-- News that shows you something...
|Return to Alien View||
Respect my authori-tai...?
...Myself, when it comes to it, and I say that with some regret, reader.
If it could be perceived that a defender didn't have a "dog in
the hunt"... like I might seem to ... then that defense could be perceived
as a little more credible...? Regardless ...it remains that my defense would
be forthcoming even if obligatory canines were not so employed, and
they are not!
Verily, reader, I've never had that kind of dog.
If you want to be a journalist, Sir and Madam? You have to ask the tough questions... Jeff Rense is all that, in spades, in the considered opinion of ~this~ unabashedly liberal and progressive writer.
Kimball, on the other hand, with regard to Jeff Rense himself, ufological
subjects, and a clarity of purpose regarding same... ? ...has shown only a
remarkable inconsistency in the opinion of this writer. Verily,
perhaps a Kimball "watch" is warranted, too.
Most of that produce won't be
making it to Jeff's table. The left smears him as
rightist; the right as a leftist...
Why... that smells, just a bit, like balance... doesn't it?
folks are comfortable reading some pretty repellent stuff that Mr. Kimball
doesn't seem to have a problem with... ... read Michael Weiner or Rush
Limbaugh or Neil Boortz... ...but if I've said it once, I've said it ten
thousand times. Better the devil you "know" than the one others decide
you shouldn't read about...
No, reader, presently?
It's a hijacked mainstream without responsibility...
purveyor lies of omission, commission, and truth's attrition.
Yes. You see, Paul Kimball would have us all believe that
Jeff Rense, himself, is an anti-Semite...a credulous
believer in what he publishes! This is regarding a very debatable
anti-Semitic cant, and that Rense purports the validity of this *activity*
among other bigoted and violently extreme attitudes regarding...
sexuality, "fringe" political movements, and rights
issues et al.
That ~is~ Ironic with the big "I", eh reader?
contention, quickly, regards Judaism, the flawed grandfather, still
demonstrating a clear institutional superiority over a much more
flawed Christianity and Islam... son and grandson respectively. No
apologies... those were my findings.
suspect it's not ~my~ paper revolting him in any way. But I don't
know, folks ... he doesn't say.
times, you won't read it anywhere else. Soon, perhaps, you won't be able to
read it, at all, anywhere.
must have at least suspected the above to be true, reader. I suspect, and am
of the opinion that it is very true.
No one is above the law. No thing
is beyond examination... ...A Jew will be the very first to
I hold him in my
~highest~ regard... though that does not have to mean a damn thing to you...
that's just the way it is. I'm not alone.
...Who looked for whom and why?
...Not because I say so, but because YOU say not so...
...Coin Of The Realm...
One can be fatuously castigated for even politely pointing out where they were misrepresented, anymore.
One can be beset by nebulous and anonymous net-weasels for pointing out that their inconstant naked emperor opens an un-believable-ly credulous mouth, inserts a jammy six-toed foot... ...and then echoes the resultant infidelity all over the known universe... ...gladly and giddily if gracelessly and portentously .
One can become a piqued focus of inconsistent and shallow-draft juice-suckers for identifying the absence of consistency and the mistrust this should generate.
The loop of insensible restriction closes even further on our doomed sensibilities, sensible creativities, and accurate self-appraisals with regard to UFOs, the persons interested in them, and the persons interested in those persons. ...The latter a pretty scurrilous lot as scurrilous lots go.
What's at issue?
When it's all said and done? The issue is a personal intellectual comfort level and well, if too conveniently drawn, borders barricading same. At any cost.
Challenge their untested faiths with regard to the uncontested supremacy of human sensibility... that they are the clear favorite of a too often re-interpreted and so invented god... that their science is imperfect, and that their very necessary unique isolation is secure in a universe too big to travel in, for anybody, and so too big to notice or take seriously... challenge these cowardly and untested faiths? You bet! It's like spittin' in their post toasties...
...Too bad for them. It won't be me to validate this faith, or have the remotest respect for it.
You don't believe in UFOs? Don't! Don't believe IN anything! But believe this:
UFOs and their astonishing ancillaries are as real as ripe apples falling from trees. Get used to it. It's the future.
Yes... ...go along with me here a moment.
...Pick a star, any star, any _one_ star... ...maybe even one you can barely see. That now isolated star stands in the foreground, see, and so then _hides_ the space directly behind it. Right?
Ok -- make the
Reader? You are seeing millions of ...galaxies... _themselves_ composed of millions of stars! Take a moment to get all that in...
getting the scale of how much confronts us out there... How much space...
how much time... how much surface area stands revealed to you at last?
Behind that sand
grain is... ...forever? Damn near!
...Can you dig
Y O U!
D I G!
Out of the play-pen is always better, even if we burn ourselves on a kitchen stove, or cut ourselves on a tool in Dad's shop... The novelty will beat anything we had in a cloistered little pen insisted upon by the cowardly comfortable and philosophically inconstant, and we will thrive in future's embrace. We always have!
Seriously, sincerely, and honestly, reader. Increasingly valuable coinage in this time of convenient inconstancy, gleeful infidelity, and complacent inconsistency practiced by some. You know you are... right boyz?
Buyer beware, truly.
FLOWERS FOR ALGER-EMPIE
You said "disgusted" ... a word you used describing something you'd abused... but going so far up your nose it rolls you up upon your toes! Whine and cry to Mr. PeeKers but don't remove your smelly sneakers. Don't get comfy, warm, or cozy ... as you are done if you get nosy.
It's not the "jib" disgusts me so, it's blowing bubbles with your nose. Lacking will for heavy lifting, Empie follows those more interesting, mocks and sneers what he most fears ... pretending... he's not in arrears.
His neck stretched out, just like a cat, accepting Mr. PeeKers pat (...Mr. PeeKers firms his base, but not without some small distaste?) ...then bemoans a righteous treatment like it's not a just impeachment!
