While I certainly agree with the core sentiment of that statement, what does one make of personal experiences, shared experiences without physical proof? I've seen UFOs, with multiple witnesses, some sort of ghostly entity (with another corroborating witness), and a whole lot more stuff I have yet to talk about on the show. It's not a question of faith, it's my direct experience. I don't have hard, physical evidence to offer, so does that make my experiences less tangible or valid?
Respectfully, your personal experiences sans proof are meaningless in the evidentiary sense, except to you. They shouldn't prove anything to anyone else, and aren't verifiable or testable. They're anecdotal stories. They may have been frightfully real to you, or a large group of people, but they're still stories. They can inspire faith, belief, curiousity, a sense of something larger, but they're still stories.
I'll tell you a true story that I've never told anyone else, and a story that only a few folks in my family know about. This is an honest story, Mr. Biedny:
When I was a kid living in Granville, Ohio back in the late 70s, I was walking home from playing outside one day, and I saw a pterodactyl fly not fifty feet over my head and into a big copse of trees adjoining our property.
It scared me to death. I saw everything as clearly as could be - I can still see it now. I saw the leathery wings, the sunlight glint off the long proboscis, its small feet tucked in behind it, the tail acting like a rudder, the animal glide on the wind without flapping its wings, its burnt-brownish color - everything. I remember what clothes I had on, that the wind was a little chilly, and that a green car drove by me as this happened - lots of little details. I ran home and told everyone in my family what I'd seen. There was no question in my mind that I saw a pterodactyl.
A couple of days later I was refusing to go outside my house. Herb Smythe was a farmer who lived next door, and he came to see my parents (my father was the pastor of the local church). Someone mentioned to him that I was afraid to come outside because of what I'd seen, and he asked me if I'd take a walk outside with him, so long as he held my hand and stayed with me. I agreed.
We walked outside and he asked me to look up. Sure enough, there was the pterodactyl. Except it wasn't a pterodactyl.
It was a buzzard. Mr. Smythe had shot a fox two days before, and the buzzards were still taking apart the carcass. What I'd seen was a buzzard.
Now, how did I know it was a buzzard, and not a pterodactyl? Looking back, I understand exactly what happened. I was a kid with a very active imagination, loved dinosaurs, and never missed an episode of
Land of the Lost. I had dinosaur wallpaper, had dinosaur books and even a record of dinosaur adventure stories for my record player. In short, I was somebody who identified what he saw - without knowing it - based on what I was interested in, and what I wanted to believe I'd seen, despite the fright it gave me.
How about another example? I collect horror films (nothing after 1968, thank you). When I'm at home during a blackout, or walking out at night with my dog, I get spooked. I'm sure the wolfman or a zombie is hiding behind the bushes, ready to tear out my esophagus and eat me. Now, those things don't really exist, and a 36-year-old shouldn't be nervous of them at all. But I programmed myself to be a little leery of the dark since childhood, and the feelings are hard to shake. I'm disposed to believe, and somewhere - somewhere - I
want to believe. It's why folks go to horror movies in the first place.
Let's take a last example. There's a thread on the forum titled "Satellites?" A fellow saw a bright light pass from one horizon to the other at a pretty quick pace, and wanted to know what it was. His first thought, though, was to find a prosaic explanation for it, because he's heard that one can see satellites, or the ISS, or the space shuttle in orbit if the light is right. A responder offered a prosaic reason that fit the facts he supplied, and he was content.
Now, if he were a past-help UFO believer, he'd chalk that up as a UFO experience, leave it at that, and petition George Noory for a spot on
Coast to Coast (and he'd probably get it, since
C2C is hard up for guests right now). He is disposed to believe in UFOs -
wants to believe in them - and what he saw is a UFO, dammit, and prosaic explanations don't interest him.
I understand that the Paracast audience is entitled to doubt me, and to question my experiences, but is that supposed to reduce their legitimacy? What do I gain from telling people about these experiences? One might argue that I'm making this stuff up for the show, but the fact is that I'm doing this show as a form of therapy for myself, to explore the questions that I ask myself about what I've witnessed, to engage in some sort of dialog with others who are also interested in understanding this stuff, to the degree that anyone can understand anything.
I have no reason to doubt that what you say happened to you, happened to you as you believe you experienced it. Did it happen objectively? I am in no position to say.
Mr. Biedny, let me ask you this. On an older thread, addressing a different topic, you referred to Jesus as a "dead Jewish carpenter." It's quite clear from the show that you are not a practicing Christian, and don't believe in Christian cosmogony. No problems with that.
Christianity is based on the recorded, eyewitness accounts of dozens, hundreds and (in a few cases) thousands of people. These people had personal experiences that convinced them that the Jewish carpenter, Jesus, was the Son of God. In the thousands of years after his crucifixion, Jesus has appeared to multitudes, been credited with miracles, etc.
