-- News that shows you something...

 Iconoboobies...Scrub, Sterilize... Nuke From Orbit!

From:  http://ufocon.blogspot.com/

Reynolds:   It’s rather common psychological knowledge that ugly people disinvite encomiums and attention, even among those for whom ugliness is almost acceptable.

Links to definitions are mine so you'll know, generally, what Mr. Reynolds is trying to natter about... while he provides another startling example of what grace doesn't do under pressure...

The first to raise the silly  psychological issue, Dick affects a hairy mantel that must suit him only too well.  You see, our conflicted "Dicky," decidedly ungraceful, gets shrill and augments , still further, that shrillness... ...with wounded retaliations that are without even the seeming logic of someone... Well, someone who's been too long without their prescribed medications, frankly. 

What's really going on here, in the humblest of opinions by one who has had his character annoyingly attacked by same...?  Mr. Reynolds gazes fretfully  into a dirty mirror and reports his earnest revulsion at what he perceives.  It would be sad if it were not itself so pathetically unethical.

Mr. Reynolds will get no encomium from me...

One is reluctant to kick a cripple around cyberspace in this manner, but this cripple accuses others of unnatural crimes leaving a lifelong stain and would remain so but for a constant scrubbing, the periodic sterilization, or the occasional (if opinionated) nuke from orbit... ...just to be sure.  I would expect no less done for me if, without justification of any type, I sinned against the character of my fellow man to such a degree of pestilent egregiousness... that it would leave the aforementioned stain. 

What can be believed from a person who would do such a thing... and then NOT proffer even the tiniest of apologies to try to make it right!  What will you believe, reader?  What counsel would the reader take?   What opinions would the reader be helped in forming?   What aspect gainfully considered?  Who should be remotely listening to such a person?  

Reynolds:   The UFO community has been and is rife with ugly people.

...Mr. Reynolds pointing his shaking finger... if unaware of the three pointing back at himself, so he is at best correct in the manner of the broken clock being right twice a day... but not for the reasons he thought, though, I suppose. 

Reynolds:   We show pictures of them at another blog but here are a few initials of those who don’t get heard by media or the general public because they are ugly. They are only recognized by their ugly counterparts in the UFO universe:

You'd really think someone who aspired to be taken as seriously as Mr. Reynolds wouldn't sully themselves with such juvenile behavior, but the lovely Mr. Reynolds performs so admirably as that malignantly squalling infant that it is truly astonishing. 

Sincerely, what's to be gained by continuing my criticism of such a pitiable sample as this (imo)?

...Except the aforementioned and required scrubbing, sterilization, and nuking from orbit alluded to earlier... ...I'll be scrubbing Mr. Reynolds stain for as long as I can still bang on a keyboard.  That was an obligation thrust upon me that I in no way asked for but will continue to execute for the sake of others not myself.

Oooooo!  "Pictures"!

What a dork.

Reynolds:   AL, WC, PK, SF, DH, DK, BM, EBK

Alfred Lehmberg? Wendy Connors? Paul Kimball? Stanton Friedman? Richard Hall?  Bruce Maccabee?  Errol Bruce-Knapp?  Yawn... (so tedious...)...

Seriously, I searched the memory hard for an alternate "AL,"... looking for some way to justify staying off the poison pill list... ...as I know how damaging it can be... ...NOT.  At worst?  It's a kind of publicity for which I don't have to turn a crank. 

...might help me move a few more of my Art presentation DVDs or original guitar compilations, eh?

Reynolds:   How to get UFOs acceptable? Keep the visages of most current ufologists hidden. Let only the esthetically pleasing, the handsome and attractive bunch, speak about the phenomenon.

What?!? 

Has Mr. Reynolds lost the little plastic thingy around his six-pack of cheap beer?  What maroon buffoonery is this?  What evidence of distorted perception is displayed for us?  That strange and aberrant production of wounded pique exposes itself like rain-coat wearing Canal Street wino?

Reynolds:   The people we cite aren’t hideous, just ugly. They should be heard but not seen.

?!?

Wow, this was so twisted and appalling one is compelled to just let it stand for itself.  He already mentioned pictures of alleged "...offenders of the one true faith..."  Mr. Reynolds continues to open mouth, insert foot, and echo internationally. 