It's him that "doth protest too much," self-loathing fear is just a crutch. And he is damn near quadriplegic! His mocking prose his analgesic. He propounds his own stark failure to build beyond a hasty cloture...
Empers is a mocking sneerer, a non-brave putz and charmless leerer... allied bunkies thinking that... they've cracked the code of where it's at! Baseless hubris is the oil for homocentric faith-based boils choking off all artistry... so dogmatic in its sophistry?
These consider Phillip Klass an "Elder Statesman" ... Not an ASS, and follow in his moldy footsteps... a coward's coven clutch of must-fits! These vilify creatively as padding for their callused knees, then worship mainstreams hijacked by... the status quo they must so prize.
They're beneath my stern contempt because they sneer. I am verklempt. Their putrefaction's unconcerned with what they have not even learned, a reflex smirk replaces that which elevates their souls from scat!
Without the woo-woos fueling them? These fulsome freepers are shallow men. They have no subject, cause or purpose... are merely hapless fearful lurkers. Monkeys laughing at the men who look beyond themselves, good friend. ...Mere followers without the sense to think outside the box or fence... ...test convention, examine faith... allow a voice to what we hate ... discover the forbidden index... ...facilitating change... ...extend us?
Don't you dare to whine at me... that you're not worth a hearing, see? You're a shill for glad derision, a mechanism of its imposition. You think you have some right to sneer, AND RIGHT YOU ARE, but pause your cheer! I've a right to sneer right back and show the world your foibles, Jack! You are not yourself immune to snickers, smirks, and giggles, dude.
You want to have a 'public' hearing ("...I'll be your huckleberry, dearie...")? Say my name with disrespect and I'll presume you lack respect. ...And take it, then, upon myself to show you where you wrong yourself...
...Form a posse, or a guild... light a torchy lynch-mob, Phil! Gather *friends* around our *town* and humble me... please, bring me down! I can't pay for better feedback! While, your victory couldn't be more pyrrhic. It's you and yours without a sack... it's you and yours who fade to black... it's you and yours who's bringing knives (I wrote before) to gunfights, Clyde!
Stuff your phony mad traditions, don't argue your conventional wisdoms. Don't pretend you're *balanced* friend. You're canted bias, I contend, is based upon a graceless pander to that which gravies just one gander! There is more to Earth and hell than that which you'd ALLOW, my bell. You're a formless fearful smear who has no function but to sneer.
...and you don't even do that very well?
On reflection disgust was ~exactly~ the right word, and I'm always a little worried about a person who speaks of themselves in the third person... one might look into that.
Poke me with a stick or thumb? ...And see you don't pull back a nub...
"...Here's the hilarious part (he's had such a long career, with so
many mistakes and outright goofiness, that there's so much to mock - but
this is my favourite) - in his convention speech, he chastised the Tories
for not being right-wing enough! He said they were not true conservatives!!
[Pause for further laughter]
[Pause for further laughter]
[Pause for further laughter]
[ _ ]
....From Paul Kimball's Blog of 'inspiring' explications:
CheezyPoops & Chicken Skins
Right, I don't kick cripples... but I'll make an exception for Eric Cartman. Eric Cartman the defacto Rovian "boy genius" behind Paul Kimball... who, disguised as a mild-mannered dilettante filmmaker and nascent neo-ufologist, fights a never-ending battle for half-truth, canted justice and the Kimballian way...
Look, in the sky! It's a bird; It's a bolide; its a rocket booster... no... it's...
Back to Eric... he simply cannot be depended upon to give a non-canted assessment regarding something he really knows very little about, is ideologically incapable of processing said subject successfully anyway, and is hopelessly politically compromised or constipated in it's regard...besides.
A partisan, is a partisan, is a partisan... and by any other name... just sucks pond water...
At issue? Old liberal (booo, hisss!) politico Paul Hellyer's speech in Canada last Sunday at the UFO / Exopolitics conference in Toronto...
Well -- I heard the speech. Eric and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the contents. We shall diverge, substantially on how much it "thudded," or was even required to "thud."
You see, taken through Eric Cartman's dark glass and biased filter of right-wing paranoia and sociological bigotry, Paul Hellyer is an aging if pompous loon with a fond desire to re-achieve the spotlight, is obliquely unmindful of the company he keeps... and is an inconstant man who has insisted on laying with dogs, and so must, of needs ladies and gentlemen, have come up with a dog's vermin and fleas.
...Salla, Webre, and Corso... oh my!
Auntie M! Auntie M!
"Save me from those who mistrust unrepentant psychopaths, please"!
Cartman spins an entire series of talking-point articles in a strident if tedious campaign so furious in intensity and passionate in explication that it causes persons other than myself to suggest that Eric's campaign is indeed fascist... if you can believe it...
Now Eric Cartman, psychopathia's poster-boy, is decidedly fascistic, is an open admirer of Adolph Hitler, and has provoked anti-Semitic disturbances in his small town of South Park... so this is not surprising. The jury is still out on Paul Kimball, praise our Intelligent Designer, forgetting the anecdote earlier about dogs getting up with fleas. Cartman is a walking infestation of the most revolting vermin...
I could have been just as tedious as Eric and taken his entire assessment, hideously unbalanced as it was, to task... line for line, point for point, and idea for idea... but I have a blog to write, you know... and there are some Mike Malloy re-runs I want to get caught up on...
A complete rebuttal addressing every point of Cartman's florid screed would go on forever, seemingly, and test the patience of the most interested reader... ...when one point can be addressed successfully and so then, by proxy, serve handily to demolish them all.
I picked one at random...
To start, Eric Cartman can't attack the man on anything but patent distortions of the facts, so he goes characteristically south of the belt for the irrelevant bumpy bits and messily insults the man's character and reputation. The major concern apart from UFOs? In a long political career Paul Hellyer could demonstrate that he had an empathetic intelligence and a sterling conscience... where Eric Cartman can readily be shown to be bereft of same.
