- There was an error with your download request. Try again later.
Get the Stitcher App
Take your podcasts on-the-go!
Download The Free App
Get the Stitcher App
Send a link to your phone to take your podcasts on the go.
We Sent You a Link
Did you get it?
About This Show
Scott and Forrest have been called the 'Click and Clack of esoterica' by their listeners. Their mission is to take a look at legendary strange and unusual events from throughout history and interview people who've had close encounters with the unexplained. They strive to bring you everything that's entertaining about those stories and remind you that it's ok to laugh at scary stories sometimes. Put your headphones on, settle in for your commute and get ready to experience a show like nothing you've ever heard before. Show schedule is generally 3 weeks on and 1 week off.
Most Recent Episode
1 day ago
Show delay explanation.
Rated 2 out of
Quality Falls Off Over Time
When I first started listening to this show, I got really into it. Dyatlov Pass and Oak Island specifically were golden. Deeply researched, minimal ads, and very interesting content. I was willing to overlook the occasional rambling because it still added to the discussion at large. Fast-forward to now: large chunks of the episodes are filled with random side-notes, rambling, and non-sequiturs; multiple ads (I'd estimate 3-4) per episode with each advertisement lasting 3-5 minutes; the research just doesn't seem to be as in-depth and entertaining as it used to be. They seem to have lost their way somewhat.
Date published: 2017-03-21
Rated 2 out of
Too Many Tangents
I wanted to like it but you could easily compress episodes to 30-60 minutes if they stayed focused and less bouncing around. A couple episodes actually have segments where they repeat themselves word for word, as if they don't know what they are saying and just jumping around notes. If these are the final edited product, I'm not sure what they bothered to edit out. If they can ever dial it in and focus, I'll listen again. Interesting subjects, uninteresting execution except for an episode here and there that nails it. Really no point in such long episodes where so little is said.
Date published: 2017-07-20
Rated 5 out of
One of my favs
I personally like the banter between the hosts. I appreciate how in-depth their research goes into the history of the subject. It gives the listener a more complete picture of the story. Many of these subjects I've heard covered in other podcasts, but Scott, Forrest and the ARC always come up with new details or backstory that I haven't heard previously. I appreciate them having "a take" at the end as well.
Date published: 2016-10-14
Rated 1 out of
Ugh Simply Ugh
Just So Bad
I enjoy many GOOD mystery themed podcasts, this is not one of those. It's hard to pin down a single thing wrong with this show but here are a few. The hosts use logically fallacious arguments and/or straw-man arguments They leave out well known information that point to prosaic reasons for the "mysteries" they present. Whether done intentionally or through shoddy research it's unforgivable to leave out pertinent information. The personalities of the hosts are also grating but that might be a side effect of their propensity to wander off topic regularly.
Date published: 2016-08-10
Rated 2 out of
Didn't read the reviews until I have listened to t
I heard of this Podcast from another so I liked theirs and thought I would give it a try. This one started off like most do trying to find their way in a new medium, but I thought I will give it a chance. After a few episodes, I started forming my opinion, and it wasn't a favorable one. I thought there was too much idle chatter between the host, they could have gotten their point across with a less filler. Some of the topics I heard them talk about I heard on other Podcast and done better. Then I go and start to read reviews, and what I read about more ads and proved to myself that the opinion I was forming was valid. I will stop before I get to those cast and find another to listen to.
Date published: 2018-02-14
Rated 3 out of
Dislike the meandering banter with this one
Some genuinely curious and intriguing stories, BUT if you eliminated all the time spent on pointless digressions and sponsor promotions, the episodes could be fitted into literally a third or a quarter of the time. I recently listened to the one about unusual deaths, or at least, unusual or macabre WAYS of dying, and I must have been 20 minutes in before they got to the first featured example. Way too much filler. The material also isn't unique enough. I'm increasingly finding, with these podcasts about the "unexplained", that there's too much overlap between them. They all seem to focus on the same few conspiracy theories or urban myths. This is true even among members of the same relatively small podcasting collective. Sometimes two or even three members have covered the same topic. Now I haven't done a survey of which podcasts are usually the first to cover a topic, and which jump on the bandwagon later, so it may be unfair to single out this one, as they may be the imitated, rather than the imitators. But I'm tired of hearing about e.g. The Mothman. Is it too hard (for everyone) to check whether popular and similar podcasts have already covered the topic you plan to cover? It's got to be researched anyway - why isn't the first step: "Has anyone else done this?" It's hard to believe they don't check out the competition, so why isn't there more emphasis on unique and distinctive content, instead of multiple versions of the same stuff?
