Why not do a cross podcast show?

[dipdog21]

I would love to hear a show that involves Gene and David discussing the paranormal with another podcast host such as Rick Wood from Audio Martini. Both camps do a good job of laying out their opinions and I think it would be a great listen to. By the way guys keep up the great show.
jc

 

[Aaron LeClair]

It would be great if members of this forum would also have the opportunity to speak up on the show. There are so many I believe who can tell their stories, experiences and it would help a lot. This, however, would mean no authors, no promoting books, nothing but people who are willing to talk about their experiences. Guess this would guarantee that this should show runs for another 1000 years. Well, it would ... but since everything ends in 2012, I guess we will have to cut down a little

Regards
Gwops

Actually, everything ended in 1999, then 2000 and then 2001.

 

[DBTrek]

I don't think that would be a very intriguing show . . . a bunch of forum people talking on and on about the time they saw a ghost, felt a presence, saw a ufo, etc. Generally the interesting paranormal cases are ones that extend beyond an individual's unprovable experience. To me the MJ12 documents are far more interesting than hearing about the time 'aunt Maude saw a shadow person' because there's more to it than an unsubstantiated tale. There has to be something for the listener to sink their teeth in to. Bigfoot has the Patterson-Gimlin film, Nessie has the famous Surgeon's photo of 1932 . . . even the chupacabra leaves dead, bloodless goats. That's the 'hook' that makes a story interesting.

Personal recollections with zero proof are boooooooooooooooooooring.

Just my $0.02

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I don't think that would be a very intriguing show . . . a bunch of forum people talking on and on about the time they saw a ghost, felt a presence, saw a ufo, etc. Generally the interesting paranormal cases are ones that extend beyond an individual's unprovable experience. To me the MJ12 documents are far more interesting than hearing about the time 'aunt Maude saw a shadow person' because there's more to it than an unsubstantiated tale. There has to be something for the listener to sink their teeth in to. Bigfoot has the Patterson-Gimlin film, Nessie has the famous Surgeon's photo of 1932 . . . even the chupacabra leaves dead, bloodless goats. That's the 'hook' that makes a story interesting.

Personal recollections with zero proof are boooooooooooooooooooring.

Just my $0.02

-DBTrek

I agree to a large extent. I even get bored telling people of my experiences. I'm not prone to blind faith, but irritated by it.

I occasionally find abuctee reports without anything backing them to be interesting however. Jim Mars falls into that. I was bored listening to about half of it, but the other half I wasn't.

Nessie no longer has the Surgeon photo, since that's pretty well established to be a fake. I'm sure you will find some that refuse to believe it though.

 

[dipdog21]

It would be great if members of this forum would also have the opportunity to speak up on the show. There are so many I believe who can tell their stories, experiences and it would help a lot. This, however, would mean no authors, no promoting books, nothing but people who are willing to talk about their experiences. Guess this would guarantee that this should show runs for another 1000 years. Well, it would ... but since everything ends in 2012, I guess we will have to cut down a little

Regards
Gwops

Another podcast, Supernatural Existence (used to have a different name), now does this and I find it quite boring and most of the callers either sound like they are coming up with a story or their events have some rather simple explanations to them. This podcast used to have a somewhat informative nature to it now it just comes across as overly dramatic bull. In other words I would not be in favor for a change like this.
jc

 

[Hoppy]

It would be great if members of this forum would also have the opportunity to speak up on the show. There are so many I believe who can tell their stories, experiences and it would help a lot. This, however, would mean no authors, no promoting books, nothing but people who are willing to talk about their experiences. Guess this would guarantee that this should show runs for another 1000 years. Well, it would ... but since everything ends in 2012, I guess we will have to cut down a little

Regards
Gwops

I believe this is a fantastic idea... Surely people who have experienced things are exciting to listen to. They have new experiences to share with others and they shouldn't have their excitement supressed just because a few people are negative towards these open discussions.

Fancy not allowing people to share their experiences live where questions are asked openly and answers given on the spot. Also there is a massive benefit when people of similar eperiences actually realise they are not alone.

The lack of these open live discussions actually empowers the nay sayers as they can detract from a persons experience far easier in text than live to air.

