Thursday, December 23, 2010


Alfred Lehmberg on sociopaths:

Be very afraid.

Consider: preachers don't tell on "preachers"; cops don't tell on "cops"; doctors don't tell on "doctors". Politico's don't tell on one another when there is a *greater* goal to be gained. The rest of us avert our eyes from the inconvenient and unsettling obvious. We don't tell on our friends to some sliding scale extent...

This is the hot-house fecundity any conspiracy must busily thrive in! Moreover, consider the near infinite potential... we have a system of laws and codes only to protect individuals from an unrestricted sociopath!

A very excellent article!

Friday, November 26, 2010

Brazen Hussies Invade Earth! Serious UFO Research Attacked!

Posted on The Orange Orb, and re posted at Orange Orb Review.  Interesting comments at Orange Orb; take a look. I want to add here that I, along with others who've commented, including Deirdre of course, find it odd that he takes such deep offense at Deirdre -- to the point of saying he will never read UFO Magazine again -- over all the other hundreds of articles that have appeared in that magazine over the years.  He doesn't see fit to mention David Jacob's behavior in the Emma Woods case, apparently finding a male in authority and his command that Woods send him her unwashed underwear heinous, but does find Ms. O'Lavery's humor and slip wearing, red lipsticked, cigarette dangling persona positively horrifying. 

Cigarette Smoking Woman Single-handedly brings down UFO research! In her slip, no less!

Disclosure:  I write for both the on-line 'zine, UFO Digest, as well as the print publication UFO Magazine. 

When Deirdre O'Lavery of Interstellar Housewife and JAR announced she was UFO Magazine's newest columnist, I was thrilled. She shared some of her ideas for her column's title with myself and a few others, including fellow UFO Magazine columnists Lesley Gunter at The Debris Field  and Alfred Lehmberg of Alien View.  The one column title that really said "Deirdre" to me was Saucers, Slips and Cigarettes, which is the one she chose.

A member of the Stuffed Shirt faction of the UFO Police doesn't appreciate Deirdre's cheeky 'tude, the brazen hussy, she.  David P. Kuhlman, FFSc, in his article for UFO Digest (UFO Mag Columnist is an Insult To Readers,) tells us why O'Lavery's column is offensive. Clues to Kuhlman's personal philosophy can be found in comments like the following: 
Do people give in to secular pressures, which can change the outlook and product for everyone? [bold and italics mine]
Indeed, in another article he wrote for UFO Digest; An Alien Reasoning, Kuhlman wrote:
I am a Christian. I was brought up through the years in church and I have strong roots with all Christian beliefs. I believe in God.
The use of the word "secular" in this context is clear: Deirdre O'Lavery has been seduced by the devil and away from the light, and is bringing the rest of us down with her into the roiling pits of hell.

John Collier, Lilith, 1892

Kuhlman goes on for quite awhile discussing what we all know far too well: UFOlogy has a difficult time being taken seriously, hoaxes hurt us all, there are good researchers who are "respectable," but some are not, and they're talking the rest of us down.  One of those who are not respectable, writes Kuhlman, is Deirdre O'Lavery, who should cause us all not only "concern" but "out-rage." Something about slips and cigarettes causes Kuhlman great distress:
Paging through to the seventh one [column] I noticed an unfamiliar face, a columnist. It initially caught my glance simply because I am familiar with the magazines layout since I read it often, and I knew this was a new addition immediately. I was curious and thumbed back to the index page and sure enough, the magazine had added a new columnist to its list, Ms. Deirdre O’ Lavery, Hmmm… never heard of her. Instantly I knew this was the place to start my reading journey through this months issue and quickly paged back to the column titled “Saucers, Slips, and Cigarettes”. That is where my blood began to boil!
I understand not liking a column, but really, his "blood began to boil?"  Sex, -- especially the "wrong" kind of sex, as in, anything you don't approve of between consenting adults -- is clearly the issue here, not UFO research. Women should be demure; we should speak softly and refrain from being sassy. Especially if we're wearing underwear. (Note to Kulhlman: some people prefer that kind of thing.)

The title of the column was strange I thought after reading it, it really didn’t seem to “fit” a serious publication on UFO research, but sometimes the title is to get the attention of the reader and it certainly did its job there and at least one word did correlate with the cigarette hanging out of the side of Ms. O’ Lavery’s clown painted, rose red lips. [italics mine]
Deirdre O'Lavery, get thee to a nunnery! And lest you think I am being overly flip here, Kuhlman himself is serious; of all the things in UFO land to get upset about, he finds O'Lavery's "rose red lips," cigarette smoking, and use of the word "slips" to be the targets of his repressed and misogynistic outrage:

"I have never been more agitated at any other piece of writing on UFOs than I am on this one . . . As I read I was disgusted and nauseated at her attempt to break the ice with the reader. Foul language and an utter sense of ignorance and disrespect to serious readers was her route. She goes on to write her column like a heathen speaks. [italics mine]   
He was nauseated? And "heathen?" "Heathen?" Did he really write that? Yes, yes he did. 

All that mishegas aside, he completely misunderstands O'Lavery's column, focusing instead not only on her lips but her "drunkenness":
Can people really take the UFO phenomenon seriously when it is painted that only sorry drunk people with no life dabble into this subject? Folks, this article is a disgrace to everyone that considers UFOlogy worth of investigation!
Kuhlman borders on the libelous; if it weren't so damn funny, it might be of concern. He not only finds Ms. O'Lavery "drunken," and what not but also believes she should be shunted off to the nut house:
She is certifiable for this piece of worthless paper with all of her slang and ignorant insight.
Her "slang?" Hey Daddyo, you sound like a real square!

Of all the columnists that write for UFO Magazine, this is the one that has caused Kuhlman --- after just one column! -- to stop reading the magazine altogether. If O'Lavery's one column can upset a supposed UFO researcher so much that he writes a rant about it and demands a "formal apology" from the publishers, then Ms. O'Lavery is one hell of a writer!

Painting by James Rich
One last point about Kuhlman's apoplectic response to Deirdre O'Lavery: he includes all of "us" (well, except for O'lavery) in his rant, beginning with his title: UFO Mag Columnist is an Insult to Readers. No, Kuhlman, it's not an insult to all readers; not to me, obviously. Speak for yourself. Clearly it's an insult to you, and possibly, to some others, so be it. But don't include me in your campaign to rid UFO land of Ms. O'Lavery. This is the problem with the UFO Police; they expect everyone to join them in their outrages and edicts about what they perceive to be right.

Congratulations, Ms. Deirdre O'Lavery, for bringing UFOlogy down to such a shameless level with just one column!

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Today, of all days, Rich Reynolds excretes:

"A criticism, again, of UFO UpDates can be found at several of our blogs:

The UFO Prolapseateur(s)
The RRRGrope
The UFO Underwear
The UFO Arachnids
The UFO Agoraphobics
The UFO Nitwits

(A slight case of over-kill? We think not. UpDates needs to be eradicated.)

posted by RRRGroup at 9:22 AM on Nov 22, 2010" -- Rich Reynolds...

