LMH Leaves C2C

[Duke]

SierraRocks, your biochemist friend observed something that they drilled into our heads in grad school for psychology. It's about a study that took place in the late 80s/early 90s.
While I may have a few specifics wrong when I tell the story, the overall point is correct.(going by memory.)
In the late 80s an MIT graduate student was doing her dissertation on brain cell regeneration. Or how brain cells can't regenerate once they are lost. Neural pathways can reroute themselves, but the cells themselves do not regenerate. Science is known that brain cells don't regenerate for more than 100 years.
We know that because one French scientist long ago said so. Everybody just assumed he was correct.
The woman develops a pretty gruesome experiment and proved that brain cells regenerate rather quickly. And it has been replicated many times and because of her our paradigm changed.
Another point, and a lot of researchers in the Paranormal fields are guilty of this; take one isolated data point or observation, and amplify it in to some pretty wild theories. And then call it logical fact.
In psychological circles the behaviorists do this with rats. Lab rats have some pretty basic needs. They don't join together and put a man on the moon. Behaviorists must ignore an incalculable number of variables to make their claims relating isolated rat behavior to human beings.
Don't get me started on manipulating statistics..........

Anyway, when I listen to the shows I bounce between having fun with some of the (ludicrous) guests, all the way to throwing radios.

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are a couple other dodges used frequently in the community to mask poorly researched/documented work. How many times have you heard a paranormal "researcher" crow about the number of footnotes and referenced source materials are included in their book/article? They seem to think a lot of footnotes/references make their work credible. They might not be credible, but there are damn sure a lot of them....quantity v. quality

A number of these folks have also put forward their ideas/conspiracies in works of fiction. In my opinion, this is often done to pass off their shoddy, third rate research as novels, as opposed to nonfiction works. By using the novel format, they are able to avoid those pesky footnotes and references to support their inferences and unsubstantiated theories. They can then have the best of both worlds, claim the various tenets of their work are real, but hide behind fiction.

 

[Debi]

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are a couple other dodges used frequently in the community to mask poorly researched/documented work. How many times have you heard a paranormal "researcher" crow about the number of footnotes and referenced source materials are included in their book/article? They seem to think a lot of footnotes/references make their work credible. They might not be credible, but there are damn sure a lot of them....quantity v. quality

A number of these folks have also put forward their ideas/conspiracies in works of fiction. In my opinion, this is often done to pass off their shoddy, third rate research as novels, as opposed to nonfiction works. By using the novel format, they are able to avoid those pesky footnotes and references to support their inferences and unsubstantiated theories. They can then have the best of both worlds, claim the various tenets of their work are real, but hide behind fiction.

Precisely the reason you often see me here saying don't get hung up on semantics, remember we are working on theories, assumptions and historical premises only. We actually KNOW very little and assume a lot based on our limited knowledge of the paranormal. Anyone who talks in absolutes on anything paranormal needs to reminded we don't have answers. We do know some things that cause problems, and a few things that stop the activity or problems. We actually don't always know why, just that some things are effective.

Each of us have a slightly different understanding and self truth....to those of us with faith, we discern as best we can. As science and faith begin to prove each other, we will eventually come to a better understanding. In the meantime, we really do have to hold many of these "researchers" accountable on their "absolutes" that they present. And that includes the scientists as well, as presented in Paintman's story.

 

[Paintman]

Duke, the footnote craze is also prevalent in cockamamie revisionist history books. While I was doing my World War 1 studies I read a few newer, highly respected books.
One revisionist history author supports some wild claims by widely footnoting somebody else's work. In fact, that is how the book is being marketed. All the author did was display a profound misunderstanding of his sourcebook.

These guys are also in the business of selling gold and silver, and blaming all cataclysmic world events soley on secretive Jewish bankers. This way you will be scared into buying their gold and silver.

George had one of these guys on one night. I looked up what had been written about him. Came across a paper written by an undergraduate history student. The kid managed to destroy the guests credibility on every count. What he did was pull away that false fact that the guests whole argument was based on.

 

[Paintman]

Debi's thoughts on this matter ring true.
The radio Priest took a caller with a question on Thursday.(He is a very humble, heavy duty thinker who explains things with Simpsons episodes.)
Caller: What does (big complicated theological question mean?) Theologian #1 says this and theologian #2 says that. What do you think?

Father Simon : sighs, we don't know because we weren't there at the time If the study of theology teaches us anything it is humility. Do you like The Peanuts.?

Lucy: Charlie Brown, your dog is writing a book about theology.
Charlie Brown: What does a dog know about theology?
Snoopy is sitting on top of his doghouse with a typewriter. The thought bubble reads,
"What if I'm wong."

 

[Debi]

Debi's thoughts on this matter ring true.
The radio Priest took a caller with a question on Thursday.(He is a very humble, heavy duty thinker who explains things with Simpsons episodes.)
Caller: What does (big complicated theological question mean?) Theologian #1 says this and theologian #2 says that. What do you think?

Father Simon : sighs, we don't know because we weren't there at the time If the study of theology teaches us anything it is humility. Do you like The Peanuts.?

Lucy: Charlie Brown, your dog is writing a book about theology.
Charlie Brown: What does a dog know about theology?
Snoopy is sitting on top of his doghouse with a typewriter. The thought bubble reads,
"What if I'm wong."

Sometimes, if ya look real close, that thought bubble is over my head, too.

 

[Michaeldecon]

I don't care for her "work", she's a nice lady in person however.

 

[PratchysRevenge]

They deserve each other. Both approach the task at hand very sloppily. Both have been phoning it in for years. Neither are taken with an ounce of credibility by young folks today with an interest in the paranormal.

 

[Paintman]

Hiya Pratchy, good seeing you.
You brought up a really good point about sloppy research and how it does no good for younger people or newcomers researching the paranormal fields.
Just a general observation. A lot of us start listening about this stuff, or reading about it, in a vacuum. All by ourselves. Middle of the night.
And that does not lend itself towards discernment.
Great point, Pratchy.

 

[Debi]

Linda Moulton Howe Announcement - Coast to Coast AM

Seems odd she would announce this in writing as opposed to making a last C2C appearance to reminisce and say goodbye to George and all her "fans." Wonder what the real story is? Is it possible George finally got embarrassed by LMH's poor investigative work and silly claims?

Probably too early for this to be one of George's goofy April Fools jokes.

How about adding this into the mix? Scheduled for tomorrow night!

First Half: Linda Moulton Howe is one of only a handful of professional journalists to tackle topics like cattle mutilation, crop circles, alien abductions and UFO cover-ups seriously. She’ll join George Knapp for the first time in C2C history for a retrospective look back on her career, her sweeping involvement in mystery subjects, and the unique vantage point she has gained covering these topics for so long. She’ll discuss her time as a TV news reporter, her solo work on government secrets, and new revelations about the Bentwaters Incident (where a series of radar and visual contacts were made with UFOs) and the AATIP program which proved the US government is still researching UFOs.

 

[Duke]

Home

George has picked the new C2C "investigative journalist" to replace LMH.