem then we can help you. All you people (new agers) are the same, you smoke the hippie lettuce,and worship crystals. Please move to Sendona Arizona so you can hold hands around bell rock with your freak show friends, and listen to the earth's heart beat!!!

 

[DBTrek]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Somewhat ironic considering this week's guest starts his UFO story with "So me and this other guy were doing mescaline . . ."

I couldn't help but reflect on the multitude of posters on this forum lauding their hosts on their 'seriousness' towards the UFO subject.

Are we listening to the same show? The guy who sees UFO's on mescaline is a serious guest? Riiiiiiiight.

-DBTrek

 

[David Biedny]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

DBTrek, you did not hear the interview right: It's not like Miley was doing the mescaline, he was reporting that two of the guys who had the sighting had been doing it, the third guy mentioned was apparently NOT doing it... and if you listen, note that I make a point of mentioning that the mescaline element definitely made the whole situation problematic.

Michael Miley is a highly intelligent, thoughtful person who has done a lot of good, serious work in the field. He's an old friend, and has a lot of really fascinating ideas about the UFO field and it's intersection with spirituality and the chemistry of the human mind. Further, he's an exclusive guest of The Paracast, not to be heard anywhere else. If you want to listen to Sylvia Brown, Sean David Morton or the Billy Meier morons, there are other shows that feature those charlatans.

 

[interestedINitall]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Yes, we mustn't s-t-e-r-o-t-y-p-e anyone or anything. Hmm, I see it was fixed after I posted this - good.

I'm taken back by it, too.

Oops, I bet my credibility is being knocked down. So be it.


This is your message board - This is your message board after eight years of American public school and almost no reading.

Any questions?

 

[DBTrek]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Michael Miley is a highly intelligent, thoughtful person who has done a lot of good, serious work in the field. He's an old friend, and has a lot of really fascinating ideas about the UFO field and it's intersection with spirituality and the chemistry of the human mind. Further, he's an exclusive guest of The Paracast, not to be heard anywhere else. If you want to listen to Sylvia Brown, Sean David Morton or the Billy Meier morons, there are other shows that feature those charlatans.

So . . . the guy getting his info from people tripping on mescaline is fascinating, but Sylvia Brown and the rest are charlatans?

Hmmmmm.

I guess I don't see the same clear difference that you do. They all seem to have serious credibility problems.

-DBTrek

 

[David Biedny]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

So . . . the guy getting his info from people tripping on mescaline is fascinating, but Sylvia Brown and the rest are charlatans?

Hmmmmm.

I guess I don't see the same clear difference that you do. They all seem to have serious credibility problems.

-DBTrek

Sylvia Brown sells books and readings to folks who are in a seriously compromised emotional condition, mourning their lost loved ones. She preys on these people in their time of grief, which in my opinion, is an extremely low thing to do.

Sean David Morton sells lies, he makes wild claims and charges people big $$$ for his seminars, all based on a string of misrepresentations and fabrications. He's been involved in perpetrating known UFO hoaxes.

The Meier cult is designed to separate people from their money, and cast doubt on pretty much ALL other UFO sightings and claimed contact cases.

Michael Miley has no UFO related merchandise for sale, no DVDs, no seminars, nada. He's genuinely interested in some of the more esoteric aspects of the UFO experience, and he's also deeply interested in the spiritual makeup of the human mind and soul, as well as trying to understand the chemistry of the mind when affected by various substances. He stood to gain nothing from coming on our show, he was shilling nothing, just having a conversation with us.

Now I'm not saying that I was thrilled when he brought up this particular UFO story, I had no idea he was going to mention it, and if you listen to the show, you'll notice that I had some issues with the folks who reported a UFO sighting in conjunction with mescaline use. That said, I feel that he brings a unique voice to the discussion of the paranormal, and I totally stand behind our choice of him as a guest. You're judging him on a single case he mentioned, but we spoke about a lot more than this case.

dB

 

[Recon]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

so if a guy doesn’t sell merch... that makes him more credible?

 

[Tom Levine]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Now I'm not saying that I was thrilled when he brought up this particular UFO story, I had no idea he was going to mention it, and if you listen to the show, you'll notice that I had some issues with the folks who reported a UFO sighting in conjunction with mescaline use.

dB

What is this, pick on Biedny day?

