-- News that
shows you something...
Steinberg is in messy, forget sad, decline and it's not a
pretty picture. I would find him wholly—if pathetically—ignorable but that
he continues to personally vex, revolt, annoy, and aggravate me.
Verily, he tasks
me; tasks me even when he is not impinging on my civil right to free expression. No, I do
not remotely exaggerate.
Then, out of the Paracastian murk and like the thick
rolling stench from an untidy graveyard... ...a transparent result, I remind
the reader, of serious—albeit self-facilitated—blows to his ufological street cred,
reputation, and approaching need for legacy
a vis the Rainey/Woods controversy
... he reaches out
pompous little note
— in full damage control, I suspect, attempting to manage his provoked and
well cultivated antagonists:
Tell you what,
let's clear the air, since I don't know you and, clearly, you don't know me.
I'm happy to
apologize for reporting you to your ISP. I was pissed off at the insults,
I'm even happy to
let you join our forums, but no personal attacks.
The ball is in
Apart from the fact I'd rather spend the night in hog swill
than join his toxic little forum... every line of the above, I submit, has to be a reflection of the most
extreme use of cognitive disassociation and insentient pompousness as can
be available to mortal man and then ladled out to serfs and hangers-on!
Great suffering and most baragrugous
I begin to suspect—which I had expected all along—that he was
entirely apart from what was really going on!
I wrote back that his offer was utterly unsatisfactory. I
said words to the effect of, "No, You 'Net-ball,' Mr. Steinberg... twice on
your side to double fault. Moreover, Sir, I don't make 'personal attacks.'
I observe." Yeah, I'll pop a literary cap in a deserving ass. Conscience
sometimes demands it. Zero apologies here.
Then feel free to
I look forward to
your participation. Just keep it civil.
What?! Really? How astoundingly oblivious! What a
example of "out of touch" faculty and repressed crumbling air-castle! I'm
stunned to clenched astonishment, actually!
I respond that as per par he, one, misses the point and the
broad side of the barn by the obligatory parsec, two, has provided me much
too little much too late with regard to collegiality, and, three, that he has only succeeded in
irritating me further. You see, I'd already seen the recent e-mail where he refers
to me as a "bomb thrower." I resent that. I roll in hot with righteous
thirty-mm cannon and hell-fire missiles. I fight close and you know who's shooting
Finally, a portrait of abject disingenuousness, he concludes:
Which is, of course, what you're doing.
You don't know me, yet you continue to attack. I gave you your chance.
Yeah, Steiny... I know ye!
..Didn't respond to this one, eh? The last time I switched
his flaccid, sway-backed, and irrelevant ass out of my E-mail coral he, an
ironic and unrepentant spammer beggaring measure,
pulled obvious strings and had me thrown of the internet.
Closing, I'm sure our intellectually felching Mr. Steinberg
has no problem with me sharing this "private" mail... see, he does it
himself, to suit his very self-interested ends... All. The. Time.
Please demand that I prove
that, Mr. Steinberg.
"...I'm Like A Monster Who Walks Among people..."
David Jacobs, noted abduction researcher,
filed the following report last Sunday the 19th on George Knapp's Coast To
Coast radio program regarding his "harassment" at the hands of the "shrill harridan and
obsessive psychopath," Emma Woods.
Let it be
said, once again, all things are not as they appear to be. The reader
will find below a few of the most egregious slanders of Ms Woods et al, with
the demonstrated perpetrator whining that he is in fact the victim... where all
the evidence is in opposition to that. I advise the reader that
virtually every statement uttered by Doctor Jacobs on the Knapp program can be unwound in a
manner similar to the un-windings below...
David Jacobs raves: "She's a persuasive
blamer; she's blamed me for any number of misdeeds and horrendous problems
that I've caused her... listening to her, I'm like a monster who walks among
That was your description of yourself used over and over...Does the shoe
remotely fit Dr. Jacobs?
Perhaps she "...blames"
in as much as you... CAN BE BLAMED! Moreover, I'm not listening to her
for evidence that you are a "monster walking among people," no — I only need to
listen to YOU for evidence of such, Sir.
The tapes you
report as "doctored" and "out of context" are not challenged by tapes of
your own, have passed muster by experts with no dog in the hunt, and are
quite clear as a measure of what I'm compelled to identify as blithe
malfeasance on your part, Doctor Jacobs. I submit that it is you who is the
raging obsessive, Sir, and not Ms Woods.
Today, of all days, Rich Reynolds
"A criticism, again, of UFO UpDates can be found at several of our blogs:
The UFO Provocateur(s)
The UFO Underground
The UFO Anarchists
The UFO Agnostics
The UFO Nihilists
(A slight case of over-kill? We think not. UpDates needs to be eradicated.)
posted by RRRGroup at 9:22 AM on Nov 22, 2010" -- Rich Reynolds...
_One_ tepid and moronic post spread,
no, smeared over 6 inconsequential and rather predictably self-produced web-logs... not so well done, Ritchy...
go pop your nose-bubble.
See, you're filled with flaccid "entitlement," but not one shred of sense
with regard to how embarrassing you are. Grow a beard, you sophomoric
ass-hat. You _are_ the Fox News of Ufology.
Feh! ...And a back-shooting coward, imo, to boot!
How is it others countenance your
authoritarian, sneering, libelous, inconstant, homocentric, and
narcissistically fatuous media-watching malfeasance is truly beyond
me. No... really.
Me, I'll continue to stomp you're
pointy little head every time in pops out of its warren. You OWE me!
I OWN you!
(A slight case of over-kill? I think
not. See? You need to be eradicated.)
Let me insult you at base: you have no art.
The UFO Iconocrap(s)
Rich Reynolds, of the insipid —if real or
imagined— RRR Group, was never a friend of mine, though we did at one time
practice a certain collegiality — even spoke on the phone a couple of times.
Collegiality, being the ephemeral thing that it is; however, was lost after
Reynolds started going down even stranger and more intellectually bizarre
roads, culminating in his public suggestion, to observers of cyberspace on
Halloween day in 2005, that he possessed some evidence that this writer
might be having sex with children...
Does the reader really need to hear my
Back to Reynolds' "even stranger and more
intellectually bizarre roads," I'm alerted to this lately "deposited,"
non-delightful, bit of sage "wisdom" —read excrescence— on one or more of
that putrescent plethora of whack-job activities passing for Web-Logs in "Ritchy
Reynolds World." Look quick, reader, as stuff tends to "disappear"
from Ritchy's Blogs...
"If you wish to avoid lies,
subterfuge, and intellectual deviance in life and the UFO community, make it
a point to avoid or eschew persons with beards and writings by persons with
"The current thinking in psychology
is that persons with beards are using facial hair to cover or disguise
mouths that spew lies (or have engaged in perverse activities of an oral
Beards? Mouths "perversely engaged" or
"spewing lies"? "Pot," let me introduce you to your f-ing "kettle."
I've been publicly critical of Rich Reynolds
and RRR Group since about July of 2005. In October of that year
Reynolds would drop his "P-phile" bomb on me and earn my justified enmity
seething to this day.
To that end, and in that spirit, I've
book-marked all that criticism of 5 years as found on these pages, from the
start, and provide it here:
There was much more criticism on Ritchy's
pages, reader, but surprise surprise! It's disappeared,
as I pointed out, earlier. So, the by the way... whither Ritchy?
Where's his demonstration of veritas... ever?!
Again, I can perceive of no ufological emergency, collegiality, of sense of fair play that warrants
others suffering Rich Reynolds or RRR Group in our company. I admit, I
must be somewhat askance and akimbo to those who believe he does have a
place. The above singles out "why." I suspect I'm pretty
You're a slandering
slop-artist, Reynolds, owing me seven figure damages and unqualified public
RRR In The News:
of RRR—all resulting from my renewed irritation with regard to Reynolds'
apparent ongoing short-memory "Cart Blanche" of self-styled "relevancy"
and curried community "acceptance"—was used as a comparison in a recent
post at UFO UpDates regarding another issue, but typifying Reynolds-like
journalistic characteristics and re-energizing same as it pertained to
the famous Trindade UFO photograph, lately in a forced kafuffle.
Reynolds is otherwise used as a good example of a bad example for this
adjacent person, Reynolds' only useful attribute...
Anyway... On the heels and out of the proverbial blue from this post at
UFO UpDates, presumably, comes the ineffable, if predictable and typical
"UFO UpDates Stinks..."
On the preceding RRR post Rich Reynolds and "CDA" commiserate in comic
commentary on the ufological "state of things" and their general
superiority —with regard to doing things others cannot— at their UFOCON
(sic) site above. Singularly underwhelming, as always, an account
overdrawn, to say the least.
See...Reynolds seems such a small, small... small man, unmanly even...
He'd rather do the egregiously petulant thing, attack the good people at
UpDates, as he's a seeming coward, frankly, and would seem not to dare
strike "elsewhere." I'll be your huckle-berry.
