The Orange Orb: Leah Haley on the Abduction Mythology

if she's telling her truth, she is not to blame for anything.

I comment on Leah Haley's recent opinions on abductions, thanks to Jack Brewer's post at his blog The UFO Trial: The Orange Orb: Leah Haley on the Abduction Mythology

"Absurd Bits" in Fortean Phenomena

 My current Trickster's Realm column for Tim Binnall's site. My new column will be up Monday. 





"Absurd Bits" in Fortean Phenomena

Reading one of my favorite esoteric Fortean authors Colin Bennett right now: Flying Saucers Over the White House; The Inside Story of Captain Edward J. Ruppelt and His Official U.S. Airforce Investigation of UFOs. I'm only just into it, but, as usual when I read Bennett, there is so much rich, juicy and insightful right on stuff it's exhilarating. It's almost too much, one quick brilliant statement after another. One of the numerous gems is the "psychosocial filter" as Bennett calls it concerning UFO (and, I'll add, paranormal events in general) witness experiences: It is an amusing feature of the Western mind that those people who have had a UFO experience of any kind are judged to be people least worthy of analyzing that experience." The witness is often treated as an afterthought, or even an embarrassment. And all is lost if the witness has things that clogs up that "psychosocial filter": The courts of "proper" debate rule out any odd, highly individualized, comic, or ludicrous or absurd elements. Here we see the most tragic-comic emblem of mankind's philosophy: get rid of the nutcases and there will be revealed the shining truth. [Bennett: 39] It seems obvious that without UFO witnesses we wouldn't have UFOs to investigate in the first place. The UFO investigator wasn't there, nor the Sasquatch explorer or the ghost hunter. The witness was there, and she knows of her experience. The problem is with interpretation and assumption. But that's different than what happened, no matter how crazy it may sound. The researcher brings her or his own bias as well. The whole thing is -- I don't want to use words like contaminated or polluted because those words frame UFO and paranormal events as a negative -- but it's all messed up, turned inside out and upside down, from the moment it started. That's okay. That in itself is part of the phenomena. Instead, there are a lot of people out there chasing UFOs and ghosts and Bigfoot who believe they'll get to the truth of things if they reject anything that hints of those "absurd elements" Bennett refers to. That, and bringing along a lot of clanking high tech equipment that lights up and does other cool stuff. I don't remember where it was that I read a suggestion from Jacques Vallee, who commented that many UFO researchers were going about things all wrong. Instead of asking the witness about measurements, size, yards, feet, longitudes and latitudes and behaving in somber UFO Investigator mode, just give the witness a pad of paper and a pencil and have them draw what they saw. In their own words, in their own way. Stand back, don't talk much, and just let them relate their experience. Then go from there. It's a symbiotic relationship between witness and chroniicler of the event. Despite the insistence of some, Fortean phenomena isn't scientific (not to be confused with complete rejection of using scientific methodologies when desired), it's not objective, and it's nothing to be embarrassed about. You're either in it or you're not. You're in it and that means you take in the "absurd elements" along with the rest. The moment you start rejecting bits from a report because it's too weird or subjectively stupid, you've "contaminated" the research. The UFO Police (and the Bigfoot Police) pop up with regularity, with new mission statements and rules about what will, and what will not, be accepted into their (always) scientific minded organization. Embarrassed by most all of UFOlogy UFO Police want to be treated with respect by the residents of Debunkerville and the MSM (mainstream media.) Those invites will never happen, because the phenomena won't let it. Which the UFO Police would realize, if they stopped rejecting the "absurd elements." Meanwhile, witnesses continue to have UFO sightings that often contain high strangeness. I can only speak for myself, but I take it very personally when a stuffed shirt UFO investigator condescends to me that they only consider "hard evidence" and my experience is "only anecdotal." Well kid, it's all I got. But really, in my case, as with many other witnesses, that's a lot. It's actually huge. Lately I've been chronicling all of the strange UFO events in my life, going back to my childhood, (including those pesky "absurd" bits) and it's startling how connected and big this all seems to be. The "problem with UFOlogy" as some like to say, isn't with the "absurd bits." It's with the idea there's a "problem" that needs to be fixed.

Bug Eyed Monsters? ...Not So Bad!

On Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View (also cross posted at UFO Magazine): : Bug Eyed Monsters? ...Not So Bad! As it usually is with Alfred's writing, it's difficult to choose what to quote, since it's all fantastic, and I worry about taking things out of context -- or not giving his words all the attention they deserve. So here's just a snippet; enjoy!

Put your faith in Bug Eyed Monsters, dripping slime from every pore, before you trust a mean humanity malfeasant and abhorred! No, don't worry over-much, my friend, your B.E.M.'s intentions. They're the least of all concerns; fear Humans—my contention!

Autumn Williams' Enoch: Witness Researcher Dynamic

Bigfoot researcher Autumn Williams wrote a book last year about a Bigfoot witness named "Mike," and his on-going interactions with a Bigfoot he called Enoch. Enoch is the title of that book.

The book has absolutely nothing to do with UFOs, but I'm mentioning her book here because of the points Williams makes concerning the witness-researcher dynamic. Aside from the fascinating story of Mike's encounters with a Sasquatch is the concurrent story of the researcher and witness paradigm and how it must be, at the very least, evaluated, if not changed altogether. So many times while reading Enoch I thought "just replace Bigfoot with UFO and the message is the same" in terms of how witnesses are often considered and treated, and the power dynamic between witness and researcher.

Even if you're not interested in Bigfoot, I recommend Enoch for those reasons.

SkeptiWatch: new blog look and title for Snarly Skepticism

New name and look for my blog, formerly titled Snarly Skepticism...and Unofficial JREF Watch: SkeptiWatch.

I hadn't planned on changing name or look, but my friend and fellow UFOnaut Gordon Kaswell commented it was hard to read, and he didn't really like the graphics. Rather than being insulted :) -- (I'm not sure if he knew it was my blog or not, lol) I took a look and yep, it did look... I don't know, just not the best. I never was satisfied with the title anyway. I think it looks better. So take a look. Oh and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if you clicked on the "Follow" button either!

Emma Woods Responds to Paracast and Gene Steinberg's Defamations

Excellent and highly, as always, articulate response by Emma Woods to the recent lies by many on the Paracast forum, including of course the one responsible for what goes on there, Gene Steinberg. UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - Response to Paracast Defamation

Not to hijack Emma's case here, but it is time to stop. It's time for others to stop accusing people they simply dislike of being child molesters, or liars, or making threats where none were made, or of being mentally ill. Just fucking stop it.

And I've never said it publicly, but it's long overdue: thank you Paul Kimball for stepping up and refusing to participate in such a place where these kinds of things are said on a daily basis.

UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog

Much going on at UFO Magazine's blog. I wrote a response to those in this field who are, well, sleazebags. UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog:

"Self elected UFO Police, whether it's someone who runs a podcast or forums, or researchers who get up organizations with manifestos and rules about what speculations will and will not be entertained, are annoying, sure. They're liars. They're manipulators. All that is certainly a drag, but, while on the surface it may seem like petty bullshit, it's actually very dangerous. 

Read the two or three blog entries by Alfred Lehmberg, as well as the comments left by many savvy readers (and a few not so) ---

It's a thin line sometimes, dealing with these fools. Ignoring is the best tactic, almost always. Because no matter how correct you are, -- no, I mean, no matter how right the facts are -- "they" will always continue to engage. That cliche about "(not) feeding the trolls" is, while a bit worn, very true. Still, sometimes you have to say something, when others are being accused of doing or saying things they never did, as well as making truly astounding libelous statements. Even that might be okay if it weren't for the fact so many in what we glibly call "UFOlogy" consider these people credible contributors to UFO studies.

...A Hero, A Heroine...

UFOMagazine 8 September 2006

A Hero, A Heroine...
by Alfred Lehmberg

Dr. James E. McDonald, seminal ufologist and a man of undeniably objective science, was a man who might be observed at two seemingly disparate levels. On one level he possessed exactly what our suspect society stridently proclaims it prefers from its citizenship: intelligence, courage, self-improvement, civic involvement, and sterling productivity. He was ever a total asset to humankind’s elevation and advancement on every level.

On the other hand, he was a hapless fool—however magnificent! I think both observations are correct as strongly as I believe that he can be, oddly enough, congratulated and otherwise lauded on both of these levels. At once, Dr. McDonald’s story is a hard lesson even if it is a much needed and certainly gainful inspiration to us all. This is what is drawn from Anne Druffel’s powerful, informative, and very well-woven --excitingly readable-- biography of James McDonald; it is entitled Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald’s Fight for UFO Science (Wildflower Press, 2003).

