AlienViews on the news...

-- News that shows you something...

The pipes, the pipes were calling... and with so much left to be said.



When he found out, somehow, that Stanton Friedman was going to immigrate to Canada, the late Philip Klass once wrote an official letter on a letterhead admonishing the Canadian Government that they were about to admit a viper into their embrace.  

Based as it was on erroneous bupkis, vicious slander, and slimy innuendo, I'd say that this was a clear violation of Friedman's civil rights, a pursuit of happiness, and a malicious threat towards an honorable pecuniary nexus — a paycheck.  Klass tried to ruin Friedman because Klass knew he was, himself, old news, without relevance, and intellectually inadequate to the ufological task blossoming before him — and Friedman made Klass look bad... like a mouth-breathing moron, actually.

Friedman would have had Klass' ass if he'd found out before the withered old klasskurtzian died.

See -- Phil knew he had no chance to take Stan out on the issues, so he tried to torpedo Stan —and Stan's whole family— the only way he had... whisper campaigning, poison pills, and fulsome well-fouling behind duplicitous scenes.

...Sound familiar?

It has just been confirmed to me that "Camembert Boy" has leaned on the publisher of UFO Magazine to have me removed from its stable of writers, summarily and with some prejudice I would presume.

I wrote below that it would have been the penultimate "chicken-shit thing to do" were I to use my small influence over at the magazine to try to keep him off...

Chicken-shit!  By any other name and smelling as sweet, Danny Boy!

Don't fall foul with Danny "Camembert Boy" Brenton, folks.  Poison pills go to friends, associates, and employers, and personal fall-out or collateral damage won't seem to matter, much, at all. 

How Christian is that?

Why is Camembert Danny's behavior unethical?  This is because one should have the opportunity to confront ones accuser as damage is being done, after all. Brenton would seem to abrogate natural law, ethical standards, and all fairness, for his own convenience.  How's that sit with the reader after standing in my shoes?

...And all this only because he knows I'm not likely to validate him in our community, contest his every expression, implode every meme -- or the inverse of those things, reader!  Won't know until he resurfaces... but whatever I do will be done in the full light of day, reader! 

Brenton can confront his accuser! 

Yoo hoo... Camembert!

Flushing faster now... soon to be an animated gif...

My Stars and little sputniks, reader, but is it possible —is it even conceivable— that a paragon of engaging wit, suit-coated taste, and staunch Enlilian ethics like our "Camembert Boy" would remotely consider strong-arming, bribery, or unethical quid pro quo to rid the ufological corporeal of your favorite trouble-maker?  Camembert may have just pointed out his way back, eh?  More on that, perhaps, later.

Those are intimations in the morphic resonance, nes't ce pas?

Hey, two years running folks... the polls have closed.  By a landslide!  I'm your guy!  The coveted Zorgy is mine!  You gonna' turn on me now?

Camembert's had its run[ny] and don't think for a minute I can't appreciate the irony of "Camembert" given the "Limburger" dishing it out this time... See, I've always had to "take it" backwards two generations from same.  Yeah -- I'm allowing myself a spot of enjoyment at that, only.  The rest is just takin' out the trash, follow?  Unpleasant but satisfying at day's end.

I wonder.  Is "anything" acceptable in the service of your lord, and if so... what's that say about your lord?



"Camembert Danny B" escalates his cowardly little back-door war to another level of corrupt smarminess!  What a running-dog little ferret he is, reader.  Just received a note from another of the "poison pilled and well poisoned" reporting on DBs unbrave shenanigans.  My response to them was:

"Whew -- glad you're cool on this as the dark side of Neptune's smallest moon.

On DB... Wow -- You can forward anything to me that you want... but if you say you're getting letters from him making threats and demands that's good enough for me.

I regret that. I really do. I regret that this back-shooting Christ-ian Crap Bastard can so casually impose on my friendships, associations, and attachments with such impertinent impunity!

I regret that you have to suffer any inconvenience by my inability to go along with the conventional wisdom of lambs-blood sociopaths and other uptight if ironically stealthy bible-thumpers.

If I thought for a minute that I was going to back off on my throttle of imposition regarding the transmission of his ufologically fatuous reactionary meme, I was in arrears.  I've disabused myself of any notion regarding leniency.

I'm a soldier. I'll redouble my efforts, now. He won't be able to fart in a hurricane but I've got a comment for it.

He tasks me. I'll see his literary hide tacked on my shed wall.  ...Imposing on my friends!  The gall!

Once again, I apologize for inconveniencing you... by not validating one Daniel Brenton.

Who died and elected him institutional arbiter, eh? Piss on 'im.

That's right Danny. Piss on you.  I was in for the penny.  Now I'm in for the pound.  Your move!  Stick your head up somewhere, Skippy!

To the reader losing patience:

"Camembert Boy" Brenton is operating right out of the Roveian neo-con christo-fascist scut-wit play-book, or my name is Ferris Beuller!

Do you want a —back-shooting net-weasel— like DB to set the ufological agenda as he works behind the scenes to pick and choose the "approved" paranormal players... in my opinion?

Not for me, pilgrims! I must be entirely opposed to behavior which has not worked, at best, in eight long years!

I get more understandable all the time, don't I, camembert boy!

Well, buckle up, Falstaff!  We're just starting to roll.


Yoo hoo? ... but has anyone seen him bring his mal-ethical U-Boat to the surface anywhere?  ...Can't run on electrics forever, eh?  Gotta' surface and fire up those diesels, recharge those batteries, and flush out the bad air below decks.  They didn't call them "pig-boats" for nothing.  ...Have to be rank by now, I'd expect.


...Well - maybe I'll just go away.  Maybe.  Let me go check stores and see how many depth charges I have... Oh yeah, we can be out here, awhile.  Anybody wanna shoot skeet off the fantail?



In UFO MAGAZINE #143, Regan Lee writes>>>


Daniel Brenton’s Signal to Noise

Daniel Brenton has a blog and it's called The Meaning of Existence and all that: The Odd Little Universe of Daniel Brenton. What makes his blog different from many blogs, is that it’s a very good blog.



Lehm:   ...mmmmmmmno, if I may!  It's a little too pompous, patronizing, and proselytizing for my taste.  Moreover, mired in hubris and anthropomorphism it reeks stealthily of reflex reductionism and "carry-on"'s two steps back for every one grudgingly taken forward for my draw, and otherwise chaps my guarded nethers...


...but one man's rotten milk is another woman's cheese... so maybe DB remains to be a good camembert. An especially soft and squishy one.  Runny even?



Brenton writes insightfully about what’s on his mind concerning UFOs, UFOlogy, and many other topics, including his own connection and responses to the spiritual or metaphysical side of things. But these things aren’t the only reasons why his blog is among the best; it’s because he’s also a good writer.



Lehm:  Plebian hacks and prolapsed pundits can bang the keys in pleasing ways, too.  Still... ain't nothin' like a "meme pimp" scurrying around in the black-guarding shadows prosecuting in secret what he paints in daylight as above board best practice via his fatuously suspect "Signal to Noise," a suspicious ax to be ground.  ...As we may see in the proceeding.

Daniel is also co-author with David S. Micheals of  of the  recently published Red Moon, a fictional story about finding a surprise on the Moon. Explains Brenton:

“It's 2019, and a crew of a "return to the
Moon" expedition discover a Soviet manned spacecraft that's been hidden for half a century.  They discover it holds the darkest secret of theMoon Race, which in turn may help them find an elusive lunar resource that could very well be the last hope of humanity.”



Lehm:  Right... science fiction.  ...Too, that was in UFO Magazine... because?

The book has been getting good reviews, including this one from Paul Levisnon, ex-president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America:

 "This is not just among the best
first novels I've read in years, it's among the best novels, period.
Red Moon is a masterpiece."  


 Brenton gives  full credit to David S. Micheals, saying:

"David S. Michaels was the real driving force behind it, but I feel my contribution to the book is still some of my best writing to date,  I think I can say with a pretty good sense of certainty if you start with the novel at the beginning of the prologue and get to the end of the first chapter, you'll either be hooked or you won't.  I've literally
met only one person who didn't like it. I'm really pleased to have been part of writing this novel."


Lehm:  All very nice, really -- but it's science fiction!  Yo', Adrian!



Brenton writes not only well but thoughtfully, which has led him to create something new: a sort of “point counterpoint” blog thing. Called Signal to Noise, Brenton hopes to offer his view on an aspect of UFOlogy on his blog, and another blogger respond on their blog. Sort of like a UFOlogical intellectual version of blog tag.



Lehm:  Wow -- really taking the ufological internet by storm with such an 'original' idea... totally unlike anything that hasn't been done before... over an over again since 1992...  dozens if not hundreds and thousands of times... even right here on this electronic page, reader, a little more challengingly than our Mr. Brenton can remotely allow, but still! 

His first Signal to Noise was about the Contactees, with my response following on my blog Vintage UFO.  In that piece, Brenton showed why Adamski and other Contactees could not have possibly traveled to other planets, given what we know about physics and space travel. To that I responded, “well, der.” Okay, I didn’t say that. But that’s obvious, and focusing on that misses the point.  If we take their stories literally, we’re missing out on what the Contactees can teach us. Instead we’re wasting time debating the logistics and “reality” of their visitations within the solar system.  In other words, when it comes to the Contactees, I believe them. I just don’t take them literally.

Lehm:  IOW, Ms Lee very correctly points out that it is not as important that questionable persons make ridiculous claims... but why these persons make "ridiculous claims" based, moreover, on intimations of a high strangeness Mr. Brenton is just too timid, frankly, to address head on.


I asked Daniel what he hoped to accomplish with Signal to Noise? He stressed the importance of “reflective discussion,” and underscores the word:

"I'd like Signal to Noise to be a place for reflective discussion:
underline dis-cus-sion. There are so many fronts in this subject that folks can't seem to come eye to eye about.  Having an ongoing dialogue can be rewarding in a number of levels, let alone maybe even being fun and can suggest ideas and approaches that the individuals may not have come to on their own.

One of the things I admire about Brenton is his willingness to seriously consider those aspects of UFOlogy that are too out there for many researchers:


"There are a group of subjects under the UFO umbrella that strike me as being just too strange to be taken seriously, such as the whole Nazi UFO thing, shapeshifting reptilian aliens ala David Icke, or the Branton "Dulce Wars" material.  Another: the whole Ashtar Command "faith" is just too far into the "tin foil hat" crowd to even twice about.  And yet, maybe by raising the right discussion with the right person something useful could emerge.  Looking at the Ashtar crowd, for example -- obviously someone takes this channeled information  seriously, even though most of these kind of things are full or logic problems and contradictions.  Why do these people take it seriously?  


And more importantly, where does this stuff really come from?"

That last statement of Brenton’s is very important:  "where does this stuff really come from?”


Lehm:  No, he can push a sock in that, too.  Looked at another way, doesn't the material he so earnestly professes should be included in ufology's consideration...  cross the line into ready distraction from the aggregate ufology exactly because it is material so full of "logic problems and contradictions"?


Can it not then be used ultimately to discredit the aggregate study of true UFOs  suggested by Hynek, Vallee, and McDonald et sig al; the bad, once again, damn-it, effectively pulling down the good? 


In effect then using these dodgy "Ashtarian" proclivities of an information starved population to dissuade an interested fence sitting individual... about which they are so information starved?  Does Mr.  Brenton propose to use a democracy to destroy a democracy, use a dodgy microcosm to invalidate the highly strange macrocosm?  I suspect he may.


Daniel is optimistic, hoping that Signal to Noise will generate “. . . a model for working through a premise to a conclusion, or at least coming to an amicable disagreement.”

Lehm:  ...Cut from the "discussion" with no fanfare amidst meepy protestations of my inability to be "understood," he then whisper-campaigned behind the scenes, subsequently, subtly trying to get me disallowed from any discussion. So much for "amicable disagreement.”



Worthy thoughts, but as we know, and as many of us have experienced, there are many within and the outside looking in within UFOlogy who seem to desire the opposite.



Lehm:  ...And surprise... surprise... surprise...!  Guess where that just described little ferret-face ironically pops up to bite us on our collective ufological ass!  ...Butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-mouth Danny Brenton! 


Who saw that coming?!?  Rofl!  Reset the sarcasm circuit-breaker.



Like many of us, Brenton’s been “pretty much flamed” for things he’s written; what’s irksome is that these people didn’t take the time to fully read his work:


“it was clear the people in question had simply given a
knee-jerk reaction to only part of what I had written without absorbing the whole message."


Signal to Noise might help to be productive and constructive in the on-going discussion -- genuine discussion -- of the UFO phenomena.



Lehm:  Mussolini wanted trains of temporal responsibility.  Hitler wanted to write the wrongs of the first great war and reduce crime.   George Bush wanted to be a "Uniter and not a divider."  heh-heh-heh!


Moreover, I suspect that before me?  Our Mr. Brenton was pretty much getting a free ride.  He already shows he can't take the heat, whining in private mail inauspiciously to me like a wounded spinster school marm... gushing all manner of dime-store demands, mal-unctuous ultimatums and threadbare threats. Piffle.

There are certain individuals Daniel has in mind  that he’d like to see participate in Signal to Noise; author and blogger Mac Tonnies being one:


"Mac Tonnies doesn't blog articles as such very often, but I'd be delighted to work with him on pretty much anything."


Whoever participates, it’s important, Brenton says, that  the “right person” is matched “to the right subject for a constructive discussion.”



Lehm:  Right -- until the first time MT diverges from the party line of the "Brenton Intellectual Box (BIB)," then what?  Maybe MT wasn't the right sort after all... eh?

Some researchers criticize UFOlogy for being the mess that they consider it to be. I don’t consider it a mess, and the circus like atmosphere that’s a part of UFOlogy is just what’s to be expected. It’s just part of the Trickster that’s an inherent part of the anomalous, including UFOs.


Lehm:  ...And in my opinion Ms. Lee shows she's got a little clearer —certainly braver— understanding of the "highly strange" than Mr. Brenton is remotely capable. 


Still, some are bothered by this, including Brenton.


Lehm:  LOL!  Take that to the bank!


In this we disagree, but that’s for another day!


Lehm:  ...And what did that subsequent day resolve for Ms. Lee, I wonder?



The point is, Brenton has made some steps toward creating quality discussion, with honesty and sincerity, about the UFO phenomena. And no one can argue against that. 


Lehm:  I can.  That Mr. Brenton took "steps" is certain.  But not ones you could see, reader!  Not ones of which one could be proud.  Time will tell of course, but in addition to askance and akimbo?  With Mr. Brenton I am decidedly under-whelmed.



Well, "wall to wall Brenton" translated to two pieces in UFO Magazine # 143 by regular contributors Sean Casteel and Regan Lee.

Addressed in turn:

Sean Casteel reviewed a "science fiction" novel, so... enough said there.  I don't contribute to a "science fiction" magazine and don't think UFOs are remotely "science fiction."  Perhaps Mr. Brenton believes UFOs are "science fiction" when they are not left-wing college professors, the liberal media, or seditious demons —Satan-spawn from hell's hottest bowel— come to drag humanity from the crown of his white-bread God's creation. I can't speak for Mr. Brenton. 

Mr. Brenton may contribute to a cracker-jack "science fiction" novel as "hard" as anything Larry Niven's produced — although, I doubt it.

I just don't care.  It's science fiction.

In a subsequent piece —that I'm going to spend some time on— we'll examine Reagan Lee's article entitled "Signal To Noise."  It's an ironic title, sincerely, given how laughable it is to me that I would allow Mr. Brenton to define for me either signal or noise.  I'm certain he's got them completely ass-backwards or is deaf entirely to what he could be hearing...

"Signal to Noise" is just more science fiction, I suspect, but Mr. Brenton dares to intimate non-fiction regarding a fresh look at UFOs. 

Let's see how fresh as we winnow out the ideological memes camouflaged within and trot them out to their conclusions and palsied premises. 

Stay tuna.



Still waiting for the arrival of the magazine of ufological record!  What wisdom our Mr. Brenton must be prepared to show!


I am pilloried for passions as provoked by unbrave lack-wits, so suspect that I must fight a poet's fight.  My rhythms are discomfiting for some, perhaps contentious.  Still, the song it sings aspires to truth and light.    


Too, what's there is only there because I sing it in a song.  What I would express, expressed, is thoughtful, clean, and strong.  My points have different colors, and the points that should be made (?) ... in SONG they have a quality crossing flowers with grenades!


Now how much should I have to pay, to say these words this way?  And what's the price exacted for expression? 


What becomes my crime that's just too heinous to allow, to justify my purging and suppression? 


It's true I have a conscience that I wear upon my sleeve. It's true I'd split the heavens; it's true I'd soar and cleave. It's true I find religion's just a cop-out and a drag; it's true there's only guile been implied by ANY flag!


It's true I seek autonomy and the freedom it implies, but that's just not allowed by those who rule.  Self-selected men and women blessed by birthright are conniving... to insure themselves a future. We're their tool. 


Their clever orchestrations are profound and plainly seen.  They decide intolerance, so it's them defines obscene. They would write your script and they would tell you what to think; you're just for their utility. 


Too, behind? They nod and wink.


It's true that I would, just as soon, NOT live my life their way.  There's just no honor in it, it would seem.  Based on lie's invention to manipulate control, it's a carny-pitch divergence from my dream. 


I dream of satisfaction that is righteous and complete.  I dream of the forthcoming, and the loss of all conceit.  I dream we fill the emptiness with the wealth of what we know, and that SECRETS wrongly hidden are exposed to flash and glow!


It's true what I surmise, my friend, that WE ARE NOT ALONE, and thinking such as this gets hard to bear.  So, I rise up every morning with some coffee for my spark, and I fix the starry skies, if there, and stare. 


What would you expect from me?  I've eyes and I can see!  Too, well read and educated, I perceive that I'm not free.  With ears to match and listening, I've found a cosmic road, and on that trek I'm finding out: I won't be cowed or bowed.


...Distrust of rhyming verse is not my problem, understand? A song's a weave of rhythm and some verse. It seems to me that problem rests with others who would dictate how I tell you what I think, and that's perverse.


Everyone can take the time... to see a different way. Everyone should have their choice to double, put, or stay... Everyone's enhanced anew with choices they could make... to, then, fertilize real learning and improve a person's state.


Yet I must fill a mold been pressed down, HARD, upon my soul; it doesn't matter what perceptions are!  A universe, before me, stands ignored in an indifference that would smother up the outburst of a star!


Too, I'm supposed to pack my brain in cakes of social ice and validate hypocrisy to go along... be nice? If yes?  Be disappointed.  I'd be true, at least, to self — to have respect for others, one must first respect oneself!


I am a poet-warrior... my blades drip dragon's blood, I'm not apologetic; I'm obverse.  All that I would wish for is the simple honest insight that I'm chanting here, with you; help lift our curse. 


That curse?  It is *unknowing* that we labor with, you see?  The curse is the erosion of the stuff that makes us free. The curse is persecution of divergence we all need... to aerate potential, be not bored — improve the breed!


Now I'm expected dutifully to make a place for you, except you as the standard — how it's done...  But where are all your colors and your levels or your deepness?  Where is richness? Where is learning?  Where's the fun? 

Your thinking's all peripheral, and bereft of any depth.  Your focus is too narrow, and it seems you're scared too death.  Too, to make me pay your sordid freight for all those fears denied, proclaims your lack of bravery, Sir, for which you're self-despised.



I can hardly wait for the Daniel Brenton Commemorative issue of UFO Magazine.  Wall to wall DB I understand!  Each line can be weighed and sifted.  Each idea parsed and sectioned with regard to cant and etiology.  I am filled with anticipation!

Too, isn't it strange how a print magazine is still months in the past when it appears on the stands or in your mailbox.  Has "oh, Danny boy..." had his run?  ...The magazine pages a strange bloom of a plant or fungus, dead or dieing?  Time will tell.

"The pipes... the pipes..."

I wonder, did Dan sneak himself one green beer?  Too, I'd guess St. Pat really did drive the snakes from Ireland, eh?  It is an odd universe... someone should tell us about it, you know?  Someone not a grain of sand on the same backwater beach that the reader is too a grain, but someone.