Don't believe Jesus even existed (i.e., using now-discredited scholarship)? Fine. Every Bible possesses letters from the Apostle Paul and the Book of Acts (written by a third party) that relate Paul's blinding on the road to Damascus and his audible conversation with Jesus. Paul and the third party believed that what happened to him, happened to him, and he presumably had a blinding to reinforce his story - more than can be said for any one of a number of paranormal "witnesses."
In light of that, what makes you discard these personal experiences, but accept those of Mr. Ritzmann, or a friend, or a guest, or yourself?
If personal experiences - multiple ones, sometimes - are a valid basis for belief, why do you discard Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism, or any other belief system in favor of another? Why don't you have to accept them all equally? How can you possibly be in a position to judge the veracity of any belief system's claims?
I would suggest that the reason is the same as the one that convinced me I saw a pterodactyl in Granville, Ohio. I was predisposed to believe it, and I wanted - maybe needed - to believe it,
whether I knew it or not. You don't have a need to accept Christian cosmogony, with all its attendant guilt and self-flagellation, so you've discarded it, and chosen to ignore or disbelieve the eyewitness proponents of that faith. Why?
Some of you seem to question aspects of our approach with the guests, but the fact is that the human mind seems to need some form of mystical experience in order to differentiate and appreciate the Universe that we can see, touch, smell, taste and feel.
I agree with this completely. Some humans do seem to need a belief in something larger (some scientists are now suggesting that the need is programmed in our genes). This does not, however, mean that the perceived phenomena is real at all. It means the
need is real.
People view reality through their own lens, or reality tunnel, and extreme stances seem less than useful in the overall discussion of the paranormal.
Well, I'd characterize a guest who believes in thought photography and demonology as extreme. I'd view MH and his Meier nonsense as extreme. I'd view a ufologist who takes the report of a group of mescaline users seriously extreme. I'd view a fellow who is visited at night by dwarfish figures in tin hats as extreme. There's nothing wrong with extreme guests - it's a show, after all - but, like you say, they're less than useful if you're looking for "truth."
When we speak to people on The Paracast, we have to ask questions and engage folks in conversations. The mere fact that we're talking about fringe topics means that we're gonna have to speak to fringe folks at times, that's the nature of the game.
Absolutely. I've mentioned this point a few times. It's a radio show.
We can learn something from just about anyone, regardless of their stance or position. I've learned lots about the frailty of the human ego in the last year, dealing with folks who seem to be one bit shy of absolute madness, and the issues of intolerance are now near and dear to me.
But in these cases, I think you're really learning more about human nature than you are about UFOs, ghosts, spooks, specters or flying humanoids. You're learning something inward, not outward. And that's fine.
Anyone who makes ANY kind of definitive statements about the nature of the unknown is most likely wrong - I've been told that the planet Earth is not capable of having a will, of having the power of determination. Yeah, OK, we know so much about our own planet - we know what it's made of, we know how it came into existence, we know how life evolved on it, we know all about all the civilizations that have ever inhabited it, we have a keen sense of the way that the planet handles the impact of human presence, we have intimate details of the makeup of the core of the planet, we know exactly how the weather systems work.... oh, yeah, that's right, we know diddley about the meta-issues of the planet we live on.
I haven't the slightest idea what "meta-issues" means. If the planet has a will, what is it? How do you determine it? Do you believe one can talk to the Earth? How? The planet is rock and water. It is made up of organic compounds that we can measure and study. It is not "alive;" that which lives on it is alive. Does Mars have a will? Does Jupiter? Does the sun? Does an asteroid? Does a dust particle floating out in space? If you believe any of these things has a will,
prove it. Show evidence that supports your belief.
This Gaia love fest is inextricably linked with paranormal cosmogony, and I can't fathom why.
Human vanity will be our undoing... worship at the alters of science or religion, just make sure you choose ONE, republican or democrat, black or white, gay or straight, dope smoker or drinker, choose a box and squeeze into it, otherwise your opinion is meaningless. What a load - as if reality was a binary concept. Dead or alive, no in-between.
I don't "worship" at the altar of science. I do insist that beliefs be based on evidence and facts. That is how a responsible life should be lived. Whether you admit it or not, the practical side of your life is based on fact and evidence.
How do you determine the veracity of an image in a photograph, Mr. Biedny?
Facts and evidence. You carefully examine the image and look for tell-tale signs of manipulation. This is
science, based largely on your experience having dealt with evidence of varying degrees of quality before.
If all personal experiences have equal validity, and should be taken on face value, then you shouldn't have questioned any of the Meier photographs. Lots of people believe Meier. He says he took the photographs fair-and-square. That you don't believe him, that you don't accept everything every kook coming down the pipe tells you means that you live your life with a nonsense filter. I'm merely asking you to apply that filter in all areas of your life, and harbor no sacred cows.
If you're searching for "truth," you have to be willing to sacrifice some dearly-held beliefs and desires.
NOTHING is that clear and defined. Nothing. Believe what you want. Chances are, everything you know is wrong.
Wow.
I'm sure you had enough to worry about as it was!