Dr. McDonald, by way of introduction, was a good man, a kind man, a renaissance man, and a family man; he was a man instrumental, key actually, in elevating the status of aggregate ufology to the level of seriousness that it remotely enjoys, against all odds, today.

Yet, today, he is almost totally unknown even by those with more than a passing interest in the field.

This is a tragedy beyond debate. Ms. Druffel, in a near peerless effort, would put that error aright.

Druffel portrays the physicist James E. McDonald, accurately it would seem, as a highly respected world-class research scientist and much-beloved teacher, academic coach, and gifted educator. A renowned atmospheric physicist, he was a nascent prototypical ecologist, an incisive social scientist, and a master of diverse multiple subjects: a brilliant man in every regard. He changed the minds of hostile governments, steered academic boards, chaired lofty research sections, and headed significant causes.

Then he got interested in UFOs …

I’ve written before about an insidious social aspect of our hijacked society I tentatively call the Mothman Futility Mechanism. The sufferer of this mechanism, briefly, is an otherwise rational person innocently encountering an aspect of the highly strange.

In a justifiably passionate investigation of that very real strangeness, this person is destroyed in one way or another as a result of paying an awful and inevitable penalty for the pursuit of that "enigma’s teasing challenge," as it is imposed by that non-elected leadership mentioned before.

Such was the fate of Dr. McDonald. Druffel writes a compelling cameo, indeed, about the mechanism in action. It is portrayed exceptionally well in the heartbreaking and heartbroken subject of her startling biography.  Back to McDonald...

This fine man, by step, by increment, and seemingly by design was progressively failed by society, its science, and by those closest to him. He would pay more than most MFM sufferers for his provoked transgression. He would be—perhaps deliberately—aggravated so that he suffered unmitigating depressions he found, at last, he could no longer endure.

Indeed, Druffel succinctly conveys how he would be inexorably driven over the cliffs of the blackest despair by others. He would be goaded, lead actually; drawn out on a precarious limb after years of government duplicity, institutional subterfuge, and agency chicanery. And then the limb was sawed off. With great deliberation and at the nadir of this abject hopelessness, he took his own life.

His was the kind of intelligent effort and efficacious artifice the aforementioned agencies, institutions, and governments would want to finesse for a "managed failure" and conveniently "thwarted success," one might suspect when reading between Druffel’s lines. Indeed, I recall that many of the major players on the ufological scene have been documented as being drawn down the same kinds of primrose path ending so tragically for McDonald. His story, again, is a pointed lesson for the observer of it:

Jacques Vallee wrote about Linda Moulton Howe and Stanton Friedman being played in a similar fashion. J. Allen Hynek and Edward J. Ruppelt wrote about the many hundreds of credible witnesses who initiate a report and then, abruptly, don’t follow up on their testimony. Richard Dolan and David Jacobs make rationally credible cases for an unelected government’s ufological interference and manipulation … and worse things.

Worse things, reader!

Given today’s realities, one could surmise many reasons why someone of McDonald’s caliber and propitious drive would have to be stopped—one way or another!

The mechanisms used against the good doctor are obvious and not so obvious, Druffel more than intimates. Not the least of these —jealous mechanisms of a hostile mainstream— were the scurvy tactics of otherwise inexplicable persons such as Philip Klass and Edward Condon. These were shallow men without imagination and courage, at best. At worst, they were drunk on their own baseless hubris and perhaps even cooperating drones for that conjectured unelected leadership. 

Both were two-faced authoritarian murmurers with a predilection for whisper-campaigning, name-calling, hate mongering, and the yellowest of yellow presses. They were the hackish agents of stupefying misrepresentation and the instruments of crass deception and misinformation. They were the blindsiding back-shooters and the artless shadow-snipers. They are the reason the rest of us are reluctant to be bold!

These, and others like them —known and unknown— were the cowardly hurdles that Dr. McDonald was compelled to clear. They were the cheaters. They were the liars. They, themselves, were what they were pretending to warn us against!

McDonald, on the other hand, Druffel writes, was only a genuine scientist of the first water made aware, as a result of his researches, that a significant number of UFO reports could not have prosaic explanations. He was justifiably intrigued.