I hope you listen to the positive people and not just those against good ideas.

 

[DBTrek]

First, Coast to Coast AM does several hours of open lines a week. You can call in to that show and tell millions of people at one time "My aunt Maude saw a shadow person in her kitchen last week. I looked too and saw something move, but I didn't see the whole shadow person."

Secondly, how can anyone be supressing open discussion when there is already a forum tens of thousands of times the size of the Paracast doing exactly what you're talking about? That makes no sense.

I think what we're seeing is the exact opposite. The Paracast offers something different than all the major players in this field, and people like Hoppy want to supress those who support this different format.

Let's not be borgs eh? Let's have some diversity. Every paranormal show shouldn't be required to conform to the most popular format.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Discretion needs to be used whether it's well known people or not.

I never listen to open calls on C2C anymore. 1. His audience is stupid, or they screen out the intelligent, or even average intelligent people. 2. No follow ups are done and therefore you never get anywhere. Occasionally a interesting, and/or entertaining case will come up and there is follow ups however. Most of the time it isn't.

Jeff Ritzman is one of people's favorite guests on here it seems. He wasn't a famous researcher with books, videos, tv appearances etc. He had a internet presence somewhat though, and some interesting experiences to share. There's follow ups with him too. This sort of thing works.

So again, discretion. Just as there are good and bad famous researchers, there are good and bad non famous ones.

Whether or not taking calls is a good idea or not, depends on who's doing the talking. E-mail, or instant messaging the hosts might be the best bet. That way the hosts can look at what the person has to say before hand. They don't have many breaks that are long, but reviewing IMs during a break (if able) might prove beneficial.

I did a radio appearance once where instead of taking calls he took e-mails, or IMs. I thought that went well. It didn't take up boring time with every caller saying, "Hello, how are you? Love your show, I been a big fan for a long time. I'm listening from Charlotte NC on blah blah blah station. Sorry, I'm nervous. I've never told anyone this before. Um, Uh. I saw a light in the sky etc." Might seem petty but it DOES add up. Just listen to Art Bell and hear the same cliche remarks eating up time. One of my favorites is, "Hi, is this Art?" Then we have to listen to Art tell the guy/gal to turn their radio off a dozen times, then wait for him to do so.......

 

[David Biedny]

I think that having "real" folks on to talk about their personal experiences is a good idea, a lot of the energy and flow of an interviewer rests on the ability of the show hosts to engage the guest and keep the conversation moving at the right pace.

In listening to some of the call-in action on shows like C2C, the problem is that callers are given free reign to yack until they turn blue, with the host simply listening and not challenging the rant. This gets old pretty quick, and underscores the need for some super(vision) and dynamic guidance. This is not easy to do, as is obvious by the way many of these call-in shows go overall.

Mr. Ritzmann is quite well known in deeper UFO circles, so he has a good amount of experience speaking about the subject. He's also, IMO, totally sincere and honest in the descriptions of his experiences, and is not selling anything, which adds to his objectivity. On top of that, he's thoughtfully skeptical and interested in arriving at some actual understanding of the phenomenon, which seems to be the exception with folks swimming in this pool.

We would be happy to interview any of our listeners with genuinely interesting and unique stories, please email us and pitch yourself. Also, don't forget that we love to get audio clips from y'all, which very few have taken advantage of - record an MP3 of 2-3 minutes in length - comments, questions, hey, give us a good, short ghost story - and we'll more than likely run it in the show.

dB

 

[Mogwa]

Mmmmm....having the hosts review paranormal anecdotes submitted by listeners might be an interesting addition the the program's format, but how many people have actually experienced something worth recounting beyond the "I saw this weird bright light" sort of tale? Then there's the problem of honesty. There are a lot of bullsh*t slingers out there. Most of them seem to have opted for careers in politics and paranormal studies, which explains the sorry state of both disciplines.
Personally, I much prefer the current way The Paracast is presented. Listening to articulate hosts interview guests is far more informative and entertaining than taking calls from a guy who claims to have an alien trapped in his outhouse. For that, we already have Bell and Noory.