I'm reminded that it would be the height of chicken-shit were I to use my tiny influence to try to "poison the well" over at UFO-M for Dan... on account of he's Benny Hinn elbowing his way into a social scalar ripe for captivation from which he can profit in some way he believes... to proscribe and prosecute his unctuous shtick of genteel proselytization, eh?  But those are only my feelings -- and I may be biased.

But I'm just not wired the way required to stick it to a guy that way, and won't suffer it either -- moreover; it would never have even occurred to me.   

But seriously... Danny has a place, still, if he doesn't insist he calls the shots with regard to his own puckered traditions, outdated religious sensibilities, general artlessness, robotic Cartesianism, or persons not quick to validate his questionable paradigm.  If he stops sneaking around like Cardinal Richelieu, stops his ultimatums, foregoes all demands... and pretends no threats, eh?  

Hey!  The Eagles got back together!

Otherwise, I suspect he going to be under-gunned with whatever he walks into the corral with, you know? 


Regarding DB... I'm acutely aware of an embarrassment contingent to all this, and I don't relish it despite appearances.  But I can't let this unctuously earnest faux-moralist prevail in a stealthy ambush of my... well, call it my philosophical paradigm because, frankly, I perceive it as one of inclusion and authoritativeness dwindling in an increasing tyranny... where DB's (just the latest ufological dilettante and clueless spoiler for my money) is one of exclusionary cant and biased authoritarianism, it would appear, and so more of the unchanging same. 
He can change my mind any time he wants to.









Keep your eye on this illio.  It appears to be flushing!

3/13/2008 2:16 PM Daniel Brenton wrote:
I don't recall him specifying who figured this out, though he implied that this method worked.

...Unlike Mr. Brenton's method, one comes to find: a bilious expression of last century faith-driven elitism, deified Cartesian-ism, reflexive reductionism, a too liberally dosed Occam, secret blacklists, Byzantine secretiveness, whisper campaigns, self-serving duplicity, and intellectual cowardice, just to start. 

You have to keep in mind that his story is that he was one of the sailors on board the USS Eldridge when the Philadelphia Experiment was performed.

One should keep in mind that DB is just another "Danny-come-lately," tardy to the party, frankly, so busily in the throes of "earnest" wheel-reinvention.  He's not remotely authoritative on the subject of UFOs, reader, offers nothing new, and contributes nothing constructive.  Mac Tonnies is who he wants to be when he grows up, I suspect.

Flying saucers enter the picture, then Montauk shows up down the road, etc.

Etc?  Our blasé ufological sophisticate might consider: --

...Then wipe that fatuous smirk of his face... he's a handle on exactly bupkis.

A quick Google search will turn up a lot of information that puts his credibility in serious doubt.

A quick Google search of Daniel Brenton will turn up a lot of information... not really demonstrating any real "credibility," at all, putting a current "contribution" into serious doubt.  Indeed -- Mr. Brenton has endured no test... not even one of time.

Fun stuff to think about, though -- and I suspect this is the bottom line: the guy had a talent for latching onto ideas that were fascinating enough that people would get caught up in them for a while.

Let's play the "New-Name Game" with DB's last tedious little gasp.  From that DB just preceding:

"Daniel Brenton has a talent for latching onto ideas fascinating enough for people to get caught up in them... for a while."

Another lovely intellectual loss leader offered at the Culture Of Contact by he who can know no shame...

Indeed, I suspect we might be able to categorize all of Mr. Brenton's contributions as such given some pretty conclusive evidence that our newest self-validating teacher, leader and holder of the ufological guiding light is a garden-variety back-shooting blog-bravo.  What is Mr. Brenton's contribution worth when your disagreement with same provokes portentous secret pronouncements from this prolapsed popinjay of the paranormal, puling forth from his poison-pen or the forehead used to bang on an equally poison keyboard?

I recall Al Bielek made the claim, I think in the late 1980s, that some bright boy discovered greys could be prevented from walking through walls by putting them in Faraday cages. For those unfamiliar with the concept, Wikipedia has an explanation at:

I wonder what would happen if Daniel Brenton was placed in a Faraday cage?  Could we trust his report on same to be free of peculiar idiosyncratic baggages or irrelevantly Byzantine exclusivenesses?

Mr. Bielek, in my mind, is one of those folks who would say some really interesting things, but two sentences later would plunge off the edge of the world into some kind of bizarre fantasy land.

Yes, yes thank you... which is descriptive of exactly everyone in the field as the crow flies, so then saying absolutely bupkis.  Don't believe me?  Let's try!

"Mr. Brenton, to my mind, is one of those folks who would say some really interesting things, but two sentences later would plunge off the edge of the world into some kind of bizarre fantasy land." 

See, dependant on how you hold your mouth?  It works.

Caveat emptor.

New Latin "let the buyer beware..." Amen to that, eh reader? Let that buyer indeed beware...

Too, that's one of those cool conversational punctuators to say when "ya got nothin'... " and lack the institutional fortitude to start every morning with a hot steaming cup of "just shut the f__k up."

Rather like "nes't ce pas," nes't ce pas?  LOL!  I know you're reading, poots...

Yeah yeah yeah... I hear the internal dialogue... have another sip.  I'm banging this tattering drum because something un-admitted festers in the community to which the lovely Mr. Brenton's invited himself, and I'm loath to shake it loose because I believe Mr. Brenton is evil and must be stopped...


But I suspect that our Mr. Brenton would propose to pick and choose among us who would be allowed to express themselves on our small world stage!  Moreover, he would diligently work behind the scenes, himself, to discredit, disallow, and defuse that "black list" of which he has been even boastful!  There's going to be a problem with that... does the reader begin to see the problem?  How evil does evil have to be before it is evil, and evil indeed?

See, if you have to fifth-column your corrosive campaign behind the scenes is a serial sociopathy of well-poisonings and whisper-campaigns... well, it just may be that your arguments for same don't hold up in the light of day.  Perhaps these arguments are without quality, relevancy, or imagination as the old accusatory rock is kicked over, eh? Perhaps these arguments can be seen as bigoted, reactionary, and hubritic in an openness or glasnost of genuine forthrightness?  Perhaps they just don't sell in sunlight?

Too, if you have to put your ideological daggers in the back of your opponent or "other undesirable personage," it's likely that it's because those daggers can't easily penetrate from the front, am I right?

Finally, how unmanly Mr. Brenton appears to be when he cannot propound his combative activities directly and with some small courage and must sneak in the shadows to deliver same!

Perhaps Mr. Brenton is only trying to spare me my feelings and further public embarrassment by pretending this web page is not getting hit 80 to 150 times a day  —Small stage like I said— but its a little late for that.  The reader can rest assured I know this is embarrassing, but the condition has evolved passed that.  I have to take it too the wall.  Why? 

Because I refuse to allow the indefatigable Mr. Brenton any input on whether or not I express myself on the boards of others.  I'm not convinced, you see, that Mr. Brenton is capable of a constructive input.







A Danny Brenton sighting!  He comments at Culture Of Contact where he gloats in self-engineered safety from my evil [TM] clutches or revealing criticisms dependant on the way ones mouth is held:

  • 3/11/2008 11:24 PM Daniel Brenton  responds to:
    "I remember seeing a 50's sci-fi movie whose entire premise was based on fighting monsters from the id. Damn good sci-fi for its time."

    You're thinking of "Forbidden Planet," which was a hell of a movie, especially for the time.

Mr. Brenton, ever the authoritative wax coating for the stealthy authoritarian, eh?  Note the obvious teaser, "especially."  

"Oh gee, Mr. Wizard?  Why especially?" 

Then he can propound eloquently in cheerily toast-mastered —and therefore easy to digest— "glib-sterisms" why "especially," and therefore providing for his own relevancy on an issue one was manipulated to ask him about.  See how that works?

I still want to know if he voted twice for GWB. Why?  Well, besides being interested in the aggregate quality of Mr. Brenton's suspected ulterior-ism... because Mr. Brenton would judge and so must be judged.  It's in the bylaws.

The appearances notwithstanding... that Daniel Brenton is incapable of directness and openness, that he lacks a righteous constitution to take the field in an open debate, or that he is aware himself of the egregiousness of his clandestine activities and is ashamed... it remains, "I've developed a level of notoriety in [my] community..." to mea culpa on error, show consistency, and not hold a grudge.  All indications are: a dialogue is always inbounds and accessible.

And I have to wonder, am I that undesirable as a contemporary, as a compatriot, or as a friend... or is it that Mr. Brenton understands all too well that I'm not going to reflexively validate his questionable paradigm and would explore the envelope of every aspect of it wherever the data went... emotional, psychological, or sociological?  I would, of course, suspect the latter.

Still, feeling wronged by Mr. Brenton in the community alluded to, I would persevere.


Like a peach in a bucket of rotten meat.

"To my surprise, I have developed a level of notoriety in the UFO community as a relatively level-headed, reasonably intelligent “truthseeker," — Daniel Brenton

"Judge a tree by its fruit, friend, not its flower." — Alfred Lehmberg


There are wide differences between myself and Daniel Brenton.  Brenton would undertake clandestine if combative issue with these differences. 

Chief among the aforementioned differences practiced on my side of the wire is an albeit reluctant if consistent willingness to directly confront an outrage.  This is a willingness obviously lacking in some "Strange Little Universes."  Insulting rocks get kicked over, of needs.

See, it appears some of those "little universes" should get a little more light.  Let's roll in a barrel of flaming fuel oil and see what imps run from the rotten stumps found therein:

Mr. Brenton, a coward in my opinion, is content to slink lugubriously behind the scenes by way of clandestine calls and letters — a blackguard's cornucopia of black lists, autocraticisms, and authoritarian unctuousnesses.  He is that gleeful authoritarian issuer of canted demands, a shadow-caster of biased aspersions, and a glad producer of ax-grinding ultimatums

This is a controlling stranger reaching out secretly to others and imposing a view that is as short sighted as it is unimaginative, as limiting as it is restricting, as religiously authoritarian as it is anthropomorphically hubristic... and it is no friend to individual respect, collegiality, or toleration, either, I gather.

See, there is no defense against his kind of unbrave attack on character and reputation.  Brenton's brand of attack is like a cancer growing on in secret until it becomes inoperable... and ones perhaps faultless character is invalidated — reputation is wrongfully eroded.  All in maddeningly poisonous secret.  What is your risk of contracting this same cancer, reader? 

If you want to express your own thoughts and ideas?  Chances exceed excellence!

This is back-door behavior exceeding even that of a "Rich Reynolds," actually!  At least Reynolds has the sack to cast his fatuous aspersions out loud.  We point out differences here between easy to see garden slugs and hard to notice scrotal leeches only...

Forgetting the latter allusion immediately preceding, what kind of person is Mr. Brenton?  Indeed, who is Mr. Brenton?

One need go no further than his rules for contributing to his own Weblog for the answer to that.  See, a more paranoid, insulting, and exclusionary set of intellectual hobbling has hardly ever been keyed into cyberspace. 

With no small trepidation let's go there and read between the lines of same and see what's detected in suspicious oozes yearning to be free...

[Cue the thunderous organ music and raise the black felt curtains, reader!]

Fair use claim: the following copyrighted material is a subject of its own parody and quoted from the link immediately above to facilitate critical commentary and satire. [eh-heh!]

DB: It has become clear to me that a commenting policy should be defined and posted at any site, forum, or blog that permits visitors to make them, because, just as driving seems to do do, the internet appears to bring out the worst in some of us.

Yes, I agree.  Additionally, pointing away from oneself leaves three fingers pointing decidedly back, you know?  The internet is indeed a boon to well poisoners, poison-pen writers, malicious networkers, and other cheerful psychopaths masquerading as the pious, compassionate and calmly rational — the philosophical even! 

Yes. We couldn't be in more agreement!  The absolute worst!

DB: (Hey, that came out more polite in tone than I thought it would.)

Well... no.  No, it didn't.  What it did accomplish —to the person forewarned so forearmed— was to preview Danny Brenton as an authoritarian scold and black-water censor right up front.  Thanks.

DB: I’m offering these as a way of defining my expectations of what I consider acceptable comments. These are exactly the same as on

That will be a narrow little door to get through, reader, in the best of times, and it won't be carrying any criticisms of one Daniel Brenton, Technicolor coat-pretender and toxic meme-shill, either.  Easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle, eh?

DB: Now, I know the rude dogs won’t even bother to read these, and that’s fine, because submitted comments are as easy to delete as spam, though they aren’t worth as much.

Some of us will read them, Banny Doy (sic); some of us will show you how they are used to show you yourself. 

Too, I'll take a rude dog over a slinking snake anytime.  A rude dog may hump your leg, but a snake's bite lasts and lasts.

DB: Also, it has become obvious that most sites, forums, and blogs need to post a statement regarding the ownership of the content of comments.

Perhaps, only for those bloggers trying to validate their own brand of online megalomania, am I right...  ...though, just not a very forthcoming, out-front, or upright one, eh?  A good example of a bad example perhaps... that which it would decry, actually.

DB: If this strikes you as needless boilerplate, I have two words for you: tort reform. (If it walks like the devil and talks like the devil, it probably is the devil.)

Daniel Brenton believes he knows who that is reader!  The devil walks and talks and one daren't dance with same in the broad moonlight!  And tort reform?!?  Did Daniel Brenton vote twice for George W. Bush? ...Bet he did.  Ask him. Judge a tree by its fruit, reader, not its flower.

DB: Bottom line: if these policies are unacceptable to you, you are under absolutely no obligation to comment here.

Don't worry 'Danny boy'!  Forget a lack of desire, some of us realize that there was never a chance for remotely getting a foot in the door at your Jonestown compound! 

Who are we?  That contrary bunch refusing to validate your scrofulous religious shadow-paradigm!  Better get used to that.  I'm just getting warmed up!  Too, I'm keen on judging a tree by the fruit produced.

DB: If you can’t understand that, your name is probably Brittany Spears. Are you out again?

Understood passed a level at which Mr. Brenton would be comfortable, I suspect, as Mr. Brenton reveals himself further.   Too, seems a good Christ-ian could forgive Ms. Spears... you know, "...hate the sin love the sinner"?

DB: Commenting Policy
Posted February 10, 2008

...I mean, seriously, who would remotely need such a massively anal compilation of

unctuous authoritarianism, facile hubris,

and crass intellectual insult as the following?

DB: 1. All comments are moderated by me or a designee, period. This is my site, and I am responsible for it’s content.

"I am the Lord thy God... Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?

DB: 2. I ask that the commentor, out of courtesy to other readers, stay close to the topic of the article commented on. Also, though this site is not geared toward children, I request comments stay “PG” rated. I reserve the right to edit for “harsh language.”

You know!  Like "poop," "titty," or "rusty trombone"...  "Daniel Brenton is a mendacious bastard and cowardly back-shooter," is sure to qualify.

DB: 3. Comments that are obviously spam won’t see the light of day. I do however recognize some spam may be in the eye of the beholder. My general guideline is if any links provided take me to what is obviously a purely commercial site, I make a personal determination of whether the material on the linked site is relevant (or not) to the discussion at hand.

Read: Anything not IAW Brenton's ardent myopia or otherwise curling Danny's meager little short-hairs is verboten, of needs

DB: 4. Naturally, comments promoting illegal, treasonous, or blatantly unethical behavior, such as hate crime, will not be tolerated.

This from the best kind of American, reader, am I right?  That's the kind believing that a christo-fascism is better than complete godlessness.  "Blatantly unethical"?  ROTFLMAO!  You dare, Sir?!  Pot and kettle, as would be predicted, share the obligatory hue.

DB: 5. I reserve the right to remove comments after posting, should I recognize something objectionable after the fact. Out of fairness to visitors, I will try to keep this to a minimum.

Read: Danny Boy reserves the right to flip-flop later... you know, if his arbitrary switch gets flipped, or his autocratic tail gets tromped on and it's not apparent till later after earnest consideration over his hot toddy.

DB: 6. Though most of the material I picture for this blog specifically will not be essays or exposition intended to provoke serious thought, if a commenter is so inclined I invite intelligent discussion on it. This, truly, can be helpful to me, and I think I am honest enough with my self that I can recognize this. By intelligent discussion I mean that not only is an intelligent argument being presented, but it is clear the commenter has understood the entire drift of what I am saying, and not simply “knee-jerking” to one statement without taking the entire context into account.

Meaning: ...any damn thing he wants it to mean, but generally it's comments in agreement are what's desired, and a criticism of a "part" is a disallowed criticism of the "whole."  It helps to be conversant with the "jealously officious anal twit," dialect of snake-speak.  On reflection, Danny would get a quick appointment to Slytherin House I'm betting; the sorting hat would not hesitate.

Moreover, when his entire premise, that he has a workable approach to ufological ephemera, is rejected out of hand as being pedantically unimaginative, philosophically outdated, and intellectually exclusionary?  The whole program falls apart and one has perhaps urgent need for a tablet or stella, its eleven commandments proscribed, to lash a whole rotten gut-sack of hubristic crap together, eh?

DB: 7. I am not perfect and I feel I am capable of admitting mistakes.

Such humility is indeed humbling, c'n ya dig it?  And besides, reader, is it your experience that persons compelled to make this particular disclosure don't believe it themselves and are just shining you on for the big con?

DB:  I ask that requests for corrections, clarifications, or retractions be made in a reasonable, non-inflammatory manner. .

Myself -- I'd prefer to be treated in a manner showing courage, Sir, and not be sniped at from around corners unheard or shot in the freaking back by someone once shown a degree of collegiality... and all toleration!

I appreciate the opportunity to reward Brenton's too casual betrayal!  Besides, Danny boy is a lot further from perfection than he thinks.  Rich Reynolds (a scurvy cur owing me damages and an apology) is actually closer.

DB: 8. Comments that are openly insulting naturally will not be tolerated. I am a basically reasonable human being, and comments such as these make the assumption I am not.

I suspect that may be the stupidest, whiniest, and most ironic thing I've ever read.  See, Daniel Brenton is by no means reasonable!  He's an impotently scolding martinet at best and an authoritarian McCarthyite at worst, imo. Moreover, one who's so grievously nonplussed by insult should refrain from same.   

DB: 9. Though I doubt the material to be presented here will provoke much of this, any comments that are clearly based in a “debunking” mentality will not be posted. By this, I mean that it is clear by the content of the comment the individual is not interested in an intelligent discussion and dismisses my observations without sound basis.

" not interested in an intelligent discussion and dismisses my observations without sound basis."  Right -- just re-read read rule one...

DB: 10. Comments need to be understandable, not just for my sake, but the sake of the other readers. Anything written in what is essentially a personal code, or having extensive references to in-jokes, or in an opaque personal “style” have no place here.I, in fact, went through a phase of writing many years ago, in which I recognized afterwards I was using deliberately obscure references and leaving it to the audience to figure the whole thing out. At the time I felt it was artistic. I now recognize I was being rude to my audience by making unfair demands on them. Because of this experience, I know this kind of writing when I see it.

ROTFLMFAO!  Who-ya talkin' to here, honey-poops?  That said, I suspect you refuse to understand anything not massaging your doughy thighs or slapping your wadded back.  You pedestrian.  You hack-writer.  You artless Philistine.  I trust all this was understandable.

DB: Further, efforts to hide derision behind “artistic language” are immature attempts to humiliate, and are acts of moral cowardice.

This from the craptastic pen of web-doms most recently exposed shadow-running snake and errant back-shooter?  "Moral cowardice," Mr. Brenton should know, is more closely typified by sneaking around behind the scenes well poisoning and whisper campaigning, nes't ce pas? 

My greatest insult: Sir; You. Have. No. Art!

DB: Additionally, I did read A Clockwork Orange many years ago, and in doing so was forced to learn Anthony Burgess’s “Nadsat” language in order to understand the novel. Burgess later said this was an example of the use of brainwashing and was in fact what he was doing to the reader.

Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange might begin a long list of things that DB could rethink more aggressively, eh?

DB: Been there, done that, not doing it again.

Really?  It's pretty clear  to me that Mr. Brenton has been nowhere, done nothing, and that he should give something out-of-the-box a try... real soon.

DB: I do not support the efforts of other individuals to brainwash the public, and you should not either. (Mr. Burgess, I want those two weeks back, with interest. Now.)