Reynolds must prudently
prepare for the inevitable petard hoisting, perhaps. Rofl!
Though, he should c'mon out
and play. He might as well attend, eh? He's worked into the literary
equation regardless, as the reader can see. He IS still the best good
example of a bad example ...and he owes me seven figure cash damages
plus profuse and unqualified public apologies — an albatross by any name
and smelling similarly sweet.
What follows, then, is Rich
Reynolds with his enabling and accommodating"Nym-roid," CDA, in witty
conversation on the subject of UFO UpDates, with my commentary:
Jerry Clark "has become an old lady celebrity in a rocker at a nursing
home for has-beens".
And what is Stan Friedman? Kevin Randle? And so on.
What you mean is that we need some new, young, virile (?) ufologists,
with fresh ideas, and fit for the 21st century, fit to take on the old
geezers (or is it old fogies?).
Then ufology will, at last, get somewhere! I'll say no more.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Oh, by all means "CDA"! Sail
around all these sad, old, and blubbering ancients! Save the ufological
day! Snatch ufology from their palsied and decaying fingers. Give us
your new relevance, new approaches, and new rationality! Be that new
intellectual "virility"; scatter your superior seed like invading
Visigoths... Though... how much of all that machismo do you need,
really, given we are all blubbering, doddering, and drooling "codgers,"
"geezers," and "fogies"?
Still, Fix it! We're all waiting; just don't expect us to hold our
breaths while you finish up fumbling around with yourselves, like
mewling infants sans substance, sensibility, or aspect!
You understand exactly what I mean,
although it's the young of mind, not necessarily the young of age that I'm
hoping will take a look at the UFO phenomenon.
That's so precious!
Ritchy, a flaccid and intellectually incontinent dodderer in his own right, would presume the intimation to
his reader that he, of course, is the "young of mind" to which he refers and
is, himself, still capable of a cogent and more effective leadership... when
he's the same kind of drooling dodderer that he would criticize!
No, not the same kind, a
different kind of drooling dodderer: a community leech or parasite as
bereft of relevance as he is of progressiveness and aping the worst
journalistic crap-art in pursuit of his own brand of slandering and
self-serving attack journalism. Not a pretty picture.
The UFO "conversation" is still
being controlled by a mouldering crew of old-timers who are cemented to the
past, in a way that is not productive.
But how can that be, "Ritchy,"
given your clearer vision, erudition, and intellectually sharp
concision? How do they "hang on" beyond your greater scholarship,
cognitive perspicacity, and crack journalistic excellence?
I picked on Clark because, at
UpDates, he continues to condescend as if he's the summa bonum of ufology.
Though, yes! Yes he is! In
a direct comparison you, especially: you ape a fractious piss-wit with fatuous
inclinations, unsettling proclivities, and questionable
prerequisites, Jerry Clark on the other hand is a giant standing on the shoulders of giants!
I'm sure that must grind your facile little gears!
Why, with a little common sense, some small humanity and a boxcar of
humility, you could have been a "Jerry Clark."
And I like the guy, but his day has
passed, as it has for Friedman, Randle, Ledger, and a host of others who
show up at UpDates regularly to still appear relevant.
Your contribution thus
I submit that one can go somewhere else for the comic stylings of Tony
Baggadonuts and certainly for the likes of Nick Redfern who CAN be found
everywhere else, eh? Apart from them you offer only a porcine and
Hey, I'm not saying anything I
wouldn't say to RR's rat-slandering-bastard's face but Ritchy's only
consistency evidenced thus far has been abrasive negativity, narcissistic denial, the worst
kind of attack journalism, and a demonstrated sociopathy serially
prosecuted without the
slightest care to the consequences of his acts... In My Opinion of
How far does Reynolds have to
go to stop being a part of what Ufology "is" and, conversely, being apart
from what it could be with regard to real salience or honest
contention... in his absence?
Respectfully, why is he
tolerated in our company? Why do we make a place for him in our
blogs and on our Boards?
This just in from Ritchy's
You can quit begging to have your comments listed here.
Telling us how much you respect our postings and that you want to be
friends, will not give you access to comments.
Your turgid, perverse grammar precludes you from getting any time or space
at this blog or any others of ours.
See how readily he distorts
reality to serve his own bitter interests?
This just in from Ritchy's
has left a new comment on the post "UFO
hoax exposures: too little, too late?":
You can try to add comments here but it's not going to happen.
Your incorrect use of the English language and gross gammatical errors,
along with your vulgarity keeps you from our blogs and UFO universe.
So I suggest you go back to your outhouse and ruminate on the prohibitions
that we and others have imposed upon you.
You are quite the sickening person.
"Imposed prohibitions"? Who,
you and an abused gerbil in your condom pocket? ROFL!
You know, we really don't need
to go any further than
immediately above before Ritchy is hoisted on his inevitable petard!
Though one must wonder how little imagination this pathetic cyber-pixie can
have or how pathetically filled with himself he must be!
See — I'm not remotely
interested in commenting on this contriving cack-wit's clue-less curmudgery.
No. I communicate, rather directly, to him instead. I know he's
too vain not to read. So I poke a finger in his eye. Similarly
motivated, the reader would do no less in my shoes, and I'm the
sickening person? That's as laughable as Ritchy is himself. I'd
go on but I am under "prohibition."
Lord but how does this guy
breathe past his nose-bubble or keep his skinny neck up under that adipose
"Re: One Huge Pile of
Camembert Boy scribbles fatuously on one of
the more inane Para-crap threads: "The gullibility of the
UFO audience in general is exceeded only by ... actually, I can't
think of anything that exceeds it."
think of anything? Really?! Well, how about the gullibility of
persons thinking Daniel Brenton remotely relevant or fair or consistent
or knowledgeable or germane or open-minded or expert or clever or ethical or
rational or... oh, I could go on bitch-slapping Daniel Brenton up and
down the halls of cyberspace all day, but what's the point... beyond
pointing out that Daniel Brenton, in my opinion, is one of the more cack-witted
facilitators of the aggregate gullibility he condescends to decry.
Why? Because his pompous and barely concealed religiosity, stunted
faux-intellectual smarminess, and then his gleeful if too frequent
transmissions of same suggests —or promotes— that the ufological "forest" he
cannot perceive must be composed of "trees" he feels one should have no
capacity to appreciate. Feh! I'm reminded of snot on a cheap
glass door knob.
DID I DO
Schuyler, an essentially bristle-less scion and canted compiler of
recently penned a portentously piscivorous ("red herring,"
specifically) piece regarding the work of
Richard Dolan. True to form
and provenance, it proves to be an excellent example of the
noisome negativist laughing up his damp sleeve at that which he allows
himself no capacity to understand, no aptitude to accept, no
ability to incorporate, and no skill to recognize:
Dolan answers the intrepid Mr. Schuyler's (...welcome to the news page
by the way, Mr. Schuyler!) facile and biased
Richard Dolan - Reply to Critique of My Work
Hello to the people at Paracast.
Richard Dolan: A Reply to Michael R. Schuyler's Critique of My Work
I suppose I might consider it something of an honor that Michael R. Schuyler
has taken it upon himself to write a 15-page critique of my work. I would
consider it more so if it were done with a sense of objectivity and
professionalism. Unfortunately, in that regard, it misses the mark by a wide
To paraphrase his critique, I might call this “a general systems theory
against Richard Dolan.” For although Mr. Schuyler protests that he is
confining himself to a critique of my book, he goes far beyond this.
Let me comment on as many specifics as I can, within reason. Early on, Mr.
Schuyler criticizes my choice of cases, arguing that they are included with
very little discrimination and are little more than rehashing accounts
written by others. He cites a case I included from 1984, describing an odd
ball of light. Schuyler feels this was an unworthy case, and criticizes my
paraphrasing of the MUFON account itself.
Well, in fact, that case was in a section that I titled “Triangles and Balls
of Light,” and given in the context of my treatment of the noteworthy
Hessdalen phenomenon – which concerned some very strange light phenomena in
Norway. The case in question was of interest to me for that reason, and I
defend its inclusion in my book. There are, certainly, a number of alternate
choices a researcher could have made, and undoubtedly if I were to do the
entire book over again, I might well select alternate cases in certain
instances. Overall, however, I think my selections are fair and
representative. Regarding so-called paraphrasing, Schuyler misrepresents my
work. Yes, there are instances where I paraphrased prior descriptions.
Throughout, however, I sought to provide the most concise yet complete
descriptions I could of every case I handled.
A more serious criticism is Schuyler’s claim of so-called ‘dead-end’
citations. He cites, for example, my use of Greenwood’s and Fawcett’s Clear
Intent. He might as well have censored me for using their book at all, as
they offer NO proper citations. There are many reproduced documents,
certainly, but ... citations? The two authors frequently describe how they
obtained their information, but unfortunately did not provide satisfactory
source data. That is a problem, for sure.
A researcher is therefore faced with a problem. To use Clear Intent, or not?
