• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Dec 5th Show - Ed Komarek

Forums New posts
Angel of Ioren

Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Oh boy, I love this guy. You'll never get evidence because it will magically disappear. I'm only 40 minutes in but Gene is kicking butt.
Also, bonus point for Ed mentioning Ray Stanford. I guess we can forget about his evidence.

Everything on the internet it true!!!!

Gene and Chris, this episode has been super entertaining so far.

A
 
I'm only half way through, but I'm getting a somewhat different impression. To me, Gene was exceedingly dubious and wary of Ed for the first third of the interview, but he seemed to gain some respect for him after a while. Gene can testify as to his actual appraisal of Komarek.
 
He's a really nice guy and all, and seems to understand his topic but I still can't find evidence for any of his more extreme claims. But at some point, I just decided to let him have his say, once we established there's no evidence for the secret space program or the rest. No sense gilding the lily.
 
Thanks for trying to hit this guy hard, Gene.

It seems like there is a subtle shift going on in Chris' perspective. First, there was the attitude that exopolitics is BS. Then, it morphed into a they're-misguided-but-I-wish-them-luck-type of approach. Now, you seem to be coming around to the expoliticians POV. Is that true? I cringe when I hear you defending an idea that is, essentially, bad sci-fi as credible--especially when some the guest's conclusions are based on quotes he found on the internet. Did the Disclosure DVD project change your mind somehow?

Hey, I know you don't owe me an explanation. I'm just asking because, as a long-time listener, the shift seems interesting to me.
 
Gene worked this interview in a similar way that I would have. You can't be an ass, but you also just can't let a guy talk out of his ass either.
 
I think that Ed Komarek was an excellent guest with a pretty sophisticated and well thought out hypothesis in general. I would have liked to hear him talk further about the time-line.

The business about physical evidence disappearing has a history in the field and I thought Ed did a good job of explaining how that fit into his hypothesis.

My only constructive criticism of the hosts is that I thought the first quarter or so of the show bordered on badgering, I was certainly glad to see the conversation take a different tone toward mid-way through. I'm all for getting guests to explain the reasoning behind their statements but I swear this time it seemed a bit over the top to me concerning physical evidence that anyone looking into this for any length of time at all already knows the answer to, namely "There is none." I was more interested in hearing what Ed had to say rather than another rehash of the whole "where's the physical evidence" roundabout.

One question I have about the secrecy perpetuating a monopoly on alien resources or back engineered technology is this, "How does having a monopoly on a secret technology make anyone any money?" Is he saying that the sole manufacturer and consumer is essentially the United States (Shadow) Government? How does it make it worth trillions and trillions if you cannot sell it or if you just sell it essentially to yourself? I would have like to have heard that discussed. Maybe Ed will join us here in the forums and discuss that aspect of things along with his time-line. What comes after Cash-Landrum, how does the new Air Force Robotic shuttle fit into it?
 
I finished listening o the show, now. Boy, he really went way out there with the "tall whites" and alien kids floating other kids to play with them... Whoopee!:D Also, the claim that there are alien outposts within U.S. military installations is amazing.

But here's the thing. If the government is already linked up with the aliens, then exopolitics is moot. It would mean we already have diplomatic relations with them. Only the disclosure component would still have relevance.
 
wwkirk said:
I finished listening o the show, now. Boy, he really went way out there with the "tall whites" and alien kids floating other kids to play with them... Whoopee!:D Also, the claim that there are alien outposts within U.S. military installations is amazing.

But here's the thing. If the government is already linked up with the aliens, then exopolitics is moot. It would mean we already have diplomatic relations with them. Only the disclosure component would still have relevance.
Click to expand...

I think he was actually quoting Charles Hall there. If he has done any digging into the Charles Hall case and actually found collaborative evidence it would certainly be interesting to see. I have always discounted Hall's story as being in the same category as Jim Sparks.