Hellyer is "hilarious," "goofy," and "easy to MOCK." In fact, Cartman takes such delight in said Mocking (Cartman is eight years old remember...) that he is beside himself with glee trying to winnow out a choice for his most "favourite" (sic) example of goofiness... an example to mockingly share with the readership. I would have said that the excitement Cartman displayed was almost sexual in its intensity but, Cartman is only eight as I said...
...Likely needing a tissue after? ...Choose one, he did.
Hellyer is inconsistent, unintelligent, and without credibility because he is a liberal (...booo, hisss!) accusing a conservative (...cheers and applause!) of not being conservative enough... in other words Hellyer said they were not acting as true conservatives... but, perhaps, aping reactionary neo-cons prosecuting non-sapience and injecting their crippled arrogance into society from our bedrooms to our boardrooms?
Cartman's dim-bulb take might make some sense in an Eric Cartman binary universe where a liberal (...booo, hisss!) would never tell a conservative (...cheers and applause!) that they needed to be more conservative... oh no... they could only wish conservatives to be less conservative... more liberal? ...Like themselves?
See reader... this is the way neo-cons process their dodgy mal-cognition.
A more mature view? A more balanced and informed take on Mr. Hellyer? One could see Mr. Hellyer's Cartman-confusing statement, or admonition regarding conservatives... ... to mean that conservatives should try to recapture their traditional conservative values of frugality and respect for individuality... and retreat, wholesale and with all deliberate speed, from the Christo-fascist, tyrannous, hideously hypocritical , and egregiously authoritarianistic sociopathy ... it has been trying to steer towards for two decades and horrifically achieved... ... and which is anything BUT true conservatism!
I didn't hear the speech referred to above, and don't know it from bunny pants or a box of Cartman's CheezyPoops... but I'd put a fiver down that's what Hellyer was actually on about. To the rational, nothing else makes sense.
To suggest otherwise may reflect a disrespecting duplicity... disrespecting who? Why... that would be you, good reader!
Verily, according to Cartman, in days of spoiling hype preceding the Toronto conference... Hellyer was a raving loon, conceivably insane, and a near foaming-at-the-mouth but moon-wailing lunatic!
Well -- I heard the speech, and not so, reader. Not so! Cartman put past all caution, drove HARD to illegitimately fatuous hyperbole, and created his poisoned assessment from whole cloth, cherry-picked cant, and dissembling nonsense, imo.
What did Hellyer say to provide such a stream of unending double exclamation from the poison pen of Eric Cartman? What would disturb the rabid little neo-con so?
It is this:
Hellyer is an intelligent and high profile person who sees a surprising light coming from a ufological tunnel and wants to establish a meaningful dialogue in its regard...
Hellyer believes there must be a new politics with regard to UFOs because the future is going to be about the "stepping off bravely" in the direction of new worlds and away from the inbred political policies of the past.
...all is truly lost!
Hellyer questions the wisdom of treating an unknown reflexively as an enemy and trying to shoot them down or make war upon them.
...Is Hellyer *sweet*, too?
Hellyer believes UFOs are as real as Piper-Cubs over our heads and that a forthright dialogue and discourse at the highest level in their regard is required.
...somebody get a net!
Hellyer believes going back to the moon to militarize space is a waste of money and material.
...Liberal and a Luddite too...
Hellyer belives that humankind is likely not the center of the universe, nor is it the jewel in the crown of God's creation. His suspicion, conversely, is that we may be the quarantined black sheep in this section of the galaxy.
Why does Hellyer hate Humanity?
Hellyer believes the current occupant of the Whitehouse, a bull neo-con of the first water and a favorite of Cartman, cannot read or think!
Why does Hellyer hate America?
Hellyer believes that a fact of UFOs may be the most important problem we face as a human species.
...Hurry up with that net!
Hellyer believes, like every good liberal (...booo, hisss!) that good people are not threatened by aliens as much as they are threatened by a current Neo-conic paradigm of Power Centered Madness!
No reader, far from being the disintegrating lunatic that Cartman hoots and giggles at, Hellyer demonstrates a calm humility of which Eric Cartman is and has always been, I suspect, completely incapable...
It is neo-conic politics, its corroded hubris, and a resultant reflexive partisanship that floats Cartman's shallow-draft little boat about Hellyer, reader, not the thoughtful conscience and reflective humility of same.
No, it is not good science driving Cartman's campaign to discredit the efforts of someone like Paul Hellyer. It is bad politics!
Game, set, and match, reader, it is not required that the interested go any further than that, is the humble submission of this writer...
Perhaps? Instead of pausing for further laughter and appending double exclamation points to dodgy talking points as he does above, Eric Cartman should go pound another box of CheezyPoops...or...eat the skins off another bucket of chicken breasts!
...But leave the field of UFOs to Kenny, Stan, and Kyle.
...Ironic when given all a neo-con philosophy has done for _any_ country ... broken its military, ruined its economy, crippled its ability to defend itself, abdicated its responsibility regarding security, and causing such debt and suffering that multiple future generations will be unable to pay it...
Jeez, just think what an equally grand triumph Cartman could invoke for the study of UFOs!
...Knives at gunfights?
Elizabethan Duels 'twixt Eric Cartman and SouthPark AL... (versifyin' at 20 paces...)
[...and this is way cool folks... dammit, it just doesn't happen any more... I mean since like Lord Byron upbraided Bob Southey in Don Juan...]
Bold: Eric Cartman
Italics: South Park Al
Caught, in the undertow of today,
...And who would want to, given
that... which comes to homocentric scat! You pronounce your paradigm,
pervert your meter, foot, and rhyme... just prosecute a pique you
have... bereft of style, grace... that's sad.
don't know what they're about
you chant their "truths" out loud
Well -- fist is up, ~that~ finger
salient... meaning clear without abridgement. I won't be hearing what
I've missed from such as you; you are dismissed. You're not what you
pretend to be. It's you defends what's mad, you see?