_One_ tepid and moronic post spread, no, smeared over 6 inconsequential web-logs... not so well done, Ritchy... go pop your nose-bubble.

See, you're filled with flaccid "entitlement," but not one shred of sense with regard to how embarrassing you are. Grow a beard, you sophomoric ass-hat. You _are_ the Fox News of Ufology.

Feh! ...And a back-shooting coward, imo, to boot!

How is it others countenance your authoritarian, sneering, libelous, inconstant, homocentric, and narcissistically fatuous media-watching malfeasance is really beyond me. No... really.

Me, I'll continue to stomp you're pointy little head every time in pops out of its warren. You OWE me! I OWN you!

(A slight case of over-kill? I think not. See? _You_ need to be eradicated.)
>> AVG Blog --
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e --

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Women Of Esoterica: Gary Haden: The Hyperbolic Chamger: Bozotopia, Or Don't Blame the Clowns for What the Circus Did to Them

Gary Haden at Speculative Realms, is one of the out there who gets it regarding David Jacobs and his behavior in all this. Jeremy Vaeni, Jeff Ritzman, Alfred Lehmberg, UFO Magazine, Raymond Fowler, have been getting it as well, but overall, not enough are speaking out. Here's a post on one of Haden's pieces that I wrote for Women Of Esoterica. Haden has written several excellent pieces, check out his blog:

Women Of Esoterica: Gary Haden: The Hyperbolic Chamger: Bozotopia, Or Don't Blame the Clowns for What the Circus Did to Them

Monday, November 1, 2010

In UFO Magazine: Jeremy Vaeni's 'Aliens vs. Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods

There is so much to say about the fantastic article by Jeremy Vaeni in this issue of UFO Magazine. (Aliens vs. Predators: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods.)

But for now, please, please, go and get yourself this issue, and read the article. Vaeni has done an excellent job with unraveling the seeming madness that is David Jacobs, the always precarious method of hypnosis used by some researchers to get at the submerged bits of missing time and nebulous memories of aliens, examinations, trips aboard saucers, and all the rest of "Abductions 101", and subject/witness Emma Woods.

From the beginning of this episode in UFO culture, I wondered why there wasn't more outcry from the UFO community. And yet, there still isn't; what there mainly seems to be, still, are a few stubbornly standing up for Jacobs, and misogynist pronouncements about Emma Woods' sanity, and worse. Other than that, little has been really said about this.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Monday, August 9, 2010

Alfred Lehmberg: "One of You"

Alfred Lehmberg, on John FordOne of You, on the UFO Magazine blog.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Orange Orb: Controlling Information: Colin Andrews on Conference Cancellation and the Future

An international crop circle conference cancelled entirely, rather than give in to researchers Glickman and King, who demanded from the promoters that they dis-invite presenter Colin Andrews.

I wrote about Colin's comments and the actions of Glickman and King, who seem to think it more important to control access to information than it is to research. It also says much about what they think of witnessess and the rest of us which is, not much, as they don't believe we are capable of thinking for ourselves.

The Orange Orb: Controlling Information: Colin Andrews on Conference Cancellation and the Future

Monday, July 5, 2010

Memory, Dreams and Elk

I have a vivid dream life, always have; dream in color, sing, sounds, scents, fly, sleep paralysis, OOBEs. . . I've even had a couple of dreams where the dream was in color, but little pieces were in black and white. One dream I recall: the dream was in color, but I was watching a black and white TV. But I've never had dreams where I had missing time or amnesia in the dream; until recently. A few months ago I had missing time within the dream, and last night, I had a similar episode within a dream.

Much preceded the missing time, or amnesia, too personal to post but at one point, I was leaving my place of work and found that all the roads had been torn up. Earth moved into huge piles, gravel everywhere, dirt roads... no signs. "Great," I thought, "how the hell am I going to get to where I'm going?" but I had no choice, so start to drive. A hassle but not a big deal. But at the end of this torn up road is a crazy network of freeways. Just dozens of on-ramps and freeways and hundreds of cars just zipping every which way, and no signs. Not a one to tell me where to go, how to get there. . . and I have no time! No light or anything just have to MOVE, now! So I make a decision in my panic and just drive like mad onto an on ramp, no idea at all where I'm going.

After awhile of driving crazy-mad the freeway insanity ends and I find myself on one of my "dream scapes" -- a one lane, one way highway or bridge over the ocean. The ocean is a beautiful royal blue color. The water is almost as high as the bridge/freeway, and it's churning. Very active. I am scared and nervous. Still no idea at all where I'm going, no signs The bridge/freeway goes on forever, I can't see anything ahead. The water is so high it's splashed onto the road, and I'm worried I'll slide right off into the water. All I can see on either side of me is water. There's a railing about four feet high on the sides of the bridge but it's little protection.

Next thing I know, I wake up in a funky small motel room. No idea how I got there. I'm wearing a large baggy tee shirt and underwear but that's it. I walk outisde, confused -- where am I?! I see it's a little coastal town, hilly, kind of funky but in a comfortable, easy way. I'm in the "poor" part of town but as I continue walking, find myself in a more habitated part of town. I go into a little cafe, order breakfast. It's very good. I tell the people there, who are very friendly, that I barely know who I am, let alone how I got there or why, etc.

I was thinking of this dream all day, and for some reason, that led me to remember something that happened when i was about twelve or thirteen. I was in the Girl Scouts, and we went camping in Northern California. Here we were out in the middle of nowhere, or so it seemed to me. I loved it though.

I've thought of the following experience many times, but only remembering the wonder of what I saw, not how I got there in the first place. We were all setting up camp and then, I took a walk. I was just walking around, in the woods. And came out on a road. So I'm standing there on the side of the road, and less than ten yards from me, directly across from me, an elk walks out from the trees and just stands there on the side of the road. I was in awe; this was the first time I had seen anything like this. I remember just standing there, looking at this beautiful creature. I wasn't scared, just amazed. I felt like crying, it was so beautiful. We just stood there, looking at each other, then it walked off.

What's surprising to me now, is that even though I've often revisited this memory of seeing the elk, some obvious things about this event never occurred to me -- until now. For one thing, I can't see the adults in the group allowing anyone of us to just walk off on our own. Yet apparently I did. I was all alone. And what road would that have been? No idea; it wasn't one we were on. I don't remember what happened before that, or after. All very strange.

Layers of memory. One "real" memory with no surrounding context, one missing bit of memory within a dream. Shifts of memory; no experience dreaming of having missing memory within the dream, and suddenly, two within a few months time.

Maybe age has something to do with the dreaming; I can't explain why it is I don't remember what happened before, or after, meeting elk on the road. . .

Alfred Lehmberg: "Who Starts the Fire"

Alfred has another great piece: Who Starts the Fire on UFO Magazine's site.

Friday, June 25, 2010

James Carion's New UFO/NOT UFO Organization

Ex-director MUFON director James Carion announces a brand new UFO organization: CUT. CUT stands for Center for UFO Truth.

