• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Robert M. Collins and Paul H. Smith Come to The Paracast

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Listen to our September 17th broadcast, where you'll hear from:

Former Air Force intelligence officer Robert M. Collins, author of "Exempt from Disclosure, 2nd Edition," who will be on hand to talk about government UFO conspiracies and what they really know about those strange objects in the skies.

You'll also learn about the mysteries of remote viewing, the ability to see things in your mind that are happening in other locations and other times, with Paul H. Smith, author of "Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate -- America's Psychic Espionage Program."
 
M

meciar

Guest
These guests sound very interesting. I'm quite interested in the idea of remote viewing especially. I'm not much of a believer in the conspiracy stuff, so it is also interesting to hear what they say.

I hope you guys offer more criticism to your future guests than you did with Stanton Friedman though. He seemed to talk for 99% of the show - granted he did have a lot of stuff he could talk about. Still, I'd like to see you guys interject some more with criticism (like you did for the second show with "he who shall not be named")
 

Aspie

Skilled Investigator
Oh geez no not remote viewing. Well at least you aren't having Ed Dames on the show. I hope you ask Smith to come up with some evidence for remote viewing, because in all the years I have listened to these types of people I have yet to see a single shred that proves it works.
 
D

david_r_p

Guest
Gene Steinberg said:
Listen to our September 17th broadcast, where you'll hear from:

Former Air Force intelligence officer Robert M. Collins, author of "Exempt from Disclosure, 2nd Edition," who will be on hand to talk about government UFO conspiracies and what they really know about those strange objects in the skies.

You'll also learn about the mysteries of remote viewing, the ability to see things in your mind that are happening in other locations and other times, with Paul H. Smith, author of "Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate -- America's Psychic Espionage Program."
I want to pass on a "thank you" to David Biedny. After the interview with Robert Collins, David shot completely straight and made it clear that the Exempt From Disclosure book really wasn't very well written. I read quite a few books in the genre and almost without exception they're very poorly written, lacking footnotes, and not memorable. What irks me is, with the exception of Mr. Biedny, none of the radio (or streaming) hosts ever let their audience know that the guest's book is weak.

I feel like David just saved me $16.00. :)
 
M

meciar

Guest
I just got a chance to listen to the show. I really enjoyed it and agree with what david_r_p says... it is great to hear the hosts being critical! That's what I like to hear. It is no fun if you just agree with all the guests, and you don't get much out of it otherwise. So.. good show.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
Aspie said:
Oh geez no not remote viewing. Well at least you aren't having Ed Dames on the show. I hope you ask Smith to come up with some evidence for remote viewing, because in all the years I have listened to these types of people I have yet to see a single shred that proves it works.
I suppose you'd have to set up some form of formal scientific demonstration for this sort of thing. Alas, even adherents of remote viewing say the technique isn't 100% reliable.

We welcome your suggestions for future discussions of the topic.

And so it goes :)
 

Sepherant

Paranormal Novice
Well, considering it is universally teachable, why not try learning it?

It seems to me that the standard couch-skeptic response to this type of thing is always simple statements of effortless doubt that demand the proof be conjured, assembled and delivered on a silver platter. Well, here's something that the skeptic can actually try out for himself. Join a group that's learning it and working in team fashion for higher accuracy - provided you can weather any annoying new age woogy-woogy attitudes - and then you should have your answer.

Otherwise, I think this will be like any UFO sighting issue: a skeptic's doubt vs their claims.
 

Aspie

Skilled Investigator
But learning RV means falling into the trap of people like Ed Dames. He only does this stuff so he can sell his crappy dvd and training courses. And Dames is hardly a great advert for the success of these training courses. In over 10 years of listening to him I am still waiting for his first hit.
 
M

meciar

Guest
Sepherant said:
Well, considering it is universally teachable, why not try learning it?
Because it costs $2000!

I'm not a real believer in this stuff, so I'd be happy to learn it and see that it works for myself. But who is going to teach this stuff? Its not exactly mainstream, and the disbelief I have in it doesn't warrant the $2k + flight etc for taking Paul H. Smith's course. Obviously, if it did work, I'd be laughing cause I'd just make the money back on stocks or something.

His "not in it for the money" speech didn't exactly convince me either. Who's not going to do some stock trading if you can know the future prices with even 65% certainty? If I were him, I'd make a few million and then teach the course to others for free ;)
 

Aspie

Skilled Investigator
Exactly Meciar. It it does work why don't these RV'ers just RV the lottery. They keep telling us it's possible. Nobody ever does it though.
 