And you're a sneering, scurvy scold,
without the sense to blow your nose. Your wisdom's sans a balanced base, as
plain as noses on a face. ~You're~ what keeps us all locked down...
a panderer, a hapless clown. A boorish mook who'd bring a knife to what
must be a gunfight, Clyde.
...And your "fair share's" provided you with ~what~ I'd ask... a silver spoon? ...Happy with what ~you've~ achieved? And what is that... but scabby knees. Bad tuition wasted blind so you could proffer ~your~ sad rhyme?
...And we'd agree, but ~you're~ the cause! You'd freeze again what warms and thaws! The darkness you allude to, Paul, is that which you prefer, is all. Now I could keep this up all day... but I won't kick a cripple... 'K?
From The Desk Of "South Park Al..."
Bold: Eric Cartman
Italics: South Park Al
> From: Paul Kimball <Kimballwood@aol.com>
Who protests toomuch, Sir?
...Smell the salt? ...Wide saline
Respect my Authori-tai?
Eric Cartman... ...an evil little troll entirely justifying the death penalty for some eight year olds.
It is this, and that Eric Cartman is a mere character in an adult cartoon, which makes him FUN to watch... even if it is the kind of humor that makes your eyes water, sometimes. But make no mistake, reader. Cartman ~is~ fun to watch, for the same reason it is fun to watch the portrayal of ANY unrepentant comedic psychopath in an instructive fiction. Moreover, the character ~is~ a strange centerpiece for one of the better shows on television... ...much of the time.
But, Eric Cartman, reader, is (and is cited)... ...to be: completely spoiled, impossibly foul-mouthed, profoundly ill-tempered, predictably narcissistic, unendingly disloyal, creatively greedy, entirely manipulative, numbingly insensitive, revoltingly sadistic, compulsively sociopathic, and is an opportunistic bully. He is an acute coward, openly racist, blithely bigoted, stunningly anti-Semitic, assertively xenophobic, predictably hypocritical... ...inordinately distrustful, and an experienced and inventive liar.
"He is openly contemptuous of the few friends who can, remotely, stand his deviant behavior, and... ...he is an open admirer of Adolph Hitler." There are, absolutely, no silver linings to the cloud that is Eric Cartman, reader. None. Zippo. Nada. A good Eric Cartman can only come from South Park Bizzaro World, and has.
Consider, in an episode entitled, "Scott Tenorman Must Die," the full monty of Cartman's evil character is examined.
Quickly: Cartman forms a plan to get revenge on 'Scott Tenorman,' a wise-ass sixth grader, for tricking Cartman into believing that he could "enter puberty" by purchasing "pubes" (collected pubic hair) from someone else, which Tenorman then obligingly sells to Cartman for under twenty dollars, as I recall...
...Cartman is beyond outraged humiliation when he learns the truth! Of course Tenorman dismissively refuses to refund his money, and Cartman launches his elaborate plan to get revenge!
The eye-watering part? Cartman ultimately has Scott's parents killed (he's murdered before, and will again, I suspect)! He then (...whoa!) ...cuts up their bodies and ...psychotically feeds them to Tenorman in a bowl of Texas chili ("Is it sweet Scott; Is it sweet"?). There's more beyond the climax of a phony chili cook-off the whole town was involved in and that was also part of Cartman's entirely and unrelentingly EVIL plan... for a totally unbalanced revenge.
While Scott Tenorman is in abject and miserable shock (after realizing that his parents are dead and that he has been scarfing them down wholesale)... ... and after some additional over-the-top humiliations (other facets of Cartman's evil plan) results in Tenorman being overcome by total weeping grief... ...Cartman (...and get this!) ...dances gleefully with ephemeral delight and... actually... ...licks the tears off Scott's miserable face, saying "Mmm. Scott Your tears are so yummy and sweet!"
I've seen this twice... it's HARSH, even if hilarious. Not one of the more socially redeeming programs to be sure, but pure unrefined Cartman, balls-to-the-wall, and to a "T"...
Enter Paul Kimball...
Now, I can understand how Mr. Paul Kimball, dilettante filmmaker and nascent neo-ufologist, might be entirely enamored with the program of "South Park" and the depiction of its characters. I am too (...Chef's my favorite). But, I remain discomfited... ...somewhat.
A line seems to have been crossed, reader, and I wonder that some small insight might be made into Mr. Kimball's true character as a result, perhaps, that our Mr. Kimball would gleefully proclaim, in a special notice, mind you, that this same Eric Cartman was one of his "heroes..."
Credulity is strained. I mean, who else is on that list? Darth Vader? Hannibal Lector? The smarmy company front-man in Sigourney Weaver's "Aliens"...? No, there is no qualification to Eric Cartman that he could be anyone's "hero"... zero, reader. No silver lining, like I said. Pure evil.
Perhaps Mr. Kimball misspoke...? That said, respect Kimball's "authori-tai" on this and other matters? Mmmmm-no. I'll pass. Sincerely, folks with easy heroes like Cartman may have other problems.
Funerals As Improvement?
On The Passing Of Peter Jennings
I'm not going to talk about Mr. Jennings. Late in the
autumn of my own life, and subject to the same slings and arrows or thousand
natural shocks, I'm going to talk about myself.
Pot Calling Kettle Black?
Answering Impertinent Verses on Exopolitical Matters
Dr. Salla Strikes [Out] Again
Kimball: Below is Dr. Michael Salla's most recent rant (er... posting) at UFO Updates, in response to one of my postings, wherein I congratulated Brad Sparks (re: Philip Corso) and Kevin Randle (re: Clifford Stone) for setting the record straight, in the face of Dr. Salla's egregious revisionist history and fact-twisting.
Lehmberg: Yeah... yeah. Sure... sure. Only, ~your~
imbalance is demonstrably further askew as your tedious cant is in obvious
gallop right from the start! Why, the porcine ~girth~ of your dodgy and
imperiously biased response here, alone, qualifies itself as
"rant," Sir. The partisan-isms prosecuted further clinch it, and the irony
gets a little ~more~ tiresome.
