Who I Believe

[HUD]

THere are a few people I believe when it comes to UFO evidence. George Knapp is one, Stanton Friedman 90% of time, only because he sells stuff. Art Bell, most of time. George Noory, 50%...Noory believes almost everything..... Paracast Crew 90%...And a few other Talk show hosts. I believe 90-95% of all of this is bunk. And those that come on like David Sereda, and others are in it for fame and Big Bucks. Sereda name drops celebrities like no other person I have ever heard. He wants fame more then anything and his theorys are UNREAL>>>
The Nasa shuttle camera Evidence is most compelling. I just wish these talk show hosts would save their money and take a camera crew and investigate some of these people and their evidence themselves, particularly James Gilliland and all his so called evidence I dont understand how you cannot be there every night to see whether this is true or not...

 

[Aaron LeClair]

THere are a few people I believe when it comes to UFO evidence. George Knapp is one, Stanton Friedman 90% of time only because he sells stuff. Art Bell, most of time. George Noory, 50%... Paracast Crew 90%...And a few other Talk show hosts. I believe 90-95% of all of this is bunk. And those that come on like David Sereda, and others are in it for fame and Big Bucks. Sereda name drops celebrities like no other person I have ever heard. He wants fame more then anything and his theorys are UNREAL>>>

George and Stanton are two of my favs. They respect each other greatly too, even though they disagree strongly about Lazar. Both make good points about him in my view.

As for Art and George, you can trust that they will have frauds on but tell you they have high hit rates.
True or False

Sereda I stopped paying attention to awhile back. At least serious attention to. I still see things pop up every now and then and reminds me that I need to continue to ignore. Or at least try, unless it's to show what a .... hmm, whatever word describes him... he is.

 

[slenzo]

Slightly off topic. Who was Gene and David refering to when they spoke about "some nut in Canada" with a radio show? Is this Sereda?

 

[David Biedny]

Slightly off topic. Who was Gene and David refering to when they spoke about "some nut in Canada" with a radio show? Is this Sereda?

The title of the show includes the letter X and the word Zone. As in, zoned out on a dose of bad X.

dB

 

[Aaron LeClair]

The title of the show includes the letter X and the word Zone. As in, zoned out on a dose of bad X.

dB

I didn't know he was against the BM case. I've only listened to a handful of his shows however.

 

[David Biedny]

I didn't know he was against the BM case. I've only listened to a handful of his shows however.

Oh, it's so much juicier - the host believes that BM is a prophet. No kidding.

So much for credibility.

dB

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Oh, it's so much juicier - the host believes that BM is a prophet. No kidding.

So much for credibility.

dB

Ok, well on your recent show (I just re listened to part of it) you made comments that made me think he was a enemy of the BM camp. I misunderstand?

 

[DBTrek]

THere are a few people I believe when it comes to UFO evidence. George Knapp is one, Stanton Friedman 90% of time, only because he sells stuff. Art Bell, most of time. George Noory, 50%...Noory believes almost everything..... Paracast Crew 90%...And a few other Talk show hosts.

I think people need to realize that the Coast to Coast AM format is significantly different than that of the Paracast. Art and George have both stated numerous times that their approach is to allow the guest to claim whatever they like and allow the listener to use their own discenment to decide whether or not the guest is credible. The Paracast scrutinizes their guests claims much more closely and is more willing to fawn over certain guests and crucify others based on the interview. As far as believability goes this whole genre is full of people with bizarre personal experiences and zero physical evidence. It's all one big game of "Who has a story with fewer holes" when you get down to it.

I enjoy both shows, and find both of them pretty much unbelievable most of the time. That doesn't make them any less entertaining.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I think people need to realize that the Coast to Coast AM format is significantly different than that of the Paracast. Art and George have both stated numerous times that their approach is to allow the guest to claim whatever they like and allow the listener to use their own discenment to decide whether or not the guest is credible. The Paracast scrutinizes their guests claims much more closely and is more willing to fawn over certain guests and crucify others based on the interview. As far as believability goes this whole genre is full of people with bizarre personal experiences and zero physical evidence. It's all one big game of "Who has a story with fewer holes" when you get down to it.

I enjoy both shows, and find both of them pretty much unbelievable most of the time. That doesn't make them any less entertaining.

-DBTrek

They say different things. They double talk a lot. I can find you quotes that contradict their stance. Ufowatchdog.com has some last I checked.

People do realize the difference in Paracast and C2C. It's rather large. And I'm glad.

 

[DBTrek]

I checked the Art Bell quotes on ufowatchdog.com. I notice they generally seem to be a sentence or two long, with several quotes being less than an entire sentence.

For instance:
"I'm still a reporter. ."
"I'm not a reporter. I'm a talk show host..."
"I had a lot to go on, Larry, and so I broke the story..."

Why can't his complete statements be quoted? What was the rest of the man's sentence?

There's also a few quotes attributed like this:

- Art Bell reportedly to Russel Dowden of SETLAB . . .
-- Reported to have been said by Art Bell to Linda Howe . . .


