Is It Real?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Even though the show did have a lot of woo, it did offer a good skeptical viewpoint as well.

Welcome to the forum, happy to see you here.

Isn't that the point of the show? To let believers and skeptics present their arguments and give fair time to both? It's a skeptical show but, like Penn and Teller, gives believers a fair shake and lets them speak for themselves before pulling the rug out under them.

As said by other posters, the OP is confusing Is It True? with Is It Real?.

 

[makaya325]

"Is it real" is one of the most biased shows out there. The episodes present the weakest forms of evidence for something and shoot it down.

 

[Akhenaten]

"Is it real" is one of the most biased shows out there. The episodes present the weakest forms of evidence for something and shoot it down.

 

[Legend]

I've watched a few of them.

I wouldn't call it a skeptical show, because they get to the debunking (which takes about 5% of viewing time anyway) right at the end, after all of this mysterious BS at the start in order to get viewers.

That's not a stab at producers here because that's what you've gotta do if your show is gonna make it, just saying what it's like.

The other problem is that they don't actually conclude it, other than imply that it's "probably" not real. This of course allows the morons to weasel their way through it all.

At any rate I watch it. Entertaining show.

Alex.

 

[Legend]

Hello...

The name of the show is "Is It Real?"

I know this because I was on it.

We were on the episode about "Ghosts", this first half of the show featured people chasing "orbs" around haunted locations and psychics "talking" with ghosts, etc..

We were on the second half of the show explaining how "Orbs" are not ghosts, that there has never been a credible image that we could call a ghost and we even went as far as to debunk the infamous Puckett's Junkyard Ghost video.

This is a show that we were proud to be featured on due to the fact that we shared the skeptical side of the show with James Randi.

Even though the show did have a lot of woo, it did offer a good skeptical viewpoint as well.

Watched that episode and vaguely remember that part of it.

Alex.

 

[Bikewer]

The episode about crop circles was pretty much in the skeptical ballpark; they interviewed hoaxers who displayed their methods, talked with a computer guy who rapidly demonstrated how crop circles could be "generated" by flying orbs...That sort of thing.

 

[makaya325]

The episode about crop circles was pretty much in the skeptical ballpark; they interviewed hoaxers who displayed their methods, talked with a computer guy who rapidly demonstrated how crop circles could be "generated" by flying orbs...That sort of thing.

The "Computer guy" was educated in statistics, not crops, so why did they put him on the show?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I've watched a few of them.

I wouldn't call it a skeptical show, because they get to the debunking (which takes about 5% of viewing time anyway) right at the end, after all of this mysterious BS at the start in order to get viewers.

That's not a stab at producers here because that's what you've gotta do if your show is gonna make it, just saying what it's like.

The other problem is that they don't actually conclude it, other than imply that it's "probably" not real. This of course allows the morons to weasel their way through it all.

At any rate I watch it. Entertaining show.

Alex.

Yikes, am I the only one here who loves the show?

It's clearly a skeptical show. They never promote woo, just explain what it is, show examples of it and let believers say their piece before having their say. It's very fair, gentle and objective but clearly skeptical.

The format is bring one or two things out, put it on hold for now, bring something else out, debunk it, being something else out, debunk it and then debunk the first thing or first two things.

 

[makaya325]

They present the weakest forms of evidence and shoot it down. Bring on the hard evidence!

 

[Akhenaten]

They present the weakest forms of evidence and shoot it down. Bring on the hard evidence!

Here is hard evidence of what can happen if one fails to check facts:

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

They present the weakest forms of evidence and shoot it down. Bring on the hard evidence!

Well, all evidence for woo is weak evidence. Since no woo is real because psychics, astrology, vampires, etc. just plain don't exist.

They never pick on straw men or feature the wackiest and craziest proponents. They interview people who have written books on the Bermuda Triangle, have had an astrology column for 30 years and publish in major papers or have been hunting ghosts for 20 years.