Here’s what I wrote on Facebook:
Oh dear. Not "affiliated in any way with UFology" yet "CUT" (there's an interesting Fortean twilight language kind of word to use)  studies "early days of UFOs ... answering the question long ignored by historians -- was the UFO subject purposely created by the United States. .. part of a cold war operation?" That's been asked before. But anyway, how is this NOT to do with UFology?! It'll be interesting for sure but how far is one willing to go in trusting government sources? Der.  And this gem: "CUT will work outside of the three ring circus that is Ufology and will not accept the contributions of anonymous individuals or alleged whistleblowers nor will it examine alleged leaked documents." So he's distancing himself yet once again from the unwashed masses and "...circus" of UFology, going so far as to call what he's doing - studying an aspect of UFOs --- not UFology.  Newsflash Mr. Carion, you ARE part of the "circus," -- we all are. How an ex-director of MUFON, who is currently involved in a new organization exploring an aspect of UFOs, say with a straight face he is not part of the "circus" is a deliciously ironic, er, circus like, stance to take.

I’ll add that the word UFO is in the name of the group! UFO is part of the acronym, yet, Carion insists, this new enterprise (heh, talk about twilight language) contains the word UFO in its very title. The title is also fun, in its ironic pot/kettle black way, for its word "truth." What a display of arrogance and self important stuff shirted puffery!

Carion never did like saucer heads. He reiterates his distaste for the distasteful and bothersome UFO witnesses and UFO explorers of various kinds:
CUT will work outside of the three ring circus that is Ufology and will not accept the contributions of anonymous individuals or alleged whistleblowers nor will it examine alleged leaked documents.
Yes, why bother with interviewing witnesses to see if they are credible or do the work involved to determine authenticity of documents? 

This is the problem with would be UFO Police; they set up their own little paradigm, decide to reject a good portion of what’s out there, and all the time, they’re congratulating each other on finally getting to the “truth.”

When you combine a systems like that with a dismissive attitude that reeks of classism and an obvious distaste for 90% of the thing you’re studying, you cannot possibly get to any “truth.” 

The Big Lie
Recently, the cyclic meme that “UFOlogy is dead” has been making the rounds, and I wonder: is this thing we loosely call UFOlogy really dead? Or is it just something people say out of frustration? I think the latter. UFOlogy is constantly shifting, and in fact, some big shakeups have been happening recently (David Jacobs, Cherry, and, um,  Carion. . . ) but that doesn't make it dead.

Do some think UFOlogy is “dead” because of the oft bemoaned statement that, “after such and such many years, we don’t have any answers?”

Carion remarks:
Ufology has nothing to show for more than 60 years of amateur investigation and research. By not establishing professional evidentiary standards, Ufology will neither join the halls of academic "ologies" nor will it discover the truth of what lies behind the subject of UFOs.
The us of the qualifier “amateur” is unfair. It’s snide. We’re all amateurs. Does he mean amateur in the popular sense: meaning, less than? Or in the true sense, meaning not paid for one’s work? Amateur has come to mean the former, more often than not, but being “amateur” does not always mean inferior. You cannot take away the study of UFOs from “the people” no matter how much you want to. And if you do, why do you want to? What's the intent?

We don’t have the Big Final Answer That Fits All to the UFO phenomenon. Carion’s mistake, as with many others: thinking there is one.

I don’t know what halls of “ologies” he means, probably the institutions of science, academia, and ironically, the very governmental agencies he plans on getting all this information from, but the reality is: CUT, too, is just another UFO group in the eyes of those “ologies.”

But back to the meme that “after sixty years we haven’t found the answer” -- I wonder if that’s true. No, we don’t have full disclosure, or the Beyond a Doubt UFO From Outer Space craft or an alien body. Well, not one revealed to the world on CNN anyway.

The UFO phenomenon has layers upon shadowy layers upon deeper darker layers. It’s a given UFOs and aliens are “real” and here,  We’ve moved way beyond that. We know they are; we don't’ know what they are.

Parsing the UFO experience down to a small segment --   U.S. government agencies intentionally creating false UFO scenarios to distract  -- is not a new idea, nor a surprise. And finding further proof that was the case at times won’t definitively provide an answer to what UFOs are.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Orange Orb: Facebook Mini Rant

Interesting comments on this at The Orange Orb.

The Orange Orb: Facebook Mini Rant

It's Saucer Blast! Tim Beckley's New Blog

As Lesley said, it's about time Tim got a blog! Saucer Blast!

UFOlogy Is Not Dead

I responded to something on Facebook, just thought I’d share. Sums it up, maybe I’ll put it on my business card!

UFOlogy is not “dead,” no one should be the Great UFO Decider, it ain’t all that serious, and it is all VERY serious, science will never embrace us saucer heads, but that’s okay because like Groucho said: (paraphrasing) “I don’t want to be a member of any club that’d have me”, one person’s embarrassing fruitcake is another person’s tasty brownie, some of us are stuck with weird experiences and we’re trying to figure it out, no, we won’t shut up, far too many smug stuffed shirts pontificating their way through UFO Land, judgments, classism, self-importance, and not listening to the witnesses. I’d hate to go off on a rant though!

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Friedman: Any Opponent In Any Debate


Friedman And Shermer In Any Debate

By Alfred Lehmberg

David — Goliath. Still fighting it seems. One's over-cocky, and once again reamed. One strides the mainstream opposed by too few, while his honored opponent's courageously true.
See? One narrows scope to a slender percentage, the other is open to data, comprende? One is a scoffer — all knee-jerk dismissals; the other's employing real facts as his missiles.
Filled with his confidence, and the weight of his creed, Goliath is RIPE for a fall that he needs! David, well read and prepared for his role show that Philistines fight up with their heads locked below! David shoots well; he infuses his points. He cited them, hell — he was owning the joint!
Bereft of his homework, Goliath's ungainly. He fumbles around for his words so inanely. He cheery-picks data still grinding the axe that qualifies comfort he knows cannot last.
Why — Goliath seems caught in his own vicious trap; he hadn't prepared and was pinned to the mat! Stone-marked and bleeding he moans on the floor! He proves to his last that his less... is not more.
Goliath is vanquished for arrogance, friend. He lies belly up like his close minded kin. Plus? The sneers from his camp are the stones that are used in the sling of a righteous, experienced few.
Round and around went the weight of Stan's sling; his arguments whistling like fiery stings on the physics, the cosmic, and base relativity! Shermer's insured his own failure's proclivity, his ignorance plain in our search for the answers that excise our ignorance — our cognitive cancer!
See, Friedman could read and he'd read the man's book. He's studied his Rommel, so like Patton? He cooked!
Shermer, assured of vainglorious might, that he's to prevail in a "no contest" fight, was covered with gaps in his armor-cum-science which weakened his impact beyond all reliance!
"Goliath," well beaten, at least should admit that the intrepid David had merit and grit. Dismissal's outrageous, a listener concludes. The argument's valid, and the thought now intrudes that space is a huge place, completely unknown, and it's filled to the BRIM with anomalous foam!
Lost in its hugeness is mind undefined by concepts which limit and keep us *confined*.
We hold to the tails of timid tradition — are blind to the front in this backside position.
Complacent, believing proud "science" must win, we turn a blind eye to the fringe that begins just a mean tiny distance from what we now know is the little we know of what's hidden there, Bro! What can be measured; what can be seen, when what is seen CHANGES to fit errant schemes!
Friedman wins out once again 'cause he's right. His scholarship proves what he sees in that light! He follows the traces the data proscribes, arriving at the places the facts can't deny!
Why, he has what compels me to question the *man*, for all the *man's* blandishment, pretence, and elan. He had the right stones, and he hurled them well. Degrees will mean nothing if buying to sell. So flourish, false skeptic, your arrogant spite — and feel that stone as your forehead it strikes!