Ed presents what I think of as the modern UFO mythos with a couple interesting twists. His attitude is pretty refreshing as he does acknowledge the dangers of running with something too readily. It is easy enough to call it all bullshit and throw it all out. That's pretty safe. It's hard to choose what to allow within the closed sphere of your suspended disbelief so that you can afford it due consideration. He said he keeps his spam filters fairly open and knows the danger of doing so. This makes him much more interesting and worthy of listening to say for example than some of the guests in the recent past like the fellow with the Terrible Conclusion book or whatever the title was.
 
Good show, he's an interesting guy with a bunch of cool stories, whether they be true or not.
He can really talk up a storm!
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I think Ed really wants to know what's going on. He's just assuming too much out of too little evidence, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
This was the impression I got. What might be a piece of evidence pointing to a contactee situation or an abduction gets fitted into the framework of exopolitics--that's forming the conclusion before the evidence shows up. While I agree that Ed was very interesting in what he did have to say, and how he defended his thought process, I still couldn't make the same connections he could with the evidence he presented.

While some aspects of the abduction phenomenon can be tied--however loosely--to the idea that our governments are already allowing these things to happen, I think its unwise to use one aspect of the entire field of Ufology to justify the existence of another aspect.

Good show, though. Very interesting possibilities.

Gryphon
 
I enjoyed the show, i thought the guest was intelligent and articulate.
As Trained says there is a history within the genre of physical evidence going missing, and Chris confirmed this as well.
Like trained i found the first half a little uncomfortable, and was happy when he was given his lead and allowed to run his own race.

No one, has any smoking gun evidence, including every other guest on the show, it did seem a little like he was persecuted above and beyond the norm.

I think there is merit in his assertion that quotes from expert witness's such as generals and rocket scientists count for something despite a lack of physical evidence.

His point in regards to the inconsistancy between the US govts stance that there is nothing to the UFO question, compared to the doc releases of so many other countrys is imo significant.

On the question of why the US govt if it were in possesion of advanced propulsion technology use it in the endless mini wars we have seen, it strikes me that if you have this technology, terrestrial shennanigans pale to insignificance in the big picture, why risk your technological superiority to sort out a terrestrial issue, plus war is profitable, it funds the military who in turn can syphon funds off for this sort of technology, both its research and its application, ie the paychecks of "offworld officers".
If you have control of the solar system and beyond, why risk that superiority just to kill off the cash cow thats funding the program, in such a scenario you'd no more use the tech to end a terrestrial war than you would to stop a speeding motorist, small fish in a big pond.
 
Reading through Ed's website you see where he does cast a wide net and takes some data points from individuals like Clifford Stone and some others that don't appear to be that reliable. I still find his ideas interesting though and want to hear him talk more about his take on the timeline for the development of the U.S. anti-gravity program.
 
I learned that 1/3 of aliens "was like humans", 1/3 "was like humanoids" and the 33.3 remainder "was like whatever."

I also think that sarcasm should be measured in Steinbergs. The "revelations from the internet" comment made me spit out my coffee.
 
Raconteur factor: Subpar--Fast forward used liberally.
Believability factor: Grain of salt not enough; bring the shaker.
Agility when challenged: Pretty good--tangles and confuses the question better than most (good at evoking the "I give up let's move on" response)
Apocryphality factor: 3 out of 5 Woo Woo's
 
mike said:
I enjoyed the show, i thought the guest was intelligent and articulate.
Click to expand...

Articulate? did anyone try to count how many times he said "whatever"? ;)

Sometimes physical evidence gets lost. Sometimes it doesn't, but even having physical evidence doesn't help us much because the results turn inconclusive.

Vallee explains this brilliantly in his book Confrontations. He devotes an entire chapter on the issue of physical evidence, like traces of metal recovered during an alleged UFO case —e.g. the Ubatuba case— the analysis doesn't throw anything remarkable, but then he makes the brilliant analogy that at this point it's as if we tried to analyze the contents of a Lamborghini's ashtray to deduce how it runs.

He also tells another brilliant anecdote on how he and his mentor Aime Michel played a little game: Jacques gave Michel a discarded computer 'punching card' and told him "pretend I'm a 14th century farmer and that i found this strange object while plowing my field; you are the venerated Abbot of the local monastery, a learned man who has studied the holy texts and the classical philosophers. Now tell me, father, what is this object and what should I do with it?"