He was also demonstrably and justifiably aghast that his much revered science, in the person of the military and the scientists it employed, was not taking a remotely competent look at it. That UFOs should be exhaustively investigated was abundantly obvious to McDonald, along with few significant others. He understood all too clearly that they were not being properly investigated by any means. So he readily took up, as a man who is not a coward will, the campaign to bring mainstream science on line for that competent investigation. We are well served, ultimately, that he did.

For his trouble, Druffel notes, he was bait-and-switched, drawn out over empty air with high-level and well-connected promises of the financial support necessary for a quality investigation which, carrot-like, never materialized, and he, along with his family, was phone-tapped and threateningly followed in obvious ways!

Concurrently, even as McDonald is hobbled and persecuted in his righteous study of the problem, Edward Condon throws away a half million dollars in government grants for a negatively biased foregone conclusion regarding UFOs that he would later foist on the scientific community and a hapless public, very nearly ruining the whole ufological enterprise with his patent obfuscation of it, out of hand.

The bastard! Verily.

Condon and Klass were too little, too late for a complete destruction of nascent ufology, it seems, as Druffel points out with ready alacrity. Condon was clearly and suspiciously identified by McDonald, even before the formal report was released, as a duplicitous ax-grinder who apparently had not even read the report which he chaired and for which he was writing the conclusion. McDonald also made decisively short work of Philip Klass’ ludicrous expository, too. Klass was, summarily, inarguably, and effortlessly dismissed.

But for McDonald’s sterling science, faultless logic, expansive intelligence, and stalwart bravery, the bucket of cold water that was poured on UFOs by these two might have snuffed out the interest in them, altogether. McDonald was truly key in keeping them alive for subsequent generations. Druffel makes this clear, also. Oh, but what McDonald might have done with the half million dollars that Condon just pissed away on his fake study. I don’t think it unlikely that humanity might already be living expressive lives in the asteroid belt as a result. A living ring of humanity around our sun; a glittering halo of progressive humankind living between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter … but I digress.

Why was Dr. McDonald a fool, then? Everything expressed thus far would seem to indicate that he was a fool’s very antithesis. And he was, good reader; he was. But he was also a Boy Scout and a believer. Not a believer in the paranormal or a believer in UFOs, but a believer in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people as a working reality.

He had a Boy Scout’s confidence in the institution of science that went where the data went and not where it could, itself, be driven. He believed in demonstrable right and the courage of tested convictions, not easy convenience, untested faith, and profitable complacency. He believed in the rule of law, the rationality of due process, and the efficacious profits of professional behavior; he believed in the inevitable elevations and advancements discovered in frank open-mindedness, and he believed in the certain ultimate rewards found in a passionate investigation for the truth. Truth though heavens fall.

McDonald’s belief was that his society was an accurate reflection of the preceding. Even as it was not then. It is not now. McDonald, astonishingly, even as he can’t really be blamed, one discovers, believed he fought his scientific battles on a field that was remotely level.

The monumentally magnificent fool, forgetting for a moment that he is exactly the kind of fool that this writer and Ms. Druffel, I suspect, aspire to be and always admire; in fact, the only foolishness we’d insist upon. Fairness, rationality, forthcoming-ness,  progressiveness, consistency, intelligence, and individual respect one should be able to take for granted given no demonstration otherwise.

Any other path is back-stepping, inane insanity. It is also apparent foolishnesses, given the state of the union today and half a century’s ufological denial, extra-normal dismissal, and thoughtlessly executed and canted denunciation by profit-taking pelicanists, scurvy skeptibunkies, and conflicted klasskirtxians.

These were the presumptions Dr. McDonald held, writing off the inconsistencies of science he witnessed as a monumental cock-up of crass incompetence and not what it more than likely was—a monumental cover-up of crafted duplicity.

And one not in our best interests I’d suspect; nor, I predict, would Ms. Druffel. Those who have would keep on having without regard to the sensibilities of those who have not.

Would that McDonald had been better able to take stock of his culture’s duplicity, he might have proceeded along more successful lines. Druffel points out a few occasions where information held out on him by knowledgeable authority provoked assumptions he was making regarding the veracity of professional persons he was otherwise forced to deal with. Thus, more encouragement outwards on that precipitous limb.

These were the officious anti-intellectuals and ethically bankrupt authoritarian toads such as Klass, Condon, Menzel, a host of intelligence operatives, wind-sensing (and passing) politicians, and timid academic functionaries. Betrayers of truth, all!