When Dr. Shermer says that a 'spaceship' and 'body' would "do it" for him, frankly? He lies, I suspect. That's just to start. He's a CSICOP affiliate, forgetting he's Prometheus-published and lap-dog media nay-saying "goto"guy.
Dr. (lapsed fundamentalist) Shermer: a reasonable man who can at last be convinced given extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? What a load.
Nothing would *do it* for him, but that *it's* sent back for additional analysis. He would continue to demand further analysis until *it* was either 'proven' wrong; however ephemerally, or he was checked into a rubber room and thorozined to incontinence.
Stanton Friedman believes we are not served by our ignorance in these matters. I suspect that Dr. Shermer believes we are. That's why he'll lose the real debate.
Moreover, with regard to Dr. Shermer: I suspect all his points as based on ignorance, misinformation and an apparent will to promote these things. Who did he cite but fellow ax grinders. Ax-grinders handily blown away by Friedman already, Clancy and Pflock spring to mind... but forget that.
Asked who it is trying to cleave to the closest science one can only give Stanton Friedman that nod. There's some irony, on the surface at least. Dig even shallowly to find there's no irony, really, at all.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Is Stanton Friedman For Real?

Is Stanton Friedman For Real?
By Alfred Lehmberg

Everyone 'knows' who or what Stanton Friedman is. He's probably as close as anyone has gotten to being a household name with regard to UFOs. Even not knowing his name, but seeing his picture, is to automatically go, "Oh yeah... right... ...the 'UFO' guy."
Friedman was pilloried, fatuously, along with some undeserving others, on a Jennings/ABC flopumentary "exploring" UFOs, where he was faintly accused of behavior so far removed from his actual behavior that it borders on slander. For my money it crosses the line. To wit:
Stanton Friedman is an evidential cherry picker, a self-involved fantasist, and an inventive conspiracy monger/hoaxer. Stanton Friedman is a frustrated old man with delusions of grandeur and a messianic complex. Stanton Friedman is ~not~ real.
So would say those who speak in persuasive proclamation, *mainstream* declaration, media decree, and 'official' edict. But hold on. The thing about proclamations, declarations, decrees, and edicts is that they don't need to be true; they only have to be compelling. They only have to sow a seed of doubt... ironically nourished by the "information void" they help to maintain, it's enough to preclude further action. The goal, to be blunt.
Let's try some other 'proclamations' on for size...
Stanton Friedman ~is~ real. Stanton Friedman is a tireless historical scholar and rational humanist. Stanton Friedman is a portrait of selfless courage, an assiduous researcher, and an unflinching observer/reporter of that which is decidedly and discomfortingly out of the box... but portending our future...
Forgetting, entirely, their opposing character, is there any other difference between these preceding proclamation sets? Paul Kimball, a serious filmmaker with his own production company, has produced some engaging and instructive documentary films providing the requisite basis for just this kind of supposition.
The well crafted documentaries referenced here include Kimball's "Stanton Friedman Is Real" (a sober examination of Stanton Friedman the 'man') and "Do You Believe In Majic" (A Doc regarding alleged quality documentation indicating, among other astonishing things, ~very~ high levels of official interest in the ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis... as it pertains to UFOs). These films show, with some clarity and fairness, where more of the truth in this... very twitchy and ephemeral area... must be! This is forgetting the balanced cameo they provide Stanton Friedman, despite, I do not hesitate to point out, any conflicts of interest possible. I suspect any conjectured conflicts are abundantly accounted for.
Kimball's relationship by marriage to Friedman's family has Kimball erring on the side of Friedman's opposition, if anything. It remains that this writer's gut-sense advises that Kimball is legitimately trying to shoot straight-down-the-middle on the issues. Too bad for Friedman's opposition. A 'fair' look makes ~them~ look pretty bad. Humiliatingly so.
The pros and cons regarding a ufological contribution by Stanton Friedman do not balance in actuality, even as Kimball's films very assiduously give equal time to the positions of both sides... obvious sincerity shown by Kimball, a man trying to arrive at some kind of non-anticipatory conclusion on the matter, or at least a step forward and not back. Which side of the argument ~does~ succeed in outweighing the other?
The viewer can make up his or her own mind... but this writer perceives that the 'cons' see far before them what 'pros' leave far behind... The cons have little weight it seems.
Along similar lines, I've heard no protestations from this opposition -- no cries of "foul" or angry wounded remonstrations regarding a misrepresentation of their assumptive, biased, canted, and homocentric views; their convenient attitudes; their conflicted opinions. The point is whittled, admittedly, pretty fine.
Truly, I've neither read nor heard of same, and both of these films were released some time ago. Perhaps there will be a late protest...
The presumption is that, to date, the opposition feels that it was fairly characterized by Kimball's films, and that oppositional views, such as they are and have always been (...continue to be!), were squarely portrayed and accurately recounted. One would presume.
The irony is that it ~was~ squarely portrayed and accurately recounted. They ~got~ their best shot!
In comparison with Stanton Friedman, though, they fall way short -- their meager shell won't even clear the gun tube. This is ~despite~ the huge amounts of powder provided by the hijacked mainstream to get that round down range.
This is further illustrated by the ease with which Friedman will dispatch the occasional brave (if haplessly clueless) soul who gathers up the sack required to join the long list of "noisy negativists" crushed, decisively, in debate with him. There are numerous examples of same on Kimball's films. Dispute Stanton Friedman on the issues, bunky, and scamper from a righteous fray with your tail tucked between your legs making whipped-puppy-Ned-Beatty noises... I digress.
Flatly, the arguments of Friedman's opposition make assumptions based on contrived ignorance, intellectual infidelity, obstinate illogic, wishful thinking, denied fear, and rank complacency. They are arguments larded with confident sounding if baseless assertions based on varying tinctures of the preceding six performance indicators, and they only serve to provide for what, in the final analysis, can only be sack-less cowardice -- intellectual and otherwise. Such is, and has been, the ongoing prosecution of the arguments from the opposition.
Friedman's pompously ignorant and conflicted detractors ascribes humanistic psychological motives to aliens, facilitating a fallacious relegation of them to dismissible myth. It waxes knowledgably on the physical impossibilities of alien propulsion systems then references their superiority later to preclude us from a possibility of accidentally bringing one of them down... then it blithely leaps back to foregone conclusions on the unlikelihood of alien technologies with which to start. Astonishing! They seem unaware of this strange dichotomy, themselves...
It soberly expounds that the already unlikely alien cannot get here because we cannot get there, only inventing a comforting rubric they can use to keep their intellectual distance from them. It is quick to label the ufologically affected individual as a mis-representer of the facts (a LIAR), a mis-understander of the facts (a DOPE), or as one too mentally incapacitated to appreciate the facts (a NUT). To the opposition, there is, or can be (...of needs!), ~no~ 4th possibility.
To this klasskurtxian and pelicanistic opposition, people who see UFOs are, unquestioningly and absolutely, "M" cubed (Misleading, Mistaken or Mentally ill), and we ~are~ alone in our little corner of the multi-verse. ...Perhaps (...pray hard to your fundamentalist god of choice!), even alone in the whole damn thing... a centerpiece jewel in God's crown of creation, ideally! Intelligent alien beings might ~possibly~ exist in some other galaxy, or even at the other end of this one... but not here... Oh please, god... not here.
No! There ~is~ a 4th choice. Verily, there is a plethora... a panoply of 'choices'! These are choices that must come as a result of following the data where it leads and not where it can be driven. These are choices that one discovers as one pursues the devil in the details (as Friedman has for four decades!) and still be able to hold that evidentiary demon by reluctantly slippery shirttails! These are choices that remain after one is able to appreciate the vast amount of evidence extant (as Friedman has) that is physical, historical, photographic, anecdotal, and even personal. These are choices one can accept when one sees past the end of a conflicted little nose (as Friedman has), removes oneself from ones convenient and unfounded prejudices (as Friedman has), or objects to and rejects ones self-imbued and pettily contrived ignorance (as Friedman has). Freidman has a long, long history of perspicaciously, perceptively, and intelligently trying to get it down... right.
We are not alone. Not now. Not ever. Admitting the preceding is to step to the future. Denying it is an impossible and so disastrous retreat to a lost, and even invented or imagined, past.
Paul Kimball is clear in his films that Friedman is very specific and precise about why he says what he says. Not content to sit in a comfy spot and airily spew puerile pronouncements of outdated and discredited "conventional wisdom" like his critics, Friedman chases details that squirm and shift in his grasp, details handily discrediting the 'official' version of puzzling events and/or corrupting, otherwise, what should be a cogent record of same. Rare bird he. We're lucky to have him.
Stanton Friedman is thorough. His critics are only thorough enough with regard to their assertions to sow a fallacious seed of doubt or allow for a plausible deniability to obscure the ufological issue du jour. This is not honorable, on any level, and apes the activities of the propagandist, despot, axe-grinder, canted lobbyist, or spin-doctor.
Friedman is organized, objective, constructive, and comprehensive. His critics are none of these things and are shot down in flames when they meet him in the air for formal argument on the points of it.
Friedman is flexible, acceptable, specific, and thoughtful regarding the ufological. His critics prosecute the opposites of these things, and use every fallacious trick they can to discount him, invalidate him, and discredit him. Even honor and character have been smarmily attacked, reader!
...Et tu, Peter Jennings, and a mark on your legacy, Sir. Point one finger and risk three back at yourself, boyo!
Contrarily, Kimball's compelling film "Do You Believe In Majic," dismissing the recent Jennings/ABC whitewash as patently false and a mockery of what a documentary (...a "mockumentary"!) should be, is a good case in point.
Every point skeptically raised against the verity of the MJ-12 Documents ( clear evidence of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis with regard to UFOs, and an admitted high level ufological interest in the ~reality~ of same...) is dissolved, handily, by citation -- chapter and verse. Truly, these defensively reflexive protests do not hold up upon examination, Kimball is able to show. They are bluster, illogic, ignorance, complacency, bias, and cant. Friedman, on the other hand, can provide clear and compelling evidence that the documents are, indeed, real. His critics have nothing remaining in their moldy corner but strident, officiously vicious, and patently unsupported negativity.
So, in answer to the question asked at the beginning of this essay about differences between the two sets of opposing proclamations, the answer is this:
One set is of 'proclamations' is based on solid reputation, diligent research, pains-taking fact finding, unblemished integrity, tuned intelligence, and verified results. The other set is based on 'mainstream' flatus or klasskurtxian hot air. The reader can judge for themselves which is which. Be that as it may, Stanton Friedman, in a final analysis, ~is~ real, in this writer's view, and one wastes no time, at all, believing in MAJIC. Step forward to the future, reader, not backward to futility.
Such can be drawn from Paul Kimball's intriguing, concise, and calmly iterated documentaries, here referenced. More information can be secured from the filmmaker's site at:
Read on!

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Future Theater

Thanks to Lesley Gunter, who posted this at Women of Esoterica;I'm passing it along. . .

UFO Magazine publishers, Bill and Nancy Birnes, are starting their own  weekly radio show - Future Theater.  Here is some information from Bill about  the show:

This  Saturday evening at 6PM Eastern on Future   Theater, Dr. Ted joins us  for a UFO Hunters reunion along with Dan   Zarenkiewicz, our producer.  You can catch the live broadcast at or or We'll have a  chat   room and open lines, too.

Visit The Orange Orb

Review -- Frank Feschino On Paratopia!


Just finished up the latest entirely free Paratopia, and I have to say this.

Bravo! Hosts Jeff Ritzmann and Jeremy Vaeni allowed —if still flawed— the most revealing telling of the entire Flatwoods affair yet! They did this respectfully revisiting the conventional wisdoms of the klasskurtxian and skeptibunky camps, and some of the more unusual ones at that! Who is allowed to drive oil spewing 1940's era pick-up trucks and where they are allowed to drive them, springs to mind. Answer: no one and not anywhere.

No, Feschino was able to rationally address every concern. "Rationally address," from fact, reader, not rationalize.

I don't think it is a stretch to report that the Paratopian Pair were impressed, even gobsmacked by the accounting.

Flawed? Yes. Interviewers are reluctant to face the provenance of the Monster and seem equally reluctant to inquire about it at all. True, Ritzmann, and Vaeni too, tried to pin Feschino down on Feschino's accounting as pointing to a hypothesis that is extraterrestrial in origin... or the currently abhorred, besmirched, and dreaded "extraterrestrial hypothesis": beings of an indeterminate biology, in other words, interacting with humanity in some manner outlining a way that might mimic our behavior, reader, if we, swapping shoes with the alien, were the extraterrestrials. Frank got it, folks. We've talked about it, frequently. The ETH is unfairly toxic territory these days, a decided magnet for premature derision and too hasty opprobrium. I point out that Paratopia did not engage in this.

Certainly, Frank Feschino, reporting the story he's pieced together over enormous hurdles for almost 20 years, is reluctant to go there for reasons obvious especially to the self-proclaimed critically thinking. In the first place he refuses to speculate on a provenance of something he doesn't know, in a manner which is unsupportable, regarding whether the "Monster" is crypto-zoological, trans-temporal, extra-dimensional, or para-psychological. How should he pretend to know that? He doesn't.