"Heard but not seen...," what does the reader make of this clueless inconsistency.  I'm accused of being abstruse, but this is a parsec out in front of me.  Verily.  What does the reader make of it?

I resent Mr. Reynold's waste of bandwidth.  My mother is mailing ultra clean jokes and animated  smiley faces to her cyber-friends, and Mr. Reynolds crowds her for the room she needs with his caustic tripe. 

Reynolds:   This would go a long way to ensuring that UFOs get a fair and open hearing. Once the public and media are not subject to the ghastly faces and fat cows of ufology, they might be more likely to listen to the evidence.

Mr. Reynolds is a minor wrinkle on a pompously flaccid ass.  And it IS Mr. Reynolds, in my opinion (for all protestation to the contrary), because the style of explication in this current tripe is identical in style to the tripe that was coming from him before.  Mr. Reynolds seems not even talented enough to pretend he is someone else.  More's the pity.

Reynolds:   Meanwhile, let’s hope that the uglies either get massive make-overs or just withdraw to a darkened den, hiding their disfigurements from those who are sickened by such innate deformity.

ROTFLMAO!  Smash the mirror Mr. Reynolds, and all your demons disappear!

Reynolds:   This might bring UFOs to public awareness, and that’s what we all want, right?

...Like that's really Mr. Reynolds selfless motivation... ....Oh, my kingdom for a pair of dirty socks with which to cork this effulsive pie-hole of petulantly pompous and protracted pique.

Reader?

Sorry about the turmoil, folks.  But back-shooters, bush-whackers, and bastards (imo) can get no quarter from me.  It's you who might be next in the sights of this scold of an insentient sociopath.  Best kick over that rock when you come to it, folks.  Pretty soon?  You can stride a path.

Who's "DK..."  Step forward with honor, Sir or Madam!

Read on...

Scalawag?  In My Opinion...

From:  http://ufocon.blogspot.com/

Reynolds:   The study of UFOs has never been a strictly scientific endeavor.

Lehm:  You blithering neo-nabob.  And where, you unrepentant back-shooter, would you append the blame for that?  I suggest this is a juvenile retort for being the butt of some well deserved disrespect and is beneath your readership's, such as it is, concern, contempt and consideration.  The study of UFOs has never been a strictly scientific endeavor, Dick, because *scientists (and you) lack the stone to engage themselves in any real pursuit of it. 

Reynolds:   UFOs have been a stepping stone for the lame-brained or mentally incompetent, who could never make it in the scientific or academic milieux.

Lehm:  ...Which must explain your feverish interest in it, I suppose.  You with your lizard's insentience, ready sociopathy, and lack of intellectual honorability.  The honorable and intelligent names associated with a braver ufology are legion... and it's you, you dog, greasing the rails of their discredit with your tedious little observations and inane commentary.  You are bankrupt, Mr. Reynolds.  Don't pretend that you are not.

Reynolds:   The very idea of UFOs (or flying saucers) has attracted the great unwashed, where discernment and intellectual acumen doesn’t exit. Ufologists, generally, have been able to sell UFO ideas that are conceived half-baked to those who are half-baked.

Lehm:  It's you needs more time in the oven, boyo.  Your decidedly raw potato only soils the coattails it attempts to ride in on.  You are nothing but a sad collection of untalented contrarians as ignorant as you are mean-spirited... as senseless as you are are shallow.  At best?  You are only a good example of a bad example.

Reynolds:   The investigation of UFOs has never attracted real scientists, except for James McDonald, who killed himself after contending with military and academic constructs that were nefarious, or worse.

Lehm:  Here's a great example of your lack of consistency and a refutation of your core argument... Think this might be one of the reasons real science won't investigate UFOs, dim-bulb?  Moreover your inadequate and so moronic definition of "real scientist"  needs something, eh you charmless and insentient bunkster!

Reynolds:   Members of academia are a loathsome lot pretty much but academics can act civilized. Ufologists can’t, because ufologists’ egos are what is being sold, not ideas, hypotheses, of theories as such, just egos.