David, I like the fact that you bring people on the show that you have prior history with. As a listener, it gives some background and credibility to the guest. It's not just someone selling something, working the circuit for exposure. It's someone who is amongst insiders, at least yours anyway, and that's a bit of a qualifier for them, and adds something to the quality of the interview.

You've done that before, many times in fact, and I think that makes your show very unique.


Regarding Miley:

At the beginning of the interview, you totally gave him a door to walk through, and set the interview up with an opportunity. You asked him, specifically, to talk about his most compelling case(s). It wasn't your choice for Miley to use the Mescaline case as his one, most compelling case to start the interview. He just did it. It was interesting, but not compelling, and you raised that issue. 2 guys were tripping out on Mescaline, and they saw some wild things. That tends to ruin their credibility in terms of reporting a compelling UFO case, irrispective of the potential other witness involved. It overshadows the validity of the entire case, from a "compelling" standpoint.

Now, if the discussion had to do with psychotropic drugs, such as aboriginal use of DMT for spiritual growth and for the exploration of other, unknown and yet-understood realities, than that would have been a completely different discussion. Miley could have approached that subject, and used his research on the mescaline case as a way to tie in a UFO encounter, with the use of a natural hallucinogen. But that's not what the interview was about.

That said, I still enjoyed his interview, and I hope he comes back and provides us with more. Nobody's perfect. Maybe his next interview will be an improvement from the last, and so forth and so on. Certainly, I prefer a raw interview like that, as opposed to one that is formulated, canned, and predictible.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

So . . . the guy getting his info from people tripping on mescaline is fascinating, but Sylvia Brown and the rest are charlatans?

Hmmmmm.

I guess I don't see the same clear difference that you do. They all seem to have serious credibility problems.

-DBTrek

It's perhaps part of the exploratory nature of the show. Greer, Sereda, Morten and MH have been guest after all. Some of them might not be back on due to lacking credibility via discoveries made by having them on. Or in some cases, maybe the hosts didn't know til later etc.

I haven't listened to all of this guy's interview since it just didn't keep my interest and I prefer sober reports over not so sober ones. So I won't comment on him directly. Maybe I will if and when I make sense out of where this guy was coming from.

 

[Koji K.]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

I happen to be a person who embraces "new age" philosophies but in no way does that imply that I smoke pot or don't try to learn about the nature of the universe or anything else.

And I happen to be a person who smokes pot but that doesn't mean I embrace "new age" philosophies! I'm offended that people who enjoy a good smoke every now and then are automatically associated with new agers!

 

[DBTrek]

Unfair sterotype statement from David

Michael Miley has no UFO related merchandise for sale, no DVDs, no seminars, nada. He's genuinely interested in some of the more esoteric aspects of the UFO experience, and he's also deeply interested in the spiritual makeup of the human mind and soul, as well as trying to understand the chemistry of the mind when affected by various substances. He stood to gain nothing from coming on our show, he was shilling nothing, just having a conversation with us.

I misunderstood what you meant by your prior classification of various guests as charlatans. I would agree that MM has less incentive to spin a yarn for the sake of profit than those you mentioned. As far as relating information that brings us closer to understanding the paranormal; I did not find MM's interview to be particularly superior to the charlatans you mention . . . but that's simply my opinion.

Within the context of the thread I wanted to point out that stereotyping drug users negatively in one program, then broadcasting their experiences on your show seems to demonstrate an inconsistent (or selective) view of drug use. I agree with tom when he states:

"Now, if the discussion had to do with psychotropic drugs, such as aboriginal use of DMT for spiritual growth and for the exploration of other, unknown and yet-understood realities, than that would have been a completely different discussion."

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the NEXT show. Maybe you and Gene can do it while passing a bong back and forth as a peace offering to your stoner demographic.


-DBTrek

 

[Koji K.]

This thread seems like much ado about nothing, or at least a bunch of crossed-lines. Mr. Biedny said already that a.) it was only 2 of the 3 witnesses who mentioned being on mescaline, b.) he clearly cast aspersions on the accuracy of the drug use for the viability of the story-as-evidence in the show, and c.) it wasn't he who brought up the story to begin with, but his guest. So it's hard to see how "broadcasting" a guest telling a story where the drug-use was just a circumstantial detail could be taken as presenting any kind of view of the subject whatsoever...

Anyway not to step on anyone's toes, I think people are being oversensitive here.

 

[DBTrek]

Anyway not to step on anyone's toes, I think people are being oversensitive here.

