Don Ecker debating Michael Shermer on UFOs
Posted: 18 Oct 2009, 01:12I found the link to these clips on The Paracast. Back in 1994, UFO Researcher Don Ecker debated Michael Shermer on his UFO Radio Show. It's quite good ...
http://www.theparacast.com/forum/dr-mik ... t5315.html
"I will never forget when Shermer showed up, he asked Dwight and I to "kind of take it easy on me, I really don't know that much about the subject!" That told me tons about Mike. Skeptic by decree! Okay, so we didn't really take it all that easy on him."
He also reveals during the interview, that another time he debated Michael Shermer during a university appearance on the topic of UFOs, and Michael Shermer was attacking a Roswell Witnesses' book, and was getting all of his facts wrong about it, and then Michael Shermer admitted to Don Ecker, in public, that he had NEVER READ the book in question. So he was arguing against something he hadn't even researched at all. Some students in the audience later told Don Ecker that knowing that changed their perspective on Shermer, whom they saw as someone who had studied, investigated, and rejected what he was debating, rather than dimissing the uninvestigated.
http://www.theparacast.com/forum/dr-mik ... t5315.html
"I will never forget when Shermer showed up, he asked Dwight and I to "kind of take it easy on me, I really don't know that much about the subject!" That told me tons about Mike. Skeptic by decree! Okay, so we didn't really take it all that easy on him."
He also reveals during the interview, that another time he debated Michael Shermer during a university appearance on the topic of UFOs, and Michael Shermer was attacking a Roswell Witnesses' book, and was getting all of his facts wrong about it, and then Michael Shermer admitted to Don Ecker, in public, that he had NEVER READ the book in question. So he was arguing against something he hadn't even researched at all. Some students in the audience later told Don Ecker that knowing that changed their perspective on Shermer, whom they saw as someone who had studied, investigated, and rejected what he was debating, rather than dimissing the uninvestigated.
