• 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!

October 15, 2017 — Dr. Scott Kolbaba with Paul Kimball

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Continuing our focus on non-UFO episodes, this week we talked to Dr. Scott Kolbaba, an internist, who has assembled a book with fascinating stories of possible encounters with the afterlife.

Paul Kimball, our guest cohost, returned to join me on After The Paracast, where was, in part anyway, in rant mode again in arguing against UFO profiteers.

After The Paracast is an exclusive podcast available to subscribers of The Paracast+. For more information, please check:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
This show is all about propping-up belief and faith in the afterlife through hearsay that plays into wishful thinking, religion, and confirmation bias. Although Kolbaba is a medical doctor, those credentials have no relevance to the stories, which are unverified and wholly unscientific. I'll thank Kimball for asking my question, but the doctor's answer was also of no relevance, and so far, there's been no substantial counterpoint offered for why afterlives are impossible. I'd suggest that if Kimball wants a scientist's perspective that is actually relevant, that he should pay more attention to Sam Harris. This clip has been posted a number of times. Here it is again.

 
Last edited:
Continuing our focus on non-UFO episodes, this week we talked to Dr. Scott Kolbaba, an internist, who has assembled a book with fascinating stories of possible encounters with the afterlife.

Paul Kimball, our guest cohost, returned to join me on After The Paracast, where was, in part anyway, in rant mode again in arguing against UFO profiteers.

After The Paracast is an exclusive podcast available to subscribers of The Paracast+. For more information, please check:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

Thanks for having me on, Gene. It was nice chatting with Scott. Just as we have no concrete evidence for space aliens, despite what some true believers (who don't really understand the concepts of evidence and proof) like to assert, we have no concrete evidence for an afterlife. In both cases, we have anecdotal stories (a soft form of evidence, to a limited degree) that are interesting, and certainly thought-provoking, but that's as far as it goes.
 
This show is all about propping-up belief and faith in the afterlife through hearsay that plays into wishful thinking, religion, and confirmation bias. Although Kolbaba is a medical doctor, those credentials have no relevance to the stories, which are unverified and wholly unscientific. I'll thank Kimball for asking my question, but the doctor's answer was also of no relevance, and so far, there's been no substantial counterpoint offered for why afterlives are impossible. I'd suggest that if Kimball wants a scientist's perspective that is actually relevant, that he should pay more attention to Sam Harris. This clip has been posted a number of times. Here it is again.

I have a major intellectual crush on Sam Harris. He is HOT. But I see no reason to be hostile to life after death. Although this cannot be proved with anecdotes, I do enjoy listening to such stories. My issue is whether ALL LIFE has an after life? If so, what happens to fish? Do they float around in the ether, waving their astral fins and breathing astral oxygen? I find when I take an after life speculation out of the human perspective, it seems rather silly. The entire dog rainbow bridge thing seems crazy. So when I die, all my dogs are going to come running across a rainbow bridge and across a field to me? I've had about 10 dogs in my life so far. They would mow me down! I would turn around and run "for my life"! But I know many people who take the dog rainbow bridge literally. My bottomline view is that a person's view on life after death is theirs, like their bowel movements. Some people use their after life views to condemn others (visualize ranting Christians pointing fingers at all the sinners that are going to hell). But otherwise, this world has so many other problems to deal with here and now. So I do not think it is my place to protest peoples' after life beliefs. But when asked, I tell people that I believe in the Great Hippo God, who will greet me in the river of Heaven. I will shape shift into a crocodile and spend eternity joyously eating Christians. LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Continuing our focus on non-UFO episodes, this week we talked to Dr. Scott Kolbaba, an internist, who has assembled a book with fascinating stories of possible encounters with the afterlife.

Paul Kimball, our guest cohost, returned to join me on After The Paracast, where was, in part anyway, in rant mode again in arguing against UFO profiteers.

After The Paracast is an exclusive podcast available to subscribers of The Paracast+. For more information, please check:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
Cannot wait to hear Paul's commentary on ATP.
 
I have a major intellectual crush on Sam Harris. He is HOT. But I see no reason to be hostile to life after death. Although this cannot be proved with anecdotes, I do enjoy listening to such stories. My issue is whether ALL LIFE has an after life? If so, what happens to fish? Do they float around in the ether, waving their astral fins and breathing astral oxygen?