Nah, no one's being oversensitive. Just pointing out that if "everyone" is a bunch of new-age stoners with blinders on, what makes a sighting where 2/3rds of the witnessess are trippping on mescaline so eye-opening and enlightened. Maybe you can explain it to me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find my kleenex.

-DBTrek

 

[Koji K.]

Well, I think his original point was more to do with the unfortunate incompatibility of the hardcore nuts-and-bolts type of mindset and the new-agey 'it's all spiritual' mindset, both of which are kind of 'blinders'. I didn't interpret the original pastiche of the new ager smoking pot as anything more than humour, not a judgment about pot smoking. Sure, if you analyse the wording you'll find some hypocrisy, but I think it falls under the 'harmless error/common parlance' variety, if that makes sense, and we're missing the forest for the trees by focusing on it. But, again, that's just my opinion, and everyone's entitled to their own, so I'm not judging anyone here.

As for the story, when I first heard it, the word 'mescaline' set off alarm bells in my mind and made me a lot more skeptical, sure. But I think it did for the hosts also, and UFO sightings do come from all sorts of ppl in all sorts of situations, so it may not be the best story but it's not the worst either in terms of credibility.

 

[CapnG]

I thought the whole thing was relatively fair in the way it was handled, David and Gene made a good effort to point out several times that the drug use complicated and potentially invalidated the whole thing, even with one sober individual present, the credibility of the sighting is suspect. Add to the fact that this is all second hand information and it gets even muddier.

What I found bothersome was Miley's reaction to the idea this could have been completely imaginary/hallucination. He presented a sort of schizophrenic scientific attitude (one that I seem to be bumping into alot lately) wherein science is relied upon only up to the point where it starts to indicate something the person would rather not know (eg. it's an hallucination) at which point science gets it's head cut off and the epithet "Well, we really don't know WHAT'S going on." is thrown out to cloud the issue.

 

[Tony2007]

I thought the whole thing was relatively fair in the way it was handled, David and Gene made a good effort to point out several times that the drug use complicated and potentially invalidated the whole thing, even with one sober individual present, the credibility of the sighting is suspect. Add to the fact that this is all second hand information and it gets even muddier.

What I found bothersome was Miley's reaction to the idea this could have been completely imaginary/hallucination. He presented a sort of schizophrenic scientific attitude (one that I seem to be bumping into alot lately) wherein science is relied upon only up to the point where it starts to indicate something the person would rather not know (eg. it's an hallucination) at which point science gets it's head cut off and the epithet "Well, we really don't know WHAT'S going on." is thrown out to cloud the issue.

And this is what made me start the other thread about not being able to believe Miley, is that he seemed to want to completely gloss over the fact that his witnesses were on hallucinogenic drugs, and then tries to qualify that fact by saying, "Well I think hallucinogens actually help a person perceive stuff they normally wouldn't." Well no kidding! That's what hallucinogens do! I also think that if your witnesses are drug enthusiasts, you should probably distance yourself from them, at least professionally, to avoid what was quite frankly an embarrassing moment on air whilst being interviewed. I thought Miley came out of that looking very badly, and apparently I'm not alone on this.

I think we do need to give Gene and Dave some credit, because I think it's very hard if you're running the kind of show like the Paracast to find people to come on and talk without just recycling the same old people again and again. And in this odd and quirky field of UFO research, not everyone is going to have the credibility of Mother Theresa. And they did point out the problem of believability with his story.

 

[Tom Levine]

I think we do need to give Gene and Dave some credit, because I think it's very hard if you're running the kind of show like the Paracast to find people to come on and talk without just recycling the same old people again and again. And in this odd and quirky field of UFO research, not everyone is going to have the credibility of Mother Theresa. And they did point out the problem of believability with his story.

Exactly, Tony2007!!!

 

[DBTrek]

Yes, we should all be grateful that they gave us a guest with a non-credible story and then said "Man, that story has serious credibility issues".

Thanks guys! Thanks so much!

Heheh

This horse has been pretty much beaten to death I think.

-DBTrek

 

[auntiegrav]

Marijuana is the highest dollar value crop in the United States (not counting what corn is going to be when we burn up our last 5 inches of topsoil to keep driving our Humvees).

As I have traveled the world, I would say that people who use substances to alter their consciousness in one way or another are the greatest majority. If we discounted everyone that used some form of stimulant, chemical, or psychotropic drug, there would only be 3 people left to talk to, and they wouldn't have anything interesting to say.