Anthony Burgess is a massive set of literary shoulders to which Daniel Brenton, I submit, seems incapable of climbing.  That said, I predict "A Clockwork Orange" will be in print long after DB's tediously facile "production" is dust.

DB: 11. There is unfortunately a need for a blacklist. This was started at and the same listing will be maintained for both sites.

Um-humm -- I pray I've graced them both!  Eleven commandments, still.  One better than God, eh?

DB: Comment Ownership
Posted February 10, 2008

    DB: Comments posted here become my intellectual property unless a copyright notice is made with the comment. That said, I am not in the habit of “mining” comments or other people’s material for use in my own, and have a very low opinion of those who do. You may have noticed I post very few images here. This is for several reasons, but mostly because I am mindful of Copyright Law and wish to observe the spirit of it. If this is an issue and you feel the need to make some comment about an article or something here, you can correspond with me through my Contact page and we’ll work it out from there.

    ...Astonishing ZOT!  If the contributor fails to append the recognized codicil or legal statement regarding copyright to her contributions, Mr. Brenton claims ownership of same! LOL!

    What fraptious brass!  That pretty much clears up posting over there for me even if I could.  I suspect Brenton's posting "buyer" should beware about data mining.

    See -- Our lad, Danny Brenton esq., is not what he appears.  Sugar and spice on the day side, he reverts to a weak-wristed and tubercular Mr. Hyde when the sun goes down.

    As regards a revealed Mr. Brenton, Best keep one hand on your wallet and the other over your anal pore, eh?  No accusation, understand... just sayin'.

    We'll keep ya'll posted. If Mr. Brenton comes off his self-annealed reservation to post commentary elsewhere, he should consider each word, carefully.  You can read the "on reservation" stuff right here.  Stay tuned, and pardon my flippancy — just trying to stay light on a pretty dark affair.

I'm only thrown off the finest Boards or List serves, the constant reader knows.  Jeremy Vaeni and his Culture Of Contact are in pretty good company, and, ironically, held in the same high regards as the only other List Serve summarily booting me: Errol Bruce-Knapp's Virtually Strange Network, once upon a time.  That's right.

I really love both these guys, and they both really love me, eh? Oh not like civil-unions-in-Vermont-and-adopt-kids appreciative, but substantive and genuine, to be sure. Sincere and serious literary Ninjas respectful of each other's skills.  Fellow travelers in a sense... three men of honor and conviction throwing rocks in the klasskurtxian dragon's cave... simpler times.

So how did I get booted from Vaeni's board?

Well, it seems provenance was a whisper campaign behind the scenes to Jeremy regarding the threatened popularity of Vaeni's whole enterprise: blog, book, and podcast... reader... if one Alfred Lehmberg, your humble web-tender, was not removed from the company of these refined and august persons, post haste!

The most visible of these specious ass-hats was a pseudonymed  "Will C." Here's a nastier nicky-new guy and sack-less nabob ne're smote the hallowed halls of hyperspace, and piss on 'im

It was "either him or us" whined this faux-witted gasbag and pseudo compassionate poser... this flaccid gainsayer, this sneering paranormal pretender... this oh so constipated and conflicted Christ-ian.  He can be counted upon to pass out the dung crusted pitchforks... ever ready to light the righteous torch.

Pause to shudder in revulsion.

Frankly, the man deserved a thrashing for his uninformed effrontery, his thoughtless mockery, and his mawkish sarcasm.  I gave it to him.  It was deserved.  I'll do it again

The man is a mouth-breathing dim-bulb masquerading as a dispenser of witty bon mots.  I'll spit in his eye and charge for eye-wash.

Though wait!  The "most visible," certainly intimates a "least visible." 

Surprisingly, this proves to be a person who is newly trying to carve out a reputation for himself as a 21st century Christian-centered ethics master of the Intelligent ufological Design Totem (IUDT), presumably, proselytized lavishly as a faultlessly trustworthy philosophical goto guy buffered by his fatuous proposal, reader, regarding the clean up of a ufological Dodge by an earnest Bible brigade... while being gaggingly saccharin to one another in the tedious bargain!

I only smiled then.  I'm laughing out loud now.

Daniel  —butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-twofaced-mouth—  Brenton.  A murmurer.  A Back-shooter.  A "whisper campaigner" making demands, giving ultimatums, and casting secret aspersions.  Not all that Christ-ian, one would think. 

Certainly a coward's indirectness, I suspect, along with a betrayer's aspect.  Too, at the denouement, just not "who" Danny boy was making himself out to be, eh?

I suspect the wrong guy was booted from COC

Judge a tree by it's fruit, reader, and all power to Jeremy, you know?  I suspect he was played masterfully by an acolyte toastmaster, and I believe he himself may resent how things shook down. Though, I won't speak for him. 

Welcome to Little Danny Brenton's "Odd Little Universe."

Ironically: the same duplicity, the same inconsistency, and the same hypocrisy at which he would cluck disapprovingly, I'm sure, but earning abundantly his observing eyes askance and arms held decidedly akimbo.

That's how DB rolls?  Got my eyes on you, Danny-boy.  Though, you're not the first Christian pretender to sport a rock in his left hand. See you on the battlefield, boyo.  Marshall your busier verbs.  Let's see how you hook and jab once you're dragged out from beneath your pious rock.

...And get a suit that fits.


Who's the Piggy-backing Monkey?



Why does Stuart Miller keep putting Rich Reynold's stuff up


I would have surmised that behavior RR's engaged in would get him a permanent "time out" for not working or playing nice with others.  Moreover, he's allegedly engaged in another self-aggrandizing witch hunt where the persons to be harassed are secret and dispensed only to those serious enough to appreciate the data.  Voldemort is back!


Whisper campaigning by any other name smelling as sweet.  Yeah... like a bad compost heap, or a hooker's mouth after a busy night.


Here is an example of  what he suggests to do to others, I suspect, the threat of which is entirely useful in getting others to refrain from criticizing him I would suppose. 


That's nothing but a red flag to me, reader, and this blood-sucking insect can taste my literary blade.  Why?  Simply:


Consider, reader, that Rich Reynolds propounds a continuance of the preceding on others.  Perhaps even myself... again.  I'll let the reader decide.


From the site linked above:  RR in bold...


Some UFO mavens investigate and ruminate on the UFO mystery; a few actually research the enigma, and have for many years.


...And who would know this, you?  A mendacious literary pretender who is as tedious a communicator as he is an uninspired commentator? Shove your maven, Reynolds!  In pain, of needs, and with prejudice, pound it!

There are individuals who propose far-out ideas and hypotheses, and considered anathema by their UFO peers.


In the first place you have no peers.  Cave wall slime is traditionally sans such.  In the second place you can only be talking about yourself.  Classic projection.


That’s expected in the rough and tumble world of UFOs where ego is everything.


You'd know you pompous, strutting, and no talent gasbag.  You'd know.

Then there are the parasites and sycophants who pilfer material from others for their blogs and web-sites, pretending they are actively serving the UFO community.


Gag!  You transcend a normal "ick" factor.  Like Bill O'Reily grunting about German waffles & his slippery soaped-up slicknesses.  Phlegm encountered on a door knob.  ...Provokes expectoration, you know?

And of course there are those who do nothing but cavil about the endeavors of others who are enchanted by the UFO phenomenon.


"Cavil," you fatuous piss-wit.  It's you the "caviler," a personification of same, a walking breathing avatar of  "trivial and frivolous objections."


Trivial and frivolous?  Perhaps, when you're not edge-running libelous or borderline slanderous accusations as over the top as they are untrue.  Cavil, indeed!

But the worst are those with a criminal mind-set or psychopathic predilections who cause harm in the UFO community, but more often perform criminal acts that have nothing to do with UFOs, yet the phenomenon is used to cover their nefarious and often obscenely malevolent deeds.


...And here we have our attendant and issue garden variety sociopath regard himself in a mirror!  Everyone just looks down at their plates appalled!

The UFO community generally – many think always – ignores the deviants within the community; some noted, decent UFO researchers actually harboring and supporting these few disgustingly diseased persons.


Yes -- I suppose you ARE over-tolerated, among others.  What would you propose we do with you!

This means that UFO investigators don’t even know who’s performing felonious acts within their midst, or they choose to look the other way.


I'm looking pretty hard at you right now, boyo!

We’ve exposed three individuals (elsewhere) who show up in various UFO venues regularly, but who also show up in venues that show them to be egregiously pathological, and dangerously so.


That's what I want to know!  Why are you remotely tolerated?  Why are you linked to?  Why are you allowed to crab your cheezy little errant platitudes -- inflict a writing style more tedious even than my own -- in a civil community like you had something productive to add at all?  Why can't people perceive you as a clear threat to unfettered discourse and discussion and shun you like the intellectual leper that you are?

These are persons who engage in acts that would sicken many of those who are presently ignorant of their activities, or are in a state of denial about them (having been apprised of the criminality at some point).


That's right!  I keep a sick bag handy just in case I run across you or one of your sites!

(One person protests any accusations against him so rigorously, so often, that the Shakepearean dictum of “methinks [he] doth protest too much” exactly applies.)




...And who would we be talking about here ... you prolapsed and suppurating south end of a northbound toad!  You tried this once, you scurvy bastard.  You disappeared for months, I recall, as a result.  Cave wall slime has a tenacity, it would seem.   

UFO researchers – the serious ones – are in a world all their own, consumed by UFOs and related issues.


Ignoring you, you mean.

They don’t let the real world intrude, and thus slips by those who would use the phenomenon to cloak their underhanded and even dastardly deeds, going about corrupting those who are naïve or young while seeming to be reputable human beings because they are tolerated or lofted by the big names in ufology.


You report on yourself, plainly.  That old trick of shouting fire to distract from the torch in your own hand.  It's going to be less effective this time, I suspect, and you will even be further marginalized.  And consider your facile warning here, so easily discredited, shows you shoot from the hip on this stuff and cannot be trusted on it... kind of like Bush lying us into Iraq... you won't be heard if you've a REAL warning to shout!  Like you ever could...


But you don't give a damn about that!  You only operate to aggrandize yourself at the expense of others.  You crap bastard.

We’ve disclosed the names and activities that we allude to here to some in the UFO community, and they have turned their backs on the malfeasers.


Why don't you and Kal Korff commiserate to each other on it and see if you can't come to a solution.  I'm betting he wouldn't have a thing to do with you, though, as it is a fact that he is superior to you.  Oh in every way, Rich.  In every way!

But there still remains a slew of UFO hobbyists who have yet to find out that among them are wolves (and worse) in sheeps’ clothings.


Right -- and you're getting too fat for your sheep suit.  It's obvious what you are.

And until those perverse propagandists are made to account for their private perversities and criminal activities, the UFO world will be tainted, subliminally by their continued intrusions and parasitic use of UFOs to provide them cover for their wayward lifestyles and misdeeds.


Christ man!  Go take a pill!  Zounds, but a village somewhere is missing its issue mouth breather!

More about this upcoming…


You better hope you don't.


You know what?  Encountered on the street or in polite society count on me to spit in your eye and charge for eye wash!  [...Thanks and a tip of the hat to my good friend and ardent admirer David Biedny!]


...And there you have it folks!  Who's the real monkey piggybacking on the back of a suffering ufology?  What say you, Stuart?


...AND HERE'S WHAT STUART HAD TO SAY with my response to same:


> From: Stuart Miller <>
> To:
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:22:54 +0100
> Subject: Re: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?
>> From: Alfred Lehmberg <>
>> To: <>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:59:47 -0500
>> Subject: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?

>> Why does Stuart Miller keep putting Rich Reynold's stuff up?
> Because [Reynolds] is an idiot.

Mmmm-no, Sir!  He is not an idiot even if he is a strutting pompous
gas-bag.  He is a crafty, crafted, and thoroughly crafting sociopath
spreading pestilent stories in maddening whisper campaigns about
persons who call him on his crap.  He is doing this currently.  He is
not an idiot, but if he is, he is the same kind of "idiot" as Joe
McCarthy or Karl Rove or Kal Korff.

>> I would have surmised that behavior RR's engaged in would get him
>> a permanent 'time out' for not working or playing nice with
>> others. Moreover, he's allegedly engaged in another witch hunt
>> where the persons to be harassed are 'secret' and dispensed only
>> to those 'serious' enough to appreciate the data.
> Firstly, I apologize if my publicizing Rich's work causes you
> pox-related angst of a puss-related continuance. You would be
> entitled.

Given the facts and past history I would say so, without reservation.

> He's an interesting phenomenon.

Then let him go find occupation in a side-show as a slug-eating
carnival freak!

> Barred from this club (see, you
> do have friends Alfred despite what Kimball says) and not
> prepared to sit here quietly, he has picked his ball up and gone
> elsewhere.

Let him go straight to hell, sans passing go and without

> But it has to be said that of late, and in the main, he has been
> writing direct, hard hitting, observant, relevant and worthwhile
> material.

What!?  Socorro and Roswell were 'balloons' and Father Gill needed
glasses -- Case closed?  Very arguablely he may have been the
broken clock correct twice a day... but he keeps fiddling with the
adjustment knob himself so he screws up even that.  This hardly
qualifies as "direct, hard hitting, observant, relevant and
worthwhile," and even if he did as you say his other behaviors
obviate all that.  Hey!  Hitler cleaned up crime and Mussolini had
the trains run on time!  The former was poisoned, shot, and then
burned and the latter hung by piano wire.

> He has said things that have needed saying.

Well -- Stuart.  Then hear me now.

> He has cut
> through the BS and, aside from me, there aren't too many others
> around doing the same thing.

He's produced much, much more BS than he could ever cleave, Stuart.
On my watch he's an insipid abundance, not an appreciated minority.  Moreover, I loath a dirty fighter... and he's the dirtiest!

> But from time to time the old Rich emerges and the bile he feels
> towards those here who closed the door behind him resurfaces and
> we get this scatter gun and meaningless backlash like the one
> you have highlighted. And the phrase "I won't name names - you
> all know who I mean" gets rolled out again. On this point, did
> you notice the pleading in the comments section?

Oh -- you mean those comments in fawning accordance with an R-cubed
'party-line' and so making it past his smothering moderation, or
produced himself as another of his poison pen, but obsequiously
agreeing little sock-puppets.  Which one of those did you mean?

As to closed doors?  Mr. Reynold's wrote that script himself.

> Its true, he could have had you in mind this time round Alfred
> but there is one thing I would suggest that you remember; its
> Rich Reynolds.

Right!  Right!!  Rich Reynolds!  A rat bastard who airily intimates
that it can be demonstrated where his opponents may be shown to
have had sex with children!  Sex with Children, Stuart!   A line is
decidedly crossed!

That scurvy dog's response?  That I "doth protest... ...too much"!
I want that bastard's head rotting on a Tower of London's spire like

> It isn't Dick Hall. Now if Dick was saying nasty
> things about you, you'd have to get your hanky out and mop your
> brow.

There can be no comparison between RR and DH.  That is a red
herring unworthy of you, Stuart.  There are some things which shall
not be said if untrue, on this side of the pond, anyway.  That
someone has sex with children is one of those things.

> Chin up. Christmas isn't far off.

Santa Clause is dead, Stuart.  So also is RR's potential for any
worthwhile contribution to our shared community interests.

Now -- all that said.  Every time I see that unrepentant
crap-artist's head above the berm I'll be taking a literary swing at


That's owed to all the persons who he would intimidate or
slander or otherwise libel.  That's owed to an eventual granddaughter or grandson who must read unsettling histories about grandpop. That's owed to persons who would speak out but know they are powerless against an intruded propaganda... so are muzzled .  That's owed to truth, justice, and the American Way... progressive, eclectic, broadminded, open-minded, concerned with regard for INDIVIDUAL rights, and free from needless fear or the intimidations of bumptious sociopaths.


Yeah-yeah-yeah... talk to the hand: that's what it's supposed to be.  That is what I champion.


Let me say, too, one who I would call friend, that I am saddened by your cavalier attitude in RR's regard and not a little obfused (sic) by it.




And you Ricardo, you scuttling sub-arthropod (...and I know you're reading because you are too vain to do otherwise). You are the enemy of that preceding, flatly. 


Moreover, you damage me, Sir, and where you don't damage, you insult, where you don't insult, you offend, where you don't offend, you..., well -- there's no reason to continue to be tedious, but know we could go on for about a page with the like.  See, you're an offense on too many levels to consider, comfortably.  But I'll try, Richie... I'll try.


You owe me Reynolds.  You have and would continue to damage me, Sir.  I would have your head on the aforementioned pecuniary spire.


Given your... behavior (to be generous) how many others are you going to owe before you're through?


Sincerely Richie, I will do everything in my power to insure that the future mob gathered to string you up won't abuse you too badly before they do.


Well be.

Intellectual Thief And An Errant Spoiler?


Got me a cracker-jack idea, folks!

I bought-up the domain names "," "," and "" I'm running a mash-up of paranormal foo-foraw I procure from others and don't properly attribute (rather like Victor Martinez) so as to capitalize on the traffic these sites generate and draw the spill-over back to me.

Pretty slick, huh?

These sites I allude to shouldn't miss the few thousand hits to their pages in the first place, I'm just a not-for-profit "hobby-site" in the second, and in the third? Well, think of the free publicity I can generate for myself if any of these trespassed entities do squawk! I can play the part of stepped on little guy railroaded by the well-moneyed corporate big shots! You can't pay for publicity like that. Seems like a short-cut to the big vein of notoriety for me!


Unethical you say? Unprincipled? Immoral? Unscrupulous? Dishonorable? Disreputable? ...Wrong?

Well, all this and more has happened, reader. Bill and Nancy Birnes, owners of the one and only "UFO Magazine" are being stepped on in a similar fashion. Their investment, integrity, and property, as considered by one Mike Coletta (, are without legitimacy, apparently, and beneath the remotest respect.


The first time I saw the URL I thought the Birnes had a new feature and went to the address expecting to see something from them. I suspect that's the problem, eh, and not all that "beyond belief" as Mr. Coletta whines unconvincingly.

The Birnes have no excuse to be nonplussed in the affair?

I mean how dare they?

Rather, "beyond belief" is Mr. Coletta's pretended incredulity and sullen intransigence in the matter!

I don't know the legalities involved, but the history, investment, and justice outraged by Mr. Coletta seems ponderous enough to trump whatever some crass pretender, like our Mr. Colette, might trot out in a slimy 'defense', you know?

With regard to Mr. Coletta, he obviously lives in a convenient dream-world where honesty and ethics are drawn only to suit himself. Sincerely, only one as apparently self-deluded such as Mr. Coletta could persist in seeing a lack of trespass in this matter.

As to “watching and learning” as he advices on his Weblog... LOL!

I suspect that even his conjectured victory is likely to be Pyrrhic, in the end. But he should try to have the fun he can, I suppose. I suspect there will be precious little of that as this unwinds to a tedious denouement.

Additionally, Mr. Coletta indicates that I am in the tank for Bill and Nancy Birnes, wrongly proclaims I am in their employ and demands to know what my wages are!

As to wages paid to me by William Birnes? That’s really none of his business, is it? I can get a wage and still be ethical, unlike Mr. Coletta it might be argued. I point out that the magazine is quite clear every issue and on their web-site; however, that they do not pay their contributors.

I contribute, as it happens, because my contributions were requested by the Birnes, and they have treated me with respect and collegiality since the beginning of our association. I trust this was clear enough for the bystander, and adequate explanation why I am behind them on this matter.

That said, I remind Mr. Coletta that, as he would admonish me, I will be “watching and learning”… and commenting on his progress, too.

For now, the Birnes still have to dig into savings occasionally to get a legitimate magazine on press (they are decidedly NOT Microsoft folks), but they'll be plugging along on this with great good will and joy, I'm sure, regardless. This unctuously *earnest* pretender and trespasser, Mr. Coletta, seems so damned mean-spirited. Additionally and inexplicably playing the naïf and painting the Birnes as "Big Biz" going after the "little guy,." he prosecutes dodgy behavior he's admitted to before... or why would "Radio Shack" tuck tail and run?

Crap, reader!

He's, in fact, more a seeming intellectual thief and an errant spoiler -- no better than a guy who throws a bottle of lye through your brand new plate-glass storefront, a storefront so lovingly painted, as it turns out, by volunteer effort.

