Kimball and Redfern Tonight!

The stars aligned just right over the past 24 hours and Nick Redfern is in town. Today I’m taking him on my “Weird L.A.” tour and then we’ll be live in the studio for a 2 hour conversation with Paul Kimball. First up on the agenda will be a discussion of this year’s spate of deaths of UFO personalities and researchers. Then, anything is fair game. Send questions or talking points to greg@radiomisterioso.com.

This entry was posted in upcoming shows. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Kimball and Redfern Tonight!

  1. Ward says:

    Oh one comment i forgot to make is i would love to hear a head to head debate between Peter Robbins and Paul Kimball on the abduction phenomenon. Between Peter’s eloquence and Paul’s litigiousness i think we the audience might gain insights and consider all sides of the issue.

  2. Paul Kimball says:

    Hi Ward,

    Glad you enjoyed the show, but I have no interest in a debate with Peter. He’s a genuinely nice person, who I have no doubt means well… but a debate with him on the abduction issue would be like having a debate with a fundamentalist about the existence of God. Nothing I’m going to say will convince him of the errors made by Hopkins.

    Besides, the material is all on the record, so people can sort it out for themselves and come to their own conclusions. In the end, it’s up to Peter or someone else to come up with a rational, reasoned counter to the Bob, Xang and Zorg scenario.

    By the way, it isn’t litigiousness – it’s simply that I have no use for dogma.

    Best,
    Paul

    • Pardon me for saying (um, writing?) this Paul, but I feel you’re missing the point. The purpose of a debate is not to change your opponent’s mind —when has that ever happened in the history of mankind?— but to bring forth your case using your best arguments, and then letting the audience decide who won.

      But it’s all right if you don’t feel inclined to do something like that. The people who’ve listened to you know it’s not due to a lack of debating skills 🙂

      So how about a debate between Peter and Kevin Randle, moderated by Greg and Don Ecker? That would be pretty neat too 😉

  3. Paul Kimball says:

    RPJ,

    I used to be a debater, both in high school (where I went to the 1985 National Championship) and law school, and you’re right in a sense – a debate is designed not to change your opponent’s mind so much as to influence the listeners, whether a judge in a formal debate, or an audience elsewhere. But that kind of competition isn’t what I’m interested in, because it has nothing to do with having a dialogue, which is a different thing altogether.

    If what you want is a debate, then you already have it. Listen to Peter’s episode, where he outlines his points, or better yet listen to that episode of The Paracast where Hopkins and Jacobs made their defence of their work and methods, and then listen to this one, where Nick, Greg and I outline ours (and let’s be clear that I wasn’t along in critiquing “abduction research”, particularly the ones who use hypnosis), or read Kevin’s “The Abduction Enigma”, or listen to the Paratopia episodes covering the Woods case, or whatever, and there you have it.

    Anything more at this stage would just be repetitive, and wouldn’t promote a dialogue, where people do indeed change their minds. It would simply act as a form of entertainment for people who think that kind of thing is entertaining. No thanks.

    Paul

  4. Paul Kimball says:

    One other thing – a clarification, really.

    I had originally suggested that Nick and I call in to chat about our friend Stuart Miller. Greg decided to make it a show about all of the recent deaths. I didn’t really have an interest in talking about the others (I didn’t know Valdez, for example, and couldn’t really add much to what Greg might say), but it’s Greg’s show, so no worries. If I hadn’t been specifically asked about Hopkins, I wouldn’t have said anything at all (as I didn’t about Valdez, really, and very little about Girard, at least not him specifically), and we probably would have moved on to something else, like lake monsters or tulpas or the Red Sox collapse (because I’ve written and said everything there is to say from my perspective). But Greg asked me, so I answered, and we went from there.

    In other words… blame Greg! 😉

    Paul

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *