Don Ecker Show

[CinderMoltenHowl]

The thought of David getting hard over Lear, balls against the wall and reference to my early works with mutilations got me excited.

Piss and giggles aside though, I think Ecker should perhaps be considered a benchmark guest, if that is possible. There will always be, even with the better guests, an area in the UFO field where they will put forward a strongly held view which has its detractors (in Ecker's case it is Lazar) - the advantage with the better guests is that they recognise the flaws or discrepancies in their view or arguments and publicly acknowledge this.

This of course is not the "best" criteria however, just one of the better ones. Stanton for example has his view of Roswell and Betty Hill, which is fairly unshakeable even when there are logical arguments or appropriate differing views to counter what he says on certain aspects of these subjects.

Ecker just presented well.....perhaps it is the no-nonsense attitude and approach he has. I wonder if his former work in the Police developed that?

 

[Hoffmeister]

Great show as always, Don always talks sense and I hope you get him back on. Its so nice to hear someone really sane talk after Bassetts nonsense.
Two things I am thinking about after this show:

1) Like David, i have always thought Bob Lazar probably did work on Area 51, but just not in a Ufo capacity. Originally i thought he was probably a janitor or something, but if as Don says, he worked on rockets, then its feesable that they brought him in to do some rocket testing and then ditched him after it turned out he was rubbish.
Being fired would give him motive to go and start making up stories about area 51, but also i dont think anyone would be able to carry it off like he does unless they had actually been on the base. And the base is so secretive, I guess he thought "who is going to prove me wrong"?

2) With regards to the mutilations, they might well have been some government biological testing experiment or something. Anyone who has read Rich Dolans book, or just knows a bit about american military history would know that they tested biological weapons on whole cities... is it really that unfeasable that they might do something terrible to individual humans? It would certainly give them reason to kill anyone investigating and i think seems more likely than Aliens taking away the bodies.

 

[Gareth]

No one is definitely saying its aliens. And Govt involvement in 'mutes' is one of the top theories, but there are certain aspects to certain mutilation cases that waaaaaay fuckn weird. As well problems with logistics in particular cases where the time it took for a mutilation to take place - with humans nearby not hearing or seeing anything - and a period of 15mins for a cow to go from living to mutilated.

Im sure you know theres some high strangeness cases though that make the Govt explanation a little hard to swallow on occasion.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

its feesable that they brought him in to do some rocket testing and then ditched him after it turned out he was rubbish.
Being fired would give him motive to go and start making up stories

Sounds *very* plausible. It could *also* explain Teller's reaction, as in, he wouldn't want to speak about Lazar because he was embarrassed for having been fooled by him.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Sounds *very* plausible. It could *also* explain Teller's reaction, as in, he wouldn't want to speak about Lazar because he was embarrassed for having been fooled by him.

Agreed. Another explanation for Teller's reaction is that he did not ever meet Lazar. If he had heard about Lazar using his name to boost his own lie's for such a ridiculous story then you might have expect him to have the reaction that he did.
For example, if I was famous, and some crazy guy had been spreading rumours about something equally crazy, like how we both were the ones behind the JFK assasination for example, then I would probably give the same response if asked about it at interview. I didnt find the Teller thing at all compelling really..

 

[agsouthtexas]

I really enjoyed this episode-Ecker really gets into the different people involved and is very blunt about it. I like him a lot. He definitely needs more time to talk. Great show!

 

[Indrids Cold]

It would be nice if Mr Ecker would post or point to that photo he talked about regarding the massive UFO encounter with the Mars space probe. I vaguely remember some sort of photo of it posted somewhere. All in all, a good show, but toward the end his speculations, even with his "I don't know" tagline, sounds very much like what upsets him about Richard Dolan. As explosive as it is, his human mutilation inquiry into the National Crime Database would seem like it should be revisited, if not by Mr Ecker than by some other researcher. Left unattended, it is quite a festering wound.

Good morning all. After my interview aired last evening with Gene and David I thought many of you might have additional questions. If you go to my Dark Matters Radio blog and read the latest entry, you would find this link to my "goodbye" paper I wrote when I left research. If not you may not be aware of it so I wanted to leave a link in case any of you are interested. It is a 54 page PDF file and will answer many questions you may have since we only had a limited time on the show.

20 Years in the UFO Fog
20 YEARS IN THE UFO FOG


Decker

 

[Stillborn]

I have a question for Don. I recall hearing interviews on the Alan Handalman show over a decade ago with you and I think Dwight Shultz. Is he still involved in ufos? I haven't heard anything from him in years and was just curious. Thanks.

Oh, btw, I haven't listened to this latest show, so sorry if it was discussed. I save shows to listen to on Thrs mostly, when I do some boring accounting work.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

With regards to the mutilations, they might well have been some government biological testing experiment or something. Anyone who has read Rich Dolans book, or just knows a bit about american military history would know that they tested biological weapons on whole cities...

I'm still very new to all of this, still trying to figure out to whom I should listen and in whom I should put my confidence. Mr. Ecker's interview was fantastic! The part about human mutilations totally floored me, though. Very scary stuff, but based upon his responses during the previous segments, I wanted to believe him. I'll have to look into that more.

Hoffmeister makes a good point. It brought up the memory of when I was in high school trying to figure out what to do with my life. The military had a very strong appeal, as I think it does for most teenage boys. But when I started to show more serious interest in joining a branch of the service, a relative who had served during the Vietnam era looked at me very seriously and just said,

"They'll tell you whatever they think you need to hear to get you to sign up. And once your name is on that dotted line, you're their property. And they can do whatever they want with you. Think about that."

Once that sunk in, the whole military path lost its luster. You just never know.

Soldiers being exposed to a nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site in 1951​

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

"They'll tell you whatever they think you need to hear to get you to sign up. And once your name is on that dotted line, you're their property. And they can do whatever they want with you. Think about that."

I was listening to local radio today, and an "herb doctor" was telling about his dealings with present day soldiers and how he's discovered that the diets they are fed intentionally constipate them so they wont have to deal with going to the bathroom in the field... a *tactically* "sound" arrangement for sure, but it definitely goes to show how little regard they have for the soldiers as human beings.

 

[marduk]

An idea occurred to me while listening to this show today.

The show seems to primarily focus on reseachers and spokesmen for the field. Guys like Dolan, Basset, Gordon, Ecker, Coralles, Sprinkle, etc etc.

One of my frustrations as an experiencer is that most of these guys have never actually experienced anything. In my opinion that makes it:
a) very difficult for them to know what the hell they're talking about
b) very easy for them to form an opinion, sell books, give speeches, and generally get noticed while having little to validate that opinion.

I know David's frustrated with the state of the field as am I.

Why not cut out the middle man and go right to the experiencers?

 

[Noanswers]

It's refreshing to listen to a guy like Don, straight up stuff.

Too bad the circus atmosphere drove him out of active research, the subject needs more folks like him.

One is left to wonder if the creation of a "circus atmosphere" has not been an intentional act to drive people like Ecker out and keep the public laughing.

 

[David Biedny]

Don always has a place to come and air his thoughts, as long as this show exists.

And we are indeed seeking experiencers to come and talk on the show, it's hard to find good ones. We just recorded an excellent interview with Mike Clelland yesterday, one of our best ever, and we're always on the lookout for other compelling candidates.

dB

 

[Decker]

An idea occurred to me while listening to this show today.

The show seems to primarily focus on reseachers and spokesmen for the field. Guys like Dolan, Basset, Gordon, Ecker, Coralles, Sprinkle, etc etc.

One of my frustrations as an experiencer is that most of these guys have never actually experienced anything. In my opinion that makes it:
a) very difficult for them to know what the hell they're talking about
b) very easy for them to form an opinion, sell books, give speeches, and generally get noticed while having little to validate that opinion.

Marduk,

Thats pretty damn presumptuous of you to make such an assumption. You don't have a clue about what I have or haven't experienced. Nor do you have a clue about what I have done or haven't done in this research field. This is the mind-set that finally made me think it was time for my departure outta the "wonderful world of UFO research." People flapping their jaws about something they read on the computer after they get home from work or from the post office where they pick up their unemployment check.

UFOs was what I DID for 20 years. Not what I played with after I got home from work ... It Was My Work ... and at the risk of sounding a bit snarky before you can make such assumptions about me or anybody else, get your ass out there for a couple of years in the field chasing down leads, interviewing witnessess and up to your elbows in dead cows. THEN come back and tell me what YOU FOUND.

Decker

 

[marduk]

Marduk,

Thats pretty damn presumptuous of you to make such an assumption. You don't have a clue about what I have or haven't experienced. Nor do you have a clue about what I have done or haven't done in this research field. This is the mind-set that finally made me think it was time for my departure outta the "wonderful world of UFO research." People flapping their jaws about something the read on the computer after they get home from work or from the post office where they pick up their unemployment check.

UFOs was what I DID for 20 years. Not what I played with after I got home from work ... It Was My Work ... and at the risk of sounding a bit snarky before you can make such assumptions about me or anybody else, get your ass out there for a couple of years in the field chasing down leads, interviewing witnessess and up to your elbows in dead cows. THEN come back and tell me what YOU FOUND.

Decker

Never meant to imply anything by that Don... what I meant to imply is that the focus on researchers talking about their research be counterbalanced by some added input by experiencers talking about their experiences. That's all.

My concern with having the focus on researchers is just as I stated... non-experiencers have opinions while someone involved in the phenomena has the touchstone of experience to draw on.

If I look back at the field, I see some people doing great work, some people profiteering, and some people looking for attention. But what have we actually learned in the past 60, 40, 20 years? I'm starting to think that the field has become so muddied that sorting out the history will be next to impossible. But we still have a great resource that both you and David alluded to: experiences are still happening. Perhaps that's where we can make history instead of researching history.

Apologies if I offended.

 

[Gen]

"They'll tell you whatever they think you need to hear to get you to sign up. And once your name is on that dotted line, you're their property. And they can do whatever they want with you. Think about that."

Once that sunk in, the whole military path lost its luster. You just never know.

A young friend of mine was recently told by a recruiter that, after the experience of serving in the armed forces, she can expect to start out making $60 per hour in the private sector right away. She believed it.

My friends who are military vets were pretty amused by that one.

 

[Gen]

On the character talk, one thing caught my attention that I was kind of hoping David would address during the show... Mr. Ecker had mentioned Kevin Randall as being one of the folks he thought did some good research, but I was somehow thinking I had seen Mr. Randall getting called out in the past. I personally do not know anything about him other than the Roswell book that I read (don't recall the title, but it was a very recent release that he co authored with Don Schmidt I believe the guy's name was). If my memory tingle is serving right, it seems he was accused of getting "confessions" from Roswellian old timers under less than awesome circumstances?

Kevin Randle has always seemed like a very solid researcher to me, and very diligent about following up on extremely minute details. You can read some of his latest work at his blog; it's one of a few worth keeping up with. Randle's work makes me keep an open mind about the possibilities of the Roswell case which, with all the noise out there, is saying something.

Randle was not one of the people who got the Walter Haut affidavit, if that's what you're referring to.

 

[Schuyler]

A young friend of mine was recently told by a recruiter that, after the experience of serving in the armed forces, she can expect to start out making $60 per hour in the private sector right away. She believed it.

My friends who are military vets were pretty amused by that one.

Depends on her MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). My daughter did exactly that after spending 6 years in the USN. That's not going to happen if you decide to be a postal clerk, but if you get in the right field and do well, it surely can happen.

 

[Gen]

Depends on her MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). My daughter did exactly that after spending 6 years in the USN. That's not going to happen if you decide to be a postal clerk, but if you get in the right field and do well, it surely can happen.

Good for your daughter. That's excellent. And I'm sure it happens for others, too.

 

[Schuyler]

Good for your daughter. That's excellent. And I'm sure it happens for others, too.

I'm not sure if your comment is a sideways one or not, but in either case it points up a deficiency in my answer, so thank you. What I should have added is this: The original account of this recruiter and potential recruit is that he said you could make $60 per hour getting out. The post also said how amused military (i.e.: knoweldgeable) people were that he said that. The implication, at least the way I read it, is that the recruiter was a liar and that this is proven completely by knowledgeable people who have been in that situation. Fair so far?

I just accidentally happen to be aware that what the recruiter said is possible. Indeed, he is uncannily accurate. He's right on the money. He's not off by $5.00 either way. So what is missing in the story about the recruiter is the context, and without that context we cannot accurately judge the story.

Now, if the context is that this potential recruit were interested in becoming a M1A1 Abrams tank driver, a postal clerk, or a 'culinary expert' (tossing mashed potatoes around for 5,000 guys on a carrier), then, indeed, the recruiter is a liar, pure and simple, and the original post on the story stands as completely true as written. The conclusion is justified.

However, if the context is that this potential recruit were interested in, say, foreign languages, had learned two already in high school to the point of proficiency, and scored extremely high on the DLAB (Defense Language Aptitude Battery) and was interested in learning Farsi (that would be the language spoken predominantely in Iran), then the recruiter turns out to be amazingly well informed, is absolutely 100% truthful, and the original post on the story as written is completely false. The conclusion is not justified.

Without the context we don't have the information necessary to make an informed decision.