I elected to use it, as all serious researchers have subsequently done. I
find it curious that Schuyler – apparently – would not.
My citations of Richard Hall are misleadingly described by Schuyler.
Citations of "Richard Hall" are most typically of the "UFO Evidence," a
two-volume collection of reports that Mr. Hall edited. The first volume was
published by the organization NICAP, of which Mr. Hall was a long-time
leading member, and many of those came directly from NICAP files. He
includes these citations as among the so-called “dead end” citations.
Really? In what way is using Richard Hall's collection of NICAP records a
Schuyler writes: “What Dolan has essentially done is summarize sightings
reported and summarized by other authors, condensed them a bit, paraphrased
the originals (or not, often using the original phrasing verbatim), then
woven in some contemporary history surrounded by conspiracy theory. This is
a daunting task by itself, but it isn’t exactly original research.”
Well, what I did certainly was a daunting task, I will agree with that. What
I tried to do was to create a first-ever history of the period under review
(1973-1991). As I should assume Mr. Schuyler would know, no history ever
written, certainly not mine, should ever claim to be final. All historical
research is a work in progress, mine included. I should hope that other
historians of today and the future will correct my work wherever it is
But when Schuyler claims that my work is “not exactly original,” he writes
as if I did no independent investigation of these cases. I think that
readers have a right to know that this is not true. I conducted direct
interviews of dozens of direct participants in this story, often in great
detail, frequently obtaining fresh information that existed nowhere else.
But the real task was in attempting to consolidate an enormous mass of
research into something that made sense – at least, to me. In every case, I
had to review cases and events that were of enormous complexity and
uncertainty, to find a way to understand them for myself, and to do so in a
way that was careful and not sensational – despite Mr. Schuyler’s
protestations to the contrary.
For instance, my treatment of several controversial cases: MJ-12, Gulf
Breeze, and Bob Lazar. I think it is fair to say that these are among the
more contentious and complex. In these and all other instances, my first
goal was simply to describe as clearly as possible what actually happened.
Sometimes that is difficult enough. Regarding MJ-12, I will quote one of
those Amazon reviews that Mr. Schuyler disparages. It is from Brian Parks,
someone that serious researchers into MJ-12 certainly do know about:
“A fine example is the way this author has handled the MJ-12 Controversy and
related matters. From personal knowledge I can say that Dolan has done an
excellent job of presenting these events and personalities in a well
summarized form. He accepts the possibility of a very active
Counter-Intelligence role in the UFO cover-up while examining this issue.
And he presents all of this without jumping to conclusions!”
Well, I suppose Mr. Schuyler does not agree, or maybe he does – he didn’t
really comment on my handling of MJ-12. But what I attempted to do with
MJ-12, I attempted with every hot-button issue of the period.
Aside from what appear on the surface to be substantial complaints, Mr.
Schuyler engages in no small amount of innuendo and even name-calling.
Seeing these examples in his critique made me smile, as he complained that
it was I who at times engaged in innuendo in the course of my book. But, my
goodness, such statements as “to Dolan, there is a conspiracy behind every
blade of grass.” Really.
He then (apparently) tries to dismiss the REAL problematic intelligence
community connections that do crop up constantly within ufology. Names like
John Lear, J. Allen Hynek, Gene Pope, Phillip Klass, Bill Moore, Charles
Berlitz. Well, sorry, but these are problematic and do need to be discussed.
The fact that Charles Berlitz’s NYT obituary mentioned his decades of work
with the Counter Intelligence Corp (CIC) is something I find interesting.
Perhaps others do not, and that is their prerogative.
Regarding Klass, I truly wonder what it is that Schuyler is unhappy about. I
was the person who found direct evidence of Klass’s underhanded dealings
while researching in the Canadian National Archives in Ottawa. I offered the
opinion – clearly stated as such – that “the ducks certainly appear to be
lining up” in the matter of Klass’s possible work for the U.S. intelligence
Regarding Gene Pope and the National Enquirer – something Schuyler spends a
great deal of energy discussing – I will agree that there is much more
detailed work that is out there. I certainly did rely on Terry Hansen’s work
– and several conversations with Terry as well – for my primary ‘take’ on
Gene Pope. To me, it does look like Pope worked for U.S. intelligence. At no
point, however, do I state definitively that he worked for the CIA. Pope was
a man who rubbed elbows with America’s political elite. He was friends with
Richard Nixon. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird gave the eulogy at
his funeral. There is good reason to wonder about Pope’s agenda, and I raise
my concerns. I think it is very clear that the reader understands that I do
not make the claim definitively. When dealing with the U.S. intelligence
community, unfortunately we are seldom in a position to make definitive
This is why, in fact, most academicians do not touch UFOs. Getting to
government source material is extremely difficult. One simply cannot plough
through old volumes of collections like Foreign Relations of the United
States (FRUS) – which contains a wealth of first hand U.S. State Department
records. It’s an unfortunate situation indeed, and in fact this is one of
the problems when one is dealing with a cover-up – a point that Mr. Schuyler
Which means that source material is often going to include information that
does not come out of a government archive. I am quite aware that I took a
chance on some of the sources included in my book, although Mr. Schuyler
grossly misrepresents this aspect of my research. For instance, he cites
Sean David Morton. To which I reply – you have got to be kidding me. Morton
appears one single time in my book. He was one of several UFO watchers who
was involved in publicizing events at Area 51/S4. I obtained his testimony
from an interview he gave, featured on a video produced in the early 1990s.
I spent exactly one paragraph describing his experience.
Then there is Steven Greer. Once again, Mr. Schuyler seems willfully
incapable of understanding my treatment of Greer as a “source.” His fixation
on this smacks of no small amount of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD),
and I have seriously begun to wonder whether he is afflicted. I used several
testimonies from Steven Greer’s collection, which Greer published under the
title of “Disclosure.” Dr. Greer did not write any of those testimonies. I
was very clear on this, and no other reader has been incapable of
recognizing the distinction between the words of Dr. Greer and those of
someone he interviewed. Notwithstanding this, in the few cases that I used
testimony from that collection, I presented it with clear qualifications
that it was not verified.
There is more I could deal with regarding Mr. Schuyler’s critique, but it
just goes on like this. Still, I will say a word or two about Linda Moulton
Howe, someone that he goes out of his way more than once to insult. He
refers to her as “the Drone Queen” and seems to imply that she is part of
“the lunatic fringe.” At one point Mr. Schuyler discusses researchers who
have made great contributions to ufology, and those who have contributed
nothing. He then states that those who have contributed nothing are in
little position to attack those who have contributed. Well, I think this
reasoning is weak. But one might use his logic against him in his schoolyard
smearing of Linda Moulton Howe, a person who for over three decades has done
some of the most demanding investigations of any researcher out there. Any
one who does that much work is going to make mistakes. Her contributions,
however, have been formidable. What, exactly, have been Mr. Schuyler’s
Schuyler also seems to complain that I don’t discuss the aliens themselves.
Odd, since elsewhere he complains that I draw too many unjustified
conclusions. One wonders what would make him happy.
Finally, there are the previous critics of my work. It is perfectly fair to
bring these up. Other commentators are entitled to their opinions. Of
course, I am allowed to take issue with them! Richard Hall, who wrote the
first negative review of my book, was actually “offended” (his words) by how
I criticized the Central Intelligence Agency and discussed people like James
Forrestal and James McDonald. Mr. Hall, now deceased, was typically
described by those who knew him as a “curmudgeon” (I heard this more than
once). He did not like my politics, such as they were, and did not like how
I wrote about him personally. I did, incidentally, write an extended reply
to his review, which was published in the IUR. Dr. Swords, in his turn,
borrowed very heavily from Richard Hall, almost to the point of being
derivative. Fair enough, that is his choice. The people at Magonia – well,
if Mr. Schuyler wants to focus on them as doing the kind of research that he
thinks we need, what more can I say?
I am happy to receive any corrections and constructive criticism of my work.
That is the only way any of us learns and grows. For the record, I do know
that an E-4 is a Corporal, and I thank Mr. Schuyler for pointing out that I
made that oversight. It is unfortunate, however, that his critique descends
so frequently to name-calling, insults, innuendo, and even smear tactics.
That is not true criticism. Sadly, however, it is an all-too-typical tactic
taken by certain people. Those who engage in it, as Mr. Schuyler does,
diminish their own reputability.
Nevertheless, I certainly would encourage Mr. Schuyler to try his hand at
writing an alternative history. Clearly, he is up to the job. I for one
would appreciate his contributions to the field, provided that they are made
with a serious tone, and not mere name-calling.