I'm appalled at Mr. Coletta, frankly. I suggest all fair-minded persons might be similarly appalled.

Sincerely, what an incomprehensibly repellent and sullenly impertinent little bastard Mr. Colette is, hereafter know as AssClown (AC).

See, this may not be obvious to him, but he's just a garden variety sociopath behaving astonishingly true to form... classically, in fact! A case study, sincerely.  He should be captured and dissected:

Something he might consider before he commits himself to his very tedious present course: It is that when he operates as a sociopath outside the limits of civility and respectful interaction, he can no longer avail yourself of them later, can he, when he's caught and brought to dock. Having demonstrated that he has no respect for them... well, in turn, they have no respect for him.

This can't be a surprise to him, eh?

No, he is a rapacious spoiler and a needless distraction from issues at hand... jeez... maybe even an instrument of same, who knows, given the present administration and officialdom as it stands... but all that said he really is beneath concern, consideration, and contempt.

Yes. He is wrong, wrong-minded... wrong in spirit, ethically wrong, morally wrong, and inexplicably wrong. He's the bad guy and I do so look forward to him seeing an end of that tiny little penis he is so insistent upon brandishing at everyone... that he has never seen before.

How's that?

Why, when it's pulled off abruptly and dropped into his hand...



UPDATED 27 June Below!

UPDATED 13 July Below!

Para-crats  [tm] Steinberg and Biedny


What language am I writing in?  What abstruse hieroglyph provides for my verbalization?  How am I articulated and how am I ascribed?  What are the mechanics of it pissing some people off?


Moreover, how am I more odiferous than a Limburger cheese ( I've not heard that in 58.5 years...) and what earns me such public insult, cast aspersion, and reflexive derision from two errantly irritated seemingly piss-witted paranormal personalities... whineyly reporting a paucity of understanding they appear so unable to address more directly themselves? 


I mean... all they'd have to do is ask, right?  Make the challenge?  Really... am I that hard to understand, boys? 


Seriously, I would have expected such from Kal Kornball Korff!  Good show B&S!  A real credit to your effort!


Considering the biliously insentient source... out of the loop, behind the times, suffering decidedly a deflating relevancy ... tedious pedants with little aspect, smaller scope, and even less imagination?  These, twice now... decidedly unprovoked... ...make themselves targets so I am put-paid for my inconvenience thereby?  ROFL!


I submit that the above consternation impugned by these dim-bulb "para-crats" [tm] is as stupid as it is craven and says much more about the flawed countenance of side-show mutterers and whisper-campaigners than it ever would about myself.  Why?


It's because their twice professed and publicly announced lack of simple understanding implies some small desire to "understand" or that some "understanding" might actually be sought to a degree!  Right!


If not sought?  Then that "understanding" is already actualized and the persons involved masquerade that "lack of understanding" so as not to have to admit to any understanding at all?  I suspect that this is so.


A person in this situation, it appears to me, is a coward... or a liar... or both.


I am ill disposed to humor cowards and liars whatever their association, position, or reputation.  Moreover, I'm not disposed to an ongoing cheek-turning and will gleefully tear off some literary heads ... use the resultant open necks for verbal field toilets, you know?  Lets find out!


Was this understood, ladies?  Did this expression make it past your threadbare intellectual threshold, girls?  Did you have to look up too many of the words, still?


Too bad?  It's just not my problem.  I just open the spit valve on my horn and blow.  Follow?  No, rather hope for a postmortem "para-crat's" colonic so you can both be conveniently interred in a single matchbox... and don't trifle me again.


Failing that?


Pick something you don't "understand," pilgrims.  Choose something especially pissing you off , you know?  Select something providing for your most profound irritation, eh?  Let's talk it out right here, in cyberspace, where anybody who wants to can watch the encounter.


Don't worry.  I won't use your obvious editing practices...  or what was it Jeremy Vaeni really said, eh lads?


...Isn't an encounter justified?  Two near adjacent "Para-crap" programs pontificating a very nebulous criticism of me fair demand it, wouldn't you agree?  One would have thought you had better things to address, scientifically reduce, or analyze... read, "carp about"!  But no...


C'mon boys!  You threw some provoking rocks in the cave mouth and "...surprise, surprise, surprise!"  ...Something's come out to show you an end of it you've never seen before, eh?


That was metaphor, my Para-cratic celebrants  [tm]... don't read too much into it. But loosen your swords, guys.  Fair warning.  I don't suffer fools, cowards, or disrespect lightly.


Oh -- and Mr. Biedny?  Most of those films you worked on sucked.  Not really,  but how'd it feel?


UpDate June 27, 2007




Mr. Lehmberg, Sir.  Thank you.

So my buddy Royce Myers sent me the link to your diatribe about us... I probably would not have found out about it, I don't read your site with any frequency.

Good to know you and Mr. Myers are pals, buddies... friends... and that he's a reader (presuming that he was not like yourself, you know, had to be alerted to my impertinence from some third or fourth or even fifth repetition of the ostensible *outraged* who, even if outraged, was a reader... good to know I'm being acknowledged at all...)  It's nowhere near germane, mind... without a scintilla of justification for even being mentioned... but you just set the stage any way you like, Mr. Biedny.  


All this in response to my comment about you, stating that I was curious about the identity of the language you "write" in -


"Sneer" quotes!  This manual writer, this officious pedant scribe, this ad hack.  The gall -- no concept of reach exceeding grasp. No artistry?  No soul? No imagination? Feh!


Pompous Philistine!  LOL!


I've attempted to read your posts to the UFO Updates page, as well as your ramblings in UFO magazine, with little success.


...And how terrible that is for both of us Mr. Biedny, as I suspect we'd be creating a real synergy on a broadened foundation, otherwise, but I suspect you'll attribute that comment to my erstwhile incomprehensible-ability and shine it on conveniently.  Next!


Nancy Birnes told me this last weekend that you were upset at us about the few comments made about your "writings" on our show.


No Sir -- insulted... decidedly personal too!  You didn't directly criticize like an adult (like a man?), did you...


Moreover, you mischaracterized Errol Bruce-Knapp and Jeremy Vaeni to treat me like a pathetic joke in a media outlet.  Did you really think that would go by unacknowledged, under-appreciated, or not challenged?


Besides, all I can say?  I think they both know what I would do if they were similarly maligned, and so speciously too. Would I stand forward?


I don't really remember the exact number, but I think you've been mentioned once or twice, and always in the context of your terrible writing "style".


...and that hurt, ...really, not.  Still, others, myself included, thought you went a little far afield, by the by.

Alfred, as an adult,


Stop right there you sumptuously officious psychological infant.  You do not dare to patronize me, lecture, or in any way attempt to *mentor* me, follow?  On a good day I may allow you to inform, but that's no guarantee! 


Additionally, it's a duplicitous and inaccurate dodge to presume the more mature position when you've been carping around corners with buddy dim-bulbs or other persons who don't threaten you, eh?  I suspect so.


I would hope that you have taken the heat of criticism in your life - this must certainly be true about your attempts at the written word.


What an entirely fatuous thing to say in the first place, and a fine marvel of incomprehensible literary backwash on its own, in the second.  I can only say, "eh"?

Your writing is atrocious. It's an editor's worst nightmare.


My heart bleeds for editors, who, feeling such as is so described... can go f__k themselves.  Regarding your anxious assessment, I suspect you are otherwise conflicted and actually no real judge of a pretty humble writing style appreciated by some persons more key than yourself... frankly, seeming to find some utility therein, eh?  Rofl!  Moreover, I suspect most of your taste is in your mouth, and as you point out later?  There's no accounting for taste.


Any actual content you might have to offer, is completely and totally washed away by your gratuitous use of pretentious and obtuse literary constructs.


Read: ones you don't get when you know they're there, ...and pretension, Mr. Biedny, is strutting around like a credible UFO "goto" guy while pretending the very soul of reductionist centrality, too.  Pausing for squirty yucks...


You style is the exact opposite of concision -


...And therein lies the charm, no?'s bloated and awkward, lurching around like a stoned midget with clubbed feet.


I understand.  I typically refuse to write like a sweaty salesman, a tedious pedant, or a Sony manual writer... would reach beyond strange horizons even if grasp failed, fly down close to the flame but try to get a report back... aspire to an art... Mr. Biedny... so it's "bloated and awkward."  


I get that a  lot from the irritated and conflicted . 


But where's the conflict really, and why the ready irritation.  We can get to the bottom of that when you want to.


...Though I kind of liked "...lurching around like a stoned midget with clubbed feet," and may use it describing my writing style to others.  "Stoned" connotes some affectation with the highly strange, right?  Or did you mean that you thought I was actually using chemicals?


I realize this all might sound cruel, but it's simply my honest opinion of your work.


Rofl!  Yeah -- like that dog hunts. 


By the way, you didn't say you didn't mean to be cruel, and we both know you did; why would that be, do you figure?  And pardner, go there yourself before I have to take you, 'cause if I have to take you it will be a lot more embarrassing.  Fair warning.


If you're trying to be cute, or appear intelligent, well, you might want to consider another method or some community college English classes.


Well, aspiring to be a *beautiful*, smart, and eclectically educated person might be preferable to settling for the shallowly boring and prosaic one who is also a conflicted authoritarian... know your torpedo fizzled at the launch tube and even blew up on the deck of your ship.  Tsk.

As to the issue of the quality of the movies I've worked on, seems like some jealousy on your part.


...and here you have to remember is where you've demonstrated already that you don't read to the period when it suits you.  ...And I for one really liked Hudson Hawk, which I thought wonderful on every level and would much rather see a series of HH's than this "Die Harder every time" BS.  So I don't think it's jealousy quite yet... put your pants back on.


Too bad. I had a fascinating time working at ILM, and on the movies I've contributed to since then, and if you think "The Rocketeer" or "Terminator 2" were terrible movies, well, there's no accounting for taste, right?


Well -- there again... your last two Bon Mots failed to launch, eh?  ...Because you were immature, because you shot from the hip, because leapt before you looked... because you didn't read to the period... not looking all that adroit and with-it... are we?



Oh yeah... with equal sincerity...


...Hurry back with your explanation (...apology at this point...) with regard to Jeremy and Errol, won't you?  There's a good lad.


UpDate July 13, 2007


Well, as regards a clear accusation of pretty spurious behavior on the part of the above Para-crats [tm] and without a peep from same?  I imagine "chicken-shit" can be added to the list of appellations previously awarded...


...Row row row your boat...


Or Pinheads... even exceeding the preceding  KKK in fatuous mendaciousness, errant and self-satisfying buffoonery, or pathetic faux-intellectual masturbation...

Cloaked, as is triple "K," in an honorable evenhandedness and the seemingly erudite, they (in the person of one Rich Reynolds) are as without honor as they are without imagination.  Still, in comparison to KKK they occupy an even lesser klasskurtxian billet as they ooze their cloying brand of pompous denialism, ufological insipidness, and crackpot inanities on a subject they know less than nothing about.  Still, have they found the time in their specious industry to be unrepentant with regard to character murder effecting and afflicting generations of at least one innocent American:

See, Mr. Reynolds?  The internet does live forever!

...Just not the way you thought it did!

What stinks on who, Sir?

  Apologies and damages remain demanded!


Secret Squirrel!

KKKorff Returns!

Korff's popped up from defilade for a wack-a-mole currency thumping.  Seems he's revolted everyone from me... to Paul Kimball!  That's one wide horizon, fellow motes!

Here are my thoughts on recent X-Zone "debates".  What immediately follows is the five minute opening statement made by Korff on the 14th December 2006 X-ZONE...

2:17:51 --  Ever the self-interested and self-promoting blowhard, Kaptain KKK sails in with his fatuous proclamation that he is the greatest critic of the Meier case, had crushed it once already, and that only his ongoing struggle with counter-terrorism efforts has allowed Meier proponents a resurgence he had stamped out (Single handedly?) last Century.

2:18:26 --  Kaptain KKK reports that all Meier's neighbors believe him to be a fraud and that they accuse him of extreme dishonesty, besides.

2:18:55 --  Kaptain KKK proclaims fake photos from an early period which can be determined fake by a simple visual examination.  Claims he has duplicated the photographs himself on site.

2:19:40 --  Takes time to hawk personal products for sale.. purloined Meier photos ostensiblely used to discredit.

2:20:45 --  Kaptain KKK discredits IBM engineer Marcel Vogel, who held an honorary Doctorate,  , as unqualified to
conduct the tests he conducted, as not having a PhD of any type, and as a dabbler in esoterics and fringe sciences. Proclaims Vogel is not credible, and further implies he is a buffoon.

2:21:19 -- Kaptain KKK proclaims there is zero evidence for Meier's claims ignoring six categories of same extant.

2:22:14 --  Kaptain KKK hawks his purloined product again.

2:22:28 --  Horn refutes KKK's accusations, smears, proclamations, and character derisions, for a similar 5 minutes...

...Stop the clock!  Who can stand to take any more of Mr. Korff-Kaptain-of-the-Special-Secret-Services Klaptrap (Excuse me? Did that "S-SS" badge come in a box of Fruit-Loops?).  Heil Herr Kaptain!

Zooks!  All bluster and unsupported sizzle, he does not make his case, is
wild with accusations, libelous with his commentary, ridiculous with regard to his assertions, and a purloiner of materials not his own.  Where does he get off?

Sorry... Prometheus Press lacks the credibility extended to it, Horn's assertions are in no way obviated, and KKK is revealed as a pathetic klown interested in flashy self-promotion, consumed with an inflated self-interest, and a purloiner of ideas and attitudes complementing that aforementioned self-promotion and self-interest, only.

Prometheus?  Please!  These are a CSICOPian cult of canted ax-grinders.  As to Kaptain Korff's self-reported sterling character, ethics, and literary  morality, I was there when Art Bell made the Kaptain do a great Ned Beatty "Deliverance" impersonation on national radio!  Remember that squealing piggy?  This precipitated a retreat to Eastern Europe where the KuKluxKaptain could practice his sociopathy unmolested, I suspect.  Plainly... the Kaptain has not changed in a decade.  What a fulsome, cowardly, and revolting personage is one Kal K. Korff... in my opinion, of course.

...And what's with this oft-repeated bogus link with Meier and Ray Santilli? Could anything be more fatuous apples and oranges?

Mr. Horn!  This man only seeks to profit  from his slander of you!  As you know, I'm not a Billy Meier acolyte by any means, but Korff's sociopathy is plain.  You are abundantly sincere and forthcoming, and I suspect would be the first to come clean if you subsequently discovered you were being had or duped.

Contrarily, he shouts fire in your crowded theatre... then sells work not-his-own to the people rushing out!  There is no fire.  There is only Korff lighting his flatulence! Moreover he was selling 'product' in his first five minutes, twice, and stealthily numerous times thereafter.  I'm sure the moderating  host, wrong to be offended at your assertion that Korff was selling, heard it if he revisited.

You know, especially because you keep your head and keep Korff coming back to the issue of him just not being able to make his case against you, this really enrages him, additionally, because he is loath to accept the base premise of the whole Meier "thing"as it pertains to him:

To wit...

...That he is in no way special himself, that he is not the jewel of creation's crown, that he is not the favorite of his God, that his histories are largely predetermined, prosaic, and facile, and that his individuality, ego, and personal holdings are disease symptoms... so worse than valueless...

...That his self-styled reputation is fanciful, fatuous, and juvenile.

...That his achievements are trite, irrelevant, boring and forgettable.

...That he is wrong, wrong-hearted, and wrong-minded about EVERYTHING and he has to redo much, if not ALL his work, besides...

... That it's harder for him to whistle passed his graveyard?  That he can no longer so easily sneer, eh?

...This is his "hard swallow" with Meier... "everything Korff 'knows' is wrong"!  UFOs DO look like the end plate on an old Hoover Vacuum cleaner, sometimes, as reported by Valle and McKenna!

...That we are on an asymptotic cusp primed to accelerate forward into hyperspace at the speed of light and he won't be part of same? ...That the future is our kingdom and the kingdom is at hand, eh?  !

You took no prisoners, Mr Horn, showed a restraint beyond this writer's capability, and you kept your head!  Well done!  You won the debate, such as it was, handily.  I hear the lamentations of the Kaptain's sallow rented women!   Lastly "Parasite" and "Girly-man" (with all respect to real girly-men everywhere) remains a restrained estimation of Kommandant Korff, Sir! [g].  Again... well

Verily, if Korff is so set against him, Meier must be everything you say he is, and more!

Consider.  Let's Presume that you are stuffed with wild bionic blueberries, everything else about you seems complete and efficacious. Seriously, this is discovered on a close look at you.  I submit people should have that closer look.

After my own heart, you seem to be the guy really trying to perform a service, really trying to take a hard look at "time and tide" like I aspire to do (I further presume), and you are really doing nothing wrong but prosecuting your own sincerity, I feel.

If you didn't believe "the Meier Thing" or think it was a good thing, I don't suspect that you'd be doing it; moreover I think you'd come clean about that with the public...  I really do.

Wow! Think of the killing you could make being the sociopath you're painted out to be, switching sides and writing the expose that debunked the 60 year old Meier "phenom" at LAST! ! You could steal all Kaptain Korff's work and thunder profiting handsomely the same way Korff is, presently! !

That said -- I had a good hard look at you Mr. Horn... and produced the following as a result:

Jeff Rense is another who is no friend to you, Mr. Horn... but he respected free expression enough to get my review of your DVD up at his site in record time.  You've done nothing in the interim to change the substance of this early review...

In the preceding essay, regarding the "few... well chosen... rational and constructive words from learned readers [putting] me aright, straight away!"?

They were not forthcoming. In two years no one contested my assertions regarding your work.  A hard look at you, Mr. Horn, intimates a "there" in there somewhere, for my money.

Verily!  I think you deserve a closer look than you get... pretty much for the reasons iterated earlier in this review and the referenced papers I've produced...

As to the dust-ups referenced earlier witnessed at the Victor Martinez site...? It seems you are abundantly provoked and still manage to keep the high ground... giving much better than you get!

KKK's the "pig that likes to be wrestled with", eh?  Additionally, he's the one profiting from his unsupported smears!  In a massive hyperbole I've alluded to his provoking "unholstered pistols," already!

You have not been as near as vindictive as, well... me, frankly! You've seen me go off on that which tasks my sensibilities, right? Maybe I should get the same kind of criticism you do.

Moreover, I've been loudly critical of "Kaptain Korff" for years as "triple k" is an obnoxious shill for the "dark side." ! Here's something from 2002. He's at least as dodgy as you could ever hope to be on a "max-zoom" day!


See, I'll wrestle the "pig" because when I wrestle with the "pig,"  I aim to come away with some chops, short-ribs, and shred, you know?

Some call me a bully.  Predictably, perhaps, I don't see it that way.  Sorry, I just won't be sneered at or tolerate the injudicious same towards undeserving others. Persons attempting same can expect their unlikely victory to be decidedly Pyrrhic. I suspect you are the same way even if more a gentleman than I. [g].

Closing -- Well done, again.  Regarding current Korffian Flaming Flatulence, consider the source beneath koncern, konsideration, and kontempt and keep rocking in the free world!




AnarchoPooter:  I have been called many terrible things in my lifecycle. I have been addressed as a traisping hooligan, a ne'er-do-well, a gay-licker. But the pejorative "Stoner-Boy tm" stings like a salt-and-vinegar shower on a colony of slugs. I may have to contact that personal injury lawyer from teevee whose neck is bigger than his head to provide me with the litigious peace of mind that only money can buy.

Lehmberg: You'd have done better with an unvarnished apology, nym-rod, as it was you opted to be *cute*.  But it rings a little hollow, right?  I suspect your heart's not really in it, eh?  You had a longer look and discovered I was not quite providing the affront you reacted to, I suspect.

...and you still had the flaccid sack to be "cute."  Start being ashamed of yourself.  This is probably not the first time you got a dust-up for a failed look before the proverbial leap.  Learn from this one.  Bet you thought I was a homophobe, too,  din't'cha?


AnarchoPooter:  But I must confess that most of my fractured mind is stuffed with jealousy.