OpenMinds

Paranormal Novice
The accuracy of some RV is subjective, but that's missing the main point - RV as a 'non-local perception' does ( even if its 'action' is not yet fully understood by science ;) exist.

(I hope I can get to dl the podcast of Raul Smith - I have one of his books. ;) )
 

Aspie

Skilled Investigator
The accuracy of ALL RV is rubbish. If it did work the government wouldn't have cancelled its program, all these RV'ers would be plying us with piles of evidence, and yet we still wait after all these years for a single shred that actually holds up.
 
R

rmc632

Guest
Exempt from Disclosure book poorly written? David was the one to make that remark, but others strongly disagree. There are a number of them but one in particular is Larry Dicken of the Jerry Pippin show see below. Also, there are numerous footnotes and references in the book. For reviews see,
Robert C



Robert,

You will be pleased to know that those of us with any common sense and some measure of intelligence do not pick a book apart because it has produced with a few typos or does not meet certain peoples? editing for art points of view. One must know pones audience and know what level and style of writing they might appreciate. I think you have succeeded in that, especially in the second edition.

Victor's comment about pre-knowledge is correct. The Paracast guys need to educate themselves in the field of UFology before criticizing those who produce books on the subject or before expressing valid opinions. Neither of them knows much of anything about the subjects they profess to do interviews on: Interesting that they title their show the Paracast, apparently referring to the Paranormal, when UFOs are not ?paranormal? in any way. Most of what people call paranormal is actually quite ?normal? in our universe. It is just that most humans do not have enough knowledge to separate reality from fantasy and superstition.

Larry Dicken
Executive Producer and COO
Jerry Pippin Productions
www.jerrypippin.com
www.vegasradioshow.com
www.shopjerrypippin.com
www.bushbusiness.com
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
rmc632 said:
Exempt from Disclosure book poorly written? David was the one to make that remark, but others strongly disagree. There are a number of them but one in particular is Larry Dicken of the Jerry Pippin show see below. Also, there are numerous footnotes and references in the book. For reviews see,
Robert C



Robert,

You will be pleased to know that those of us with any common sense and some measure of intelligence do not pick a book apart because it has produced with a few typos or does not meet certain peoples? editing for art points of view. One must know pones audience and know what level and style of writing they might appreciate. I think you have succeeded in that, especially in the second edition.

Victor's comment about pre-knowledge is correct. The Paracast guys need to educate themselves in the field of UFology before criticizing those who produce books on the subject or before expressing valid opinions. Neither of them knows much of anything about the subjects they profess to do interviews on: Interesting that they title their show the Paracast, apparently referring to the Paranormal, when UFOs are not ?paranormal? in any way. Most of what people call paranormal is actually quite ?normal? in our universe. It is just that most humans do not have enough knowledge to separate reality from fantasy and superstition.

Larry Dicken
Executive Producer and COO
Jerry Pippin Productions
www.jerrypippin.com
www.vegasradioshow.com
www.shopjerrypippin.com
www.bushbusiness.com
It's unfortunate that Mr. Dicken apparently made no effort to send us a copy of his unfortunate statements directly. Clearly he has no knowledge whatever of my experience in UFOlogy, nor of David's. I was probably reading and writing on the subject before Mr. Dicken was born.

It is sad that this sort of thing goes on, and it reflects poorly on Mr. Pippen, since this person is the producer of his show.
 
D

david_r_p

Guest
rmc632 said:
Exempt from Disclosure book poorly written? David was the one to make that remark, but others strongly disagree. There are a number of them but one in particular is Larry Dicken of the Jerry Pippin show see below. Also, there are numerous footnotes and references in the book. For reviews see,
Robert C
I just followed the link to reviews on Amazon, and you're right, they're all exceedingly positive. In fact, none seem critical at all. Digging just a bit deeper I clicked on the button called "See all my reviews" and lo and behold all the 5 star ratings were from people who never rated a book before (or only your first edition). More striking, in some cases these people had bought and reviewed the first edition too. That seems odd to me... buying a second edition just to see what changes were made to a book you all rated as perfect (5 stars). I'm not saying the aforementioned reviews were planted by friends of the author or publisher, but it could certainly appear that way.

Regarding David Biedny's original critical comments, I stand by my assertion that this is something sorely lacking from other podcasts and terrestrial radio shows that cater to esoteric subject matter. Judging from the response of the JP Show it is safe to assume that this type of criticism doesn't take place there. Fine. I'm sure they "know" their audience and apparently that's what they want. I'm part of the Paracast's audience and I appreciate the critical thinking, constructive skepticism, and overall level of discourse that takes place on the show and in these forums.
 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
rmc632 said:
What doesn't help are the innuendos. You'll see even Duane Tudahl, History Channel Producer has only one other review to his name, hummm, does that signify something?.....Rmc
Listeners, I think it's important, also, to be careful what is being implied here. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, let's assume that the reviews are fair and do represent the opinions of those who posted them and let's move on.