Feschino would prefer to stick with that which IS supportable! What is supportable is that the Flatwoods affair, again, is at the end of an enormous flap as it pertains to UFOs, reader, UFOs enjoying the consequences of the whole of a Military Aviation Arm of the United States operating in fact on standing orders to shoot them down!

These are the objects, reader —attributed to one six second Washington meteor— documented in 21 hours of continuous UFO sightings, mind you, as flying erratically, being on fire, dropping molten detritus, and making funny sounds... alien aircraft attacked and damaged?

Well, reader... Feschino will make no apology that this whole affair, even if it seems to be that obnoxious "extraterrestrial hypothesis...," is right in the reader's face... up close and personal! Though, why Feschino's reluctance?

He doesn't know what or who the Flatwoods monster is reader, in the first place, as pointed out above! Too, considering how ridiculously and inappropriately non-trendy the ETH is these days —this writer suspects— Feschino is loath to give a person any reason NOT to look at the massive data he has collected about, and get this, a secret Air and Sea War —against something decidedly odd— in which so many pilots, other persons, and aircraft were lost. Shoot Them Down is a fact, reader.

Closing, Ritzmann and Vaeni agreed the Flatwoods affair is ridiculous, their words. I caution the misquoting reporter; however, that they also made every indication that this ridiculousness actually credited the Flatwoods case. It did not remotely discredit it. See, we all agree that this UFO thing IS ridiculous as a portion of its part and parcel. It is ridiculous to the "conventional wisdom," reader, but I think we all might further agree that this says more about "conventional wisdom" than it does about Feschino's Flatwoods accounting of the Flatwoods affair.

Again... Well done Paratopia!

Read on.
>> AVG Blog --
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e --

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Flatwoods, Sandbagged By MonsterQuest

Folks, regarding the recent History Channel MonsterQuest episode of March 10th featuring Fred May, Frank Feschino, Stanton Friedman, and other witnesses from the town of Flatwoods, West Virginia: I was the bearded fellow, the only one, I think, associated with the Flatwoods segment exclusively. I wore the UFO Magazine hat. I was working with the Helium Balloon and assisting Feschino vis a vis the sighting at the hunter's camp in deep forest beside the spring fed stream. My one spoken line, used apart from where I actually said it was, "Frank, there's a hot spot up there...," or some such... all that said:

Folks? You can quote me!

I have no idea what that program was about! Why, apart from Joe Nickell who was decidedly true to form, I didn't even recognize who was involved in it!

This is _real_ irony, reader, given I was at Flatwoods for a week during the shooting —and I do mean shooting— of the MQ program. Moreover, I have an appropriate intimacy with all the principals shown on the Flatwoods segment and have better than a layman's understanding of just what occurred in and around Flatwoods that Indian summer night in 1952.

Ladies and Gentleman, let me digress to say that, entirely apart from what the Reader saw on a "flawed" MonsterQuest, THIS is what occurred on that one night in Flatwoods in Flatwoods:

I remind the HONEST reader that this referenced map data is supported by Project Bluebook, named Newspaper reportage, and first person witnesses in that order of numeracy.

The History Channel, one finds, had the time, opportunity, and all the requisite data to produce a stunning program about the infamous Flatwoods affair. What the History channel did instead, reader, was to contrive to manufacture a senseless "mash-up" of two entirely unrelated cases from what could be most easily be "faux-discredited" in either of them. Suggesting this bogus relationship, one not even remotely tenuous, is the program's kiss of less-than-mediocre death.

Sincerely, none but those entirely honest with themselves dare call this very poor, contrived, and inauspicious telling of the Flatwoods story a blithering incompetence, a fatuous cluelessness, or a distorted propaganda! More irony is revealed given Feschino, Friedman, and I had to sign sworn statements indicating our contribution to the program was true as we knew it to be true. The History Channel reportage of same, paradoxically, was not.

See? Flatwoods was the tail end of the biggest UFO Flap in US History: The 1952 "Summer Of Saucers" chronicled by Frank Feschino, Wendy Connors, various other authors, and an un-sifted Project Bluebook. Reader! It was _not_ about "Lizard Monsters" allegedly lurking the woods for 60 plus years, and to this day. This is the distortion prosecuted by the History Channel.

And this! The intrepid MonsterQuest documentarians wrongly called the more honest Stanton Friedman a "doctor" and made the dissembling (to be kind) Dr. (degree immaterial) Nickell look "reasonable" in contrived comparison! Glowing eyes? Not before or since. Ground miasma? Not before or since! Mass hysteria? Not before or since! Noxious weeds? Not before or since! Roc sized barn owls? Not before or since! How could they have got things so canted and wrong!

I'm sick at heart and really ticked off... Feschino, who deserves better than this, was fit to be tied. See, he's telling the culture changing real story. Nickell and company shill for the guys insulting the reader's intelligence and obscuring real history. Case in point "Mass Hysteria" as touted by Dr. Nickell... is a clueless dodge.

Why? The witnesses at Flatwoods, a gang of playing children and a couple of young adults, presupposed a meteor, predominantly, on the Fisher farm in the hills above the school that evening. They'd heard about them recently in school. Nickell _dissembled_ when he reported they expected "monsters"... They did not run up a hill armed with only with a flashlight to look for "monsters," Reader! That only happens in the movies and Joe Nickell's facile imagination! They went up the hill to pick up pieces of a meteorite!

No, the Flatwoods story was not remotely told. The historical facts regarding the "Flatwoods Monster" incident are distorted, once again, by a soap-selling TV show.

Tune in to the actual story, cited above, to tune _up_, sincerely. See, it's not a story about a giant lizard in a "hover round" "attacking" a group of Flatwoods residents with a harmful gas. The gas, remember, was actually an exhaust emitted from pipes surrounding the lower torso of the body. The lower torso was part of the propulsion system of this giant "metallic" structure propelling it and causing it to hover. Moreover, apart from the gas, the "Flatwoods Monster" never made any aggressive or threatening maneuvers towards the witnesses during the encounter!

More crass inaccuracies?

The nearly 60-years of "sightings" reported by the MQ show were not all "monster" sightings, as the over-edited Feschino and Friedman footage seemed to intimate, but were UFO sightings! This is what the two researchers reported on. _UFOs_, reader! Not _monsters_!

The "Flatwoods Monster" incident, the Snitowsky "Frametown Monster" incident and the Frametown Hunter incident are the documented entity sightings, reader. These, and other "monster" sightings... never occurred again! It's UFO sightings that are ongoing! This was the actual report and testimony of Friedman and Feschino!

Other "real" entities documented on record in the Flatwoods area are as follows:

Dec. 30, 1960. Hickory Flats, WV, Located in Webster County and just across the southern Braxton County border - Witness Charles Slover, 35 years-old, was driving a delivery truck and sighted a 6-foot tall hairy biped, man-like creature near the road. This was _unreported_ by the History Channel.