Richard M. Dolan
Rochester, New York
February 1, 2010
I won't let this
pass. Daniel (Camembert Boy) Brenton, he who would walk among us as an
philosopher-saint in pious robes and humble sandals, recently writes the
following on the
Para-crat's message board. It is in response to someone with a minimal
consistency upbraiding Brenton for Brenton's paucity of same:
Jack of All Trades, Master of 1 or 2
Har! In what universe is Daniel Brenton a master of
anything save resembling a runny cheese and an effortless hypocrisy:
Annoying Person in the Field
Originally Posted by "Gareth"
me a break. YOU are the one that made the comment.
responds with the usual flaccid unctuousness:
misunderstand me, Gareth. I stand by my statement. I'm fed up with the
troublemakers in the "community," and I am fed up that these idiots aren't
locked out, pushed aside, blacklisted, and cast into the outer darkness as
they should be. I am pleased Gene and David have banned Ritzmann, Vaeni,
et. al., because they got tired of taking the crap from these people that
they had no business dishing out.
It is sheer spinelessness
that this kind of thing is tolerated elsewhere.
OK, we'll forget
for now where we have to push aside, blacklist,
lock out, and cast in
outer darkness rather conveniently identified "idiots" and "trouble makers." All that's just
Camembert's runny course par.
No, pilgrims, all that's
forgiven, presently, where we read that Darling Danny would have the
unmitigated gall to lecture on the subject of "sheer
spinelessness"! Har! Squirty guffaws!
Oh, the irony!
The burlesque, contrariness, mirrored criticism, and self-derision! Zounds,
but the raucous
humor, bland incongruity, self-imposed jibing, and patent mockery!
Unbelievable, the inordinate
paradox, fatuous quip-age, errant raillery, and facile repartee! Coal
to Newcastle, I know, but the laughable reproach,
self-revealing sardonicism, brilliant self-satire, cretinous taunting, and,
authoritarian witlessness...[puff pant] ...
I'd laugh out loud, but it's bad form to laugh at the
arguably retarded, even if they are smarmy and stuffed, brim up, with the
fecal matter of male bovine quadrupeds!
Great suffering ZOT,
but does this decided pontificating cretin have the smallest degree of memory apart from
the one self-serving him?
the page following this one and some pages after that! Camembert was every bit
of what he would seem to decry as regards "spinelessness." He was a
back-shooter who initiated the sordid whisper campaign, shadow slithering as he
used pecuniary guns to extort the blacklists he alluded to above.
He avoided direct confrontation as a coward might, preferring to gossip from
the shadows. A well poisoner of the first wash! One word sums him up perfectly. That word, reader, is "feh"!
Har! This has to be
an irony so thick it sucks off your shoes! Such is life, I imagine, in the life of
a runny Camembert.
What a piece of
work! Moreover, Vaeni and Ritzmann are as freakin' Gods, reader, when
compared with Runny Cheese boy, but I digress...
Hell — as a classic
example of same, perhaps Brenton is
to lecture us on
spinelessness," after all! Har!
Lehmberg: Nastiness is always
justified where civility endorses the behavior of conflicted, I'm betting
self-loathing, psychopaths! Remember pilgrims, one has to be terrifyingly
sane to be a true same.
Lehmberg: What follows is Rich
Reynolds latest whiny, inappropriate, and irrelevant smear directed at Kevin
Randle, PhD, where Bitchy Richy invariably tries to pole-vault over tick
turds, and fails:
WRAPPED FROM REYNOLD'S "WEBLOG" w/my
Reynolds: Randle writes is not quite
right. The RRRGroup did have a piece a few months back that indicated that
the old-guard would, indeed, die, because they are old. No one wrote or
wished that any one of those men die.
Lehmberg: Ever as disingenuous as you
are fatuously self-serving, you are a known confabulator, arch character
assassin, and a caster of the direst aspersion, but you are _forever_ famous
for wishing death on your betters! This has been pointed out by persons as
diverse as myself and Paul Kimball, persons who additionally point out that
you re-write or delete wholesale your own history as you go along to cover
errant tracks. Terry Groff also notices. Errol Bruce Knapp notices.
Indeed, Reynolds, you are _everything_ you criticize.
Reynolds: Everyone is going to die,
eventually, and our writer merely set down that inevitable maxim.
Lehmberg: This is a statement as
pompous as it is a duplicitous spin! Moreover your "royal we" invoked only
adds to the pomposity _ever_ as turgid as a backed up cistern in post
Christian Rome! Push a sock in it Reynolds, can't you? Enlightened people
know you for what you are, a wanna-be mouth-piece and whiny literary
Reynolds: But Mr. Randle, as he
probably does with his Roswell and UFO research, conflates our writing and
intent for some personal reason that adjusts his agenda, whatever it may be.
Lehmberg: His agenda, Reynolds, is
to kick over your scurvy psychopathic rock and expose the squirming
inconsequence that is your whole fetid shtick! You whine and back-pedal,
but he has you _spot_ on.
Reynolds: Then he writes that he
missed the boat with a key Roswell witness, a man named Easley, whom he
talked with by phone, and who indicated that Randle’s extraterrestrial
scenario about Roswell was on the right path.
Lehmberg: Swing and a miss,
Reynolds. You report the admissions of others as if you were the discoverer
and reporter of same. For the life of me I cannot comprehend how you don't
choke on your own nose bubbles!
Reynolds: Unfortunately, Mr. Randle
didn’t have a tape recorder handy, and only took notes, missing a chance to
get that witness’s ET suggestion down in a format that others could hear:
“There are some who said that the
very instant that Easley made that admission, they would have gone out,
bought a tape recorder and called him back. While I thought about it, I
believed, at the time, I would have an opportunity, several opportunities to
discuss all this with him again. I did not anticipate his illness. If I had
it to do over again, I would have called him the first chance I got and hade
him repeat the information.”
Reynolds: This is one of those
botches that the RRRGroup chastised in its Old Geezers posting that spurred
Mr. Randle’s current and earlier broadside.
Lehmberg: Wrong again! The spawn of
any "broadside" at the rotting timber that is your worm-ridden hull is your
inconstant philosophical aspect, your shamelessly errant ufological
revisioning, and your crass inability to provide for _any_ productiveness.
Randle perhaps figures you're due for a literary fist in your _own_ aging
wattled throat. I agree and am _happy_ to add my own.
Reynolds: Then Mr. Randle gives away
his modus for his UFO obsession – to make money. Here’s what he writes at
the end of his latest blog posting:
“As a final thought... if those who wish
that the old geezers would get out of the way, I say this. Buy my files,
records, tapes, microfilms and photographs for one million dollars, meaning
that after taxes are paid, I have one million dollars, and I’m gone. I won’t
write anymore UFO books, I won’t appear at anymore [sic] conferences or
symposiums as a speaker, and I will take down this blog. Then you youngsters
can have the open field. Just let me know when you have the money.”
Lehmberg: Excellent! I could have
illustrated your piqued childishness, lack of imagination, and cloying
irrelevance in no better way! Rofl! You don't even know when someone is
_mocking_ you, do you?! Seriously! You are the very person for whom the
"c" word was coined! Explore that!
Reynolds: If this isn’t an admission
of a mercenary modus, we don’t know what is. That Mr. Randle is now seeking
a million bucks for his efforts tells us why he’s been at the UFO game all
along, and we’re embarrassed for him and by him.
Lehmberg: Rofl! That's
still down on your side of the net, Reynolds! Immaterial, wholly
irrelevant, and only your blatant self-admission that you don't get the
joke, a joke otherwise understood handily by morons and cretins! The very
definition of a steaming pile! Why do you even play when you're not even a
good example of a bad example? You're no example at all!
Reynolds: We understand his attempt
to make us look like , who wish death upon him and others in the UFO
community, but that he would admit that his work is up for sale at a price
goes to the heart of an effort that deserves research, not for money but for
Lehmberg: Reynolds! You and your
little murder of vomiting and inconstant crows, real _or_ imagined, are the
very epitome of "nasty buggers," make no mistake and I'll accept no
Reynolds: Shame on you Mr.
Randle…shame, shame, shame….
SHAME!? You dare! You intemperate
and incompetent slanderer!
I'd presume your dank home is bereft
of any mirror or reflecting surface at all! Keep it up with Dr. Randle! I
presume it's soon your fate to owe him retractions and damages like you do
me! Unqualified, abject, and seven figures, Reynolds!
David Biedny, taking care of first things first!
This just in! David Biedny,
Uber-Paracrat, image expert, and crack photo-chopper, reveals that the issue
#150 cover of UFO Magazine was hacked and contrived: read photo-shopped...
"no question about it" propounds the stout image maven! Great
Zot and little sputniks!
Indeed! What was
photo-shopped... and why? What are Bill and Nancy Birnes up to, now?
What monstrousness would they currently prosecute? I mean
really! What lovely young women would kiss Larry Bryant on the cheek
in the first place, eh? ...Much less on a magazine cover! And those
bug-eyes! What dime store novelty shop would have those?
Credulity is, indeed, buggered!
This story bears the closest observation,
readers! Consider, how could David Biedny be this wrong in a
field where he has so much "lauded" expertise. I mean, the cover
must be 'shopped, fellow pilgrims, or maybe our "Calvinistic
Curmudgeon" Biedny... "don't know his click 'n drag from a contrast
adjustment." More, as it happens.
UPDATE: 15 July
Heavens to Moratoria and Sufferin' Succotash,
but what duplicitous slight of hand works winsomely at the Lair of the Gene
and Dave's Paracrats? After much sturm and drang, impassioned pleas,
and other assorted psychopathic nonsense in the aftermath of Nancy Birnes'
appearance on Paratopia, the ten page thread where photoshop Czar David
Biedny "identified a fraud" at UFO Magazine:
What grinds my gears? Not so much as a
backhanded apology is forthcoming. That's cowardice boys
and girls. By any other name and smelling as sweet? Cowardice!
A particularly scurvy example of same too, and getting the back of this
writer's hand every time the opportunity presents itself, too, you bet'cha!
UpDate: 15 July... 2 hours later...
Well wadda ya know... the thread is back
again... for some strange reason.
I retract nothing, consequently, and it
remains that Mr. DeeBs owes an explanation with regard to faked covers at
UFO Magazine... where and how. Step up or step off DeeBers!
UpDate: 22 July... David Biedny's (Deeb)
unwelcome E-mail expectoration in my E-mail box...
Deeb -- Alfred, I think you've made a mountain
out of a mookiehill - regarding the UFO mag cover, if the canned red logo
treatment isn't Photoshop, I'll eat the issue. If you are implying that I've
somehow stated that Photoshop was used to make a composite of two separate
people, or the plastic eyes (I've got a handful of them somewhere in a box,
from Archie McPhee), let me set the record straight - it's obviously 100%
real and untouched.
Lehm -- Much too little
much too late, "David." See, every
cover of every magazine is
"Photo-shopped" by that definition. That's not what had your panties in a
wad, eh? It was this
particular cover on this
particular magazine having your sweaty chubbies all bunched and anxious,
right? Additionally, while I can't begin to touch your "self-celebrated
expertise" in the graphics world, I suspect that the quality and resolution
of the photo on the cover of #150 is such that the ability to determine its
"non-shopped" verity falls somewhere short of 100%, am I right? Though,
maybe you've developed a taste for pulp magazines over the years ... nes't
Deeb -- My professional background is
extensive and my integrity is quite sound, but thanks for expressing your
Lehm -- Yeah... another
swingannamiss! See, the only one walking out on the thin ice with an
opinion is, well... yourself, actually. Caught short, you whine and
equivocate — sneer and vacillate... a scurvy mendacity is plain,
Deeb -- Nice burns on the graphic, I dig it!
Lehm -- Thanks... next
time I'm compelled to do one of these I'll tweek in that nasty little "dirty
Sanchez" moustache you sport.
Lehm -- ...We done? I
suspect we are. Oh, and by the way — you and I are not on a private mail
standard, Sir. When you write to me you write for my, albeit
limited, readership. Thanks.
Beyond Belief by Phil Plait
Italicized Poetic Commentary by
is Ad hominem, attacks quite insulting,
They may feel good but no good is resulting.
is for Bible, they swear it’s all true,
But so do the Muslims, and Buddhists, and Jews.
is Creation, 6000 years past;
But when looked at the evidence is always half-assed.
is Debunker, it’s said with a jeer.
But we cannot debunk without bunk, that is clear.
...Also, at once and abundantly clear, is the fact
that Plait's clueless, uninformed, and in fear. Jeering is earned
where the homework's not done. "Debunkers" bring "knives to a gun-fight,"
EVP, hearing voices of dead,
but it’s really just patterns of sound you are fed.
The Face that’s on Mars is really a butte,
Is there on the obverse a giant patoot?
is for Geller, a spoon he will bend,
Is it magic or powers, or more likely pretend?
Or, perhaps it's a "fourth thing" of which Plait's
not thought. The mind is unknown and a Gordian knot! Suggested are
powers inherent in scope, implying it's likely that Plait's the big dope.
Secrets withstanding on what is not known show Plait's a might
short for Alexandrian thrones.
Homeopathy, infinite dilution,
Perhaps better known as persistent delusion.
Now, it's true I can't know... but when given the
record, which is spotty and bogus and phony and checkered, I am so moved
as to give it a try... if Plait takes the time to bemoan it and cry!
Ideomotor, the dowser’s director,
It fallaciously points on a randomized vector.
is Junk science, it’s always reforming,
from alt med to New Age, and anti-global warming.
The apples and oranges he's trotted out here?
Profoundly devoid of the "sense" he'd hold dear. See, what has been
"junk" is redeemed as a "treasure"! That happens more often than
thought, by my measure.
is for Karma, you reap what you sow,
but if it’s not coincidence, then how would you know?
Levitation, they claim that they float
but I think it’s just bouncing they’re trying to promote.
Such a Cartesian! Such a reductionist! "It's
flatly impossible!" Our Plait's an obstructionist. I don't propose,
then, these "take to the sky," but if Plait says "they can't," then I bet
they do fly!
Mayans said: doom in Twenty Oh Twelve,
In 2013 those predictions we’ll shelve.
is Nibiru, a planet of vapor,
It never shows up but it looks good on paper.
Oxygen water, marks can’t get their fill,
What they don’t understand is that they don’t have gills.
There is much, I'd presume that's beyond
understanding, and Plait would presume what's "beyond" has no
standing. Though, he's a few decades of Occam, well flogged, and
for all of his pride? He is lost in that fog.
Faces in patterns is called Pareidolia,
In clouds it’s mundane but in pastry it’s holier?
Seeing Christ in "breakfast cakes" is proof Plait's
science fails its case! See, with its sneer, and seldom forthright,
science then occludes its birthright! Arrogant and sans inspection,
Science co-opts said inspection, pronouncing what it does not
know like Holy Grail! Really! Whoa!
is for Quacks, their science is lacking,
They’ll sell you snake oil with the government’s backing.
Yeah... Quacks like Reich and K. McCully or Tesla,
Clark, or Rife, by golly! These are men and women, friend —who go beyond
Plait's rhymed pretence— to show a system minus bravery which Plait
supports... for all its knavery!
Repressed memories, bad things you’ve forgotten,
But it’s really the premise behind it that’s rotten.
...Another thing not understood where Plait pretends
he's got the goods! Before proclaiming what it's not... he might
discover "what" is "what"! Though, he won't have a clue on this... on
this, et al, he is remiss.
Sylvia Browne, who randomly guesses,
That people believe her is why it depresses.
for Trudeau, and the trash that he’s sellin’,
But credit card fraud? FTC: "He’s a felon."
Unidentified, the definition’s specific,
But it doesn’t stop cranks thinking they’re scientific.
is Vaccines, which clear germs up quick,
But some folks don’t like them, they fight little pricks.
for Woo-woo, Randi’s favorite word choice,
And who’ll argue with him? He gave us our voice!
is for Xenu, scientologist’s Satan,
Give us all of your money, your engrams we’ll straighten.
is for Yeti, the Bigfoot, Sasquatch,
A whole lot of nonsense without a single hair swatch.
is for Zetans, those E.T. mind readers,
But they disappeared as they followed the Lieder.
Feb 18, 2009, 3:57am, [the immanently (sic)
garethb "wrote" on the message board for Paratopia:
"But who is alfred
[Lehmberg]? I've seen him posting around the net and some of his comments
are quite insane. Like on Kimballs blog for example."
..Mr. Vaeni responds with his "usual"
"I'm sure he would thank you for noticing because who wants
to be sane in an insane world? He obviously is tapping something much, much
deeper with his thesaurus-vomit and if you don't get it...it's cuz YOU don't
get it, maaaaaan, not cuz he has contempt for the reader."
Now stop being an authoritarian, Gareth. I bequeath thee:
cudgel thy brain extrinsic to the octa-receptacle divided by two, anon!"
...We'll forget for a
moment how gobsmackingly disappointing people can be on a turned dime, but I
remind Mr. Vaeni my writing style was not an issue when it was in his
service, so mocking it now seems ... disingenuous, to be kind.
Good show Mr. Vaeni!
more kafuffle via "Squidward" and "Patrick" from a
Paratopical Bikini Bottom
Ritz: Jeff Ritzmann
Lehm: Alfred Lehmberg
Ritz: Clearly you cannot engage in a rational
argument, without resorting to name calling and personal attacks galore.
Lehm: Bat squeeze.
Your inability to make your tedious little case, your facile and unwarranted
elitism, and your inability to ironically handle disagreement provokes your
ironic protest, Sir. Moreover assessment is not name-calling and
personal attack is seemingly more your stock in trade.
Ritz: A standard of evidence shouldn't be such a threat to you,
as it's there to separate the "shit from shinola".
Lehm: Another of your
charmless mischaracterizations, factual distortions, and convenient memory
patches. There are more.
The "standard of evidence"
referred to is not remotely threatening apart from the way you assign its
status as never questioned holy grail. That's juvenile hero worship.
Immature! "Shit from Shinola," on the other hand regarded your
shallow canard, "Common Sense," contested because it is "Common" and
based on 5 inadequate "senses" leavened by increasingly dodgy "filters."
You're so damned smart you'd think you'd have that right.
Ritz: In your argument, every component of an inability to
debate the point or issue is present: venomous personal attacks, moving
goalposts, and attributing non-events and characteristics to the opponent.
Lehm: I suspect you
reflexively take disagreement as "personal attack," contested convention for
"moving goal posts," and if you're down with a, in my opinion, libelous dog
like Rich Reynolds expect to come up with a few fleas.
Ritz: Perhaps if you were more involved in this study past being
a sideline commentator, you'd have a different view.
Lehm: Rofl! That's so laughable I
have to clench up or soil myself! What presumption. What hubris. What
arrogance! Forgetting that some of your "commentators" are of needs on
the sideline, what makes you think that your contribution is any more "valid"
or "center-tacking" than theirs. Perhaps because you can gleefully shout
"Retard" at the top of your lungs? Because you can write long sullen
testaments to your own whiney boxed-in intransigence? Because you are
so insentiently unaware that you only practice what you preach against?
I'm something less than terrified or impressed.
Ritz: Perhaps if this enigma had impacted your life in some
profound or terrifying way you would as well.
Lehm: That's it!?
That's all you've got justifying social obnoxiousness so complete I don't
know how you get air past your nose bubbles?
Ritz: Perhaps if UFO hoaxers had phoned death threats at your or
family members because you have proven their case fraudulent, you'd also
have a different view...and would want to leave these "cases" in the dirt
where they so richly deserve to be. These exposed cases by the way, were not
based on opinions, but again, demonstrable facts which were presented
publicly and freely available to everyone for review.
Lehm: Yawn. This may
impress the rubes and un-initiates, sonny, but I see no dues paid here.
No, just another guy too willing to make others pay for culture that betrays
you, society that demeans you, Government that misleads you, Corpocracy that
cheats you... all nicely marbled with your own patent inability to come to
grips with the very real highly strange. Waaa!
Ritz: But sadly this isn't the case. You feel the need to impose
dissenting views with no real substance, experience or knowledge behind
them, and my guess is it's because you desire drama or confrontation. That's
just a guess.
Lehm: A convenient one, as
it turns out, nicely buttressing your flaccid assumption that you
must have the superior contribution to make. See, I don't remotely
support that entirely valueless premise. Rolling out of bed in
the morning to scratch my mottled ass gives me all the authorization I need
to "impose dissenting views." My smallest interest supplies the
necessary "substance," skippy, and my interest is huge. 60 plus years
on the planet, a completed and very highly decorated career all over that
world, and a recent college education satisfies "experience," you fatuous
pup. Confidence of more than a few quality ufological principals and
constant reading and writing for the last 15 years or so satisfies
"knowledge." oh, frosted gray one. Finally, it would be enough to
simply impose my dissenting views as apart from my own self-determined
See? That's what you do...
errant confrontation and a drama ensues! What's come first here?
Your chicken or my alleged egg?
Ritz: Or perhaps you see this argument as imposing some sort of
authority. It's not. It's about simple common sense, and examining data. I
am certainly not the first to suggest that we ignore nonsense and use
critical analysis, as a portion of this field has done it for decades. But,
perhaps you have some deep seated need to oppose anything you *think* is
authoritative in any way.
Lehm: Yes! It is an appeal to
authority. See ...been all over the "common sense," the "rules of
evidence," the "conventional wisdom," the "logic," and the "scientific
method," good tools all... when used consistently, but they're not
used consistently and so not the holy grail with which you would beat
your opposition over the head. Perhaps you have some deep
seated need to be angered when someone won't queue right up to
validate your tedious little world view, eh? You are barely
authoritative, Sir, but oppressively authoritarian... ...And you call yourself
Ritz: Next, I do not know Rich Reynolds, have
never met him, and was only aware of his blogs recently when another
researcher forwarded me his "UFO Destroyers" post regarding of all people,
yourself. As he refers to you:
Lehm: ...Down with the
dog, boyo. Up with the vermin.
Ritz: "They gather ideas from others, either stealing those
ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts
their psychological well-being into question.
Lehm: ...And it seems that
challenged to substantiate same they were just as successful as you
were, when similarly challenged. Too, remember this nebulous
knot of noisome nit-wits (or single nit-wit) to which you have aligned
yourself is the same lot (or individual) putting themselves ahead of
every ufologist on the planet, or maybe you didn't read the
post you referenced. See the stories immediately proceeding this one on this
Ritz: They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the
phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that
others generate about UFOs."
Lehm: Yeah yeah yeah... forget
that this SOB owes me cash damages and effuse apologies for "Slander per
se." The scurvy bastard injected a meme into my community that I am
interested in sex with CHILDREN, Ritzmann! Did it again just recently!
How does that stack up to your whiney and prosaic even-when-true little "death threat"
Ritz: Jeremy and I both were astounded at this
post, because it's accurate to what we're seeing...only it's months old.
Obviously, we're not the first to notice.
Lehm: Rofl! I'm
thinking certainly the first... of a similar caliber... to notice.
Obviously! You feelin' those fleas yet Ritxmann? Don't worry.
Ritz: Apparently, Reynolds engaged in some sort of personal
attack on you which I wasn't aware of - but it was apparent that it was
highly distasteful and completely uncalled for. So, I'm sure you see him as
an enemy who attacked you, both in a personal nature and in the "Destroyers"
Lehm: You know? I'm
starting to get an impression of how convenient, fickle and arbitrary your
much vaunted cognitive ability really is. You've just shown your partisan
colors, Sir! Sincerely, I'm amazed at how contrived and dependant your straight-jacketed
cognition really is. With regard to Reynolds... in for a penny in for
a pound, sport.
Ritz: However, by your own thinking and the
venue in which these attacks happen: the aliens/trickster/enigma are
responsible for his behavior...so why be upset with him? I mean, he didn't
really do anything...it was him being told or controlled by the trickster,
Lehm: Cute, nice turn-around!
Golf clap! Only... ...I'm not the trickster guy!
Sorry. I don't espouse "the trickster" — never thought, wrote,
or talked about it to my recollection... so that little device just blew up
in your hands. Gee -- how "with it" and "erudite" was that?
Ritz: So, exactly where does figuring in your "alien
control/trickster" idea help this field? It's another dead end from the
start, where every aspect is attributed to the phenomena. According to your
"theory", nothing can be quantified, disproved, or gleaned from experience,
direct or otherwise. Sure, the enigma does some very strange things, and
further tangles it's path - but there's also human nature, greed, stupidity,
and self gratification.
Lehm: ...Don't know,
Stretch. You're ascribing all that to me, you see. You
have not touched one of my points. Example? You're fighting
me when "official authority" is the set and setting of every scrap
of ignorance endured and so where every scrap of your anger should be
directed. Another? We are betrayed by duplicitous culture? Another?
The mainstream is a craven mechanism of the corpocracy... See? I'm
that guy! All you appear to do is
make up the attributes of your opposition to suit what you'd contrive to say to
them... how disconnected and disingenuous is that. Not a question.
Having got the facts all wrong
you're entirely on your own, now. You expect me to bail you out? Let
me know before you land so I can alert the media for the crash. See,
with regard to human nature, greed, stupidity, and
self gratification... seems
like you do OK... entirely of your own devices even if it is to hoist you on
your own petard. How 'bout them apples.
Ritz: You would roll that all together?
Lehm: Eh... like I said...
hoisted. Did you want help with the word? I do so want to be
Ritz: That's further muddying waters already
clouded with decades of nonsense.
Lehm: ...Yes, nonsense provoked by
Culture, Society, System, Government, Church, institution, and agency
facilitating a status quo... a status quo you and Vaeni too slavishly support.
Precious little "cloud" from me, Sir, and you fan (and breath) from the same
detritus as myself. You're just a little more graceless and whiney
about it, is all.
Ritz: "Destroyer" may not be far off the mark.
However, perhaps Reynolds overstates it: I don't believe you hold enough
meaning in this "field" to really destroy anything. And perhaps the reason
why you aren't recognized more is due to your defensive attitude and
inability to see others points...or for that matter the soft thinking of
attributing every UFO malice to "aliens" or the trickster rather then
examine it with critical reason.
Lehm: One can only wonder
what prolapsed pore you must suck this stuff from. Are you trying to
be hurtful or insulting? Dude, you're falling way short, and I know
your little hopes were so high. See. I'd have to forget the
source and accept a facile premise.
Whereas, you don't even really know yourself
and you would pretend to pronounce on me. Rofl.
Ritz: Or again, perhaps it's because you are
simply a commentator...like a movie reviewer - you don't make films, you
just write about how good or bad you think they are.
Lehm: Oh, I think I've got
it now. Commentator -- bad! Silent head-bobber in agreement with
you genuflecting to the conventional wisdoms -- good!