I like Harris too, but he's not the only voice. Also, it always cracks me up when I see folks cite a scientist to disprove something they don't believe in, but then reject the scientific consensus when it runs counter to those things in which they do believe... like space aliens visiting Earth in structured craft for decades now (and if you think there isn't an overwhelming scientific consensus against that proposition, then you haven't been paying attention). It would be hypocrisy if it wasn't so amusing. I just can't take anyone seriously when they "think" like that.
 
Just as we have no concrete evidence for space aliens, despite what some true believers (who don't really understand the concepts of evidence and proof) like to assert

It’s true that alien visitors haven’t left behind any samples of concrete. But there has been plenty of evidence in the form of radar cases, multiple independent eyewitnesses, military personnel taking film footage, and trace evidence (which is meaningful within the context of other factors such as eyewitness reports and radar confirmation).

I wouldn’t say that the body of available evidence meets the scientific burden of proof, but it probably meets the legal standard.

So I think it’s fairly revolting to ridicule people who find such evidence and testimony to be compelling, by using ugly and vapid slurs like “space aliens” and “true believers,” simply because you disagree with them about what defines a “significant body of evidence.”

It wasn’t long ago that we had far less compelling evidence of ball lighting, for example, and the pathologically cynical people among us openly ridiculed those who reported such events.

But they were all wrong, and today (thanks to one or two clear photos of the phenomenon and some minor progress in plasma physics), the scientific consensus now generally holds that ball lighting is real.

So I would argue that the intellectual capability of those people who were able to determine that ball lighting is a real phenomenon, with somewhat less evidence that the scientific burden of proof, has sometimes proven to be superior to that of people who require a larger and more obvious body of evidence to accept an unusual phenomenon as real. And in fact, I argue that this appears to be the case regarding ufos.
 
Last edited:
Just as we have no concrete evidence for space aliens, we have no concrete evidence for an afterlife.
The argument above suggests that there's an equivalence between afterlives and aliens that can be used to justify the notion that they're both equally valid concepts. They're not. There's nothing impossible about alien visitation. However there's no counterpoint that I've seen that can nullify the position that afterlives are impossible. If anyone has one, by all means I'd like to see it.
 
I have to commend you Gene for having so many controversial guests on. You're starting to emphasize the "para" in "Paracast", which doesn't just refer to UFOs.

I agree. Nothing against UFOs (which I still find interesting, although I don't think there's anything really new happening), but there are a lot of other subjects out there that have greater popularity, and I would argue, at least in the case of the afterlife, greater and more immediate importance to us personally. Most important, having a multi-topic approach pays the proper respect to the varied nature of the phenomenon, or phenomena, depending on your point of view.
 
I have to commend you Gene for having so many controversial guests on. You're starting to emphasize the "para" in "Paracast", which doesn't just refer to UFOs.
I can't say the same thing. If the show drifts the way of Coast to Coast I'll be looking for something else to listen to.
 
It’s true that alien visitors haven’t left behind any samples of concrete. But there has been plenty of evidence in the form of radar cases, multiple independent eyewitnesses, military personnel taking film footage, and trace evidence (which is meaningful within the context of other factors such as eyewitness reports and radar confirmation).

I wouldn’t say that the body of available evidence meets the scientific burden of proof, but it probably meets the legal standard.

So I think it’s fairly revolting to ridicule people who find such evidence and testimony to be compelling, by using ugly and vapid slurs like “space aliens” and “true believers,” simply because you disagree with them about what defines a “significant body of evidence.”

It wasn’t long ago that we had far less compelling evidence of ball lighting, for example, and the pathologically cynical people among us openly ridiculed those who reported such events.

But they were all wrong, and today (thanks to one or two clear photos of the phenomenon and some minor progress in plasma physics), the scientific consensus now generally accepts that ball lighting is real.