Dec. 7, 2005. Braxton County, 7-8 miles from Flatwoods. A wildlife trap camera took a photograph of an unknown entity that has been called the "Braxton Beast." This was _unreported_ by the History Channel. Meager and unrepeated stuff!

UFO sightings _abound_, reader, on the other hand... not "monster" sightings! A UFO sighting that occurred in Holly, Braxton County on Nov. 8, 1957 was documented by Jacques Vallee in his book "Passport To Magonia."

Holly is located near Flatwoods. In Case #437, Vallee reports that Hank Mollohan and eight other local witnesses saw an elongated object that was 12-metres long.

More UFOs! Frametown Area, 1990: A Frametown couple saw several UFOs over the area of the Middle Ridge area southeast of Frametown. When one of the witnesses walked outside of the house to get a closer look, one of the UFOs flew into the back-yard and shot a bright beam of light down towards the witness. This Frametown incident was documented and broadcast in 1990 by a national TV show of the time, Current Affair With Maury Povich.

In 1991, Feschino documented crop circle rings in Frametown, WV., which were recorded by Colin Andrews. Throughout the early 1990s, Feschino also photographed and videotaped UFOs in the same area of Middle Ridge southeast of James Knob.


The Sept. 12, 1952 "Master Map" of UFO locations was not shown. The flight-path trajectory of the "Flatwoods Monster" UFO was not shown or mentioned. This was the Washington DC. to Flatwoods, WV UFO flight-path. Check the included link for same.

The Colonel Leavitt Interview was not shown or mentioned, nor was there any mention of the sizable West Virginia National Guard involvement in and around Flatwoods.

There was no reference that the USAF had heavily documented the Flatwoods incident.

The First person witness-journalist John Barker interview was not mentioned.

Well respected reporter and first person responder A. Lee Stewart, Jr., who broke the national story, was not mentioned. The drawings of the metal piece that he found on the farm were not shown.

There was no mention or reference that there were strange metal and black plastic-like pieces found on the Fisher Farm by the locals, shortly after the incident.

The five known drawings made by five of the boy witnesses who saw the "Flatwoods Monster" were not shown." Despite being separated by Stewart the drawings are astonishingly similar!

The "Flatwoods Monster" color illustrations painted by Feschino from eyewitness descriptions were not shown.

The 1996 Fred May pencil drawing of the "Monster" was not shown. It depicted the figure as "mechanical." This was a point errantly avoided by MonsterQuest!

The Flatwoods reenactment segment did not show the actual "mechanical" figure as described by Mrs. May and Fred May. The incorrect 1952 "We The People" mock-up, which depicted the arms and claws was shown instead... and then senselessly compared to the "Frametown Monster."

Finally, the Star child skull and the entities in Flatwoods/Frametown were errantly compared. These cases have no relationship to each other, what so ever, all respect to Lloyd Pye! I'm sure he would agree.

I'd hoped for the best regarding the History Channel. What happened?

"Hollywood" happened, reader... corporate manipulations apart from, and not interested in, telling the real story... These contrive a mash-up between two unrelated cases and, "highlighting" what was "explainable," work to "faux-discredit" both... actually. We were sand-bagged, imo.

The only good thing... the Flatwoods story was broached, at all, in a no-nonsense manner by Frank Feschino, Freddy May, John Barker, and Stanton Friedman! People are eventually going to wonder where the "lizard monster" (sheesh!) came from and how it came to be in Flatwoods at all. That story? Again, right here:

I personally apologize to the people of Braxton County, Frametown, and the town of Flatwoods specifically, that the story was not portrayed as it was related to the production company. We regret their time was wasted. It's not Frank Feschino's fault that the creative control was well out of his capable hands... as it will be on _all_ these programs. You pays yer money and takes yer chances. We all got burned. All the credible stuff went to the cutting room floor.

Rest assured, though, MonsterQuest at least showed enough to get interest kindled in _other_ quarters. There's a lot of life left to tell the story, still! You can bet Frank Feschino will be banging the Flatwoods drum, verily!

I remain firmly in his corner! There are many rounds left in this fight. Frank is strong and as focused as he ever was!

Closing, Flatwoods and Frametown residents write to tell me that the James Knob site east of Frametown is still ufologically active. Right _now_ reader.

Well, I suspect that if ET had swooped in and landed on the pasture that night while Friedman, Feschino, and myself were all up there on James Knob - and the Monster Quest people had shot miles of film of it? THAT footage would have languished on the cutting room floor with all the other pertinent material, too.

Tha MonsterQuest program regarding Flatwoods was a dissembling hypocrisy... and a shame!

One last point, in the dodgy MonsterQuest "cooked" portrayal, Fred May, Stanton Friedman, and Frank Feschino seem to indicate that Big Lizards in "hover-rounds," plus other monsters, still lurk dangerously in the West Virginia mountains around Flatwoods. No reader. They are not. Nothing these men actually reported to the film crew made that indication.

Sincerely, be disabused of the notion that dangerous monsters haunt your hills and forests! Fred, Frank, and Stan made _no_ such intimation. I was _there_. I _know_.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Follow the Mystic Orb on UFO Mystic . . .

I am so jazzed and honored to announce that I'm now blogging at UFO Mystic, along with two other newer bloggers over there -- Lesley Gunter and Scott Corrales -- and of course, Greg Bishop and Nick Redfern and Craig Woolheater.

My first post over there is on those strange beams of light being reported: Beams of Light.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Gray Is The Word...

A revisit of one victim of "The Official Record" is begged...
Gray Is The Word...
UFO Magazine, September 2007 
by Alfred Lehmberg

Major Jesse Marcel, principal made patsy at Roswell, is a clueless doof and blustering confabulator based on an "exhaustive" review of the "official record" according to one Robert Todd? Crap-cakes.

I'll have the whole story, thank you. A single spurious swag concerning tortured interpretational stretches of alleged facts, reader, is not remotely enough to sway this writer. Especially true, friends and neighbors, when what Mr. Todd cow-floppingly propounded about Jesse Marcel is an "ostensible" officiality only. That's right, ostensible, only. That's not enough to secure my agreement, enlist my support, or command my respect. Eyes askance. Arms akimbo.

To wit: Robert Todd's presumptive, ungracious, and line-crossing attack on Jesse Marcel is without validity, lacks sentience, and is finally a non-progressive journalistic profanity. In other words? Robert Todd's man of straw, additionally, had feet of clay.

Though, it remains Mr. Todd may presume the unquestioned veracity of 'official' records — even as these records have a strong potential for being flawed on many levels. I may discount the veracity of records which have that same strong potential for being flawed on many levels ... The reader sees how this works. Gravy for goose and gander should have a certain similarity or consistency beyond mere taste. Todd's overreaching and self-aggrandizement, therefore, shall not escape me.

Blithely, reader, and with a degree of uncalled for rancor... as if capering gleefully like a demented imp before that acrid-smelling bonfire made of a hero's memory... Todd propounded additional assumptions I would be cautious of at the least, and am, in fact, scandalized by!