 

[Tom Levine]

I think that having "real" folks on to talk about their personal experiences is a good idea, a lot of the energy and flow of an interviewer rests on the ability of the show hosts to engage the guest and keep the conversation moving at the right pace.

In listening to some of the call-in action on shows like C2C, the problem is that callers are given free reign to yack until they turn blue, with the host simply listening and not challenging the rant. This gets old pretty quick, and underscores the need for some super(vision) and dynamic guidance. This is not easy to do, as is obvious by the way many of these call-in shows go overall.

Mr. Ritzmann is quite well known in deeper UFO circles, so he has a good amount of experience speaking about the subject. He's also, IMO, totally sincere and honest in the descriptions of his experiences, and is not selling anything, which adds to his objectivity. On top of that, he's thoughtfully skeptical and interested in arriving at some actual understanding of the phenomenon, which seems to be the exception with folks swimming in this pool.

We would be happy to interview any of our listeners with genuinely interesting and unique stories, please email us and pitch yourself. Also, don't forget that we love to get audio clips from y'all, which very few have taken advantage of - record an MP3 of 2-3 minutes in length - comments, questions, hey, give us a good, short ghost story - and we'll more than likely run it in the show.

dB

David, I have an AWESOME IDEA!!!

As a standard part of your podcast, you should pick one thread, or one post, on your forum, to read at least in part, during TheParacast!!! This serves several purposes:

First, it's a shout-out to your pals here on the forum...We get a chance to be recognized, and indirectly participate on the show, which is a boost to your growing audiences' moral and incentive to stay active and loyal to you guys. This thread here, is hinting that this is what people want, but at the same time, it gives you direct editorial control to only read and comment on the best material available from your audience...Only the stuff you find worth being broadcast. Only your best posts from your Forum get a chance to make it on the show.

Second, this adds directly to your promotional efforts with regards to TheParacast Forums. A respectable amount of time is spent on each Podcast marketing the forum, right? Well, this is a great way to to motivate people to GO to your FORUM, read the posts, and register and participate.

Third, can you say FREE CONTENT! It's really a no-brainer. I know it's hard to believe, but there might be those days when you guys just don't feel like doing any additional research for your show (don't admit it, but I suspect you're only human like the rest of us...) Anyway, for those slow days, it's nice to reach for a few posts, read them on the air, and add your ever-insightful comments into the bit.

DO IT DAVID!!! I don't normally pat myself on the back, but this is DEFINITELY a good idea.

Anyone agree?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

They already reference content from the forums in about every show I've listened to, so that sort of thing is being done already to an extent.

For those wanting to be on the radio, it's somewhat easy to make your own show these days. I considered it awhile back. One of the names I was going to call it was "The Paracast" believe it or not. Para for paranormal, and cast as in broadcast.

Run a search "make your own radio program" in a search engine for some info. on the how tos.

 

[redalton]

David, I have an AWESOME IDEA!!!

As a standard part of your podcast, you should pick one thread, or one post, on your forum, to read at least in part, during TheParacast!

Anyone agree?

I agree this is a very good idea - you make some very good points, I also think this helps Gene and David with new ideas for upcoming shows; and what type of subjects their listeners are wanting to discuss. Like you said it also gives them oversight to include only the threads that they are most interested in or that generate the greatest amount of discussion on the forum.

I think Gene and David are very receptive to the ideas and interests that come out of the forums - we hear them make references during their broadcasts; and a great example of this is our upcoming show with Jim Sparks. This has been a subject that has generated a lot discussion here on the forum and now they are bringing him on the show.

Another idea that might be worth considering is a Voice Mail podcast that is separate from the regular show. This type of format could be designed specifically for the listeners and forum threads. This would allow Gene and David to provide direct feedback to their listeners' questions and comments. A great example of this type of format is on the podcast Slice of Sci-Fi - they have a voicemail show in addition to their regular show. It would be great to have something like that here on the paracast.

 

[Tom Levine]

GWOPS, thanks for the props! You're one smart cookie. I had to look up the word "aggrandizement". Later today I will use it in a sentence. You've got my back! THanks much for that.