Lehmberg: ...Know what?  Aside from the failed sarcasm, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't far off the mark.  And I say that with the sincerest humility, you nameless nay-bob, don't forget.

AnarchoPooter:  Indeed, Mr. Alien View's fine website, replete with neon gradients and bubble letters, offers us humble hominids with a vestige of solemn piety in this icy-hot post-9\11 world.

Lehmberg: You're goddamned right.  Except it's fellow-hominids or motes of consciousness.  Nice cameo!  Thanks!

AnarchoPooter:  For example: The news section, in which I have my ass handed to me like Halloween candy, is a stunning triumph in journalism.

Lehmberg: I aspire to a sincerity and it's well... swell of you to notice.

AnarchoPooter:  The staggering paragraphs, like plates down a Stegosaur's back, lead us on a winding trail exposing us to one revelation after another:

:::Examples from this page:::

AnarchoPooter:  Such insightful reporting is certainly deserving of several Pulitzers, each lovingly dipped in chocolate and covered with raisins and 300 minute phone cards, wrapped in tissue paper and children's hugs. 

Lehmberg: Good call... that's the only way I'd accept a "Pulitzer"!

AnarchoPooter:  The truth is I am not worthy to receive Master View's attention, much less expect him to waste kind words on a loathesome creature such as me.

Lehmberg: ...Exactly what you get for sticking your head up over the berm and spewing unconsidered crock and errant assignations.  It's not me who needs to apologize.

AnarchoPooter:  Sorry flamers!  I will not engage in frivolous bickering when I know it is I who am in the wrong. 

Lehmberg: ...Again.  Errant sarcasm noted!  Still, how right you are! And you did just shut the hell right up... didn't you!

AnarchoPooter:  May AlienView's wisdom be carved into the rocky tree of life so that generations hence will know that implacable truth that the devil-jew saucermen would rather see lost to the winds of time:

Lehmberg: What?  They'll prefer your senseless nattering after the truly productive using insipid little sarcasms... insentiently inconsistent non-observations?  LOL!  ...And write what you will, boyo, Jewry must bear the same kind of examination, evaluation, and criticism Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism et al must endure or become exactly that which they would abhor...

Saucer-men? You bonehead!  Try five dried on an empty stomach in silent darkness as the bard says and see the saucer-men, yourself!  That said, grok a starry-starry night sky sober as Carvy's church-lady and begin to get an appreciation for enough space, time, and surface area to ensure all you've ever thought of... and all that you never can.  

Lehmberg: AlienViewGroup would rip the scales from our collective eyes like the Neo character in "Matrix".  We'd opt for the *reality* pill.  The contributing reader could be along for that ride.  A ride requiring belts, I add, and an eventual toll (more on ~that~ later)!

AnarchoPooter:  I can hardly wait!!!!!

Lehmberg: Yeah... buckle-up, moron... the concrescence looms.

Back to the clue queue with you, go'wan. 



Found the following on my site usage report... As you all know I am not one to just let it slide.  Thoughtless smears such as this never should be allowed such.  Discovered, I have to slap its face, point out its hypocrisy, and extract from it a maximum of satisfaction...

The site?

Calling itself  "The Lycaeum Forums" one would think the participants capable of a little more thoughtfulness, depth, and focus, or even an ability to read to a freaking period... ...anyway,


From AnarchoCannabis
Super Contributor


Posts: 269

Java animation
« on: January 18, 2007, 07:57:45 PM »


(Ignore the rest of the site, just useless Jeff Rense fandom [anti-Semitism, tacky graphix, conspira-babble, etc.])



..Dear Mr. *AnarchoCannabis*

...Lets just cut to the chase, stoner-boy.  I defy you to find a scintilla of anti-Semitism in any of my production and stand behind your definition of same as you expose SAME!  I'll kick your moronic ass!

"Conspira-babble" -- Cute... why, you almost sound confident... like you might know, remotely, what you were talking about... had the minimal competency to blather with some degree of alacrity on the subject... 

You don't!  Hell boy, you can't even get passed a little title *snare* before you make a fatuitous judgment as bereft of intelligence as it is of fairness. Verily, what might a truth about Jews, be... nymrod! 

 Sincerely sport, words fail... F__K you! 

...As to "tacky graphics"?

Whatever!  May I suggest though, you reflex mouth-breather, that all your taste is in your mouth and an ability to appreciate artistic sincerity may be quite beyond you... eh... as is judging a tree first by the fruit it produces, apparently. You liked the eye-candy on one part of the property.  In for a penny in for a pound, pencil-neck! 

Pearls before swine, boyo, pearls before fatuous swine. 

But rest assured, piss-wit.  I'll survive your lack of appreciation, somehow.

Lastly, Jeff Rense is a respected friend of mine and has been such for many years.  He believes that no thing is above examination or critique. When it is?  You only provide for the credit of that which you find so distasteful. 

Besides, I won't apologize for him to the likes of one lack-witterd and churlish anominoid, like yourself, an insentient mook who tosses around character smears and fighting words so thoughtlessly in a public forum, and then makes it so difficult to respond where the insults occur!  Cretin! 

Feh!  You can just kiss my ass!

Thanks, you may now return to the clue queue where your apology can still be accepted.  Outside of that?  Bite me.  

2007 -- And the tedious albeit inevitable dance continues... Eric Cartman held back a grade...

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Forget who'd make their *judgments*
From the centers of their webs...
Or those who raise the fates of some,
And others curse with Krebs.

Fairness is your issue.
...Insure a solid grounding?
...Think: how it's best to lay to rest
That ignorance confounding!

So, how to make a "judgment,"
And stay one step ahead?
Best -- "judge ye not, lest ye be judged,"
And search your *skies*, instead.

11:41 AM AST


"I'm so intrepid"!

Paul Kimball said...

Mr. Lehmberg:

Coming as it does from someone who spends all his time judging various others these days, I'll take your advice for what it's worth.

Congrats nevertheless on your Zorgy.

Best regards,
Paul Kimball

9:17 PM AST


Alfred Lehmberg said...

Détente is apparently not a strong suit for you, is it.

That said you don't know advice from adenoids either, do you.

Moreover, you'll trot out line after tedious line of self-spinning legalese to *prove* a self-congratulatory if stealthily debunking point... but somehow refuse to read to the period. I so thoughtfully provided a tinyurl...

They're really looking for you over at the new *CSI*, Mr. Kimball. You'd fit right in.

You know?  I think the thing that TICs me off about your *contribution* to the Crypto discussion is that you so clearly uses it to degrade the ETH.  You argue that the 'CTH' is the equivalent in order, I'd bet, to ultimately belittle both.  Hell, you're already half-way there.  You are a covert debunker.  It's going to get harder to hide.

...Stuff your *award*.

Paul Kimball said...

Mr. Lehmberg:

Actually, as I noted, I voted for Nick. By telling me to stuff the award, you're telling the 91 people who voted for you to stuff it. You're a true charmer.

Paul Kimball

Alfred Lehmberg said...

...Another *spin* and Wrong again.
It's you can stuff that *bird*, my friend.

Hey! All thanks and admiration to my _legion_ of 91 fans... my house for pancakes everybody... who can make it!




I won't defend the indefensible, qualify that which lacks qualification, or justify that without justification... but I will defend to the death the defensible, the qualified, and the justified!  I will also defend to the death ones right to self-expression without regard to how odious that expression is to me personally.

Jeff Rense is such, and has been for many years.  Jeff Rense is my friend, and has been for many years.  Jeff Rense has reflected the best reportage of edge journalism on the planet and has reflected such for many years. 

There are those who would snuff him out, run him off, and do him in even as they protest their own snuffing, their own banishment, or their own demise.  That's a no-go at this station, friends and fellow motes.

Gravies for Goose and Gander SHALL equate!

What follows is my answer to a current exchange at UFO UpDates regarding the method, motive, and character of Jeff Rense.

My contention, as is the contention of Jeff Rense, is that nothing or no one is above examination, criticism, or assessment.

Not country, not government, not institution, not agency.  Not Christianity.  Not Islam.  Not Judaism... ...and especially reader, not Zionism...  

 From: Josh Goldstein <>
 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:30:29 -0800
 Subject: The Rense Site [was: The '06 O'Hare UFO]

 From: Greg Boone <
 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:09:42 EST
 Subject: Re: The '06 O'Hare UFO
 Source: The Chicago Tribune - Illinois, USA

 Happy New Year!

That hardly seems likely given your commentary here.  We'll call it a
loss leader.

 Despite whatever work Jeff Rense is doing with Peter Davenport
 in relation to the O' Hare Airport UFO case, it still disturbs
 me to see Rense having any connection with the UFO field.


I find it equally disturbing that you are disturbed, Sir, perhaps
more so.

 If you take a good look at Rense's website you will see that he
 posts vile and disgusting antisemitic articles.

That's "anti-Semitic"... I think if you take a good look at Jeff
Rense's web-site you see a site without the filters you would impose,
only.  He won't be faulted for that.  Moreover, Mr. Rense would
appear to be a little more egalitarian than you can muster up on a
good day.  May I say I find your willingness to smother expressions
of others pretty vile and disgusting, itself.

 He also
 publishes articles that defend holocaust deniers who are in
 prison or who will soon be sentenced.

Would that these 'thought' criminals could be just executed out of
hand, eh Mr. Goldstein?  Without due process, without challenging
their accusers... without extending to them what you would have
extended to you.  Who's the injudicious and dangerous bigot?  Look in
a mirror.

 He also defends Saddam
 Hussein, Iran, and all kinds of other conspiracy theories
 containing nothing more than lies of personal opinion,
 speculation, and conjecture that are based on no evidence
 whatsoever. In my opinion Rense should get a job working for
Ahmadinejad in the Iranian propaganda ministry.

...Where would we put you, Mr. Goldstein?  With the card-carrying
"real live" Americans, a true-blue loyalist, or just a tool of a
partisan ethic that stands apart from same?  Tick... tick... tick...

 Being Jewish I am offended that his website is an antisemitic
 hate site.

That's anti-Semitic... odd you don't have that right...

Being a JewBooster I am offended that the precepts of your minority
faith blind you to what it means to be an American at all... or what
it meant, anyway!  I'm offended at this authoritarian hate mail you produce so mendaciously.  I'm offended by you , Sir.

 Since I and others complained about him some years
 ago he started posting a disclaimer that the articles do not
 reflect the opinion of the website but Rense is the person who
 chooses what articles to post on his website. Sixty five years
> ago he would have made a good Nazi.

Colloquialism notwithstanding, let it be recorded that you were
first to raise that charge... which really should be beneath you,
Mr. Goldstein.  You've lost the debate.  That said, sixty-five years ago and
shot from Teutonic loins? 

...You might have made a good example of same.

 I ask you to take a good look at Rense's website and decide for
 yourselves if he is the kind of hate wacko that you want to see
 polluting the UFO field. In my opinion he should be shunned.

By all means people!  Go and look!  Be amazed at the total news
picture.  Be dismayed at what Rense refuses to predigest for you.
Read and be aware that there are many more Jews than a niggardly Mr.
Goldstein, who appreciate Jeff Rense as a true friend or compatriot
and appear regularly on his program.

 Any website that contains such hate should not be connected with
 the UFO field. His hatred really has a terrible stink.

...Not like your post!  Its stench'd knock a buzzard off a gut
wagon.  Verily, I won't defend some of the writers who appear on
Rense's NewsPage, finding them even more repellent than do you, I
suspect!  But Rense is careful to publish my considered rebuttal to
these writers, and if he was remotely what you'd make him out to be,
that wouldn't be happening.  We need more of his ilk, Sir, not less.  

What we could have less of is reflex and arbitrary
censorship that only validates, ironically, what you would have
snuffed out!

Be ashamed, and apologize to Jeff Rense.  That's right!

He's a good man.  He's a fair man.  He's a consistent man.  He has my
respect, the respect of respected others, and he respects others in
 But for your minority institutional mores you let cripple you you'd likely be
saying the same thing, yourself.  

That said.  ...Just push a sock in it, yourself, and
knock off your churlish little whisper campaign.  It's not
appreciated, and I won't stand for it!















Legend in his own mind...



Mr. Guy Pettingill (AKA the Odd Emperor) is reluctant to have his little rock kicked over, it would seem, demonstrates a certain cowardice intellectual and otherwise, but typifies the sort just incapable of taking what they so gleefully dish out.


Accused of an inconsistency, the fraptuous (sic) Mr. Pettingill is noted to take great delight in lately unmasking another anonomoid (sic) like himself... when just a few months back he was whining and gnashing his powdery little teeth as a result of being pulled squealing from beneath his own aforementioned little rock!


It seems I can no longer accesses Mr. Pettingill's web presence (blog or site) as a result... but this is a good thing reader.  Now I don't even have to go over there to point up his pathetic shortcomings... recoup wasted seconds from my day.


So thank you, Mr. Pettingill. 


Though rest assured, Sir, I reserve the right (the responsibility!) to stomp unreservedly on your pointy little head, where EVER else I see it, without regard to your fatuous feelings (such as they inconsistently are)!


...So watch your smirks and sneers, Sir.  They'll have literary consequences.


Thanks again.




Oh Great Suffering And

Most Barragrugous ZOT!

Burning is right!

Three of the most hubris imbued and otherwise ardent Flat-Earthers as has ever sat at the Ufological campfire contrive to console one another and lick each other's wounds... least I think that's what they're doing.

  Regardless, there is no dearth of conviviality and mutual congratulation in this conclave of cooperative constipation... this celebration of arrogant insentience... this unperceived humiliation of intellect, against imagination, and as a result of intellectual cowardice.  This intransigent set of supporters for the discredited status quo...

It'd be fine if they sniveled to one another privately...  But then they contrive to sneer for all to hear, and so must be sneered at in turn.

 No good deed unpunished, eh?

The players: The always patient  and evenhanded Tim Printy... the lovely and effervescent Paul Kimball, and the cunningly bumptious RD Brock, all card carrying kool-aid drinkers of the first wash and gleeful supporters of *truth*, *heat-death*, and Occam's parsimonious way.  

Let's tune in as the always self-effacing and self-deprecating Paul Kimball tries to explicate a bucket of righteousness from a pissant's thimble full of same:   


Paul Kimball said...


I couldn't agree more - having been on the receiving end of the same stuff you're talking about myself.

Oh waaa!  ...And how terrible for you!  It has been a monumental struggle justifying tap-water anthropomorphisms to your audience with the full support of a status quo for which you so gleefully bend over.  This is a status quo, I remind the reader, discredited on so many levels of industry and institution that the continued support of same can be likened to the only heat-death really mattering to us: that death of imagination, artistry, and meta-cognition. 

I did indepth research into Wilbert Smith a year ago, offered a detailed critique of why his story didn't hold up under careful scrutiny, and got hammered for it - including a charge of character assassination by Stan Friedman in the MUFON Journal! Yes, the same STF who has debunked Phil Corso, Bob Lazar, etc etc. As you say, they love to attack, but hate it when you point out the flaws in the stories, or cases, they support.

I suspect that the preceding is only your niggardly, biased, and contrived (and therefore suspect) assessment with regard to a genuine far-thinking person perhaps in physical contact with a piece of real pie.  Moreover, your unctuous critique of a "period" you don't have the courage to read to is only providing the contributional  relevancy it carried into the discussion... ...which is, as you know... or suspect on some level... ...bupkis.

Generally speaking I don't respond anymore. There are always a few exceptions, of course, but these are usually done more to amuse myself than anything else (particularly on a slow day at the office).

Is it slow at the office now, Mr. Kimball?

Paul Kimball


Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.

Good thing, too.



rdbrock said...

Ahh - Wilbert Smith. Ufological icon taken apart, and ufological iconoclast slapped on the hand by Uncle Stan in a ufological rag for being a "bad, bad boy."

If I were you, Uncle Stan would have good cause to hope that it wasn't me carving the ham at the next family shindig... ;-)

I would have predicted that in your vast and multi-faceted experience, research acumen, and incisive scholarship, you would have come across the fact that Stanton Friedman was a Jew... adding, thereby a whole other level of irascible bone-headedness to your insulting, less than intrepid, and sneering repartee. 

Yeah, I just heard Kenny say, "What a douche."

IMHO, Wilbert Smith was a nutbag,, and please, feel free to quote me on that. The only thing about Smith that has led to his canonization, are his following conclusions in the wake of "Project Magnet"--

1. There is a 91% probability that at least some of the sightings were of real objects of unknown origin.
2. There is about a 60% probability that these objects are alien vehicles.

This is really why Unkie Stan and his ilk hold Wilbert Smith dear. Because it sounds very nice appended to their own questionable conclusions about various matters. of "ufological import."

He's not the only one of his world class caliber to arrive at those kinds of highly kinetic and compelling figures, and it is duplicitous and disingenuous of you (forgetting par for the course) for you to try suggesting it here.  You steaming homocentric ideologue, YOU!

For example, we don't hear Stan citing the following Smith essays:

Can't cite this. This is basically contactee literature. It could have been written by one of George Adamski's adherents.

Can't cite this. This is pseudo-scientific pigslop with strong contactee overtones

Maybe he could cite this. After all, this is the great Wilbert Smith's "argument" as to why we are not alone, packed with brilliant and incontestable assertions, such as the following:

- The Darwinian theory of evolution shows certain relationships between the various forms, which inhabit this planet, but there is very little evidence to indicate that they all evolved here.

- Maybe some of them did [evolve here], but a more reasonable explanation is that they were brought here when the planet was in a suitable condition to receive them.

- Recent spectroscopic observations of the reflected light from Mars show the presence of vegetation, which synthesizes sugar, thus making it closely related to much terrestrial vegetation.

- Radio telescopes are picking up all sorts of radio noises from the sky, many of which are so systematic as to preclude natural origin.

- And, most significant of all, the craft of these alien beings have been seen near, and on, this earth!
["truth by decree," I'll call this]

- if we can refrain from committing racial suicide and learn to respect the dignity, divinity and brotherhood of man, we can expect eventually to be welcomed into the great cosmic fraternity of advanced races that inhabit the regions beyond the limits of this little planet.

[hear that, Michael Salla, Alfred Webre?]

Somehow, nothing I have cited above inspires my confidence in Smith as a "pinnacle of reason."

But wait. Grant Cameron to the rescue --- and I quote, from:

"Myth: Smith was Intelligence (sic) but gullible"

"Not true as he was promoted in 1956 after the UFO project was closed down. Shows government confidence making him department head."

"Smith was also a Consultant to NASA. In 1957 Smith sat on the
coordinating committee of the international geophysical year."

Well, poke me in the eye with a sharp stick...that clears it all up. Thanky, Grant.

Space brothers, COME ON DOWN!

You know what, Mr. Brock?  Forgetting for a moment that Smith's explications are seminal, thoughts such as his are far reaching and courageously innovative.  This neatly outlines your problem with them, I bet.  They were conceived, after all, in the late 40's and early 50's and taken at face value for expressions from the times of their provenance? 

They are damned near prophetic.

Oh, and and you can stay off GC's ass too; you don't have the sack or nads to butt-surf his boot tops.  No, you just contrive to make others pay for the lack of courage you have on the twitchy issues.  You, all three, contrive... prosecute your shared imaginational paucity... why you suck each other's wounds, now



...Better hope not!


Tim Printy said...
Agreed on most of your points about UFO lists.

Would there have ever been any doubt as to same?  Of course not!  You covet the same collective fear, the same anthropomorphic intransigence, and the same crass inability to think out of the boxes you all share.  Of course you agree! 

...And how do those wound ichors taste, anyway?

I have yet to spend time on one without the name "debunker" being thrown at me (or course "pelicanist" is the new term). There is no effort to have a frank and open discussion without name-calling. This means the discussion will end up in a circular argument.

Only when you put it there.  And really, Mr. Printy.  Shouldn't he who waddles and quacks so sullenly with regard to his awesome intransigence be identified as same, just to save the time so valuable to you

Shouldn't he who is recognized as hostile to exploring an unknown extant (indeed grovels gleefully before every opportunity to do so) get known by the language of his own devices and mechanisms?  It's your lot floats pelicans as an answer against the experience, intuitions, and observations of the quality observer on the scene.  Pelicanist seems abundantly fair, given the much more insulting tripe you dish out but can't take !  Suck it up!  Be a man!

 Why waste my time?

Yet, you do! Why is that... you suppose?

In a recent development, I found it amusing that UFOlogists are now trying to reopen the Mantell case AGAIN! A few years ago, Kevin Randle published a piece for "peer review" on a popular list with the Skyhook explanation as the solution.

No.... No.  No!  He proposed a theory, if a good one based on his knowledge as a pilot.  A theory is not a solution, it is an apology in the sense that it tries to explain.  Go back to the start point and roll again.

It is still there and nobody seemed to edit it or make corrections to the best of my knowledge. Instead, some are trying to make this case into something again behind the scenes on other lists and private emails. So much for "peer review" in a forum that was supposed to be the best and brightest. Why weren't their objections made when Randle presented the article?

...And why would they have to?  Perhaps a compelling idea needs some mulling over before the antithesis is groked in fullness.  I once thought one of  Mr. Kimball's post *transition* papers had merit... until a few days musings revealed it to be the usual water-muddying and intellectual denial... ...cognitive cowardice, by any other name? 

Moreover, why aren't all your objections made in the timely manner you describe?  Remember the gravy for goose "A" and goose "B" with my thanks.

It goes back to a piece I wrote some time ago. That being that no matter how much a popular/classic case is solved (I can list dozens), there are always those who will state that it does not explain EVERYTHING (i.e. some small details described by one of the witnesses could not be explained by the solution) about the case and, therefore, the case must remain unsolved!

See, there you go again.  This is a mechanism known as "locker rupture" which your lot uses with such bland alacrity... like it justifies your back-stepping positions and easy authoritarianisms, or something

Seriously, cry your your crocodile tears somewhere else at the *accessing glass* being turned around on you.  Find that your feeling good about your dodgy philosophy is not my job.

Except for the obvious fakes and solutions (and even then, some of the more gullible will insist they are still unsolved!), almost every case presented on these lists is never solved to everyone's satisfaction(Recent example:The Mexico AF infrared videos).

Not so obvious, and no solution, I'm afraid, Mr. Printy.  It is certain you will find no satisfaction...ever...even with the dead alien, warp-drive, and ray-gun in hand.


PS Is that an "official" award on your webpage. It hits the mark!

Damn... I threw up in my mouth a little bit...



rdbrock said...

Tim Printy wrote:

>In a recent development, I found it >amusing that UFOlogists are now >trying to reopen the Mantell case >AGAIN!

Of course - that's what a substantial percentage of ufologists do. They resurrect tired old cases (or never bury them in the first place), run them into the ground, resurrect them again, run them into the ground...

Of course, when that behavior comes from your side of the aisle it is: good science, efficacious inquiry, and the soul of rationality.  I suspect all your consistency abides in your feces, boys.

It was on the Project-1947 list, btw, that the Mantell thread got started. I was still a member at the time, but when I logged into my e-mail one day and saw the thread growing like a cancer, I excised the whole lot and threw it into the trash, without even looking at a single post.

ROFL!  ...So much for "Good science, efficacious inquiry, and the soul of rational inquiry," eh?

Just this afternoon, upon reading your comments, my curiosity got the better of me,and I contacted a friend who still gets the list to see if he saved the thread, but he dumped it, as well.

Awww!  What a tragedy.  Your cranial munificence, denied!

Really, it's probably better that we don't know... :-)

Sure!  There's the spirit!  ROFL!  How gleefully APT!




rdbrock said...

Tim also wrote:

>PS Is that an "official" award on >your webpage. It hits the mark!

Real only in the sense that I bestowed it upon myself in honor of once being identified by Alfred Lehmberg (he of the odious ode)as "one who genuflects before the Pelicanist idol."

...I'm reminded of the inveterate smoker telling his buddy that it "...takes a man to face up to lung cancer."  ...And thanks for reading.

  Cowardice of any stripe is unusually rewarded and is not rewarded for long.  Enjoy your albatross (pelican) while you can.  Soon it will be the flavor of albatross where there was water everywhere, though not a drop to drink.

Additionally, "Roses are red, violets blue, sugar is sweet, it's you apes the fool"

The term, of course, was coined by none other than Jerry Clark, in response to the suggestion that Kenneth Arnold observed a flock of pelicans on the wing. You're probably aware of this, I realize.

Assume not!  You didn't know Friedman was a Jew (or didn't care).  What Mr. Printy doesn't know could fill all of Carnegie's boxcars!

I should send one to the original Pelican, Mr (?)Eastman, I believe, of Magonia Mag. You, as well, are welcomed to award it to yourself, since we are, it seems, birds of a feather.

Oh yes!  A clutch of puking buzzards if not pelicans flying at the speed of sound...





Paul Kimball said...

Rod / Tim (& Zeb):

Ufologists don't like it when one of their own breaks ranks - they usually just ignore them.
...Or respects their positions even as they don't agree with them... ...anger at "Rank Breaking" seems decidedly klasskurtxian, for my money... ...but I will of course admit to the potentiality of bias on my part...
Witness the complete lack of discussion about Kevin's "debunking" of the alien abduction phenomenon, in The Abduction Enigma, or Greg Bishop's Project Beta - both were basically ignored within ufology, because they contained a fair dollop of uncomfortable truth.
How can you so speciously spew such canted crock...? Truth, Mr. Kimball?  ROFL!  ...Got a line on it do you?  Still, I shan't use you for a reference or citation.  The mainstream devil has too much of your shirt-tail in hand, already. 
I suspect that guys like Randle, Bishop, and Redfern (...Remember his heresy?) don't get the kind of backlash bestowed to the three of you because they fail to sneer and are at once, sincere. 

As for the "pelicanist" thing, it must be one of the most ridiculous epithets ever thrown about by supposedly serious-minded researchers. It's use is indicative of a fair bit of insecurity, both personal and professional, I think.
Oh, pack a sock's worth of sand.  Die (Figuratively, ok Mr. Pettingill, ...before you get your panties all a'bunch & a'wad) by the sword you all live by.  Being righteously identified as Pelicanists is one of these. 
"Fruits and nut-bags"  & "Kooks 'n whackos"  (decidedly more insulting and less accurate in too many cases I suspect?) as epithets are fine when you sling them about... ...but just like any authoritarian, feels *wounded* when the same beam comes to rest on them...
And please don't trifle to lecture us on what being serious minded must entail.  We all know where the "insecurity," both personal and professional, lies.  It's woven into impossible, crass, and stupefyingly officious statements like the one you just made.


Mr. Pettingzoo chimes in from the peanut gallery with:

//UFOlogy as a field (and I’m taking the average “look” from my POV.) seems to be more interested in proving what UFOs and are and not eliminating what they are not. This is far more akin to religious scholarship than some sort of scientific pursuit (sic) //

This is true of the believers, but then they're not trying to "prove" anything - instead, they're trying to convert the masses, or make themselves feel better.

...Ever there was the coal black pot calling on the probable truth-seeking kettle... eh?  This may be the finest example of classic projection this writer and dilettante psychologist has ever seen! Verily, Mr. Kimble, on the utterance of the preceding, demonstrates only that he tries to make himself comfortable while pushing the unsettling *other* as far from himself and his dodgy self-centered paradigms as he can.  Sad really; he's such a bright guy.

The more serious and reasonable ufologists(i.e. the ones without the need to replace God with aliens)...

"Replace," *God*, Mr. Kimball?  Surely a man of your experience and education can't put any credence into an entity invented by an un-elected leadership to serve that leadership's predilection to see how miserable we can all be in this life in preparation for the next one... we are inculcated to take on untested faith! 

...even if they favour the ETH as a theory, are still usually willing to admit that they don't know what UFOs are.

Well, of course... duh!  But then that's not really the issue is it.

The issue is that you contrive a willing institution of unbiased human scientific tradition waiting to be impressed enough to have a look at this "UFO" thing, when the reality is the polar opposite of that.

The reality, it seems to me, is the Individual Case, the one Crop Circle, the single Abduction, the isolated Report, the sole Recording, the lone radar Return, that singular Piece of physical evidence... ...Do any of us here deny the actuality and the validity and the genuine-ness of that single validating instance given the many thousands of them that there are?

No... the most blitheringly conflicted klasskutxian neo-bunkster nay-bob must admit to that "single case"... even if they have to push it away from themselves to some space, time, and surface area... "...long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away..." or otherwise personify it as microbial and dead under a rock on Mars for millions and millions of years...


It remains that it is that single case to which everyone admits that is the thing to be gainfully searched out, but which is in no way searched out, by design... even _if_ clumsily, at all. It is avoided. It is taboo.

We engage in an extended viewing through the wrong end of the telescope, see, and attempt to discredit that abundantly admitted whole by invalidating, or over parsing, the ineffable (unknowable) items of it. 

Cherry-picked ones at that!!!

The point, it's the one genuine case proves a ufological reality, not the one demonstrable hoax discrediting same!

But the latter is exactly the contention of the *denialist nay-bob*. Don't look for the true case. Gleefully ferret out the _fake_ one. Then the next. And the next... and the next after that... and before you know it? You can begin to support "not looking for UFOs" because it's such a waste of time and resources.

Don't look for the real thing, though, and minimize resources doing expressly that! No, "locker-rupture" the past, instead, so you can maintain the illusion of a research activity... but not really perform one at all!

Contrive to investigate the debatable, *potentially* discreditable cases in an effort to put off the examination of that single case... proof of the *other* that each of us suspects (and some of us dread!) is there. Some might call that cowardly.

We're not looking; it's career death to do so!  The mechanism of its denial is huge with many devoted and passionate acolytes (like yourselves), and we humiliate ourselves that we are being at all rational in the shadow of that inauspicious denial.

Finally, It is not Ufology that needs to make itself worthy of science. It is science that needs to make itself worthy of UFOs....

Science FAILS us in an execution of its charter... because it does not execute its charter... in a deliberate sense, in an ethical sense, in an efficacious sense, in a data following sense, or in a sense free of ego. Vallee and McKenna et sig al have pointed out that it almost seems this imposition of an 'other' is invented by the 'other' as a mechanism to discredit, or otherwise point up the short-comings of that same science refusing to investigate in a forthcoming manner that which is obviously there for millions... if not billions... of individual persons! Science fails UFOs, not the inverse...

...I know that was wasted on all of you...





Paul Kimball said...

I wasn't referring to you, but to our favourite fans, AL and RL.


5:49 PM ADT

Alfred Lehmberg and Regan Lee presumably, at the risk of thinking the song was about me...
"Our Fans," Mr. Kimball...?...Hopefully you refer to that stupid puppet you cart around...

Mac said...

//What - you haven't been turned off by the "I haven't seen it, but I have an axe to grind with Kimball, so it must suck" reviews from the usual suspects (I circular filed them under "irony")? :-)//

Hey, are these the same guys who enjoy membership in the I Hate Paul Kimball Because He Posts Misogynistic Cheesecake Photos club? ;-)

1:27 AM ADT



Paul Kimball said...

There's a club??


A *club*, Mr. Kimball?  Ever is the search for a validation of self...  I suppose that Carly Simon wrote that song about you, then?  But no, alas, the song is not about you, after all.  You flatter yourself, and fatuously. 
One knows a tree by its fruit, conversely, and it's the rare tree repudiates its own fruit, then repudiates that same repudiation... ...consequently convening a conference of more earnest individuals so as to assume a posture decidedly unearned, grossly contrived and pathetically whiny when called on same? To what ends one might well ask!

I'm confident we'll find this falling tree makes no sound ultimately, but was a mere distraction... a bumptious pretender and only in it for the notoriety disingenuously derived... ...dismissive of the science. Disrespectful of the authority. A fatuous derider of ideas bigger than is the tree alluded to?

Is Mr. Kimball a closet misogynist, an irrelevant chauvinist, or in any way disrespectful of the female? That is a tree known by its fruit, I suspect.  Is there fruit extant?

Moreover, there is no judgment on the quality of the documentary masturba... I mean, iterated. Only if it is another of his adequate docs to be repudiated later on. That's clear. Eh?
Hmmm... ...I wonder what Scott Ramsey thinks of your repudiation regarding Aztec, 1948?  The Woods and Stanton Friedman vis a vis a belief in MAJIC?
More on the discussion highlighting Mr. Kimball's rather (if slightly sweating) affected neo-nondirectedness... ... he writes:
//How odd - a film I have supposedly "repudiated" is now on sale from Tim Crawford's UFO TV, with all sorts of extras added on a second bonus disc! It must be... er, magic.//
Not magic, Mr. Kimball.  Current spin.  See, try as I might and as cleverly contrived as the preceding is, I cannot line the components of it up to make any substantive sense.  Plainly, your repudiation of the film has nothing to do with you continuing to get a residual for same.  Discredited films widely hounded by credible authority as utter fabrications and fantasies for years are sold profitably to this day.  You see them stacked on tables at conventions (perhaps even your own) ten deep...

Let's look at a definition of *repudiate* to which we might return later...


  1. To reject the validity or authority of: "Chaucer . . . not only came to doubt the worth of his extraordinary body of work, but repudiated it" (Joyce Carol Oates).
  2. To reject emphatically as unfounded, untrue, or unjust: repudiated the accusation.
  3. To refuse to recognize or pay: repudiate a debt.
    1. To disown (a child, for example).
    2. To refuse to have any dealings with.

//Of course, I never "repudiated" the film. I changed my mind about MJ-12. There is a difference.//

Uh-huh, don't leave out AZTEC!  Do you now reject or have you ever rejected the validity of authoritative positions you've recorded for posterity?  Have you rejected same as unfounded, untrue, or unjust?  Have you refused to recognize or pay endorsement to same as an accurate representation of the consequences of your researches?  Indeed, it seems that "4b" above is the only clear miss, in as much as you've been moved to advantage yourself by squeezing a little more dustage from that which you may have made every indication is leading folks down a Primrose Path?  That's the intimation to me...

Your "Difference" is only plain to your *supporters*, Sir, I suspect.  So, only in the eye of a conflicted beholder.

Moreover, what would the reaction be regarding a change of mind on my part regarding my thumbs-up reviews of the repudiated films?  Would I be "fickle," "convenienced," "inconstant," or "crapular."  I suspect I would.  Yet Mr. Kimball expects a "by."  Gravy for the goose or gander and all that, eh?

//The film is a good and fair representation of Stan Friedman's views about MJ-12, and gives his critics, most notably Karl Pflock, their kick at the can as well.//

There would a bit of that fresh new neo-spin alluded to earlier.  Where was that protestation before, Mr. Kimball?  No little too late, I fear. 

What you seem to fail to see?  Your critical audience has a memory.

//The bonus materials, which I assembled last month, include extra interview segments with Nick Redfern, Karl Pflock, John Greenewald, and Rob Swiatek, as well as a 90 minute lecture by Stan in which he "critiques the MJ-12 critics", from the 2003 Aztec UFO Symposium.//

Yes... I wonder what Mr. Ramsey's comments would be... Pray tell, is he included in the touted "bonus materials"?

//You can purchase the two DVD special edition at UFO TV.//

Yes... could.

//After I made the film, I did more research, and came to the conclusion that MJ-12 is fake (a conclusion shared, I might add, by the vast majority of UFO researchers)...//

...But not the Woods Junior and Senior.  Not your patient uncle, Stanton Friedman.  Not the less conflicted researcher.  Not the anti-homocentric researcher.  Not the researcher yet to be crippled by his unearned hubris.  Only the dillatants of the subject specifics and afraid, actually, of their humanistic shadows... ...a vast number indeed, if not a very telling one.

 //...but watch the film, and the extras, and then do your own research, and judge for yourself.//

I think he meant "buy the film" reader... ...but by all means... "judge for yourself."

...Legend in his own mind?


Tired of the usual cluelessly officious CRAP from the "Odd Emperor" (One Mr. Pettingill) and firing off a response to impact amidships below the portentous waterline?  I wrote:


"...What a fraptious piss-wit's line of patent crap. Even what is couched in a whining and pathetic plea to back-off it is still an insult, a greasy pretension of intelligence that is only proclaimed and otherwise not evident in any way at all.

Two way glass, huh? Another inadvertent and unwitting self-disclosure, Mr. Pettingill. See, you only _think_ you can see out and we can't see in. Even if true, and it's not, that's how a lack-witted _coward_ gets his jollies, sport! Truth-seeking is the last thing on _your_ mind. You front crap 'buffering' -- let me show you how that works.

Several years ago, when you were first starting out on your tedious if cowardly little campaign to keep the indefatigable *other* and *greater reality* at arms length for yourself, personally... you dropped a smirky little note in my personal mail to the effect that I had in some way evaluated by *your eminence* and that I might avail myself of your gracious wisdom at a thoughtfully supplied URL.

I discovered when I got over there not a critique, which is always appreciated believe it or not, so much as a hostile sand-bag. It ridiculed, despoiled, humiliated, mocked, derided, and most importantly, Mr. Pettingill? It casually disrespected. I'll take my best shot at eating your face just for that.

I'm supposed to be _elevated_ ending up on a list entitled "Fruits and Nuts"? F**k with the bull, dude. Go on.

But the lard-sugar icing on the whole affair is that you had the pretense to act like you should be rewarded for your unintelligent, assumptive, pretentious, immature, bumptious, unimaginative, unjustifiably arrogant, and hugely disrespectful behavior... ...with the adoration of imagined peers! This is forgetting the real persons you were, oh so casually, defaming and deriding!

[Metaphor alert!!!>>>]  ROFL! You have to die. Just kidding (mostly).

When the more appropriately righteous scope is turned around on you, though, is where we see the Prufrockian (look it up, dim-bulb) true-color of the lovely Mr. Pettingill, loath to have his crummy little rock kicked over, and jealous of his concealment. He whines, moans, and knishes his powdery little teeth that he is being attacked, treated badly, harassed and otherwise molested, himself. ROFL!

See, Mr. Pettingill? No good deed goes unpunished. There is a price to be paid for sticking your head up over the berm and sliding out from under your duplicitous little defilade. You're libel to get your pointy little head stepped on.

The wage of sinning against your fellow human beings... who may insist themselves that they be treated with the same regard and respect with which you only think _you_ should be treated. I've said to you before something about reaping and sowing... enjoy"!


This comment was, of course, moderated out, as is an intellectual coward's prerogative. But he left this little revealing rejoinder:


The Odd Emperor Says:

August 22nd, 2006 at 6:28 am
Whups! Seems youy (sic) got angry again. I can’t in good conscience pass that along, except for this bit.

Alfred Lehmberg Says:
“ROFL! You have to die. Just kidding (mostly).”

I think you need to take a break from all this Alfred. Once you stop rolling around on the floor, perhaps you can reflect how serious that kind of thing is–were I to interpret it a certain way.

Perhaps you were sending it to Mr. Pettingill?

Hmm, I’ll have to let him know.



I responded, then copied it here so Mr. "Prufrock's" fans could see him getting his current, well deserved, spanking:


Oh push a sock in it, won't you please? It takes a real bone-head and mouth breather to pretend he can't understand a metaphor.  I'm not surprised.  This is just more snot on your cognitive doorknob, Mr. Pettingill.  More evidence of your pathetic cluelessness, impossible shallowness, and abject cranial foppery.  The preceding is what passes for your own pathetic little "love song."

More un-witting self-disclosure?

Moderated? Read it elsewhere then, coward, it wont be you telling me when to take a break.

You really are a steaming geek, you know that? I don't mean that in a good way.  Moreover, the reason you get slapped around like this is because to are too smart a guy to be so intransigently STUPID... plus?  You beg for it.

And so it goes, eh?  Mr. Pettingill can forget the other cheek turned.  When he tries it?  He'll discover fresh bruises on the new one.  Nes't se pas?

Se pas!


Canadian Mutie?


"Space: The Imagination Station has scheduled the premiere for Fields of Fear. You can tune in and catch it for the first time (they'll be airing it many times after that over the next four years) on Friday, September 15th, at 10 pm Eastern Standard Time.

I'm proud of this film, which has taken longer to finish than any I've worked on before. I did my best to get it right, and provide a fair and balanced view of cattle mutilations. Kevin Randle takes on the role of the resident "debunker" of the paranormal explanation this time around, and paranormal researchers Greg Bishop and Nick Redfern provide further commentary (with a cameo appearance by Stan Friedman). We also get to hear from a number of citizens of St. Paul , Alberta, including Mayor John Trefanenko, Editor of the St. Paul Journal Jay Gutteridge, and the former head of the town's chamber of commerce, Paul Pelletier, who was with Fern on his first cattle mute investigation.

At the end of the day, however, the film is really about Fern Belzil, for whom I have developed a great deal of respect. He's a straight-shooter, which is a welcome rarity in a world increasingly full of bafflegab and b.s., and that comes through in the film. Whether or not you think cattle mutes are real, there's no question that Fern is 100% real!"


Is this going to be another of your loss-leader (one step forward and two steps back) film productions, Sir, to be refuted and repudiated later on when the sales flatten out?

You'll have to pardon my cynicism. None of us is able to look forward better than we are able look back.  You look decidedly dodgy in my rear view mirror Mr. Kimball.

Brittany's actually preferable...

Discovered at the Site of the Flying Pig

"...Meanwhile, the "unwashed masses" went on to send in their opinions to Russell Sipe of about the ill-treatment Chuck Schramek was receiving, a few of which I reproduce here, complete with spelling and grammatical errors. The first is from Alfred Lehmberg, present leader of the "AlienViewGroup" and frequent poster to the UfoUpdates list. At the time Mr. Lehmberg e-mailed his comments to Russell Sipe, I had not yet exchanged any correspondence with him, but I was to make his acquaintance a few years later, when he told me "where the bear shits in the bucket" (to which I duly responded) with respect to DISCLOSURE. See my entry on Mr. Lehmberg here, as well. I also invite you to visit Alfie's delightfully psychedelic website."

"Methinks doth protest too much..." It's plain you went for the throat on this--and the responce (sic) is too coordinated and powerful -- moving to insult and discredit too guys are acting as weird as that comet!"

Alfred Lehmberg

[In 1996]

Ouch, Mr. Brock... it's pretty obvious you had your portentous post-toasties righteously pissed in.

Unfortunately, outside of showing yourself to be decidedly niggardly, intellectually fatuous, and just not up to the task of making your points (forgetting cognitively unbrave running away and hurling epithets over a sloping shoulder), the only other thing you demonstrated was that I didn't proofread one piece of E-mail to Mr. Sipes in 1996.

...Pretty meager pickings on your part, Sir, eh?

Besides, it remains I stand by what I wrote to Mr. Sipes even if I did fail to spell "response" correctly...

With regard to your "cheesy" poetry (I've weathered booger-brained "Limburger cheese" jokes for 50 years)?  A friend would remind you to keep your day-job.

Thanks for the note... and I trust all these words are spelled correctly. I've been getting better over the years, I suspect.

Flying Pig?

I perceive the porcine, but the pinions are decidedly absent.


Kimball Self-Described?


  • "Paul Kimball, a serious filmmaker with his own production company... has produced some engaging and instructive documentary films... It remains that this writer's gut-sense advises that Kimball is legitimately trying to shoot straight-down-the-middle on the issues." -Alfred Lehmberg

Astonishing, Mr. Kimball!

 This was at first blush when you still had a dew of innocence on your lily... ...It is beyond belief that you would use this quote now when so much water has passed the bridge... as has been made ABUNDANTLY obvious in the interim... ...that was then... SIR!

...In that interim there are the leaders you would insult, the benefactors you would betray, the friends you would attack, the persons you would despoil, and contemporaries you would deride.  In that interim are your smirks and sneers and snide reportages.   In that interim are your intellectual shallownesses, your acerbic biases, and your constipated cant-ages .  In that interim are you not revealed for what I believe you to be, Sir, a line-walking fraud, a clever dissembler, and a ufological malefactor... my opinion of course!

Why, using this quote, itself, when the exact  opposite is apparent and indicated is proof enough of my outraged contentions, Mr. Kimball!  Good show!

...Request you remove it at once.


...And... after much embarrassing spewage of personal insult and attack he only ever thought he was the subject of, boys and girls... and after monumental scurryings with regard to obligatory face saving and requisite spin-meistering... ...he did, too.

It remains that it had no business there as I no longer, if only for the present, believed it.  Given new information and demonstrated performance I could believe it again.  That's not flip-flopping.  That's rationality in action.  Any other activity is the tedious shtick of the ideologue.  The flat-earther syndrome Mr. Kimball presently endures is not an incurable disease, you see.  It's not written in stone that he has to remain a self-interested bone-head dilettante.  He's smart... he can make a real contribution.

...Redemption is for EVERYMAN.




Overheard at Paul Kimball's Blog of Singular biliousness:


Andy Roberts scowls...
What an interesting view Stuart has of me! I'm always happy to defend my research and expect people to criticise it. However, I expect them to criticise it with the same rigour of fact, logic and evidence which I use myself. this rarely happens and hence I don't suffer fools gladly. And there a lot of fools in ufology.
As for me being a 'strange' guy - lawdy yes, I've followed the Call of the Weird for a long time, in many different ways and strange is most definitely good!
Happy Trails

4:40 PM ADT


Paul Kimball poots...


Thanks for popping by. I've always enjoyed your work, even when I might disagree with it. I've even been known to sign a few e-mails to certain people "Happy trails", just because I know they'll go "grrr...".

As far as being strange goes, given the fact that he was smiling when he said it, I'm pretty sure that Stuart didn't mean that in a bad way, although you'd have to ask him to be absolutely certain!

As for there being a lot of fools in ufology, well... no comment! :-)

Happy (chem)trails,


I have to remark how fortunate the rest of us on the planet are to have these two, extant, to settle our ufological hash.  Without them around to swab out the odd paranormal throat we'd strangle on our own spit, presumably.  It matters not that the former is a self-admitted liar and the latter is tres reluctant, in my opinion, to selflessly entertain the remotest truth... the globe must still sigh its tremendous relief, eh?


Moreover -- I suspect the ubiquitous Mr. Kimball is unable to tell a smile from a rictus.

Hopeless Snails...


..Are You Outraged Tonight?


Continued dialogue regarding Paul Kimball's:

Are You Lonesome Tonight?



KIMBALL:  Thanks. Your column merely proves my point about the fear emanating from your side of the aisle, and the close-mindedness.


LEHM:  Rofl!  What deliciously contrived and rational sounding *new-speak* is this?  What's actually occurring in your response is not a reasoned reaction to what you would label (and dismiss) as "groundless fear" and "lack of capacity"... that's just a masquerading dodge.  What you've actually only done is re-packaged all the recently expressed criticism I have had for your, quaintly put, "side of the aisle" ... and projected that inconsequent and non-responsive package back to me on a world stage virtually unchanged. The long and the short of the other side of the truth... eh?


Moreover... You would pretend here that it was all just a divergence of ideological opinion and not your total lack of response regarding the too conservative cut of your ideological jib, the errors it makes, the aspects that it does not take into account, the information it denies, the fallacies it entertains, the falsehood it allows, the lack of progress it makes, the assumptions it contrives... ummm... another essay map for a future paper!


Besides... PeeWee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I"? not an effective retort in this context, I think a reader would agree.

KIMBALL:  Also, the lack of a sense of humour.


LEHM:  Ach!  Another of your tediously distracting canards. 


Mr. Kimball!  Well forget for a moment I could have you blowing somebody else's beer from your nose if we ever went to an unlikely dinner somewhere... ...some things just don't lend themselves to humor. 


Laughingly call a black guy, all in good humor you understand, a "nigger" sometime, to get a taste of what I mean.  Sorry, seriously, but some things are just not appropriate for *humor*, as you know.


No.  When asked in front of a couple of million people about a human status in the *other-where* you don't digress to a subject like coveted *cups* and guys whacking each other with *sticks* or otherwise beating the hammered feces from one other.  I was appalled.  I suspect most of your audience was.


KIMBALL:  I mean, really - a comment about the Edmonton Oilers going to the Stanley Cup offended you?


LEHM:  Sigh! You really are an astonishingly impossible piece of work!  We're not talking, as you well know, about a reference to a fantasy contest which is really only an ersatz truth allowed to an abused Joe Six-Pack so as to further dull his edge (that person you appealed to so you can continue your masquerade as a "regular" guy?).  We're talking about you crapping all over Noory's heartfelt expression and serious set-up because the speculation on same... ...shrivels your short and curlies! 


This is, of course, forgetting for a moment that you reported a respectfully immediate and affirmative response to Noory's very serious question... ...and did not.  That pesky "truth in reporting" you were on about the other day... 'member?  


KIMBALL:  You definitely need to broaden your horizons, and lighten up. Sir.


Rofl... Forgetting your brand of brightness is only harshing your *monitor* we're but treated to your continuing re-packaged projections, your intellectually empty projections, your obtuse projections, and your wholly irrelevant and fatuous re-projections...


...I submit you are moonlight to my sunlight, Sir, like water is to wine.  Where would you like to go on these *horizons*?  How*dark* do you think it is?


At the risk of being further tedious myself, I have to point out that it's times like these when James Joyce seems most appropriate.  See, it's me charging you to "...Up ne'ent prospector, warp your woof and use both wings... ...sprout for all you're worth"!  You parrot back a two-color representation of the very same sentiment... and then act like it was your bike had that bell on it, too!  Astonishing.


All that said?  Be ashamed.


...And listening buyers?  Beware.  There is life beyond being a put together and disposable tool in a sociopath's ready kit, imo. 


What the hell did I mean by that?


Well -- knowing the answer depends on the productive warp of ones woof, whether all aerodynamic surfaces are being utilized, only if you're sprouting as hard as you can, and if you are remotely prospecting... ...then you can approach that conjectured concrescence "Up ne'ent" with confidence, and grok the answer to that question in its fullness.  We had to read that book in high school for some damn reason... eh?


Believe me.  It'll be a lot more respectfully satisfying and last longer, too.  See folks...'s the law.  The poet trumps the pedant, always.



...Are You Outraged Tonight?


Provoked response regarding Paul Kimball's:

Are You Lonesome Tonight?



LEHM:  I was just going to let this slide... I'd already cranked out 2500 words in critique of dodgy Kimballian intellectual ethics... and I have my own projects to consider... but damn it...  If Mr. Kimball is going to so readily perform what he so vociferously, with no small outrage, accuses... then some mention of it should be made in a manner exceeding the bare minimum...


KIMBALL:  George Noory posed an interesting question to me last week on Coast to Coast - "do you" he asked, "believe that there is intelligent life in the universe besides our own?"


LEHM:  Yes.  Yes he did.  And he even managed to transcend the obligatory woo-woo of late-night radio milieu to touch on a tap-root of some real philosophical weight, too... ...with sincerity and some genuine wonder. 


You crapped all over it.  


It was his lead in for the whole hour and he was asking the big question even without realizing he was asking it, perhaps, but I'm certain there was a delicious ripple in the felt moment of everyone's experiential resonance who was listening.  The heavy curtains started to crank up for everyone, a Bach mass in B minor started to rumble the floor...

KIMBALL:  "Yes," I replied, without hesitation.


LEHM:  Mmmmm-No.  No you did not.  And this from the man in recent faux-earnest caterwaul with regard to accurate reporting...  Instead?  You digressed into the most inane and inappropriate distraction conceived... presumably to bring the question under your anthropomorphic heel.  Outrageous.


You went on, as if in preamble to an *answer*, ...about HOCKEY... Mr. Kimball.  For the better part of a minute you waxed about the Stanley cup and its importance, personally, to you.  WTF?


I wanted to hit you in the head with a board, Mr. Kimball, as there can be no forgiving the casual and light hearted disrespect you so laughingly  paid to the sensibilities of the millions of persons listening... the truly rational persons who have moved themselves past your petty fears and lack of intellectual dimensionality... persons who sense some *thing* beyond themselves... the cosmic anthropose?  The mystic atom?  The sophic hydralith?  The philosopher's stone?  The lapis philosiforum ... the felt presence at the end of time ... the living heart of the universal panacea? Persons who truly leave behind them what you perceive far to your front, Sir, if at all?


How dare you.  How incredibly and impossibly and egregiously obtuse of you. 


KIMBALL:  I then pointed out that most scientists agree with that conclusion.


LEHM:  Too little too late by any measure, Mr. Kimball.  And then there was the manner in which you offered that admission up like it was abundantly considered... ...when all it ever turned out to be was a retreat from same and a veiled conjecture that: " (listener)... we really are alone, after all." 


As is your tactic, you took a step forward to justify the three steps back you invariably insist on taking.  None dare call that cowardice!   

KIMBALL:  At which point George pointed out that this was just a belief, because there is no proof that such life exists.


LEHM:  Oh!  The pompous arrogance masquerading as rationality.  The forced  penchant for Occamian ultra-reductionism below what is required for complete explanation.  Sometimes, young man, hypotheses must, of needs, be multiplied.  That's something conveniently forgotten in your understanding of the razor.


...The gleeful gallop to the lowest common denominator in imagination, erudition, and intellectual bravery! Such effrontery of ideological cant!


Beyond belief! 


Mr. Noory was grasping innocently (?) at homocentric straws (offering conjecture not position) that you, as the self-credited hard-nosed historian, should have denied him... but then I remember that you stooped first to a grossly irrelevant sports reference that was in no way pertinent or appropriate to the issue at hand... ...and I understand.   


KIMBALL:  I agreed with him, although I noted that the universe is a big place, and the odds favour the existence of life "out there" (some of it possibly coming here), certainly on a "balance of probabilities" standard, if not beyond a reasonable doubt.


LEHM:  Gee! You kind of have to say that, don't you, to maintain this pretense of being a rationalist... when nothing could be further from the truth?  You are a shill for continued denial of the obvious, Mr. Kimball.  No more and probably a lot less, Sir. 


You do not deserve the comfort you would presume given your ontological betrayals... your cognitive infidelities ...your gross inconsistencies ... your fractious methodologies ...your smug eruditions... ...and your wan pontifications.  We can run the preceding by line item, chapter and verse, if you care to demand discussion on them, Mr. Kimball.  I'm prepared to do a whole essay on this paragraph, which stands in handily as a word map for it.


These would categorize my opinions and observations on same... but I suspect they would be found to have some resonance with a reader just the same.  Verily, I suspect, Sir, that you are beginning to feel the cracks and strains _of_ same.   

KIMBALL:  As I recall, George paused for a second or two, and then asked something along the lines of, "Don't you think it would be lonely if we were the only life in the universe?"

KIMBALL:  I think I just said that I wasn't too worried about it, as I don't think we're alone in the universe, and then we moved on to another subject.


LEHM:  LOL!  I would have called it beating a hasty retreat in the felt presence of the wholly other... "...not too worried about it," indeed.  I submit that you are purposely not holding your mouth right on the issues, Mr. Kimball, for the purposes of intellectual disingenuousness and an explicable philosophical duplicity... ...a readily perceptible vehicle of your cognitive dissonance! Worse, I suspect you may have even programmed yourself to believe it.

KIMBALL:  But what if we are alone?


LEHM:  Yeah!  And there you touch upon it at last... did you think I'd miss it?  Additionally maybe George W. is the best president of all time, too.  Perhaps tail-gunner Joe was right about the commies all along! 


That is only the first step that you would have the listener take with you to shallower focus, color desaturation, and a reducing depth of field.  Good God Mr. Kimball... the scientistically sneering if honorably countenanced Mr. Pettingill gets it.  You have NO excuse!  

KIMBALL:  Does that prospect bother me?


LEHM:  Oh yeah, it bothers you. It better!  Anything else is just sheep refusing to look up.


You bet it bothers you!  It eats at you just behind the front of the shaky barrier of worshipped scientism (and the personal profit?) you've pushed up around yourself to keep the wholly *other* away.  It is evidenced in the ontological betrayals... cognitive infidelities ... gross inconsistencies ... fractious methodologies ... smug eruditions... ...and wan pontifications already alluded to.  



LEHM:  Uh-huh... and I would submit you're just not being honest with yourself, Mr. Kimball, and certainly not with the listeners you shortchanged and marginalized on the Noory program.  I suspect they're going to get you for it.  I'm passing out the hot tar and feathers over here, myself.


KIMBALL:  No more than the prospect that we're not alone bothers me. I'm "good" with either possibility. I think it would be wonderful if ET is out there, for a whole host of reasons. On the other hand, if they're not, I'm perfectly happy to go it "alone".


LEHM:  Which amounts to exactly *zip* intellectually, am I right?  Or maybe we're just supposed to be impressed by your unctuous ability to whistle past the graveyard, stay wedded to the tediously prosaic, or pretend you're the captain of your own intellectual ship.  What foul beast actually has its hand on your tiller, Sir? 


Moreover, it seems to me that such an outlook does not have to take responsibility for coming to grips with the vetted sciences suggested by the conjectured wholly other, the thousands of quality anecdotal reports regarding same, the thousands of physical trace cases, the thousands of vetted photos and movies, a Human history rich with ufological reference, the recorded impressions from the Brahmans of antiquity in pigment, soot, and stone... ...or the personal experience with this paranormal and cloying *other* that thousands of your listeners have likely had. You think these people were solaced or otherwise impressed with your smug conceit? I know_ I_ wasn't.     

KIMBALL:  Skeptics are never bothered at the prospect of ET - as I've said before, Phil Klass would have been the first person to shake ET's hand, should he have met him in his back yard (er... assuming ET was friendly).


LEHM:  Another knee slapper!  How do you do it?  Philip Klass (and a gleeful pox on his scurvy memory) would be the first to shake an alien hand...!?! ...the same way the Captains of industry, Government toadies, and Institutional fat-cats would be glad to aggressively investigate UFOs... that is to say... not at all.  Changing the conditions for the status quo is not remotely in their pecuniary interest to do so, Mr. Kimball, and there are ready examples of same all through the history you would have us believe you've mastered, Sir.


C'mon Skipper!  These sociopathic multinationals have been Sturrocked, Hyneked, McDonalded, and Friedmaned!  It's ludicrous to think they don't know the score and don't stridently IGNORE same because they understand only too well...  


I suspect Philip Klass was psychologically, constitutionally, intellectually, and inordinately incapable of performing in the manner that you suggest, Sir.  And better men and women than you and I combined could instruct you in that, I'm certain.  Ask "Fun-at-parties" Uncle Stan," boyo!  

KIMBALL:  No, the people who are bothered are not the skeptics, but rather those who can't come to grips with the possibility that we may indeed "alone".


LEHM:  You've just never looked into a night sky, remotely considered the preponderance of space and time and surface area involved for a scintilla of a moment have you!  And you're a bright guy, ostensibly, seeming incapable yourself of appreciating that the veritable proof of existence for an *other* lies in our own existence.  We are the proof of concept, ourselves, and if you want to continue to pretend in the vanishingly small possibility that we are essentially the first, last, and only...always... ...I don't hesitate to point out to you that that is just a continuance of your pompous sophistry, itinerate arrogance, portentous deniability, and glib insentience. Seriously -- poke a sock in it, and just crank out another big 10 list...


KIMBALL:  Who are they? Some of the people who believe that ET is out there, and that he / she has come here.

KIMBALL:  Not folks like Stan Friedman, who, if you could prove to him that there was no life in the universe besides ours would probably just shrug and say something like, "Hmph... well, I guess we better get our act together down here then."


LEHM:  I suspect that you are overdrawn at the credibility bank of an impertinence endured to speak for Stanton Friedman, Mr. Kimball... at home and abroad.  Let's see how that shakes down as the days and months wear on, eh?


KIMBALL:  Stan champions the ETH not because he wants or needs to believe in aliens, but because he's looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that aliens exist. I think that his conclusion is premature, but I respect the way he came to it.


LEHM:  Still -- after 40 plus years he is able only to re-enforce the conclusions you dismiss with such unconcealed and unlearned impudence as "premature."  This has your garden-party guest just staring down into their plates aghast at your obtuse and indolent audacity. The embarrassment felt for you is palpable I suspect.  I feel it.

KIMBALL:  No, the people who would have trouble if we really are "alone" are the ones who have pinned their hopes and dreams for a better world on the intervention of extraterrestrials.