See, Todd assumed a flawless integrity of "official government records," mind you, from that self-same government clearly riddled with a lack of critical oversight extant, anyway, and wasting millions of dollars every second to kickback, scandal, or gross inefficiency. That's before, during, and now, reader. I suspect all that's really beyond debate at this point. The Military recently lost track of ... trillions, was it? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, always.

Moreover! Todd assumed a lack of integrity, an abundance of gullibility, and the questionable mental health of anyone who suspects UFO's might be piloted by an *outside* intelligence, at all! He assumed interpretations of fact in a cold harsh light of a "black" or "white"... indeed casting more shadows than he is willing to admit, for, drowning in errant presumption, he allowed not the tinniest shade of ubiquitous gray to feature his misrepresentations. Let's explore that a little bit. Why?

Plainly, Todd's presumption is not remotely realistic then or now, follow? See? One has to allow gray, reader. It's required, essential, and logical. Everything is "gray," reader, Color, indeed, is just a more fully featured *gray* on infinity's color wheel.

Watch! Pure "black" and "white" is a myth, a fantasy — fulsome shadows on the walls of Plato's cave! The extreme outside rims of Bell curves. Personified, shape-shifting monsters themselves in actuality! They are Concepts and Ideologies not existing in a real world except as ideas!

Watch! There are different KINDS of even black and white in the real world, 180 degrees out from one another! Consider the "blacks" of a computer monitor against the "black" of a traditionally printed page. Consider the "whites" of same? ...Kind'a twists your head off, doesn't it! ...To get to the same place doing opposing things... curious at the very least!

Unmistakably! An informed and sensible or imaginatively flexible person acknowledges and appreciates "gray," reader! She has a gray *basket* that is expansive and open minded... friend. He is organized and objective whereas she is constructive and comprehensive, folks! Alternatively they are flexible, acceptable, and specific, fellows, and together are we not made more thoughtful with regard to an infinity of varied grays tinged only by every combination of an ultra/infra!

Gray, not grease, is the word.

Mr. Todd, as it turned out, will endure as none of the preceding! Indeed, he will be remembered, I suspect at best, as a kind of ufological Ptolemy, insisting on an Earth at an errant system's center! At worst?

He was a minor priest of a dark discipline and given to turgid and reactionary reductionisms — thoughtless supports of corrupted cultures. He was a facilitator of the passion destroying "information void..." co-facilitator Kal K. Korff, a booster of the deceased Mr. Todd, without the remotest qualification, I add, but I digress, distastefully.

Coming up, then, is an example of the way our Mr. Todd worked. Revealed, reader, is the *wonder* that was Robert Todd's singular investigative acumen:

Let's say I unblinkingly report to you that I had "...more than 40 Air Medals," earned as an Army helicopter pilot flying combat missions in Vietnam circa 1970.

These "Air Medals" were awarded for aerial combat operations, ostensibly — though rules changing slightly (in interpretation) between units..., again, for all the procedures clearly outlined in awards and decorations regulations for the time... and from which our Mr. Todd's purloined a copy — considering it bosomed in non-errant stone! Anyway, these regulations established, generally, that for every 5 hours of combat flying, or every 25 hours of flying in direct combat support (my recollection now) an air-medal was "awarded."

My very sloppily kept official records of the time were maintained by the admin section of the 135th Assault Helicopter Company (EMU). This was a half Australian, half American aviation hybrid, an experimental unit engaged in daily combat directed operations since its inception. My very hastily maintained "official" records of this international aviation mash-up indicated that only one Air Medal was ever awarded!  One!

Remember please that my documented hours flown in a combat zone are recorded to be 1086, and by definition the hours flown in a combat unit in a combat zone are "combat" hours or hours flown in "direct combat support." See how that works? ...Pretty cut and dried.

Flying ONLY in direct combat support would net 43 air medals, follow? I flew in combat, too, reader... I had more air-medals than 43... My *Official Records*; however, indicate only the one.

Ah-ha, Mr. Todd triumphantly concludes! His impish capering begins! Alfred Lehmberg, it is reported, is a craven liar, a person not to be trusted, a person without credibility, and a person beneath the concern, consideration, and contempt of all who behold him or remotely consider his explications and expressions! Whew!

CSICOPian darling... klasskurtxian commando, and Crap-shooting bastard!  No respect for dead sons of bitches here. It's the evil lives on and on; the good is interred with bones, remember. Todd erred in judgment, spirit, and injuriousness. There should be consequences and the preceding is such.

Back to Todd, his unjustified and narrowly conceived character assassination begins in earnest, then, and is unrelenting for the remainder of his days. Forget that I EARNED over 40 air-medals by the freaking book! No, Todd's myopic and self-serving narrowness... his "square peg" forced into a "round hole"... his insistence on an inerrant "Black" and "White"... has inflated facts facile to begin with and scourged another otherwise spotless reputation! Why? For an unjustified feather in a simplistic klasskurtxian cap? He misrepresented the facts, such as they were, and spun them to discredit UFOs in the aggregate with his hatchet job on Marcel as a... confabulating boob.

But to the contrary! Major Jesse Marcel was a man handpicked from hundreds of qualified individuals for his courage, intelligence, and unblemished record; he was chosen to do a job of critical importance in the interests of the HIGHEST levels of a National Security, perhaps even justifiable at the time! Forget all that!

Robert Todd would! Robert Todd did!

Revealed, exactly what Robert Todd did to Jesse Marcel, reader, and a pelican-pumping "peanut-gallery" celebrates him for it, still! Todd thoroughly ignores the fact that Marcel's integrity, character, and reliability must have been appreciated quite highly at the TIME of his erstwhile paranormal involvement... as the top kick intelligence officer for the worlds ONLY aviation group capable of delivering the atomic bomb! That's right. Reader, do you think a cluelessly inexperienced doofus had the tiller on that very high-profile / high-visibility job? We're otherwise so fond of evoking a too often bowdlerized Occam, eh? Let's do it here!

As to criticizing *bravely* when Mr. Todd can't defend himself; that's so much klasskurtxian crap — shat sloppily slung at par! Let's count among the conflicted amongst you, shall we, who would criticize me for criticizing him. Step up!

There's no lack of defense, is there, against my presumed errant disparagement of the right honorable Mr. Todd's legacy such as it is? That *defense* would be, I submit, Todd's aforementioned evil living on and on, remember. No apologies here.

By the way... that son of Jesse Marcel alluded to earlier? ...Active Army Bird Colonel, Aviator, Medical Doctor, and a military flight surgeon, just returned from combat operations in Iraq! He held a bit of starship in his hands, too, perhaps. He's written a book in that regard, in consideration of his "hero" father, and in consideration of the truth; a truth though heavens fall!

Perhaps some of the damage can then be repaired. Perhaps destiny is to make a true hero of Jesse Marcel, once again. Perhaps some good lives on after all.

Restore John Ford... and Jesse Marcel! Read on!

Saturday, January 2, 2010

My New Blog: Alien Art Genre

Started a new blog: Alien Art Genre. Drawings, paintings, etc. of aliens, entities, UFOs, and other strange things experienced by artistic witnesses.