Ritz: Or a sports commentator - you don't play
the sport, you just critique everyone else who does. Reviewers are a funny
sort, who are often failed at what they attempt to do, and so, write about
others as if they have an "authority" to even speak of the subject.
Lehm: Is this what passes
for more than facile premise on your street? If so? ...You
fumble, miss the hoop, take a puck in the teeth, and Don't. Go. All. The.
I'm my own authority on my own
self-expression. I don't need, require, or respect your permissions or
assessments. But thanks, I know you meant well!
Ritz: "Courting the mainstream" meaning actually going outside
UFOlogical circles to look?
Lehm: No, skippy! I
mean accrediting a mainstream too corrupted by corporate interest to credit
anything you handed to them even as it was scientifically buttoned and
Gawd! Breathe! That's what you
see, thinking you're being smart. You validate and credit that which
shines you on and laughs in your face.
Ritz: Yup, guilty as charged -however this is
not to "court" anyone. This is about seeking new directions of thought in a
community or field of study that has been stagnating for years now.
Lehm: Oh squirting monkey
piffle! So! How ya doin' so far? Got anything figured out, yet?
You know. We're all waiting.
Ritz: The answer or new directions won't
(obviously) come from inside the field. Progress comes from doing things in
new and unpredictable ways, in areas we may not be familiar with.
Lehm: Sweet! Oh, btw, and
just in the interest of consistency... but were you going to credit Stanton
Friedman for your use of his idea? You know... "stealing that idea or
bifurcating it with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts your
psychological well-being into question"? I'd tend to think the latter.
You thought you were immune and a complete original? Rofl!
You've been done a dozen times.
Ritz: I see many aspects of your insults to me as nothing but
projection, especially in the sense of "egotistical" and "elbowing". I've
personally witnessed such activity from you around the net: Glass
Houses...and all that.
Lehm: Ah -- more of that
formidable psychology. And throw your rocks, Sir, as I shall
continue, myself. My house comes down, my house comes down.
Ritz: I've let fakes, idiots and cultists "get to me" before,
I'm not proud of that, and I freely admit my wrongs.
Lehm: Oh? I've missed
the latter and interpreted the former otherwise. See, I suspect you're
a little closer to fake, idiot, and cultist yourself than you'd care to
Ritz: But in the end, the point was made and I
realized there's little to be gained communicating past making your
definitive case. All the rest is adding more noise and a useless waste of
Lehm: but, but, but... you
don't make your point, see, as you're so quick to point out to others.
You saying something tedious and ill mannered and then slurking off in a
huff is not a point made.
Ritz: I think it wasn't until today that I realized why the use
of three dollar vernaculars permeates your writing to near incoherency for
the public: It's a distraction from the aspect that you're not really saying
anything. It invokes an air of disdain for your "reader's" when even your
writing style is confrontational. "I dare you to try and read this" comes to
mind. "Egotistical" and "elitist" defined.
Lehm: I refuse to remotely
apologize for presuming the high intelligence, spacious imagination, and
high school vocabulary of anyone reading me. As a trainer of Army
officers I confirmed that if you shot high you achieved high. Additionally,
I will try to use the right word as the more communicative one.
angered proclamations don't establish accuracy actually, and I don't feel
any need to qualify my very considerate writing style to someone as
combatively dreary as yourself. Appreciation is abundantly provided as
it happens. Enough is as good as a feast.
Thanks for your concern. ...And folks! Keep those cards and
Ritz: Of course I'm sure the response for this is that it's a
problem with all of us, rather then communicate in a way for a mass audience
to understand your point. Then again, there isn't a point there anyway. You
hold something truly similar to the trickster - we humans who love
communication can gain very little from what either of you are trying to
Lehm: Well, you read my
response and it's not what you said, so the question is how is that
"spring-heel trickster" you flog for everyone is going to work for you here.
See, skippy, you're just trying to aggravate and be otherwise hurtful with
such discursive commentary and that's going to be saying a little more about
you I think, than me, as times accelerate. Especially when compared cheek by jowl right
here... and the internet is "forever," eh?
Ritz: But, whatever. Just be aware I don't exit this
conversation because I don't have an argument.
Lehm: Yeah -- that's what
you say. And said... true? Mmmmmmmno.
Ritz: I laid out a perfectly reasonable,
detailed argument - and you essentially spit right in my face for it.
Lehm: ...disagreed equals
face-spitting ... got it! And the way things are going I suspect I
should charge you for the wash-up, regardless!
Ritz: I leave it for the same reason I left the
Meier argument - it's ridiculous and insulting.
Lehm: You are
ridiculous and insulting. And that's not all.
Ritz: And, not worth the time or aggravation
when there's far better ways to devote what time I have, to studying and
investigating the anomaly or speaking with others who might have serious
guidance in looking for new directions.
Lehm: Don't step off mad.
Just step off.
Ritz: Tangling with you becomes an effort in futility, and
Ritz: So, goodbye
I'll not have seen the last of you. That said, enjoy me
as I find opportunity to be so far up your nose you feel my knees on your
top lip. ...Say hi to Ritchy!
Reynolds) published a new comment on the post
"Lies and Moore Lies": a piece by Kevin Randle on his highly rated blog
"A Different Perspective."
This is a site devoted to sincere and rational discussion regarding UFOs and
the Roswell mystery in particular.
In the commentary to the above
referenced piece and after a revolted assessment of Rich Reynold's
particular "commentary" by myself —exploring fact and fallacy of same— Rich
Reynolds published the upcoming response to Randle's un-moderated blog for
the world to see.
The preceding activity is in addition to a
mass mailing for any persons following Randle's weblog. The potential
readership and mailing list is international and numbers many hundreds, I
suspect, if not many thousands.
One would think that a person whose name showed up in a child porn site
during a Google search would be circumspect about the alleged shortcomings
Gods and Devils!
We'll forget for a moment that this egregious,
insane, and libelous charge regarding my behavior has been completely
debunked, roundly discredited, and abundantly exposed!
Yet here it is, published yet again in a
public forum like it is an authoritative fact!
Too, I am entirely at
this psychopathic bastard's mercy because I must prove damages or pay Rich
Reynolds' own legal fees, plus my own! He can do or say anything he
wants as a result. Sir or madam reading, I'm an aspiring author
trading on reputation and some small talent to
achieve that end. How am I not being damaged?
This has been going on for years, admittedly ... I can't let it go.
I can't give this guy a
by because it's not just me effected, see. It's the memories of my father
and grandfather and son. We all have the same name as it's turning out...
This is all not to
forget that tolerated behavior such as this throws a monstrous blanket over
freedom of expression for all of us. Finally, Reynolds needs to be
brought to account so no one else has to suffer similar treatment from him.
Persons better than myself offer "well meant advice" in regards
to my struggle with Reynolds given that it must be patently obvious
to all that he is
the "salt" in my wound, the "thorn" in my side, and the ultimate "pain" in
They say; however, that they've found that the
"best solution" to individuals like
Reynolds is to "ignore them." It takes "two people" to engage in a fight,
folks counsel, and in these instances there is "no winner." In their view
the only way to win is to not engage. "Don't play!" these say...
The man published authoritatively, just
recently, that I have sex with children, Reader. This is no teenage pique
on my part.
My refusal to contest that slander is a
signal that he is correct and my silence is then not mature; it becomes to
something of an admission, am I right?
Advice is well
taken but my removing myself from the "playing field" allows the craven
rape of my reputation to go by uncontested. Moreover, Reynolds et al
will be emboldened to do it again, perhaps, to another.
Maybe once the reader has fallen afoul with Reynolds they themselves could
be in the sights of this seeming monster for a similar maliciousness, eh?
RRR is no good for anybody, provides no
service, and is not sincere -- I think this plain in my opinion.
Clearer air has prevailed in his absence. Of course, I'd see him made
professionally extinct. The man is unrepentantly suggestive that I have sex with
children, reader. That's the cruel upshot.
He owes me damages and apologies neither of
which is now remotely forthcoming. I must resort, then, to the court of
public opinion. People will know "who" he is and "what" he does for my
effort, at all cost to me. I think the reader would do no
less in my shoes.
Would the reader give up? How about after that
first time a grandchild reads something dodgy about you on the internet?
My publisher Nancy Birnes is embarrassed. My electronic publisher
and pod-cast project chief Errol Bruce-Knapp is appalled. My writing partner on
another project, Alan Graham, is embarrassed; my wife and son are fit to
be tied, my brother is supremely agitated, and my friends, in and
out of ufology are aghast!
How are we not damaged?
Also, when must I become a liability to them.
I really don't think the reader would or could
forget this. Sex with children, ladies and gentlemen! That
unsupported charge is
unconscionable, without conscience, and unscrupulous behavior on Reynolds'
part. As bad as it gets.
