October 30, 2016 — Chris Rutkowski with Guest Co-host Greg Bishop

[Gene Steinberg]

Greg Bishop joined me this week as we had a fascinating conversation with Canadian UFO researcher Chris Rutkowski.

We covered a lot of ground here, and it fueled some of the discussion that Greg and I had on this week's episode of the After The Paracast podcast, an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.:

Check here for more information about our premium service:

https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

 

[wwkirk]

Chris is a good guest. But I would have liked more discussion of ghosts.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Chris is a good guest. But I would have liked more discussion of ghosts.

As much as i love the UFO topic - my fav -I think the Paracast could benefit from far more shows on the topic of ghosts and entities. These topics are also hugely popular with audiences of all ages across the world.

There isn't a downside to doing a few more ghost shows. There is a lot of serious research going on and some great evidence is being recorded. Personally, I am long past caring about 'proof' of either UFOs or ghosts. I am virtually positive that both exist, though without being able to offer what 'they' actually consist of. There are so many fascinating questions about NDR's, life after death, psychic or telekinetic phenomena etc.

Gene, some ghosty-wosty guests please?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ghosty-wosty? Nobody says ghosty-wosty.

Let me consider some possibilities.

 

[Randall]

Canadian ufologist Chris Rutkowski was as enjoyable and informative as ever . I particularly liked that he is entirely on-track with respect to the Interdimensional Hypothesis rather than parroting Vallée from his Dimensions days. I've been trying to get the same idea that Chris expressed across to others for years. His comprehension on this issue shows level of sophistication and critical thinking that is a cut above average, something all serious ufologists should strive toward. Also see: The Canadian UFO Survey

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Intelligent conversation from intelligent people, probing and exploring the issues from different angles.... this is the paracast at its best. Happy listener.

FYI if I was a "free" listener and you stopped this one half way through for subscribers only I would have had to have signed up

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I wish we could persuade just two-tenths of one percent of our total listenership to subscribe to The Paracast+. That's all it would take to cover a nice salary for Chris and me.

We are selling the life out of this thing, and we need more members.

But I don't know of a way to offer previews in our current structure.

 

[marduk]

Great show guys, and thanks for asking my question.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

If you are at the "cross roads" at any point please at least try the idea of limiting the free show so you don't get all of it. Try it for a month and see how you go

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We are still on the network, so we cannot do that. We have to evaluate the fact that 25 stations carry this show, and 21 carry my other show. From what one of the program director told me recently (as we announced on this episode), they're getting good traffic because of The Paracast. Do we throw away tens of thousands of hundreds of thousands of listeners because we haven't been able to monetize that traffic?

It's a question best considered in this thread:

Your Paracast Newsletter — October 23, 2016