February 5, 2017 — Don Ecker

[Gene Steinberg]

The irrepressible Don Ecker holds forth on the sad state of the UFO field, compelling cases, not-so-compelling cases, and the fraudsters he's encountered over the years.

This discussion continues on After The Paracast, an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

Please check here for details: Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[wwkirk]

It was nice hearing Don again.
I found his ideas about moon bases to be intriguing.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Here's what I love about Don Ecker's visits to the show, he pulls no punches, shoots straight (based on his own research, experience and knowledge) and he is not shy about calling out the fraudsters and dubious characters in the field of Ufology by name. It helps separate the silly from the serious for people interested in UFOs but perhaps haven't totally immersed themselves in the topic and the players. Gene always goes in to his "they who shall not be named" schtick, one of my biggest pet peeves of the show, which is ridiculously sophomoric. Don't express frustration that people like Michael Horn or entities like Third Phase of Moon, get booked for conferences or have huge followings on YouTube if you are not prepared to call these fraudsters out by NAME when the topic is raised so that any newcomers and neophytes interested in the field/phenomena can be properly educated BEFORE they waste too much time going down those illegitimate rabbit holes. To do otherwise means you are perpetuating the ignorance about these fraudulent people. The Paracast and its hosts (and guests like Don, Paul Kimball, Greg Bishop, Alejandro Rojas, to name a few) can actually provide listeners with credible, informed and helpful insight about the plethora of characters in UFOlogy who DO have credibility and, as equally important IMO, DON'T have credibility. There doesn't have to be a lengthy diatribe every time a fraudster is mentioned but at least say the name so people listening know who the red flag is about and can avoid them, or not, at their own discretion.

Thanks to Don Ecker for his refreshing candor and colorful commentary. It's always a treat.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The Michael Horn schtick dates back to our old days. He wants publicity so I avoid saying his name whenever the subject comes up. A method to my madness.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

The Michael Horn schtick dates back to our old days. He wants publicity so I avoid saying his name whenever the subject comes up. A method to my madness.

I'm well aware of when the schtick originated. Respectfully, your method is flawed. How does referring to, or responding to a comment about, a fake or fraud in a conversation without saying their name help listeners avoid their lies and dubious claims? Let me answer for you. It doesn't. It's too "insider baseball" as you like to say. He, and others that come up, need to be referenced BY NAME when discussing frauds. It's NOT "publicity" it's educating your audience on who to avoid. It's a public service that the show should be providing and is one of the benefits of your and Chris' experience, knowledge and credibility. In a field where answers are in short supply, this is one area where you and Chris can provide clear guidance to both serious seekers and armchair enthusiasts. To do any less is to tacitly perpetuate the problem of fraud, lies and fanciful stories that frustrates us all.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thanks for your input.