Hi Matt--no offense taken. I don't tend to get offended very easily so feel free to share your opinion. I agree that C2C might not be appropriate venue, but let me present a counter argument. First, despite the often strange, non-mainstream topics (and some guests, yes, for sure), there are often excellent scientific guests on the show. Many are highly respected in their fields of study and highly educated. Those are the C2C shows that I really enjoy. There are plenty that I find odd or don't care for the guests etc and just avoid altogether or turn off, but when you have a renowned physicist doing a 1-4 hour in depth interview on theoretical physics, THAT I'm interested in. My point is that just being interviewed on the show does not necessarily equate to "no respect". There are PhDs from schools like Princeton, Dartmouth, UCLA, Cambridge etc etc that appear on the show and who still maintain respect in their communities because they give thoughtful, educated, non-sensationalistic interviews. Yes, C2C does also have very bizarre guests on at times and the hosts will let them (and callers) freely give their opinions as well. But it doesn't mean there's not a place for groups such as Tighar who are conducting legitimate research to further air their hypothesis and try to gain more interest and funding.
As I listened to that gentleman discussing his Amelia research and the lack of depth and evidence given, it made me frustrated because Tighar seems to have a much larger and stronger database of evidence. I wanted Tighar's hypothesis and evidence discussed and presented.
Perhaps there are a couple part time hosts who are a bit more in depth with their questions and interviews than the main host, George Noory. I tend to favor George Knapp's guest interviews myself.
I am inclined to think of an interview with millions of listeners, some of which I'm sure are able to listen to and appreciate intelligent discussions, could not be harmful if the guest (in this case, say for example, Ric), was reasonable, intelligent, and presented a well-rounded presentation of the evidence. (I work in a scientific field, by the way--medicine--as well as being the daughter of a mother who has a PhD in a scientific field and is constantly working on research---and I am not one to just naively believe what someone says without them having a good base of evidence.)
Anyway, just my two cents. If the show is ok for the likes of scientists such as Dr. Mikio Kachu, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dr. Robert Zubrin, etc etc etc, then I think it's at least worth a post mentioning it as a possibility for more publicity and fundraising.
I appreciate your opinions! Love coming to this forum and reading the current findings and thoughts by forum members. Been reading here off and on for a long time but just rarely post.
Laura