Date published: 2017-03-13
Rated 2 out of
Passion Project Turned Into Cash Cow
It took the hosts some time to hit their stride, but by the time they got to the Dylatov Pass episode, this podcast was great. Genuinely great. There was a delightful balance between humor, off-the-cuff banter, and thoughtful consideration and explanation of research. It was clear that the hosts were doing a lot of their own research, and that grunt work equipped them to discuss content with fluency and enthusiasm that only comes from showing off the findings of your own hard work.
But then the podcast started getting popular, they started adding more and more advertisements, and this podcast became the full-time gig for at least one host. And everything started falling apart then. It's not just the excessive ads -- and they ARE excessive. I listen to 12+ podcasts regularly, many of them started out small-time and are now careers for the hosts, but not a single one of the others has so many or such lengthy ad spots per episode. In fact, the latest episode, "Monsters Among Us" is literally 1:55:33 of an advertisement. It's all about an upcoming book by the same title, they interview the author, they plug and praise the book repeatedly, and they even read whole stories from the book. It's 2 hours of advertising. It's not even interesting advertising.
Annoying as they are, my biggest problem with recent episodes isn't the ads.
One major problem is the disorganization, lack of detail, and the sharp increase in fallacious, sloppy logic and analysis. I think a variety of poor choices on the part of the hosts has led to this. They have volunteers doing huge amounts of their research for them, and while this makes sense to a degree, the result is the hosts are very obviously less familiar with the content they present. It results in vague descriptions, disjointed analysis, and repeated statements and conclusions that are so silly, so obviously biased, and so far from skeptical or logical that I can't help but feel like Scott and Forrest no longer listen to themselves speak. One can't help but wonder if success has gone to their heads a bit. What made them great (at one time) was their effort. Now they seem to think they've made it and can rest on their laurels. They ramble. They contradict themselves. They are prone to excessive "or somethings" and "uhhh, yeah, I think so..." It's disappointing.
Another significant problem is the content being chosen lately. I think these two may have bitten off more than they can chew and are struggling to produce quality episodes quickly. It's to the point that 75% of the episodes feel like "filler" while you wait for an occasional interesting series on one event/phenomenon. The book promotion episode "Monsters Among Us" was the worst of these to date, but they've also botched what could've been great topics. The Mary Celeste, for example, was unnecessarily stretched over 3 episodes just to fit their new series format (3 episodes each week followed by an off week). I'm a college professor and couldn't shake the feeling I was watching a half-drunk freshman try to stretch a few paragraphs into a 3-page essay. It was annoying. It was boring. It's insulting as a listener who has financially supported this project previously.
My strong sense is that the hosts are increasingly disengaged from what was once a passion project and is now a cash cow. It's made a great podcast mediocre at best. Good things never last, I guess. I will no longer be listening.
Date published: 2016-10-08
Rated 3 out of
Good topics, but they drag on
This used to be my #1 podcast. The topics have always been good, the hosts have great chemistry with just the right balance of humor, and they really do their homework. However, recently many episodes have become somewhat of a drag to listen to. It's not common for topics to be in three parts with each part running 2+ hours. I find that when I think back on them, I have forgotten half the things they have said because they went off on so many tangents that were unrelated to the topic. Many listeners enjoy this, but I personally think it's too much, and it's kind of annoying when it takes three days of commuting to work to get through just one episode.
I've recently gravitated toward podcasts with similar themes which have less running times per episode and are a bit more coherent in terms of sticking to the topic.
Date published: 2017-11-22