Generally when I see sentence fragments, "reported" quotes, and people taking great pains not to include any context around the quotes it's a tip off that the site has an agenda. Not to mention the fact that they refer to Art as "Media Crack Whore" under the Amazing Kreskin article. Not what I'd call an unbiased source of info.

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

I think people need to realize that the Coast to Coast AM format is significantly different than that of the Paracast. Art and George have both stated numerous times that their approach is to allow the guest to claim whatever they like and allow the listener to use their own discenment to decide whether or not the guest is credible. The Paracast scrutinizes their guests claims much more closely and is more willing to fawn over certain guests and crucify others based on the interview. As far as believability goes this whole genre is full of people with bizarre personal experiences and zero physical evidence. It's all one big game of "Who has a story with fewer holes" when you get down to it.

I enjoy both shows, and find both of them pretty much unbelievable most of the time. That doesn't make them any less entertaining.

-DBTrek

How funny.

The Paracast is light years beyond Coast to Coast. Art and George frankly don't seem that bright and if they are they're certainly hiding their light under a bushel by never questioning even the most outlandish claims of their guests. If the call-in segments are to be taken as an accurate sample of its listeners, Coast to Coast is definitely designed to appeal to the "Them aliens done probed my truck!" stratum.

Even when I hear something on The Paracast with which I don't agree (and that happens often enough to make it interesting) it isn't patently stupid. The same can't be said for Coast to Coast.

 

[David Biedny]

It seems to me that folks doing "broadcast" radio are always shooting for the widest audience, the attitude that entertainment is more important than understanding. Our show is different, in that we're doing something that we would want to listen to, treating these delicate and complex subjects with the seriousness and caution that's required for any real progress in uncovering useful insights. Skepticism is not a bad thing, it's exactly what's needed for cutting away the noise and getting to useful, if not fragmented, truth.

It would be great to think that The Paracast could reach the size of audience as C2C; as a head-to-head challenge, I think would could be as entertaining, while probing deeper into the inner workings of paranormal mysteries than anything anyone is currently attempting in the space. I hope we get to find out someday.

dB

 

[Tom Levine]

Oh, it's so much juicier - the host believes that BM is a prophet. No kidding.

So much for credibility.

dB

Okay, I'm going to sound like an idiot, but here it goes....

Someone thinks that juicy doo-doo is a prophet?

eeewww... Yuch.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Okay, I'm going to sound like an idiot, but here it goes....

Someone thinks that juicy doo-doo is a prophet?

eeewww... Yuch.

No, but many try and profit off dry doo doo though.

 

[Lorrie]

The title of the show includes the letter X and the word Zone. As in, zoned out on a dose of bad X.

dB

Thanks, I also was dying to find out who you were talking about. I am way too curious I guess.

 

[cprahl007]

One thing about Talk show hosts you must understand before you go any further is that , Hosts are ruled by ratings, they are always trying to entertain the widest audience, in doing that alot of people like Dr. Dan Burish get reality passes on most of these so called Talk SHows. If the guest is selling something , you must look at the facts with a large magnifying glass. Jerry Pippin is a shill for almost anybody and anything to do with the paranormal. THis show Paracast at least tries to investigate their guests but usually they wait until after the guest has left to scrutinize his claims. WHY ? because of ratings they don't want to not offend their listeners. AKA the good Dr. Steven Greer.
George Knaap will give you all sides to the subject and if the guy looks phoney he tells you, I like that. He believes Bob Lazar was at Area 51, but he thinks his Degrees lack evidence, and we all know that very credible people always seem to upgrade their scholastic career.
C to C am is a great show but Norry believes everyone, Art is more critical.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

One thing about Talk show hosts you must understand before you go any further is that , Hosts are ruled by ratings, they are always trying to entertain the widest audience, in doing that alot of people like Dr. Dan Burish get reality passes on most of these so called Talk SHows. If the guest is selling something , you must look at the facts with a large magnifying glass. Jerry Pippin is a shill for almost anybody and anything to do with the paranormal. THis show Paracast at least tries to investigate their guests but usually they wait until after the guest has left to scrutinize his claims. WHY ? because of ratings they don't want to not offend their listeners. AKA the good Dr. Steven Greer.
George Knaap will give you all sides to the subject and if the guy looks phoney he tells you, I like that. He believes Bob Lazar was at Area 51, but he thinks his Degrees lack evidence, and we all know that very credible people always seem to upgrade their scholastic career.
C to C am is a great show but Norry believes everyone, Art is more critical.

They scrutinize before, during and after the show. Hard to scrutinize things said on their show before after all.

 

[DBTrek]

He believes Bob Lazar was at Area 51, but he thinks his Degrees lack evidence, and we all know that very credible people always seem to upgrade their scholastic career.

We all know that, eh? I don't know that. What evidence do you have to support that claim?

It seems to me that a "very credible" person doesn't need to lie about their education in order to make themselves more credible sounding. The very act of trying to deceive someone with false facts about oneself destroys credibility. If you can't trust someone to tell the truth about something verifyable, why would you trust them to be honest about things that can not be verified?

-DBTrek