I don't want to see this matter descend to personal attacks either.

If you folks want to comment about the author's opinions, rather than about a book that I suspect most of you haven't read, that would be a lot better.
 

OpenMinds

Paranormal Novice
Aspie said:
The accuracy of ALL RV is rubbish. If it did work the government wouldn't have cancelled its program, all these RV'ers would be plying us with piles of evidence, and yet we still wait after all these years for a single shred that actually holds up.
I think you may have missed the point. RV *does* work. Fact. It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA/SAIC concluded that it performed "no better" than existing methods. A lot of people get that wrong - and it has been repeated so many times that people are obviously believing it. :eek: RV , remote perception etc HAS been shown to be a measurable, recordable phenomena - the accuracy and reliability are an issue, but the fact that it exists is what is more important. It won't take you too long to find replicated studies if you care to look for them either. ;)
 

David Biedny

Paranormal Adept
A Critical Eye

I wish I could say I was surprised at the level of discourse about my comments regarding the editorial style of "Exempt from Disclosure", but disappointed is a more appropriate sentiment.

We invited Robert Collins to the show, and gave him an opportunity to express his views and talk about his book. I had personally ordered - as in PURCHASED - a copy of his book, when normally I would probably have asked for a complimentary review copy. I am fully aware of the challenges facing folks who take the independent publishing route, and wanted to support his effort.

We talked to Robert for a little under an hour, and asked him various questions. In a couple of instances, he basically came out and said "read the book", instead of elaborating on a specific topic or response to a question. I was personally not thrilled with this stance - we certainly don't mind people hawking their books, newsletters, web sites, etc., but when someone is on the show, we expect them to address us - and our audience - in a direct fashion.

At the time that we conducted the interview, I had not yet received the book in the mail. In fact, it arrived later that same day. it was a couple more days until Gene & I recorded the wrap, so in that time, I had the chance to read a good portion of the book. While I found some of the content to be compelling, I was less than thrilled with the writing style, grammar, organization and layout. I made a brief comment about those feelings upon recording the wrap segment.

After the show aired, the emails began - Robert had gotten word that we were not "complimentary" towards him, that somehow we trashed him PERSONALLY. Folks, my comments were regarding the ORGANIZATION and WRITING STYLE of the book. I feel that it seriously lacks the hand of a skilled editor, and that the information in the book suffers as a result. If a writer cannot separate the form from the message, then I feel that they are lacking insight and understanding of the art of convincing storytelling. The editor of the book, Victor Martinez, began to chime in to the email exchange, claiming lack of time, lack of understanding of computer technology and some other obstacles as the reasons for his less than thrilling editing job. Robert sent some emails stating the he was against the use of the type of "sweeping" language we used on our show, and was generally VERY defensive of my critiques about the lack of editorial polish.

Robert, I would suggest that if you indeed engaged a professional editor to do a once-over on the book, you would definitely have problems with his/her feedback. The ability to listen to editorial criticism without taking it as a personal attack is essential for professional writing of ANY genre, but especially the non-fiction arena. In the reality of the publishing world, the lack of clear story and flow structure is poison to even the most informative of writing efforts, and will instantly limit your audience and get you negative feedback. To take criticism in such a defensive way is to be expected of a child, but NOT an adult. Making excuses about the reasons for the lack of editorial oversight - lack of funds, constrained time, an editor lacking computer skills - it simply not acceptable. Case in point: in the bio of Victor Martinez, your editor, his home is stated to be LoA Angeles. How to you expect a reader to approach your book with a sober, serious attitude when such a GLARING typo gets through the editing chain? Perhaps they'll wonder where else the ball was dropped, especially in a book dealing with a sensitive subject matter where ACCURATE DETAILS are CRUCIAL.