Lehmberg: Forgetting that you may have yet to reveal your own, Mr. Kimball, what you have revealed so far, yourself, tends to the extreme fringes of a perceivable spectrum of color. Black and white, you'll remember, are philosophical ideals existing only in Plato's world. It's a universe of color, Sir. Black and white are ideal abstractions. Beyond some approximations? They don't exist. I'll remind you about that later.
Kimball: He cares nothing for the scientific or historical research methods, he has no respect for or knowledge of the history of ufological research and researchers, and he has a great deal of trouble, apparently, separating fact from fiction.
Lehmberg: While you, on the other hand, are the only credible arbiter of historically scientific research methods, are the forsworn protector/enforcer of *respect* as you recalcitrantly define it, and you have absolutely ~no~ trouble determining the auspicious wheat from the errant chaff. Astonishing claims...
Lehmberg: Ironically, then, it is you which seems more clearly
delusional. Salla doesn't seem to make the same kind of artless intimations
of infallibility as you, not by a long shot.
Lehmberg: Perhaps you confuse Dr. Salla with a mirror image frequently and adoringly regarded, Sir. I would have considered making similar charges in your regard and on your behalf.
Lehmberg: Should it be forgotten that the immediately
preceding, itself, dervishes wildly through verdant fields of fulsome
fallacy? "Either / Or" ignores the rich potentiality inside and outside a
of your jealous homocentricity, Sir. A reader could be reminded of that.
There ~is~ more in hell and paradise than is credited in your conflicted
assessment, to paraphrase the bard, and you perform no service you would
pretend... to proclaim anything else is itself disingenuous...
Lehmberg: Not so as it turned out, be that as it
may, the formatting is now clear.
Lehmberg: I direct the reader to my response in the same UFO UpDates thread.
Lehmberg: Dr. Salla did not remotely misunderstand you, Mr.
Kimball, as you know. He was only countering your snide sneer with
something a little more intelligently collegiate of his own. I'm sure I'm not the only
one who giggled at the gentle sarcasm even if it was lost on you.
Lehmberg: Right. A reasonable extension of a social ethic
reflecting ultimate intellectual pragmatism and itself unceasingly practiced since
elements of proto-humankind re-discovered other elements of proto
humankind out on the savanna... even before Cain and Able. I understand, I think, why you
would want the ufological fence sitter to think otherwise, but all ~that~ ground
has been covered. Politics, even with a prefix, Sir... is old.
Lehmberg: Whoa! Foul, Sir! I'm throwing down a card! I fail to see where Salla's definition of what is only sociologically obvious is in any way deceitful, insincere or untruthful. Perhaps, you are indeed disingenuous to say so...
Kimball: ...bears even the slightest resemblance to the reality of exopolitics.
Lehmberg: I've already pointed out that your unbalanced and biased cant rather neatly disqualifies you from pontificating on the *reality* of anything, Mr. Kimball.
Kimball: Exopolitics takes the "hypothesis" out of "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis," and substitutes "Fact."
Lehmberg: Forgetting that you are made distinctly uncomfortable with even the "Hypothesis" of ET (...don't deny it, you bleed it from every pore...) many of the facts you allude to seem abundantly obvious.
Kimball: Make no mistake - exopolitics is all about the belief (as a proven fact) that many different alien races are already here, interacting with our governments, etc., etc. Call it the Extraterrestrial Fact (ETF). This belief is based on the testimony of "whistleblowers" like William Milton Cooper, Philip Corso, Bob Lazar, and Clifford Stone.
Lehmberg: Wow! I can see the flecks of spittle gathering at the corners of your mouth! The true masquerade, Sir, is to sit at the bottom of your portentous gravity well counting your scientistic (sic) beads and casting your un-brave isolationist runes... happily discarding a reflective infant with its bath. I suspect you are oblivious to the vipers you self-generate and grapple to a chest intellectually waxed of even the efficacious hair. Pity.
Lehmberg: ...Drake says they ~are~, Fermi says they ~will~, and
you yourself, oh maven of a crystal history, have made reference to a now self-denied
suspicion that they ~have~. Isn't that hysterical?
Lehmberg: So you would have the reader reflexively believe.
When one considers the injudiciously sneering source; however, one is
not so sure.
Lehmberg: I would submit to the reader that there is
absolutely nothing wrong with the above statement. It is considered and
fair. It is aware of present political realities as they are foisted on the
rank and file, us. It is awake to the duplicities of unelected governments;
it recognizes the evil of
un-accountable agencies; it admits to an illegitimacy of dissembling institutions.
There is only one problem with the statement as read. It won't
drink the *Kool-aid*, Mr. Kimball, the real problem, I suspect, you'd have
Lehmberg: I would not pretend to be able to vet Dr. Salla's citations and references as you do Mr. Kimball with such alacrity and confidence... surprising attributes given you have them largely as a result of secondary references, cherry picked to suit your cant, I suspect, and shoving the whole conundrum into some deeper recess of your own private little comfort zone... it remains that Drake and Fermi... ...and you yourself... have pointed at the object you regard with such uneasiness and fear.
Lehmberg: There is a huge obstacle to disclosure
of what has been undisclosed, lo these many years, and you are curiously
passionate in your defense of what has not moved us, conclusively, in half a
century. Your biggest explications are against any effort questioning that
regressive lack of movement I pointed out, Sir. Why would that be?
Lehmberg: So you say, but you only make the depth of your own denial more obvious! You want proof? How about the unending and very well documented official obfuscations pointed out by Vallee, Friedman, Dolan, Druffle, and McDonald? How about thousands of credible reports, thousands of photos, thousands of historical references, and thousands of trace cases? You don't want proof of truth... you want justification for ~your~ denial.