LEHM:  Oh crap! _That_ tired canard. A card carrier for the ball-lightening and sleep-paralysis crowd, too, I'm betting.  That sentiment doesn't float a bath-tub water toy anymore besides demonstrating a senseless inability to perceive governments we can no longer trust, churches we can no longer believe, institutions we can no longer endure, and agencies we can no longer countenance.  This red herring of yours is getting especially tedious.


KIMBALL:  In this respect, they are no different than religious types who count the days until the return of God (in whatever form), so that He can save us from ourselves.


LEHM:  No!  We are quite a BIT different from these religious types (that you stealthily champion and make allowances for, by the way).  Moreover, you are that, yourself, which you would decry here.  I submit you draw the same swill from your own infected hubris too willing to fondly contemplate our alleged uniqueness in a universe vaster than you CAN imagine, to paraphrase Haldane, and beyond the limits of your courage to entertain, anyway, apparently... astonishingly like the intellectually stunted Philip Klass mentioned earlier.

KIMBALL:  They look to the sky (literally for the die-hard ET believers, figuratively for the religious types) for salvation from a world that they see as gone mad (usually for different reasons).


LEHM:  And the world has not gone mad, Mr. Kimball, provoked by an official denial of the obvious that you so gleefully suck up to?  Is that what you would imply here? Everything continues to track the remotest sanity?


What world are you living in? 


I suggest you've lived a cloistered life, Sir, and do anyone who listens to your porcine intellectual flatulence a palpable disservice.  Consideration of the obvious and wholly other and the alleged  worship of same may be what you would feel compelled to do given an actuality proven... even to yourself... but I can accept that these concepts can remain mutually exclusive.  Is one required to worship the superior?  I suspect you think so.  Does a cat worship a human? 

KIMBALL:  They eagerly await the "other" to solve their problems here on Earth, and lead us to a better future.


LEHM:  You better hope something does Mr. Kimball.  The situation is getting pretty dire.  If you can't see that you better switch thumbs.

KIMBALL:  They may be in for a rude awakening (which was, I think, the general thrust of the notorious "Klass curse") - or not. Who knows?


LEHM:  Mourn not for whom the bell tolls Mr. Kimball, better to consider the foul beast presently slouching off to Bethlehem to be born, and that that bell tolls for you.

KIMBALL:  What I do know is that if ET does exist, and we find it, either here or "there", the skeptics will have little trouble adjusting their worldview accordingly. We're ready for it - most even hope it's true.


LEHM:  Claptrap & Nonsense, Sir.  It is the exact and polar opposite of what you say here.  Just WHO the hell would you pretend to lecture?  You proclaim a lousy measure of tanked BAT SQUEEZE with the preceding, and you know it!  Seriously, change thumbs!

KIMBALL:  So, when the true believers toss out the red herring that skeptics are afraid of the "other", don't believe them for a second.


LEHM:  No, not for a second... ...for all seconds.  At last we can agree.

The fear is really coming from them, caused by the nagging concern - perhaps conscious, perhaps not - that we may really be "alone", and that we may actually have to solve our problems the old fashioned way, i.e. by ourselves.


LEHM:  Yes... go back to sleep, reader!  Trust your governments!  Believe your churches.  Embrace your institutions!  Countenance your agencies... ...go to sleep ... go to sleep...

KIMBALL:  In short, the problem isn't that skeptics don't want to believe in ET , but that the believers don't want to believe in humanity.


LEHM:  ROFL!  It is you, Sir, short-sheeting humanity and short-changing same with reliance on the hubris of an elitist's sensibility already tired last century!  Skeptics are terrified of ET because it questions the position of their personal jewel in their creation's crown.  The so called *believer* you malign, so artlessly, is only willing to look beyond the limits of the box you would stuff him into and bravely embraces what he discovers in the extension, out of your cloying box!  What a bleak and colorless, narrow field and depthless, or dimensionless reality you would prescribe for the rest of us.


  I reject it, and you, Sir.

KIMBALL:  Which means that unless ET lands on the White House lawn, they really are "lonesome tonight", whether they realize it or not.


LEHM:  ...And with damn good reason, abundant provocation, and plentiful encouragement from the patent and ongoing if clever and sophisticated denial of you and yours, Mr. Kimball...


..."It and you, Sir," remembering you have paid the required if irrelevant courtesy and that it has been and continues to be appreciated... ...such as it is.  I'm sure you're a hell of a guy to pound down a couple of beers with, still... I suspect there should be no broccoli served at the meal we share, and that I should keep one hand on my wallet and the other over my anal pore... so to speak and in gross and hyperbolic analogy. 


I remain decidedly askance and inarguably akimbo, forgetting I feel provoked into ready opposition.  You are the self-selected personification, as I've written before, of what I find so tediously tiresome in my fellow human beings, and I have to tilt at you because it's the law.  No apologies.



Vapid... Insipid... Prosaic?



Paul Kimball on C2C with G. Noory 23 May 06

Paul Kimball gives good radio. Very calm, ostensibly focused, apparently knowledgeable, very reasoned and reasonable sounding, seemingly inclusive of different approaches and outlooks... I'm not so easily fooled and remain, decidedly, askance and akimbo in his regard.

...But a bravura performance even if it was a canted axe grinding.  A minimalist's appeal for authoritarian concepts psychologically extreme? See, as one is advised to read between the lines with Mr. Kimball, it might be prudent to try to hear between them as well. My impressions as I listened:

Immanently facilitating and congratulatory throughout, Mr. Noory introduces Mr. Kimball to the world stage, again:

On Hellyer -- ...Kimball mischaracterized Hellyer's involvement with Corso and made not the remotest mention of the Peter Jennings special... ...which piqued Hellyer's interest to begin with, or reported the witnessed corroborations of an unnamed Senior Officer validating Corso (and more), securing that interest in Corso to start.  Kimball conveniently suggests a provenance with Corso that was simply not there.

Kimball further characterized any political contribution that Hellyer may have made by referring to it as "checkered"... inferring thinly to the uninformed listener that Hellyer's service was, at times, less than completely honorable or sane... when it was entirely honorable, and sane, at all times. Kimball is ideological cant at it's very best.

Moreover, In Hellyer's regard Kimball pronounces on Defense interests he is not remotely competent to pronounce upon.  Different military services have a lot of expensive overlaps and petty rivalries that just go away when you combine them into a single force.  Hellyer cannot be criminalized for attempting to use good sociological sense.  Bang another drum Mr. Kimball.

Also during this segment Kimball communicated broad assumptions with regard to authorities who would be
ever so gladly interested in studying UFOs... ...if they were just given "credible evidence" to do so... ...when they have had in their possession abundant evidence for same... ?...and have done nothing with it in 60 freaking years! I smell Kool-aid.

Kimball complains that mainstream science, academia, and industry would have a copious interest in UFOs given evidence of which Mr. Kimball approves... ...when all that Mr. Kimball has ever done so far is to produce work in investigation that he later poorly self-debunks... he debunks others ...perhaps encouraging the uninformed listener that there seems nothing at all to a highly strange phenomenon (he further dismisses as extraterrestrial)... ...that is otherwise well fleshed out by:

(a) dozens of named research scientists living and dead


(b) thousands of years of documented history


(c) in thousands of vetted photographs and movies


(d) by thousands of quality anecdotal reports from commercial/military pilots, priests, and policemen et sig al


(e) in thousands of physical trace cases ... ... scratched in old ink, colored pigments, and soot on cave walls for thousands of years?

Does Mr. Kimball take the listener for an idiot... or is he crippled with a naiveté so pervasively portrayed and cluelessly deployed that it is scarcely to be believed? There seems no third choice.

On Friedman -- Majestic 12, Roswell, Wilbert Smith, the cosmic Watergate or "the conspiracy of needless silence"... ...all bunk, but Friedman himself is a good uncle and a "fun guy to be around..." ...Blithely and with senseless bias deconstructing much, about which, Stanton Friedman can be so conclusive, could Mr. Kimball have damned Mr. Friedman with fainter praise? I think not.

Additionally? I don't think more disrespect has ever been paid to coattails ridden in on. ...Good chums? I demand from and pay more respect to... chums.

"Someone spewing bunk deserves to be debunked," Mr. Kimball righteously intones... I heartily agree. Moreover, proving something to Mr. Kimball's satisfaction is not the satisfying proof Mr. Kimball would have it be, I fear...

On Condign -- Characterized American ufologists as knee-jerk reactionaries when compelled by known debunkers to react to the re-imposition of such a revolting canard as plasma and ball lightening for an explanation of UFOs... ...when the concept has been abundantly discredited so well and often that even Philip Klass stopped banging his fecal drum in its regard.

Moreover, Mr. Kimball is not concerned that the second most powerful nation on the planet investigated UFOs and discounted, again, any attribution that it was a result of the activity of some kind of *other*... but that it is entirely a function of natural (not uncomfortable) processes we've yet to fully understand, as yet... Yes, thank you... you’ve been very helpful.

Please review (a) through (e) above. Plainly... there can be very little of this aforementioned evidence that can remotely be subscribed to *natural* phenomena, whatever that turns out to be.

Fond of proclaiming where others have missed points, Kimball's "big story" in Condign’s regard, reader, *is not* that UFOs are being investigated at all by a major authority (his contention... forgetting they are dismissive in UFOs regard).  No, he misses the point, himself, again.


The *big story* is that the major authorities continue to  shine the public on about the greatest story NEVER told, treating us like disrespected children in that story's regard, and that another bucket of duplicitous water is poured on a valid ufological fire smoldering and almost breaking into flame, still.

There's the *story* on a fatuous, insipid, and un-brave Condign Report.  ...And a pox on you, Andy Roberts, smirking and rubbing your clammy hands in senseless glee in the scurrilous activity of sticking it out there.

"Opportunities are missed," Mr. Kimball, not because they're NOT being taken advantage of... ...but because they WON'T be taken advantage of. The difference is not subtle.

On UFOs -- Mr. Kimball rests the provenance of his interest in UFOs entirely at the feet of Stanton Friedman. This seems a little odd given his testimony above and forgetting how we're frequently reminded how closely Friedman and Kimball are associated... ...given "close" family ties (Kimball is a distant nephew by marriage). 


Perhaps Mr. Kimball wishes to roll from the tree with a kick. Too bad Friedman loses a little bit of bark in the thrust away.  Pity.

Still, Kimball is uncomfortable with the term "UFO" and prefers instead, UAP, or unidentified aerial phenomena. UFO, you see, infers something might actually BE there, whereas UAP refers to something that may not have to be there at all, could be attributed to something more comfortable _if_ there (swamp gasses or glowing plasmas?), but likely something without a worrisome intelligence Mr. Kimball finds so threatening to his cloistered world view and inflated sense of self... I surmise...

Mr. Kimball continues to scatter, and so, dilute the ufological impetus he maintains is worthy of at least distracted scientific/journalistic study... ...through temporal, dimensional, psychological, or other paranormal explanations (a plethora!). The extraterrestrial explanation is, again, singled out for mild ridicule and dismissal, made an unlikely, even if possible, last choice for consideration (...just to be balanced, you know?). What's Mr. Kimball so afraid of?

On Wilbert Smith -- Mr. Kimball believes that intellectual high rollers in key positions of government and industry who leave those positions honorably no longer have influence nor affect on those who had employed them... Dr.V. Bush could not have been tapped for use in a subsequent position, even one as dodgy as MJ12, for this reason... ...because he was... "...out of it."

Nonsense. I can see where someone as capable and as smart Dr. Bush was would be on the short list of persons to head up just such an operation. Kimball's take is ludicrous... Bush was a fine choice. Even if there were problems between Bush and Truman... better the devil you know, eh? "...Wouldn't have happened"? "...Couldn't have happened"?


Mr. Kimball overstates his poor case? I suspect so.

Given the preceding rather fatuous buffoonery... Wilbert Smith is discredited because he names V. Bush as a member of the MJ12 panel, and by extension, MJ12 is discredited? This is beginning to resemble an Ouroborosian romp. Argumentative snakes feasting on their own errant tails.

No, Mr. Kimball approaches his own concrescence, or how much of his own tail will he be able to get down before he gags.  Moreover, folks who aren't seeing the wisdom in Kimball's glib rational aren't reading the right blogs... ...Kimball's for instance. That's what the man said. And there was very little humor in the expression, Folks. Mr. Kimball wasn't trying to be funny, you see. I think he was serious. What cheeky impudence.

Kimball's first UFO story? A stylized vignette of pre-1947 reports stealthily dismissed as aurora borealis, religious fervor, and dirigibles to the distracted listener. Does anyone else see a trend here?

Father Gill, a well known case with many witnesses as reported by an honorable man, is perhaps "not a great case", if compelling, but as it was ...just a report by a rural preacher and his flock in a third world location... perhaps nothing to get excited about, all grist for the ufological mill as long as it's all grind and no bread-making? I paraphrase.

No worries here mate.  UFOs are at more than an arm's length, all is right in the world, we still crown nature's glory. We are still the favorite of God. We are still alone in our little cosmic backwater. We are still in control.

So ends the first segment...

On the theme of "are we alone in the universe"? -- Mr. Kimball went on *humorously*, if in a protracted manner, about ice hockey and how important the Stanley Cup was to him personally... hmmm.

This is likely predictable, but I was appalled, and if we were at dinner and Mr. Kimball to held forth in a similar manner regarding the question? I'd be sitting with my hands in my lap staring at my plate.

Abduction? Impossibly *Rare* if it happens at all? Right...

Are we alone? No. Somewhere... just not here. Another intelligence is; however, unlikely.  But life, of course... ...just not here, oh please god... not here.

Mr. Kimball managed to sound self-assured and supremely confident while he intimated same. To answer Noorey’s very specific question, though? Yes! We are essentially alone! Remember. There's no UFOs, no Roswell, no MJ-12, no abductions, or so much as one really credible anecdotal report, which is all a happy result of being *alone*, don’t you know? Don't you see?

Ouroboros writhes as he swallows.

...But by all means let's follow George W. Bush on to Mars... there's our human spirit in action! Nothin' wrong with George! We can count on _him_ to be on the level!

Back on UFOs... information is withheld by benevolent, well meaning, and uncorrupted governments concerned about national security and embarrassed that they don't know more about UFOs... that they could better serve the public they represent. Good god but Mr. Kimball's favorite drink must be Kool-aid!

No cover-ups folks, none but for their own general incompetence. You know. That lot that Mr. Kimball puts his faith in, and which he considers such a benign entity? No cover-ups, folks, at all... ...but the occasional cover-up.  WTF?

...But wait! What about UFOs (I’m sorry, UAPs!) being neither here nor there... or even near to *there*? Seems Mr. Kimball himself has lost track of the bean beneath the shells he is sliding around... nes't ce pas?

...But that's all OK, proud science, the universal *arbiter* discipline before which all the rest of reality is laid for examination and assessment...?... This infallible intellectual edifice is bamboozled by flakes and charlatans from an accurate perception of UFOs and it is that which stands in the way of an investigation or disclosure. Damn those pesky *flakes* and *charlatans*, eh?

On J. Vallee -- ...Was bullied from ufology by the ee-vill ETH people... LOL! ...and tell me, Mr. Kimball... of what possible use or interest or even generation could an "Invisible College" be, given that mainstream science Vallee could "retreat to" with which to investigate UFOs without professional trepidation... ...anytime they'd read your blog so they knew where the real, *real* evidence was? LOL!

Ouroboros begins to gag. I think so.

Condon (Condon Report) is celebrated as a watershed event not entirely negative in characterization. An honest effort by officialdom even if they were predisposed to discount UFOs at the start... even if they did get it so suspiciously and inexplicably wrong?

Condon.  A landed report chilling all ufological study all over the planet... ...compared to a much more balanced Sturrock Report later on indicating UFOs needed to be aggressively studied for the possible benefits that could be derived... ...getting no play at all and barely seeing the light of day? What's the elected and non-elected leadership so scared of?

[I'm] lost already to Mr. Kimball only because I can no longer trust government, believe the church, have faith in my institutions, or the remotest confidence in the integrity of these things because I am many times bitten now and so must be, exponentially, shy? Mr. Kimball writes [me] off when it's him huffing the societal Kool-aide? His gall is equally appalling.

On Friedman as a Roswell promoter -- ... an "accurate use of the term" and "in-it-for-the-bucks is just one way to look at it." Extant? The smear doesn't have to be taken in the pejorative manner that it is...? Excuse me?

Maybe Kimball  didn't see Jennings' lip damn near curl when he ignorantly curried that thoughtless appellation on one of the finest men of our time... ...*fun guy* indeed! In dueling times I'd had to have my second get in touch with his second. ...Certainly leave my glove in his face.

That was entirely uncalled for! Where's Jennings' outrage for the known excesses of named others before he cluelessly curls his lip at Stanton Friedman!

Still pals with Stan? "Pals"? Humfph! I suspect Mr. Kimball does not perceive a difference between a pal and a shoulder (or a face?) on which to stand.

Philip Klass as a Top ten uflogist? He performed "valuable services" when the action of this scurvy dog campaigned to hold up the study of UFOs for over 40 years?

How could you be so deliberately obtuse, Mr. Kimball?

Oh... and there's likely nothing to cattle mutilations either folks... at best the impression with which the listener was left... and the premier researcher on same didn't meet with Kimball I'm betting because she would refuse to.

That's enough...

Sincerely, any semblance to a balanced approach and the very glib explication of Paul Kimball is a crafted illusion. Mr. Kimball is a canted apologist for debunker-ism, in the opinion or this writer, hostile to the merest suggestion of the wholly other (...whatever its provenance in a space, time, and surface area continuum grander than Kimball can ever know...) because he can't get past a worried if inordinately homocentric conceit of anthropomorphism. He's reluctant to consider that we don't captain every aspect of our lives on our own recognizance as an autonomous species. He's apprehensive that rather than being the measure of all things? He may only be a poor measurer of some things... ...too filled with a science and philosophy only minutes old on the cosmic clock, and an uneasy pander to a duplicitous mainstream his only support.

...And a Kool-aid drinker. We can’t forget that.

That's fair... and hails from the *other side of the truth*, too, I'm betting. why, he left all the room in the world for religious fundamentalists who speak in canned memes of neo-religious ignorance and practice hatred as a lifestyle, but called the ETHer "brown" and would run him out of "town," along with Exopolitics and significant others if he had his way.

A little scary...

No, the uninformed listener who just tuned in as a result of some small distracted interest found between holding down a job with no health care, and talking care of a family fearful of the future (forgetting the nearing 1 in a hundred chance of being in jail in these United States?) was that there was no need to get at all excited regarding his UAPs.

Paul Kimball? A glibly canted *there*, there.  Beware.  Call him Darth.


Eschewing Space Time & Surface Area?



"More on UFOs as Folklore"

...A remarkablely tedious effort of tedious tediousness, even for them, and as intellectually inane, pathetically prosaic, and anally assumptive as it is painful to the eye. But, maybe that's just me...


"On reading my recent posting on UFOs as modern folklore, excitable ufologist Stuart Miller, instead of attaching a comment to it, posted it to UFO UpDates, adding his own somewhat hyperbolic comments. This produced the expected hysterical response, which fully confirms the truth of my comments in my previous posting.

When Christopher Allan sent a posting generally supporting my approach to the subject, he was challenged by Don Ledger to explain a UFO report which was an Airmiss report from an aircraft near Manchester Airport in January 1995. I wrote in pointing out that this had been explained years ago by Jenny Randles as a meteor. This was not acceptable to Ledger, who wrote: "It doesn't really matter what Jenny says She's no expert in this area. She really should stay out of air cases."
Some people don't want explanations; they will accept nothing less than the space aliens and their saucers.

Many thanks to those of you who added your comments on this topic."


"Some people don't want explanations; they will accept nothing less than..." ...even the forced prosaic and "safest of stolid sciences" and so eschew the oldest books, the deepest oceans, the widest expanses of space, time, and surface area extant, realities begging brave examination as all the graph-lines measured by that less than sentient science go vertical into hyperspace.

As Paul Kimball recently and presciently wrote... "...time to move on into the 21st Century." The aforementioned graph-lines do seem to suggest a concrescence of 'singularity' quickly approaching... better we try to grok it while we can?

It compels more attention, I suspect, than is provided for by an irrelevant and outmoded status quo typified by the bolded above.



<click>     AGED PITH

Support AVGroup