And now I see that the producer of the Jerry Pippin show has chimed in, claiming that Gene and I are somehow not possessing the "pre-knowledge" required for reading the Exempt from Disclosure book, and that neither of us knows anything about the topics we discuss on the show. Apparently, there is some sort of academic degree awarded to folks who complete a set of stringent courses of paranormal understanding, and we don't possess this piece of paper. BULLS--T - there is no degree, no program, NOTHING which qualifies someone to be a "professional UFO-ologist". In fact, I could take the extreme stance that only someone who has FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with UFOs or ANY aspect of the paranormal is qualified to offer an opinion about the subject - in a world where experience is the only qualifier, this would be true. Of course, as a rational person, I know full well that such a position is both unrealistic and largely unreasonable. Larry Dicken also states that UFOs are somehow NOT part of the realm of the paranormal, which to me makes it very clear that he is stating a prejudice towards analytical thinking and consideration. UFOs are very much OUTSIDE of the realm of normal experience for most people, and to claim otherwise is foolish at best, ignorant at worst. Further, ANYONE who states that they KNOW where these things come from, is displaying the typical human vanity which has brought our civilization to the brink of self-destruction. WE DO NOT KNOW where UFOs come from, regardless of the claims of cranks, conmen, crazies and the folks who tend to inhabit this field. We will get no closer to the truth of the matter by engaging in personal attacks, protecting vested interests and taking hard positions. I personally have my ideas and opinions about these topics, and base them on what I've personally SEEN and EXPERIENCED, NOT some second and third-hand stories from folks looking to sell books, videos, lectures or other products.

On The Paracast, Gene & I have addressed what we've perceived to be a huge gap in the paranormal talk radio realm, trying to bring some clear thinking, honest approaches, analytical reasoning and open discourse to a field which has been marginalized, thrust to the sidelines and branded the sandbox of lunatics. Childish defensiveness, off-the-cuff statements from people who have NO IDEA of my personal background in paranormal subject matter, and related silliness, detract from open debate and careful consideration of the little we know about UFOs and their actual reality. I don't really worry about what people think about me, or my opinions, never have, never will. If our show makes at least ONE person think more critically about these topics, we've done our job. I don't want to believe, I want to KNOW and UNDERSTAND what the hell is going on here. THAT is my agenda. Come along for the ride if you want, otherwise, go listen to the shows where snake oil and horses--t is on the menu. Bon Appetite.

dB
 
R

rmc632

Guest
A Critical Eye

David Biedny said:
I wish I could say I was surprised at the level of discourse about my comments regarding the editorial style of "Exempt from Disclosure", but disappointed is a more appropriate sentiment.
As I just mentioned to a smaller audience:

Put a hundred professional or free lance writers in a room and you'll get a hundred different opinions on how to write any given article. But, to write that article requires a body of knowledge and "understanding" of the subject matter called "prior knowledge." Being a good writer doesn't qualify anyone to write or edit on any given subject, again, it requires, "prior knowledge." I use to have a Supervisor at FTD (Foreign Technology Division now NASIC) who would love to change (edit) your words in a technical document (make it easier to read), sure enough he'd wind up changing the meaning of what you were trying to say. I scolded him any number of times, he just didn't have the "prior knowledge" to edit the document, but yet he was the Supervisor. As for the EfD book take Chapter 2. Most of the information is in the footnotes and references. I did that deliberately since there wasn't much known about those topics (a lot of it was from sources), but it left the readers with a starting point in case they wanted to investigate further. Many thought that idea was great......Rmc

We invited Robert Collins to the show, and gave him an opportunity to express his views and talk about his book. I had personally ordered - as in PURCHASED - a copy of his book, when normally I would probably have asked for a complimentary review copy. I am fully aware of the challenges facing folks who take the independent publishing route, and wanted to support his effort.
Thank you...Rmc

We talked to Robert for a little under an hour, and asked him various questions. In a couple of instances, he basically came out and said "read the book", instead of elaborating on a specific topic or response to a question. I was personally not thrilled with this stance - we certainly don't mind people hawking their books, newsletters, web sites, etc., but when someone is on the show, we expect them to address us - and our audience - in a direct fashion.
We've discussed that before many times but you just ignored what I'd said before. When you're dealing with Alien Physics which doesn't follow the "norm" it's impossible to explain that over the air. So, you need to read the book....Rmc

At the time that we conducted the interview, I had not yet received the book in the mail. In fact, it arrived later that same day. it was a couple more days until Gene & I recorded the wrap, so in that time, I had the chance to read a good portion of the book. While I found some of the content to be compelling, I was less than thrilled with the writing style, grammar, organization and layout. I made a brief comment about those feelings upon recording the wrap segment.
If it's all about style then there isn't much than can be done about that....Rmc