Lehmberg: Seriously, don't make me laugh. You only want to entertain a
very coveted possibility that we are alone in the universe and ignore,
stridently, what is contraindicating. Moreover, there is never really any
proof of anything, Mr. Kimball, there is ever only that evidence, or data,
which one ~accepts~ as proof. Locked up as you are in denial your personal
acceptance threshold is unreasonably and too suspiciously high.
Lehmberg: Right! Don't be fooled, folks, into thinking Mr.
Kimball's *otherwise*! Mr. Kimball is the wrong man, in the wrong place, at
the wrong time. Salla would open a door he perceived and judiciously,
thoughtfully, and optimistically... bravely...!...walk on through. Mr. Kimball
smirks, sneers, snickers and snipes that there would be "another door" at
all, unless he finds it, I suspect.
Kimball: Defined properly exopolitics is the essence of the fringe.
Lehmberg: Your "proper" definition is hardly proper, but it would take your definition, as narrow and unfocused as that appears to be, to force exopolitics as far into the fringe as would make you comfortable to have it. It remains, UFOs are real, aliens appear obvious, and denying the politics of that is naive, anti-progressive, makes for an unhealthily static culture in the long view, imo.
Kimball: I do agree, however, that it is not new, per se, but merely a different manifestation of the Contactee movement that rose to prominence in the 1950s, and did great damage to the serious study of the UFO phenomenon as a result.
Lehmberg: Wild flapping monkey muffins and errant bat squeeze, Mr. Kimball! That's a steaming day old bed-pan and you know it. You would have the intellectually abused fence-sitter believe that a few curious innocents and the sociopaths who prey upon them are a disease and not a mere symptom of the disease you blithely ignore!
Lehmberg: The damage to ufology and efficacious society came as a result of a jealous status quo refusing to abdicate authority and power... and neatly dooming us all, as a result of its invidious, odious, and intellectual offensiveness, to ignorant perdition. This is regarding and directly proportionate to the status quo's too convenient maintenance of itself at the expense of the rest of us.
Lehmberg: Its not "four guys named George" who invented the ufological giggle factor
you pretend to decry,
Mr. Kimball. We owe that entirely to you, Sir, and the institutions, agencies, and,
governments for which you stridently, if thinly, shill.
Lehmberg: Major Keyhoe knew there was a cover-up and he
suspected that it was very, very wrong. Unlike you, Major Keyhoe thought
we'd be better advised to admit the obvious and avail ourselves a future,
not doom ourselves to your obsequious and static past.
Lehmberg: Only because you're using his good name to improve your back-stepping negative.
Lehmberg: Right! You've done all the damage to it you
can. Let's move on.
Lehmberg: You're hilarious... not. You've stretched your moopy conjecture so tightly over the barrel's mouth it snaps like the rotted rubber that it is the very first time you try to use it for a drum. You ~know~ what Salla meant here and you only remove it from the context to prove your desultory and dodgy point. Friedman walks the fringey line to be sure, and it is to be celebrated that he would identify a "Cosmic Watergate" not remotely ridiculed. Still... he walks the "scientific line" as you ~well~ know... too neatly increasing the base of those who find him credible. It follows that Mr. Friedman will not embrace your "garden variety conspiracy" very readily because he is, unlike yourself, a rational creature who "thinks" what he thinks, "knows" what he knows, and proves what can be proven. I suspect that what Mr. Friedman very rationally believes... would curl ~your~ short hairs, Mr. Kimball.
Lehmberg: Make yourself more worthy of one, then. As it
stands? Break time is over.
Lehmberg: For the purpose of argument and clarity of
discussion Mr. Friedman rationally performs as Dr. Salla describes.
Moreover, there was nothing mentioned with regard to an "altogether"... this
was just your straw-man construction to invalidate the whole with a
convenient swipe at a falsely maligned and self-invented ~part~ . No points
here, Mr. Kimball.
Lehmberg: What pompous distortion and straining credulity is
this!!! You write like Dr. Salla was ~dismissing~ the contribution of Hynek
and McDonald as unfounded. That's crap, you know it, and your bias is now
self-exposed. The *work* is not the tragedy, Mr. Kimball -- as you well
know! The tragedy is that that work is drawn only through the lens of ~your~ flawed design, Sir. That ~is~ a tragedy.
Lehmberg: ...Only because ~you~ say so? ...Because ~you~ can't lock it into the breech? A perspicacious fence-sitter is going to need more, Mr. Kimball. Step up to the plate.
Kimball: No matter how many times Dr. Salla says he did, it still isn't true (can anyone who knows anything about Keyhoe imagine him having anything but utter contempt for someone who would write a paper about "track two galactic diplomacy").
Lehmberg: I suspect Major Keyhoe would have utter contempt for persons such as yourself who wallow their own denial while imperiously proclaiming that an obvious and official cover-up should not exist. Moreover, don't ridicule Dr. Salla only because you don't have the capacity of his imagination or his ability to hold an uncomfortable thought in his head.
Kimball: Second, I could have sworn that Dr. Salla stated above that the exopolitical perspective was not at the fringe of serious UFO research? Now he says that it is. Does anyone else notice how Dr. Salla's arguments, when read in their entirety, lack a certain internal consistency - just like the testimony of his so-called "whistleblowers" lacks a certain internal consistency?
Lehmberg: Great suffering and most baragrugous Zot, Mr. Kimball. He didn't say that, as you know. He said it is "~considered~ on the fringe", not that he considered it so or that it even was. You only demonstrate a capacity here to read something the way you want to hear it and then try to sell that pig in a poke to the rank and file. ...Pretty disrespectful of the readership, Sir.
Lehmberg: What say you reader? Read it its entirety, doesn't Mr. Kimball's testimony have a certain internal... flatulence?
Lehmberg: Abject crockola and mooted pooties in your own
right, Mr. Kimball. You have it wrong, reflexively. As Seth Shostak
pointed out in a recent article... a Roper poll proclaims that two thirds of
the public believes ET life exists and that it is visiting Earth. It's
no stretch that, in as much as we are getting no "official' notification of
it, a cover-up must, of needs, be in place. Two thirds believe what is not
being 'officially' reported, Mr. Kimball. Two thirds! I would suspect that
some kind of intellectual disconnect between society and the persons making
that society up is abundantly obvious, even to you.