So Michel takes the card and examines it, and after a moment returns it to Vallee and with a mischievous smile answers "burn it my son. This is clearly something of the devil."

This is a good example of how physical evidence would have been easily lost in ancient times. For even if the abbot had had the good sense of keeping the card and studied, and even if back in the 14th century they would have counted with microscopes, there's little knowledge they would have gained. The abbot would have found a number of impurities, and probably considered them to be contamination, without ever figuring out that the precise placing of the impurities is what gives the card its electrical properties.

Ed also touched on something Vallee mentioned in his book Messengers of Deception, on how it's inadvisable to enter the study of UFOs with a scientific attitude, because the phenomenon 'deliberately' attempts to be deceiving and confuse the observer. It's better to approach it from the perspective of a counter-intelligence agent, and that's what Ed tried to explain, though not very effectively IMHO.

But then the interview moved from improvable (and improbable) Internet mythologies to personal accounts, and that did pique my interest.
 
red_pill_junkie said:
Ed also touched on something Vallee mentioned in his book Messengers of Deception, on how it's inadvisable to enter the study of UFOs with a scientific attitude, because the phenomenon 'deliberately' attempts to be deceiving and confuse the observer. It's better to approach it from the perspective of a counter-intelligence agent, and that's what Ed tried to explain, though not very effectively IMHO.

But then the interview moved from improvable (and improbable) Internet mythologies to personal accounts, and that did pique my interest.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree totally with what you've said. On one hand Ed seems to acknowledge the dangers of unsubstantiated claims and displays a sophisticated understanding of the nature of the problem while seemingly embracing a few too many for most tastes.

One thing has become apparent to me after listening to two billion podcasts is that public speaking is a skill that everyone doesn't possess. Certainly many authors and researchers who may be skilled in other aspects may not be the best public speakers or take to the microphone as well as some others. I thought Ed did a fair job and came across as a very good natured fellow.
 
I'm with RPJ on the whole articulation thing. I grew up out in the country and to hear my accent, you'd assume that I couldn't put 2 and 2 together with the aid of a TI-84, but I take pains not to use bad grammar, especially when I'm pretending to be knowledgeable.

As for the substance of Mr. Komarek's arguments, I just can't buy into the premise that the "global elite" are in league with ET's and refuse to divulge the information because they're "making trillions." Firstly, the "elite" don't have to enter into a pact with any E.T.'s for money; they can borrow it, sell resources which they already control for it, or print it.
I could see a pact for immortality.
I could see a pact for scientific knowledge.
I could see a pact for the ability to explore the universe, but a secret arrangement just to make money?
Why would ET give a damn about our obsession with stuff, and what could they possibly gain with some sort of contract with the most powerful of us on that basis?

I don't buy into the Exopolitics movement. I think in their most benevolent conceivable personified form, any intelligent alien life would look at us much in the manner that Diane Fossey looked at Gorillas. Maybe a harmless fascination with our habits and activities, but with the clear distinction that we are a lower form of life.
 
Regardless of the quality or legitimacy of the guest, I have a point I'd like to make about the way you are interviewing at times, Gene. Now, I say this with the greatest respect, but it must be said.

I've been around your podcast and now radio show for many, many years, but Gene, on more that one occasion you've taken a shot at a guest for what you felt was an interruption. It happened again in this show (around the 1 hour mark or so) where you felt the guest was cutting you off, when in fact I did not get that impression whatsoever. If anything, I felt that the guest had begun to speak at a suitable moment in the flow of the conversation. I know it's a judgment call, and some are more likely than others to cut in during an interview, but this isn't the first time I've heard you make some pretty cutting remarks about how you felt you were being "dissed" by a guest, when in fact I had a totally opposite impression.

I wouldn't mention this unless I respected the show and you, Gene, so don't get me wrong here. It's only my opinion, take it for what it's worth, but the best interviews usually go off when a host lets the guest run, either to end up dazzling the listeners with their brilliance or to accumulate enough rope to hang themselves, whatever the case may be.

That being said, I found the guest and the interview interesting, whatever. ;)
 
Back
Top