It remains, Reynolds cannot be rewarded by my
inaction. I'll ensure he has a bigger reputation as a smear-or than I
ever ever have for being a smear-ee. Honor demands it, eh? An Army officer for
23 years, I know something about honor. Whew! Sorry about the longwinded
Thanks again for your understanding, and feel
free to pass this on, to anyone, as a sample of my thinking on this
issue. If you don't understand or think I make a mountain out of a
dung-pile it is because no one has
looked at you penetratingly and asked why this "kiddy porn" thing keeps
coming up about you, eh?
Know I'm sincere if nothing else.
Reynolds damages me with malice aforethought. He owes me effuse
apologies and seven figures.
Perhaps a study in Psychopathia?
What a right bastard Rich Reynolds is, albeit predictably.
Still, there is his flurry of pompous genuflection I'd link
to reader, only he'd take it down so his pathetic little scuttle could go
unsubstantiated. He's performed such and so in the past. Why
bother citing him?
...But friends of mine, one Regan Lee and and equally
significant Lesley Gunter (spell their names right you prolapsed
flock-wits!) lately stand to bear the insentient and repellant reptilianism
that is Rich Reynolds and his alleged murder of flatulent were-crows: "RRR
Group," "UFO Iconoclasts," "UFO Reality, (no truth in advertising there)"
and other sites of hissing and suppurating spoor even less relevant,
in my opinion. Such has been so.
Lately, I am not the egregiously libeled innocent owed
effuse apology and seven figure damages, you see. No, today I am no
less than representative, along with Regan and Lesley, of the destruction of
the study of UFOs. Pause for squirty giggles.
After the three of us are contrasted to the likes of "well
meaning" if "misguided" ufological persons from Friedman through Vallee to
Hynek, we are panned when compared to "hopelessly lost" second tier "mavens"
and "enthusiasts" Kimball through Bishop to Tonnies! Michio Kaku is no "UFO
Destroyer," don't you know, "but his views are so amorphous that they are
platitudinous and useless." Friends close, enemas (sic) closer?
"Platitudinous And Useless" Kaku...
At last Lesley, Regan, and myself are relegated to the said
woo-besotted ranks of the much contested and controversial contactees.
These are persons who are pretty much solely responsible, Reynolds
propounds, because of their frivolity, self-involvement, and stupidity for
the destruction alluded to. It won't end there.
Further, we are (I am) accused of "purloining" something
curiously unsubstantiated, but that is also par for the Reynolds course.
Reynolds lacks all substantiation, you see.
More as this Reynolds wrap-rap seems instructive, eh?
Though I contemplate the contemptible I am reminded that to give up is to
give in, righteous victory is necessary even if Phyricc, and an inch given
is a mile taken.
I know you're reading Ritchie, too vain to do otherwise...
Consume fecal manner and expire.
Little Respect For Another's
...Even stoned on bug larvae and having to be held up
like a besotted nerf herder, the Zorgoid, I suspect,
would not be amused with Mr. Kimball's impertinence.
A leaner-meaner Paul Kimball is lately back from bigger and better
things, his ufological batteries charged and buzzing anew like a proper
reductionist's Tesla coil.
He'd institute the initiation of his
2008 Zorgy Awards...
For reasons that would become clear as one scrolled down this and
many following pages, I am offended at my inclusion this year. I ask
that persons friendly to me don't vote for me or change their vote if they
can to Jeremy Vaeni or one of the others.
I'm disappointed with Paul Kimball and bottomed out with regard to
friendly consideration, actually. The more I think about it the more
irritated I get. Idiosyncratic balances are decidedly overdrawn.
A return to contentiousness is regretfully contemplated.
Understandable if tedious umbrage with specious slanderer Rich
Reynolds is exacerbated (if that were possible), escalated,
and otherwise extenuated.
The exchange thus far, as the un-requested utility of being cast as
someone's performing monkey is considered:
<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...
Respectfully -- I ask I be removed from consideration this year. To be
frank, I am highly offended to be on
the same list as Reynolds with regard to _anything_. Seriously,
remove me... ..._please_.
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com
<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...
<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...
I understand it will be inconvenient to remove my name. Pity.
Still, nominated I do not run; elected I do not serve.
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com
Paul Kimball said...
That's perfectly fine, and fair enough.
<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...
"Perfectly fine" is a decided stretch even as it might be "fair enough,"
Paul. It remains in the interest of discovery and even-handedness that I
inform you I consider your ... thoughtlessness here an overdraft on your
idiosyncratic account with me. Make of that what you will... Sir.
That scuttling, errant, and mawkish back-shooter, the
piteously mal-petulant Rich Reynolds, lately
whines in proxy or person from the flaccid cesspool of weblogs he odorously
"Errol Bruce-Knapp has created more harm
than good by his choice of persons to put forward, no matter how screwy or
evil they are."
Well, there you have it. Errol Bruce Knapp creates
more harm than good. We have that on such good authority from
one leaving a trademark fecal slime trail everywhere he goes. It
remains: just who are the "screwy" and "evil" to which he would allude?
Stuart Miller? Dave Furlotte? John Velez?
Chris Rutkowski? Don Ledger? Michael J. Woods? Dick Hall?
It must be Wendy Connors; he was once very clear with regard to wishing
her death. It must be her. Yep. She's the one.
I mean, he can't possibly mean... ...me?
Richey-Twitchy-Bitchy ... What a corrosively irksome
insect he can so effortlessly be, seemingly without ruse or resentment.
Too, the irony! The stupefying irony!
an easy purveyor of the most abusive kinds of "screwy evil" imaginable —in
my opinion— he indeed holds a cracked mirror, Dorian Gray-like, to his
leering visage, beholds what he sees, and then reports it to the rest of us like he sees it
apart from himself.
Astonishing. Grotesquely pathetic. A
leper on the street with a sandwich sign and a battered cup. The
stench is overpowering...
Buyer beware, Reader. Bitchy Richey is trouble with
a capital "T," which rhymes with "P"... 'cause he is
Have a fine day, Richey, eh?
Richard Hall writes:
You people come across as hopelessly paranoid crackpots!
Yes, I know, I will be greeted by accusations of being part of the
cover-up, part of the "establishment" disinformation program (as if the
Establishment were even remotely that well organized and efficient).
You have presented no data whatsoever, and simply are engaging in
mystification, rumor mongering, and hinting that you have secret inside
information far superior to that available to the rest of us. "Shadow
people?" Sounds like a total crock to me, and I think it is time for
rational people to take back UFO Updates before the Men in White haul us
Do I have any support out there, or am I really out of it?
Steve Sawyer answers:
Richard Hall has said what I've been thinking for some time now.
I'd like a return to rational, documented, intelligent discussion of the
real issues regarding UFO phenomena, also. I thought that was what UFO
UpDates was for. I hope I'm not wrong. And I hope that others here will
also voice their support for what Mr. Hall is asking.
Dick, you have my support.
In for a penny in for the pound, fellows.
Yes, what memes, thoughts, and precepts are to be deemed worthy of
continued discussion, indeed, as self-relevant practitioners of the "one
true science" prosecute their wire thin world views! Who is it that must
be, of needs, excised!
I submit myself.
This will become abundantly necessary, believe me, as I continue to
point out that many of the major players who would recues themselves into
this too shallow cincture of "authoritarian and reclusive Reductionist
Cartesianism" are "two-percenters"
guilty of failures more egregious than they accuse, one, and two, have
_not_ moved us one flaccid centimeter in 60 years!
Not because they are brought down to the level of the crazies (only
there, at all, because science has not delivered on something the
-intelligent- majority believes is there), but because these "two-percenters"
continue to credit a mainstream that, of needs, cannot credit or validate
them in turn without upsetting unethical, irrelevant, certainly invalid
themselves, but huge apple carts. These aforementioned
"major ufological players" would seem oblivious to their pointed
dismissal by a corrupt authority.
Obviously, ones conscientious adherence to rules of logic,
evidentiary process, and critical thinking amounts to bupkis against
"officialdom's" requirement to disassociate itself from you, demean you,
invalidate you, discount you, marginalize and otherwise dismiss you.
Verily, any proactive change in our consciousness and social awareness is
a result of the efforts of "crazies" it might even be
argued. You walk a thankless treadmill if you expect acknowledgement from
a corrupt authority without regard to a consideration of how
flawless ones work may be. It doesn't matter.
Shadowpeople are just not that much a stretch, given good scholarly work
by credible people on subjects much twitchier than that, fellows,
or maybe the names McDonald, Hynek, Vallee,
Ruppelt, Keyhoe, and Friedman, et sig freakin' al, are
in no way known.
Yeah, Friedman! All vituperations directed at him are explained
by the fact that he has managed to stay cutting edge and relevant for
decades, when others find they are decidedly out of
contribution of late, which neatly explains a lot of angst on the issue I
Solution? Of course! Though, like all best solutions
it is not sought or even found. It is faced.
James McDonald outlined the solution to the problem set decades ago.
Read Druffel's book to find out what it was. In short? Quit whining,
show _sack_, and _do_ something! Individually we'll do
what we can.
So, let's cut to the chase. Who among you is to cast their first stone at
this unrepentant 'sinner'!