Lehmberg: As I have stated here repeatedly, the reason
ufology is in a mess is because people like you, not so ironically, refuse
to address the real issues of a maligned ufology as they pertain to official
denial of it from government, agency, and institution, a bogus corporate
media, and the thoroughly corrupt and hijacked mainstream for which you
feverishly shill. You're the problem, Sir. You.
Lehmberg: Every time you try to prosecute what "sensible"
is... a shiver goes down my spine and the hair goes up on the back of my
neck. Sensible people want their lives to mean something, want to be
rewarded for their labors, want their safety assured, want to believe what
their culture reports to them, want to love and be loved, want to achieve
satisfaction and avoid despair... and be better off tomorrow than they were
today. Moreover, one man's bunk is another man's holy grail. Corrupted by
conventional bias and crippled by traditional cant, you're not the one to
speculate of a definition of either.
Lehmberg: We'd be better employed trying to suss out why
~you're~ trying to take advantage of the innocent gullible and make them
believe, for whatever reason, what you desperately want them to believe...
Lehmberg: Pots and kettles, Mr. Kimball. That shame is
your own projection.
Lehmberg: Quite, actually. You would still entertain as
more 'probable', I suspect, that the ETH is not valid at all, and that UFOs themselves
may yet prove to have a prosaic explanation. That neatly pours more
liquid carbon dioxide on ufology's frozen glaciality, nes't ce pas?
Furthermore, speciously inordinate convocations on the subject of what's
BEST or WORST aside, agreement with the suspected mouse in your pocket is
not enough to ascertain that you can really detect a difference between
either of the two. I suspect, even, that you could even have it exactly
Lehmberg: You should avoid the smirky cuteness, Mr. Kimball. You don't do it very well, and it only encourages your opposition to drive their points in further than they need to.
Kimball: Take me, for example.
Lehmberg: Mmmmmmmmmm-no. Less the harder you try. But, reader, do take Mr. Kimball... please!
Kimball: My training is in history, vital for UFO research, so much of which is historical, and the law, which is useful for understanding all sorts of stuff that Dr. Salla usually glosses over, such as evidence.
Lehmberg: Your "historical training" dotes overmuch on the
suspect traditional or hijacked mainstream and seems decidedly cherry-picked
to facilitate a bogus status quo... too facile for my taste. Moreover, I'm
always a little leery of a lawyer not actually practicing law... as a public
defender. You all learn to grind a very inauspicious axe, otherwise... imo...
Lehmberg: Ummmm... that's not really the issue or the point
that is trying to be made... once again. You do that a lot... Sir.
Moreover, don't legitimate peer-reviewed publications pretty much eschew
even quality UFO papers?
Lehmberg: ...and he'd never imply that his ~was~, just that
others were not. No points here.
Lehmberg: So what? Like myself, he still had his career
torpedoed for pursuing even an illusion of academic freedom and interest
in... well... hot-damn... the single most important occurrence in human
history and prehistory... even future history? What have you sacrificed,
Mr. Kimball? Between you, who is it that travels the harder more
Lehmberg: This is a wonderful straw-man you labor on so
furiously. Do you have a... ...cute little horse to pass him through before
you find you're finished, too?
Lehmberg: Perhaps, but only after we sent him around to
evaluate the motivations of Salla's most strident detractors. That may be a
little _too_ cynical for the tastes of some.
Lehmberg: "Walking the walk" is making actual
unwilling sacrifice in
pursuit of your convictions. What has been ~your~ unwilling sacrifice, Sir?
Lehmberg: Say what you want and distort what you will, Mr.
Kimball, it remains that you are too particular where you cast your tiny
light and not really discussing the point that Dr. Salla is trying to make,
I believe, and you do it with the characteristic smirking sneer of the officious and
offensive second-rate scoffer. You prove nothing but the depth of your own
ineptitude in this matter, that your *history* is decidedly party-line and
therefore likely to be incomplete at best, and I suspect not much better as
a jurist... or you'd be doing that.
Lehmberg: You're not a historian per say, you've
only had training... and you don't practice law... you only
ever remind us of an unused sheepskin... Your education and experience are not the panacea
for credibility that you imply they would be or should be, Sir. You are, it seems, more
of what you accuse for Dr. Salla, ironically enough. Based on the
distortions, cheap shots, and errant twists of your own right here in this
paper... you seem guiltier of what you'd accuse than Dr. Salla. _I_ don't
believe you at any rate.
Lehmberg: I notice that you seem to get a pretty big kick
out of proclaiming your suspect opinions as fact, yourself, Sir. What about
~your~ dodgy homocentric beliefs, Mr. Kimball?
Lehmberg: ...In your too cloistered opinion, Mr. Kimball.
You remember, that thing ... like an anal pore... which everyone has... and,
as a result,
is not very special ?
Lehmberg: ...With most of these, I expect, regarding you
with eyes akimbo and arms askance in the bargain. A dropped name doesn't
mean it's going to bounce for you, Mr. Kimball.
Lehmberg: Oh crap, the only thing ignored and tarnished in
this teapot tempest is your inept ability to accurately and honestly report on the
arguments of your opposition.
Lehmberg: Hah! The only person missing the point, invoking distortion, and misrepresenting an opponents position is yourself. The only one saying and doing what you describe here is you, Mr. Kimball. Dr. Salla won't be paying any freight for the words and ideas you put in his mouth. More of your internal flatulance, Sir? Take a freakin' bi-carb!
Kimball: Now he's saying that it has as much merit as exopolitics?? That's mighty big of him!
Lehmberg: Jeez -- I'm glad this is almost over...
increasingly, you become more and more tedious.
Lehmberg: Carefully and many times...
Lehmberg: That's the fruit of your "careful" perusal?