So I would argue that the intellectual capability of those people who were able to determine that ball lighting is a real phenomenon, with somewhat less evidence that the scientific burden of proof , has sometimes proven to be superior to that of people who require a larger and more obvious body of evidence to accept an unusual phenomenon as real. And in fact, I argue that this appears to be the case regarding ufos.
Yes, but why should a material manifest craft (deluxe edition with aliens) also result in paranormal experiences? Many people who have had such encounters have seemingly unrelated ghost appearances and other strange occurences. I just don't see how a purely physical phenomena would create a plethora of bizarre experiences. For this reason, people are beginning to theorize that this is a mysterious force that can manifest itself physically at least for short periods of time. Yet the source is not mundane three dimensional Star Trekian reality. As you've probably heard, some consider it the classic Trickster element in humanity. I do not know and would never pretend to know. I just cannot reconcile all the "spooky stuff" with a purely physical phenomena (aliens from another planet floating around our planet).
 
Yes, but why should a material manifest craft (deluxe edition with aliens) also result in paranormal experiences? Many people who have had such encounters have seemingly unrelated ghost appearances and other strange occurences. I just don't see how a purely physical phenomena would create a plethora of bizarre experiences. For this reason, people are beginning to theorize that this is a mysterious force that can manifest itself physically at least for short periods of time. Yet the source is not mundane three dimensional Star Trekian reality. As you've probably heard, some consider it the classic Trickster element in humanity. I do not know and would never pretend to know. I just cannot reconcile all the "spooky stuff" with a purely physical phenomena (aliens from another planet floating around our planet).

This is the point of view I advocate in my work, whether it be on screen or in books or in talks. It's the high strangeness stuff that is really interesting, although it's not as popular with believers and dis-believers because it absolutely defies easy answers. Indeed, it requires true agnosticism, mixed with open-minded wonderment.

I recommend the following case as one of Canada's "unsung best" (I say "unsung" because the only two people who talk about it, to my knowledge, are Chris Styles and me): UFOs Over Lower Sackville
 
I can't say the same thing. If the show drifts the way of Coast to Coast I'll be looking for something else to listen to.
Well, U.S., I found this particular episode to be rather tedious and I didn't make it to the end. This has just been done so many times on Coast to Coast and other podcasts. I didn't like how easily impressed the doctor seemed to be by his anecdotes. I often enjoy such stories, but this doctor just seemed too involved with the material. I would have been more impressed if the good doctor had been able to stay objective while sharing with us stories that are suggestive of a larger reality. I honestly just did not see this as a scientific review of such stories but instead a confirmation of the doctor's conversion to a BELIEF in life after death. We can believe any dang thing we want to, but belief really doesn't mean a thing. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood.

UPDATE: I just realized that I forgot to take my meds this morning. OMG. That might explain a lot of my perceptions and lack thereof today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like Harris too, but he's not the only voice. Also, it always cracks me up when I see folks cite a scientist to disprove something they don't believe in, but then reject the scientific consensus when it runs counter to those things in which they do believe... like space aliens visiting Earth in structured craft for decades now (and if you think there isn't an overwhelming scientific consensus against that proposition, then you haven't been paying attention). It would be hypocrisy if it wasn't so amusing. I just can't take anyone seriously when they "think" like that.
I don't know of any scientist that would agree with the idea that alien visitation is scientifically impossible. They only cite an absence of scientifically valid material evidence sufficient enough to prove ( to them ) that it's actually happened. Afterlives are a whole other kettle of fish, and Harris gives reasons based on neuroscience that support the idea that afterlives are nonsense. So find me reasons based on astronomy or astrobiology why alien visitation isn't possible. You wont. You'll only find reasons why scientists think it's unlikely, and that's totally different.

BTW in neither case am I "rejecting science" in some self serving manner. However on that note, I've engaged numerous skeptics who extol the ingenuity of the human species when it comes to explaining away ancient aliens, while at the same time belittling and mocking the capacity of humans to behave intelligently when it comes to modern day UFO sightings. The hypocrisy there is so thick you can slice it. A more fair-minded perspective is that in both cases humans are an amazing species who built ancient megalithic structures without the help of ET, and have also seen craft that are best explained by some sort of alien presence.
 