The "experts" on these subjects, though even an "expert" really has nothing more or better to say than anyone else.

 

[makaya325]

Well, all evidence for woo is weak evidence. Since no woo is real because psychics, astrology, vampires, etc. just plain don't exist.

They never pick on straw men or feature the wackiest and craziest proponents. They interview people who have written books on the Bermuda Triangle, have had an astrology column for 30 years and publish in major papers or have been hunting ghosts for 20 years.

The "experts" on these subjects, though even an "expert" really has nothing more or better to say than anyone else.

They do not show the strongest UFO evidence, and instead, pick on ufo woo's instead of friedman

 

[Akhenaten]

They do not show the strongest UFO evidence, and instead, pick on ufo woo's instead of friedman

Well, all evidence for woo is weak evidence. Since no woo is real because psychics, astrology, vampires, etc. just plain don't exist.

They never pick on straw men or feature the wackiest and craziest proponents. They interview people who have written books on the Bermuda Triangle, have had an astrology column for 30 years and publish in major papers or have been hunting ghosts for 20 years.

The "experts" on these subjects, though even an "expert" really has nothing more or better to say than anyone else.

See what I did there?

 

[makaya325]

They did not put friedman on because they would have looked like fools

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

They do not show the strongest UFO evidence, and instead, pick on ufo woo's instead of friedman

Here's the UFO show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0Y3HuWuLE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHk4h3pRB-s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsmGxth7p8I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIdvRK4OAnc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3fVs5VoP1o&feature=related


Some of the evidence is very typical of UFO claims. "Therapy" to recover memories of abduction, video alleged to be flying saucers, etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They do not show the strongest UFO evidence, and instead, pick on ufo woo's instead of friedman

Strong evidence for UFOs? As in unidentified objects (duh!) or as in strong evidence for UFOs of ET origin? Existence of the latter 'strong' evidence is highly doubtful.

Friedman is an interesting character but he hasn't presented any convincing evidence for UFOs being of an ET origin. I'm sure there must be a thread on this someone can link to so we don't hijack this one debating it. Anyone care to link to a past discussion that specifically addresses Friedman?

 

[makaya325]

Strong evidence for UFOs? As in unidentified objects (duh!) or as in strong evidence for UFOs of ET origin? Existence of the latter 'strong' evidence is highly doubtful.

No, I meant strong evidence that shows UFO'S are indeed objects that we can not identify, everything from landing sites, radiation to soil, etc

 

[Akhenaten]

No, I meant strong evidence that shows UFO'S are indeed objects that we can not identify, everything from landing sites, radiation to soil, etc

You may have missed this:

The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line. Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

- wise words for machine-gun posters from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

 

[rjh01]

Strong evidence for UFOs? As in unidentified objects (duh!) or as in strong evidence for UFOs of ET origin? Existence of the latter 'strong' evidence is highly doubtful.

Friedman is an interesting character but he hasn't presented any convincing evidence for UFOs being of an ET origin. I'm sure there must be a thread on this someone can link to so we don't hijack this one debating it. Anyone care to link to a past discussion that specifically addresses Friedman?

Here are a couple of threads http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=Friedman
He is mentioned in a few other threads (mostly in CT). Best to do a search on his first name (Stanton) as there is another person with the same surname. Or confine the search to this sub forum.

One interesting thread that mentions Friedman is this one http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4441784&highlight=Friedman#post4441784

 

[makaya325]

Friedman can at least back up some of his claims

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

Friedman has researched the MJ-12 documents since first becoming aware of them from Wiliam Moore and Jaime Shandera in 1984 [2][9]. He addressed criticisms of the original documents in both sources. As an example, Philip J. Klass claimed lexicographic inconsistencies based on the use of Pica typeface in the Cutler-Twining memo and offered $100, in a challenge to Friedman, for each legitimate example of the use of the same style and size Pica type as used in the memo. Friedman provided 14 examples and was paid $1000 by Klass [2](reproduced on p. 262).