A. Leclair: Honestly, I'm not interested in being on the radio. I'd stink at it. David and Gene are masters of this venue, and I have no interest in attempting to perform a half-baked radio broadcast. It would never rival TheParacast. I'm not a host. I'm part of the audience of the TheParacast, apparently a growing movement of sorts, and from my point of view, this is one of the best out there, both online and on AM radio. So, my point really didn't have to do with me, personally. I was thinking more in terms of the content generated within this forum, generated by those people who participate, the members of a growing, loyal and dedicated audience to TheParacast. There's some really interesting stuff here, and there could be a stronger connection made between the broadcast and its audience. That's really the gist of my suggestion. I don't want to be Gene or David. I'm just a bee in the producers bonnett.

Redalton: Thanks to you too! I think you're right. Gene and David are receptive to the feedback generated on their forums. I'm also on the edge of my seat waiting for the Sparks interview (and I'm confident Gene and David will bring up the polygraph reference from C2CAM!!!).

I also like the idea of voice-mail podcasting and chat functionality. I haven't seen the voice-mail podcasting before, but it sounds like fun.

 

[Hoppy]

I agree with Gwops! Some people are too quick to jump on any new ideas and I sometimes wonder what their motive is for doing so.

What we need is to talk about these "real events" with "real people" so that all people can share their experiences in an open non-threatening forum. Failure to do so means that people who have experienced these things are left isolated and wondering if they are the only ones.

The internet has afforded us all the opportunity to communicate with people all over the world, to compare experiences, to learn from each other and to discuss topics that in normal society may never be broached.

I congratulate the posters to this site who have expressed a more open and transparent system for the sharing of experiences.... Well done!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Seriously, what are you aiming at ? As soon as someone comes up with a nice suggestion you get head over heels negative. I thought this is a "discussion" forum and not a "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-then-shut-up" forum.

Head over heels negative? You mis read. Indeed this is a discussion forum, and that is what I did. Discussed. "not a "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-then-shut-up" forum." Good, then you won't be negative about my future posts then when you don't agree.

I told no one to shut up btw. Nor implied it.

 

[David Biedny]

Folks,

As we've already stated, we're happy to broadcast voice messages sent to us, from 1 to 3 minutes in length, and we'll answer them if they're formatted as questions. We'd LOVE to have these sent in from our listeners, in MP3 or AIFF format (Gene, please confirm this), so fire up your mics and get talking!

dB

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Folks,

As we've already stated, we're happy to broadcast voice messages sent to us, from 1 to 3 minutes in length, and we'll answer them if they're formatted as questions. We'd LOVE to have these sent in from our listeners, in MP3 or AIFF format (Gene, please confirm this), so fire up your mics and get talking!

dB

And AAC

 

[Tom Levine]

Oh well. so much for my brilliant idea.

That's okay. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

Don't feel much like sending in an MP3 though. I'm more a written word kind of guy, in case you couldn't tell.

Maybe I'll type something interesting, and compell Gene to read it over the Paracast anyway.

Else, I'll sit back and type away, enjoy the forum, and enjoy listening to someone else call in on Sunday night.

Sincerely, sad Tom.

Don't cry for me. I'll be alright. The wounds will heal. Slowly, the scars will fade, and I'll soon be able to hold my head above my shoulders. It will just take some time for me, but I'll be okay.

lol

 

[DBTrek]

Three weeks ago I was listening to Ian Punnett (Coast to Coast) talk about a pattern he noticed among folks tuning in to paranormal broadcasts. He mentioned that they have a tendency to come up with an idea that they want to see implemented but they expect the host to do all of the work.

He cited examples where people will call in and say:

"Hey, you guys should write a book about [whatever] . . . "

-or-

"Hey, ya know what would make an interesting topic? You guys should look into [whatever] and do a show about it!"

-or-

"You know what you should add to Coast to Coast AM? You should change the format to accommodate [whatever] . . .".

Ian went on to chastise the listening audience in a very polite way for being a bunch of lazy "idea" people who lacked the interest or drive to pursue their own brilliant thoughts.

At the time I thought he was full of horseradish.

Now I'm not so sure.

-DBTrek