Thanks. I hope it was clear. Could you tell that these guys irk me sometimes?
I thought you were very clear. And yeah, people like this can be a little troublesome to deal with, because they are just unwilling to accept that their perceptions may be leading them astray.
I've actually experienced a UFO sighting, and not too long ago either. I may mention it sometime in my podcast. It was in the afternoon/evening, still light out. I was looking out my window and saw a light in the sky that seemed to be moving much faster than would be warranted by something far enough away for me to see only as a point of light.
I saw it for a good 10 or 20 seconds before it disappeared. If I was of a mind to jump to these kind of conclusions, I would adamantly proclaim that I saw something moving in ways that are impossible for any known earthly craft. But since I understand what the U in UFO stands for, I just thought "Wow, that's really interesting. I wonder what that was?"
My best guess is a helicopter, since I live nearby a hospital and they fly in emergency patients every so often. It still seemed to be moving faster than I would have expected of a helicopter, but I knew that these kinds of things can be much more difficult to judge than you would expect.
So I knew that it was deceptively easy to fool yourself when judging the speed and size of objects in the sky, but you've made it much clearer to me exactly how that works.
How were the interspersed clips? Too much? Too little? Need bigger pause or setup? I ask because I plan on using a lot of clips in the future, especially as I get into creationism, 2012, and the moon hoax, but I don't want to go over- nor under-board.
Well, keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing myself, but I usually try to at least work in enough of a quote to accurately illustrate the position of the people I'm arguing against. Cutting it down too much would risk quoting somebody out of context, and I think that's the biggest problem that you want to look out for.
I didn't think your clips were too long, and they accurately illustrated the kinds of arguments that were being made. I say it's good to be fairly liberal in interspersing clips. That way you can make sure to yourself, and demonstrate to your audience, that you're not attacking a straw man.
That said, of course it's true that you don't want the clips to dominate the show. Hopefully people are listening because they're interested in what *you* have to say. But I think you'd have to go pretty far in order to make a serious mistake in that direction.
I'm also workin' on a logo. It's a bit cartoony, but the concept is an opening door (square door since the "album art" for the podcast is square) with a guy peeking out representing the "exposing" part. I don't dislike what I came up with in 20 minutes this afternoon, but feedback would be 'preciated!
If you like the concept, tweaks I'm thinking of are to "open" the door more to allow for bigger text. I want to use the handwriting font, but I realize it doesn't show up too well on an iPod nano. I was also thinking maybe a flashlight effect coming through the door that encompasses the text?
I think it looks good, but I'm wondering if it would lend itself to too many "coming out of the closet" jokes. And while those would be really cool jokes, I would think that for a logo the joke should be more clearly demonstrated.
Have you considered a cartoon telescope with arms and legs wearing a trench coat? He could have his back turned with the trench coat flung open, and he's looking back over his shoulder at the audience with a mischievous grin on his face.