Lehm:  Jesus!  Do you read the stuff before it goes out, or do you just naturally insert your gamey foot into your ruined pie-hole and then echo same internationally!  "No egos in science, by gum"!  "No egos at *UFO Icono-boobies, by cracky"! What a prosaically crass buffoon you are.  Verily.

Reynolds:   Ufologists want or need to score points within the UFO community. Those who have worthwhile ideas about UFOs don’t broadcast them to the UFO community but hold them in situ for a small band of true investigators and truth-seekers, and those with worthwhile hypotheses or ideas do not call themselves ufologists, a term of derision (rightfully) for those who dabble in the realm of UFO phenomena [sic].

Lehm:  Now you're just banging on the keyboard with your forehead, DICK... 

Reynolds:   It’s all about ego and the salvaging of image for virtually everyone now extant in the closed-minded world of UFOs.

Lehm:  I suspect you had your ego in for overhaul recently Mr. Reynolds, and I further suspect you should take it back to the shop.  It's still blowing black smoke and burning cheap oil.  It's still foolish and uninformed.  It's still embarrassingly inconsistent...

Lehm:  ...maybe if you changed the wall paper?  ...Held your mouth different?  ...Packed sand in a prolapsed pore?

Reynolds:   UFO purists have gone underground.

Lehm:  I wish you would.  Maybe it's your time?

Reynolds:   It doesn’t take a psychologist to decipher the maladies of “ufologists.” The blatancy of the UFO neuroses is palpable, even to the psychological neophyte.

Lehm:  Right -- you need help imo.  Get it. 

Reynolds:   The study of UFOs has been circumscribed by this ego-stroking, and the cult of egotists that has been created has doomed any renascence of fresh adherents who might shed light on the UFO enigma.

Lehm: I'm reminded of the piqued ravings of an insouciant fool signifying nothing.  

Reynolds:   Of course we speak in generalities here as there are exceptions to our litany of the debased. And we’ll cite, upcoming, the few – the very few – who are worthy of encomiums for their work on and in the UFO mystery.

Lehm:  "Litany of the debased"?  That's rich, DICK.  Like you were credible enough to cast the remotest aspersion.  ...Proffer the meagerest assessment pro or con.  ...Offer the tiniest insight.   ROFL!

Reynolds:   As for the UFO egotists, we’ve cited them at our other (password protected) blog….

Lehm:  Oh, pack a sock in it... Reynolds!   Ooooo... password protected!  You have us all a'tremble and terrified.   Feh!  You only serve to avoid a further unmasking of your own brand of repugnant intellectual incest, no less and likely more.

It remains that you are a scurrilous slanderer without even the capacity for an insincere apology.

http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoke-and-fire.html

My son has recently come across where his father, the provenance of his very name, was associated on the world wide web with high crimes as repugnant as you are, Sir!!!  You might recall?   I intend to whack your pointy little head every time it leaves it's smarmy little hole and I have a stitch in my side...

You know?  I'm betting, on reflection?  You had a lot to do with my stroke... Thanks.

Pack it in.  You're done.  Everybody knows who you are; your credibility is measured in negative numbers; You're a fool and a charlatan and you are yourself what you incompetently criticize...

Oh... and awfully sorry about all the name calling?  But you don't bring out the best in me.  You insufferable moron.

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«*¥*»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.

...I've just been alerted that this annoying piece of tripe, "UFO Iconoclasts," has been taken down... I do hope I've had some small part in its satisfying demise..

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«*¥*»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.

Nope ... same tedious institution of invented personalities... back with a whole new covey of invented finger-puppets practicing, still, what they would accuse.  Feh!

How Transparently Rovian!

From Paul Kimball's Blog:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/

Kimball:  It's good to see my Number One Fan is back at it. I was getting bored
of looking at the picture of Richard Nixon that was supposed to
represent me in his previous panegyric. I'm more of an Teddy
Roosevelt kind of guy.

Lehm:  Uh -- I think it probably more likely Mr. Kimball perhaps wears a teddy, and is fetching in his strapping heels; not that there's anything wrong with that, at all.  Moreover, "fan" is a malapropism and a misnomer... "Number one Huckleberry" is closer to spot on.  And any panegyria Mr. Kimball detects could only be the most pathetic kind of wishful thinking as I find his close horizons confining, his world-view revolting, and his arrogance irrelevant and embarrassing.