Another proclamation? Another opinion? Another prosecution of your own
overtly fetid tide-pool of personal beliefs?
Lehmberg: That was easy for you to say.
Lehmberg: Again, this is the inauspicious fruit of your "careful"
perusal? Another proclamation? Another opinion? Another prosecution of
your own puddle deep beliefs?
Lehmberg: Hah! These are just words coming from you, Mr.
Kimball, and as such are too jingoistic to do any real fighting. Objectivity?
But you won't admit to a human subjectivity determining what "objective" is
in the first place. You whine about "rigorous analysis of the evidence" but
you refuse to question the very suspicious dearth of same.
You tediously moan about the scourge of belief but won't own up to your own
beliefs regarding a universe with humanity at its center and a good bet that
we are the only inhabitants essentially, anyway. Rational scepticism? From you, a
pelicanist by any other name would smell as sweet.
Lehmberg: I guess we'll just have to forget about the conversational topics you would avoid and how, given the opportunity, you would dictate the thoughts of others. I spoke earlier of spine shivers and fluttering neck hair...
Lehmberg: Somehow -- I'd suspect that your definition of it
is, at least, as suspect as that ascribed to Dr. Salla.
Lehmberg: Keep it, you need one more than the reader does.
Lehmberg: I would have chosen "Tiny Tim" for you, but he's dead. Maybe he still exists in the decade you inhabit, Mr. Kimball. Give it some thought. That said, you were singularly unimpressive this iteration, Sir. I'm reminded of a precept of my AlienView philosophy -- investigate more thoroughly that which you are told not to investigate or which seems to generate the most anger and odious character assassination. I can't testify to the verity of Dr. Salla or an "exopolitics", but if he raises this much ire and invective from a Paul Kimball... there might be something to him yet.
Klassists & Sallaians the same?
On The New
UFO Hunters Series...
& Injudicious Labels
From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
is Aug 8, then Aug 22 then Aug 29.
What I especially appreciated about it was
the complete and utter rejection of the pelicanists position vis a vis their
inclusion as even an obligatory balance in the program. I'm betting this is
because Greenwald perceives that balance alluded to has never been provided
by pelicanists in the first place, as they have only ever been apologists
for denialism, anyway, in the second. Thirdly, I suspect he feels that
this 'avian' lot has never been interested in a search for the
reality of this 'thing' many of us think is there... even as we are
precluded from knowing 'it'! Even as we are obstructed from
Can you feel the fog lifting, truthseeker?
Conversely, the latter is a lock-step and reactionary apologist for irrational denialism,
decidedly cherry-picking with regard to evidence,
and has only ever been a well-rewarded
shill and mouthpiece for scientistic (sic) corruption and a hijacked mainstream...
additionally he was one of the major persons who had a large part in the
suspiciously tragic death of James E. McDonald. I won't
be the only one thinking that.
More debate with Antithesis...
>>All we need to do,
collectively, is not to implode by bitching to
See... the damage is caused by an _underlying_ cause not admitted by the medical system... ...more interested in profitably managing disease than it is in curing it! The reader may begin to see a parallel.
Artery plaque is the body's natural reaction
(like tire sealer)... a 'solution' to the
...Woo-woos are thoughtless excuse for
same... as they are, in no way, the reason.
...Just poorly digested beef?
There's a recent article by one Bruce Bower at the hijacked mainstream's *science*-shill *ScienceSnooze.org* site. It raises, yet again, that tired old fable of "Sleep Paralysis" as the bee's knees explanation for an abduction phenomenon steadfastly refusing to go away, still... ...hence Bower's re-raising of the tedious "Sleep Paralysis" canard, at all... it would seem.
...Slickly appointed, and well larded with seemingly bulletproof citations from ostensibly conclusive references, the smothering cowl of insipient sentience and insentient *science* is dragged over our lay sensibilities once again. Do these canted trolls ~never~ tire, reader?
...And the ready answer is: No. They can't tire... they can't afford to! Why? Because they live an uneasy hell of having to be right ~every~ single time, even if they have to dissemble, obfuscate, and mislead to do so. Alien Abduction proponents only have to be right once, remember ... and it seems likely, to this writer, that they have been right... already... many, many times. Bower ponderously effects to sow that obligatory seed of doubt, yet again.
In his aforementioned plodding charade of egregious explication Bower is blithely ~unctuous~, reader, with regard to his predicted prosecution of the patent, plain, and portentously prosaic. Then he dismisses in one indiscriminate paragraph, very explicably ~without~ the glib citation used elsewhere, the serious work of one man in the field decidedly contrary to his sophomoric suppositions and deleterious dissertations.
That man is the late Doctor John Mack.
Bower's ~insult~ to the braver man's honor and memory is unconscionable... forgetting the preponderance of 6 levels of evidence near ~dictating~ an otherwise nearer ~certainty~ of ufological reality... and a ~truth~ in many of Dr. Mack's considered observations ...
reader, that Bower didn't use ~any~ of the quality abduction literature in
his one-sided research... in his trite and otherwise hackneyed article...
...Not Jacobs, not Hopkins, and most assuredly,
~not~ Dr. Mack... among others.
Mr. Bower, it
would seem, is no more than a full tilt facilitation of imperfect pedantry
and a max zoom bionic ~dweeb~ of fatuous credulity... He gives real
science a bad name... and eats his ~own~ foot...you know? On reflection,
for all the flash and dazzle of the mainstream push behind him? In the
opinion of this writer, he handily invalidates himself and the science he
would pretend to champion... only.
Consider... a sizable proportion of innocent persons affected by an abduction scenario are affected from a ...wide awake... state, Sir or Madam, while the intrepid Mr. Bower would pretend all these persons were just confused about mere night terrors and bad dreams. Credulity indeed reigns at ScienceSnooze... eh, reader?
"D" for Denialist
The Great UFO Debate... ...Debate.
(Like Pizza -- Pizza, Only In Reverse)
DS: Doctor Shostak