Verily, Ann Druffel is clear that Dr. McDonald was a fine, upstanding, and intelligent man of ethical consistency and rare courage who was betrayed by persons closest to him; betrayed when those persons knew he was on the right track, doing the right thing, and doing it in exactly the right way.

Where was the doctor’s wife when he had the future by the shirttails and enigma by the scruff? Where were his learned colleagues who knew he was right when he was blindsided by the convenient bias of pompous detractors who’d have to scale a ladder to buff his shoe tops? Where were his friends? What have they done in the aftermath to keep McDonald alive then, and for the future?

Dr. McDonald’s story is a hard lesson, because we are reminded of the prices that are sometimes demanded for the pursuit of human advancement. He is a wonderful inspiration when we recall that his name will be remembered long after the names of Klass and Condon and Menzel are less than ignoble dust.

In closing, this is a book of such power, intelligence, and accuracy that it has compelled this writer to reassess all of Ms. Druffel’s past work in a new, more interested and attentive light. It is that kind of book. Not to diminish the volume in any way, but it could be a dazzling film featuring Matthew McConaughey or Russell Crowe.

They might do Mac justice.

Firestorm! The very title of Ann Druffel’s book is an astonishing hint to just how close McDonald may have been to putting us in the asteroid belt to which I’d alluded earlier. Be that as it may, I am improved, fortified, and emboldened with the reading of it.

I’d suggest you would be, too.

Imbrogno: Just a Baby Kraken

Uber skeptoid feels very proud of himself for revealing that Imbrogno lied about his degrees:UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - A Phil-a-buster He who released the Kraken is gloating, comments right and left.. including two by me.

I really hope this is the last I'll say on this, but I'll watch where this goes. While it's naturally disappointing to find that Imbrogno lied about his background, I also find it intriguing to watch how news of his exaggerations and lies unfolded. Waiting for any chance to pounce and devour, said uber-toid did so, almost channeling the spirit of Imbrogno while staring, once again, at Imbrogno's MIT shirt in photo after photo. Said channeled spirit told the debunker to go forth and reveal the truth, which he's done on many a forum. This wasn't done for any idealistic or altruistic reason or wrapped snugly in the vibe of truth; simply one more item brought to the Skepti World for the show and tell segment. It's all kooksville to them, all of it (as the skeptic who outed Imbrogno proves at his blog, opening with a rant against the contactees, as if that has anything to do with Imbrogno.) Look! The contactees were lairs, frauds! Look! Imbrogno's ideas about the phenomenon are wacky! Look, Imbrogno lied about his education! That proves it's all bunk!

Really, show's over.

Meanwhile UFO sightings and UFO witnesses and UFO stuff of a thousand different manifestations -- good, bad, ugly, beautiful, honest, dishonest, scary, benign, and oh so much more -- continue. But you know, who cares about any of that stuff? I mean, seriously? Not the debunkers. They're rational after all.

(If you weren't sure, that last was sarcasm.)

No prizes awarded here for any great truth telling. Truth had nothing to do with this latest whirlpool in UFO Land. Or Skepti World. No one's won anything. No one's lost much either. The fact of things Imbrogno brought to us exist. Details may have been fudged; but diligent research is a part of the UFO journey; whatever grime may cover some of what Imbrogno has contributed can be washed off. His ideas on things still stand as highly interesting and, by the way, they are not unique. Call them Djinns, demons, "the Devil," ultra terrestrials, or any number of labels, the esoteric theories of energies manifesting as "other" and manipulating the human experience has been around for a very long time.

UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - ...Capturing Belief...�

Alfred Lehmberg's latest at UFO Magazine blog: UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - ...Capturing Belief...

It's not fair to post just a small bit from Alfred's piece -- it deserves to be read as a whole -- but here you go:

Our eyes, then, where they want them ... on our "tricked out" bed of nails... milking meager livelihoods, and the spending that entails... ...the middle class dissolving like some sugar in the rain, earnest folk conditioned it's their lot to lose all gain.

.

The *talking heads* are quick to preach "sound channels" for our thinking, but their *news* is a distraction... from real scabrous monsters slinking! Its spoor distorts cognition—clues us out (by all intention!)... distracted, then, from what it was they stole, is my contention! ~ Alfred Lehmberg

.