Yes, but why should a material manifest craft (deluxe edition with aliens) also result in paranormal experiences?
An answer could be to study our psychological reaction to things we don't understand. We humans do that to animals and even to ourselves. John Alexander describes psyops where exactly that sort of thing was done to psychologically affect the enemy. So if we find alien visitation in high-tech vessels to be a reasonable explanation for some UFO reports, then it's not a stretch to ask why they're here and to answer that by suggesting that they're studying the planet, including us.
 
Yes, but why should a material manifest craft (deluxe edition with aliens) also result in paranormal experiences?
Tricky question to answer – for example, what do we mean by “paranormal experiences?” Lots of people would describe a sighting of a metallic craft executing rapid hairpin maneuvers in the sky as a “paranormal experience.”

We’d have to look at each example if we wanted to try to find specific explanations. From personal experience I’ve seen that some people are interested in their unusual experiences, so they remember them and talk about them, while other people could care less about such things and forget about them fairly quickly. So any connection could be “correlation” rather than “causation.” I assume that ghost experiences are psychological/neurological in nature, rather than objectively phenomenological, but perhaps they're both in some sense.

Life is complex, and the universe is vast and almost entirely unexplored. All kinds of exotic and unrelated phenomena are possible. I think we’re likely to be led astray if we try to put all of these different possibilities into a single basket.

Many people who have had such encounters have seemingly unrelated ghost appearances and other strange occurences. I just don't see how a purely physical phenomena would create a plethora of bizarre experiences. For this reason, people are beginning to theorize that this is a mysterious force that can manifest itself physically at least for short periods of time.
I think that’s a mistake. Many witnesses have seen exotic solid craft behaving in a mechanical manner, following and evading aircraft, entering and exiting the water, leaving trace evidence, hovering for extended periods, emitting light of various colors,, etc. That just doesn’t jibe with “a mysterious force that can manifest itself physically at least for short periods of time,” in my estimation. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

Yet the source is not mundane three dimensional Star Trekian reality.
It’s odd to see that some people find the idea of an alien device visiting the Earth to be ridiculously unlikely, while others like yourself call the idea “mundane.” Many different things appear to be going on; some sightings are almost certainly experimental aircraft, others appear to be extraterrestrial technology, and others appear to be so far beyond our comprehension that it’s difficult to even construct a rational interpretation. But flatly concluding, as you have, that the source of the sighting experience is the same, and unphysical, seems logically indefensible to me.

As you've probably heard, some consider it the classic Trickster element in humanity.
There are many instances where the reported events are truly and deeply confounding. And I think it would be absurd to rule out the possibility that other forms of consciousness could be inhabiting the Earth and intersecting with our perceptions from time to time. Perhaps the Earth itself is consciousness is some way that eludes our comprehension, as the First Nations people suggest. Perhaps other organisms, like hives or even large fungi, possess some form of consciousness that’s entirely unknown to us, but perhaps quite sophisticated in its own right. Or maybe our own consciousness couples to physical reality in subtle ways that we have yet to understand, and our own subconscious mind plays tricks on us via this unidentified causal mechanism.

In any case, there seems to be no shortage of intriguing mysteries to explore and hopefully explain in the future. I’m grateful for that, frankly; a world without mystery would be a drab world indeed, and the exhilaration of scientific progress would vanish entirely.

I just cannot reconcile all the "spooky stuff" with a purely physical phenomena (aliens from another planet floating around our planet).
Like I said, it may well be a mistake to try to “reconcile” seemingly disparate phenomena. We can’t even describe physics with a single postulate – why should the full range of human experience be any different?

Regardless, I think it’s disingenuous to characterize the behavior of unidentified flying objects as “floating around our planet.” To the contrary, all of the interesting cases indicate craft executing deliberate precision maneuvers, and exhibiting extremely high speeds, which suggests purpose and agency. If they simply meandered around aimlessly, as you’ve implied, they’d be a lot easier to photograph, and capture.

I would hypothesize that we have always been visited by other species (and/or their drones), for thousands if not millions of years, and that once we began detonating over 2000 nuclear warheads, we invited surveillance by any number of species in our galactic vicinity. And I would imagine that many of them would participate in their own sophisticated psyops, just as we do, as Usual Suspect suggested.

But do we have to draw a connection between unidentified aerial objects and things like ghosts, dog men, shadow people, and the Virgin Mary appearing on a slice of bread? I think not.
 
Back
Top