After the show aired, the emails began - Robert had gotten word that we were not "complimentary" towards him, that somehow we trashed him PERSONALLY. Folks, my comments were regarding the ORGANIZATION and WRITING STYLE of the book. I feel that it seriously lacks the hand of a skilled editor, and that the information in the book suffers as a result. If a writer cannot separate the form from the message, then I feel that they are lacking insight and understanding of the art of convincing storytelling. The editor of the book, Victor Martinez, began to chime in to the email exchange, claiming lack of time, lack of understanding of computer technology and some other obstacles as the reasons for his less than thrilling editing job. Robert sent some emails stating the he was against the use of the type of "sweeping" language we used on our show, and was generally VERY defensive of my critiques about the lack of editorial polish.
Others as you know don't feel that way.....Rmc

Robert, I would suggest that if you indeed engaged a professional editor to do a once-over on the book, you would definitely have problems with his/her feedback. The ability to listen to editorial criticism without taking it as a personal attack is essential for professional writing of ANY genre, but especially the non-fiction arena. In the reality of the publishing world, the lack of clear story and flow structure is poison to even the most informative of writing efforts, and will instantly limit your audience and get you negative feedback. To take criticism in such a defensive way is to be expected of a child, but NOT an adult. Making excuses about the reasons for the lack of editorial oversight - lack of funds, constrained time, an editor lacking computer skills - it simply not acceptable. Case in point: in the bio of Victor Martinez, your editor, his home is stated to be LoA Angeles. How to you expect a reader to approach your book with a sober, serious attitude when such a GLARING typo gets through the editing chain? Perhaps they'll wonder where else the ball was dropped, especially in a book dealing with a sensitive subject matter where ACCURATE DETAILS are CRUCIAL.
Silly, the book has been through numerous edits. Listening was a BIG part of that. Your criticisms are totally unwarranted....As for the typos some of the best edited books in the world have glaring typos yet they were edited by professional editors. I can cite some if need be....Rmc

And now I see that the producer of the Jerry Pippin show has chimed in, claiming that Gene and I are somehow not possessing the "pre-knowledge" required for reading the Exempt from Disclosure book, and that neither of us knows anything about the topics we discuss on the show. Apparently, there is some sort of academic degree awarded to folks who complete a set of stringent courses of paranormal understanding, and we don't possess this piece of paper. BULLS--T - there is no degree, no program, NOTHING which qualifies someone to be a "professional UFO-ologist". In fact, I could take the extreme stance that only someone who has FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with UFOs or ANY aspect of the paranormal is qualified to offer an opinion about the subject - in a world where experience is the only qualifier, this would be true. Of course, as a rational person, I know full well that such a position is both unrealistic and largely unreasonable. Larry Dicken also states that UFOs are somehow NOT part of the realm of the paranormal, which to me makes it very clear that he is stating a prejudice towards analytical thinking and consideration. UFOs are very much OUTSIDE of the realm of normal experience for most people, and to claim otherwise is foolish at best, ignorant at worst. Further, ANYONE who states that they KNOW where these things come from, is displaying the typical human vanity which has brought our civilization to the brink of self-destruction. WE DO NOT KNOW where UFOs come from, regardless of the claims of cranks, conmen, crazies and the folks who tend to inhabit this field. We will get no closer to the truth of the matter by engaging in personal attacks, protecting vested interests and taking hard positions. I personally have my ideas and opinions about these topics, and base them on what I've personally SEEN and EXPERIENCED, NOT some second and third-hand stories from folks looking to sell books, videos, lectures or other products.
No, I think Larry Dicken was right, yes, UFOs are outside the "normal" realm of experience but it's not the Paranormal......Rmc

On The Paracast, Gene & I have addressed what we've perceived to be a huge gap in the paranormal talk radio realm, trying to bring some clear thinking, honest approaches, analytical reasoning and open discourse to a field which has been marginalized, thrust to the sidelines and branded the sandbox of lunatics. Childish defensiveness, off-the-cuff statements from people who have NO IDEA of my personal background in paranormal subject matter, and related silliness, detract from open debate and careful consideration of the little we know about UFOs and their actual reality. I don't really worry about what people think about me, or my opinions, never have, never will. If our show makes at least ONE person think more critically about these topics, we've done our job. I don't want to believe, I want to KNOW and UNDERSTAND what the hell is going on here. THAT is my agenda. Come along for the ride if you want, otherwise, go listen to the shows where snake oil and horses--t is on the menu. Bon Appetite.

dB
You say Childish defensiveness? I don't feel for a moment that there has been anything Childish or defensive, rather, it's been civilized critical comments coming from a number of people....Rmc
 
M

meciar

Guest
I don't mean to be rude, but the replies to David Biedny's arguments by rmc632 made me laugh. Look up the definition for paranormal for goodness sakes. Enough said.
 


Top