Kimball:  Or is it Woodrow Wilson?

Lehm:  An unrepentant racist and corporate elitist...?

Kimball:  Or Aaron Burr?

Lehm:  ...hmmm... same receding hairline, lack of morals, and canted bellicosity?

Kimball:  Depends on my mood.

Lehm:  ...Which seems convenient and arbitrary when it is not pompous and unimaginative. 

Kimball:  Besides, everyone who's anyone knows that my old pal The Manager is
Richard Nixon!

Lehm:  ...Which should not surprise anyone, even in jest.  This is the individual who has hero-ized Eric Cartman.

Kimball:  Anyway, the latest from the Paul A. Kimball Appreciation Society, as
run by Number One Fan, can be found here.

Lehm:  ...Only as much as Paul Kimball could be the number one fan of Jeff Rense.

Kimball:  It's nice to be loved.

Lehm:  ...Maybe that's the way love is at Mr. Kimball's house...

Kimball:  It's also nice to find someone who thinks 39 is still young. That
made my day.

Lehm:  Which is not Mr. Kimball's first dodge to the immaterial, inaccurate, and inappropriate.  It remains that youth is not an absolute indicator of intellectual immaturity... consider Mac Tonnies.  But in Mr. Kimball's case perhaps the fitting shoe should be worn. 

Kimball:  As for the rest, well, here's sincerely hoping Number One Fan and I
are both still kicking on 1 January, 2013 - at which point I fully
expect him, gentlemen that he is, to post a column somewhere that
says, "hey - Paul Kimball was right, and I was wrong."

Lehm:  Reader, take note.  The preceding is a statement indicating or suggesting a veracity of Mr. Kimball's that is not supported even as it pompously presumes  to convey that veracity.  With regard to logical fallacies "Petitio Principii ... Circulus in Probando,"  and their use to manipulate discussion by an unethical means?  Kimball's preceding is in the general direction of "begging the question."  As a barrister, Mr. Kimball would know this better than I.  That said?  Of course I would concede an appropriate point to Mr. Kimball.  I'm not the ideologue he is.

Kimball:  Anyone want to make any bets as to how that's going to work out?

Lehm:  The reader might want to think about what's actually being wagered...  Either Mr. Kimball is suggesting I don't have the honor to concede a point or that we are not standing on the tracks with an express train of future history bearing down upon us.  An evaluation of the reader's conscience would answer either question, I suspect.

Kimball:  Look at it this way - if Number One Fan is on the mark, you're all
screwed (don't worry - ain't gonna happen).

Lehm:  I remind the reader that even as the future may be abundantly adjustable by heart felt action taken now?  There are scores of respected PhDs who diligently measure the factors vitae in their respective fields... noting unfailingly that all the little lines on all the little graphs they compose begin to accelerate, disastrously, straight up in the near term.  The reader, therefore, is ill advised to console herself with a simple... "ain't gonna happen."  Moreover, there may yet be salvation beyond the aforementioned, if unimaginatively  put "screwing" Mr. Kimball alludes to...  ...Yeah there may be an end to Mr. Kimball's world... not necessarily a bad thing... maybe a glass of clean water trumps a bejeweled  goblet of pricey Chateau Minot, after all.

Kimball:  If I'm correct, well, party on, dudes, like it was 1999 (speaking of another pre-doomsday year that passed uneventfully).

Lehm:  Nonsense.  1999 can in no way compare to to the incept 1000 AD where the rank and file stopped working altogether and just stood in fields they did not own looking at the sky waiting for their God to come down and smite them!  To suggest so is insulting to a present day humanity.  But party on, "Garth."

Kimball:  I suspect that Number One Fan, grim pessimist that he is, secretly
hopes that I'm right.

Lehm:  What a characteristically obtuse thing for Mr. Kimball to say.  Of course I hope he is correct!  There's no secret.  It's just that my confidence level is not high... and based on science, I suspect, and not superstition.  Mr. Kimball supports those rose-colored granny glasses on his beady little eyes, I'd guess.

