close menu
Episode 134: You Made It Weird
Beth Stelling
You Made It WeirdYou Made It Weird

You Made It Weird #134: Beth Stelling

Beth Stelling (Conan! Comedy!) makes it weird!

Follow @BethStelling on Twitter and get her album Sweet Beth!

Follow @peteholmez on Twitter and Like the show on Facebook. Buy YMIW shirts and Pete’s album “Impregnated with Wonder”!

Support the show by clicking on the banner below and shopping at!





John Cleese Recapping THE WALKING DEAD Is Simply Delightful

John Cleese Recapping THE WALKING DEAD Is Simply Delightful

Wolverine's LOGAN Trailer Looks Unlike Any Superhero Movie We've Seen

Wolverine's LOGAN Trailer Looks Unlike Any Superhero Movie We've Seen

Queen's Fast Version of

Queen's Fast Version of "We Will Rock You" Should Be the Band's New Old Single



  1. choy says:

    Tim Allen Schwarzenegger impression cracked me up! I’m surprised they both just glazed over that one.. and Skittle baby – haha! Excellent. 

  2. Amanda says:

    Hey, Check it out! Stars On Call! Beth’s dad!

  3. sam says:

    What I just said applies equally to you. You completely copped out when I asked you to back the assertions you made, and now you stick to spewing the same repetitive crap instead engaging in any actual sort of conversation. These unbacked assertions are pointed out in my earlier reply to you.

    Just because you claim my evidence is invalid does not make it so, any more than when a creationist claims that there’s no evidence for evolution. Once again, I am puzzled why you continue post if you’re not even willing to have an actual conversation.

  4. sam says:

    I really don’t get why you continue to respond if you’re just going to make the same vague, repetitive statements. You don’t seem to understand the difference between making a broad claim and actually backing it up with evidence. In all your posts you’ve pretty much said absolutely nothing.

    • nospadde says:

      Sam, the overarching point of this whole pointless conversation is that you have NO evidence to back it up. What you are are a series of anecdotes and suppositions from journal articles. That isn’t evidence. That isn’t proof.

      At this point, I (and likely everyone else on this board) just think you are stupid. Thats fine too! We need folks like you around. Just stop trying to think you know anything about science. You’ve provided ample evidence that you do not.

      Good day sir.

  5. david says:

    Well I’m tired of trying to explain basic scientific principles and research practices to you. You clearly don’t understand what actual evidence is, you consistently misinterpret journal articles or link to fake journals for your own confirmation bias. You clearly don’t want to learn as it may ruin your dillusional view of reality. When you or any of your authors win a nobel prize and become world famous for proving NDE’s, post again because until then I’m done trying to help you understand your flawed reasoning. This level of evidence would never be accepted in any field. Get your last word in because I know you need to feel you’re right. It must be a huge conspiracy suppressing the truth from the masses. Put on your tinfoil hat and good luck.

  6. sam says:

    I’ll respond to this because I think it could be clarified.

    “this exchange has only been incredible useless because you are unable to distinguish what the authors are actually writing in the lancet and the alphagalileo journals, and also between the experience of an NDE and an NDE being some sort of consciousness outside oneโ€™s body.”

    The Lancet article authors clearly do think that the NDE is suggestive of non-localized consciousness, we just had whole discussion about that, remember? Your statement is clearly false.

    As for the other study, here’s the most relevant paragraph

    “From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events.”

    So not only are the memories of an NDE unlike what is associated with memories of imagined events, NDE patients actually had better factual recall after regaining consciousness than those who did not.

    Here’s the actual study:

    This fits well with the central argument of Kastrup’s article, which is that inhibited brain function can, under certain circumstances, be associated with enhanced mentation and increased vividness of experience. This is already a commonly reported feature of the NDE, and is further corroborated by this study.