Kimball:  In the meanwhile, time to get back to fronting for the
_____________________.  I'm sure Number One Fan will fill in the blank space - probably with 1,000 words where only one or two was really called for, but then I
wouldn't have it any other way.

Lehm:  Mr. Kimball, in his usual bad hyperbole, fails to mention the original art and the occasional musical soundtrack accompanying same, but those who *can't* will sometimes carp with regard to those who *can*, nes't ce pas?

Kimball:  P.S. In the photo above, I'm the handsome "young" one on the left.

Lehm:  ...And note in his decidedly un-retouched and simple (...if flattering?) photograph, the arrogant and officious smirk beneath the thinning hair, where the likeness of myself is conversely teased-up and distorted into an unflattering caricature of the net-loon or fringe-whacker.  No problem, I just consider the motivations of the source and move along... ...but it is interesting to note that this is the tactic of a Karl Rove and descriptive of that which our Mr. Kimball would otherwise profess to denounce and rebuke.

That said, let's see if I can contrive a similar collage... only in reverse...

Hmmmm... Mr. PeeKers looks a little like an inbred Mr. Pettingill.  The reader may have an appreciation how easy that is to do...

Read on...

...Bring It On?

From Paul Kimball's Blog:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/04/2012-bring-it-on.html

Kimball:  When I was at Laughlin attending the International UFO Congress Convention a month ago I met at least a couple people who expressed to me their absolute certainty that events are building up to the destruction of the world in 2012. Bird flu, war in the Middle East, global warming, Iran with nukes, American Idol, etc. - you name it, and they saw it as a sign of the coming end times, although to them the "End of Days" had more to do with aliens than it did with God. However, some evangelical Christians are also focusing in on 2012 as the date for "the end" (or is it the "beginning of the end" - my Christian theology is a bit fuzzy on exactly how it is all supposed to play out).

I suspect that this is not the limit of Mr. Kimball's singular fuzziness on this (or any other) subject, but a testament to just how close his tedious little horizons are, how narrowly meager his intellectual focus is, and what denial can do when it is couched in sneering pontification and uninformed braggadocio.  Moreover, all that's really clear in Mr. Kimball's charm-less little explication is a penchant for the soothing prosaic or a predilection for the pompous proclamation.    

Kimball:  Google "2012" and "Mayan calendar" and you'll run into a myriad of web sites detailing just how and why these people believe what they do. My favourite can be found here.

Points can perhaps be made for Mr. Kimball... given his well chosen example of one of the better web treatments I have ever seen regarding this enigmatic issue... until one notices the inordinate and inappropriate distance he puts between himself and "these people," pretending to understand "how" and "why" these people "believe what they do."

Many "believe" what they do because they are genuine truth-seekers desperately attempting to fill a knowledge void created by a duplicitously fraudulent *mainstream*... ...supported by a *Science* plumbing new depths of cowardice and canted infidelity.  It is a cowardice and infidelity for which Mr. Kimball seems to gleefully front.

Kimball:  It has a lot of links, and it also has a synthesized version of Aaron Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man playing as background music, which is both cheesy and cool at the same time (FFTCM being one of my favourite pieces of music, and Copland one of my favourite composers). REM's "It's the End of the World as We Know It" would make an amusing pop music substitute. But I digress...

Mr. Kimball should restrict himself to digressions where he only attempts to paint himself as an erudite player in a milieu for which he has no real respect or appreciation.  Beyond that?  We only have have a self-aggrandizing screed and a stealthy depiction of intellectual timidity.  There is going to be more to heaven and Earth than Mr. Kimball will credit in his puddle deep personal philosophy.  Of that we can be pretty certain.

Kimball:  This is all hooey.

...Said thoughtlessly if authoritatively and bereft of any originality or a scintilla of support.  An opinion among many opinions with the same frequency extant as could be found in any number of functional anal pores on the planet.  His seems to carry, certainly, no more and perhaps less weight than any other pore on our tormented globe. His hooey's the best candidate for true hooeiness given the vetted measurements of the science Mr. Kimball would otherwise pretend to support.

Kimball:  The world is NOT going to end in 2012, and I confidently predict that, barring some sort of personal tragedy where I'm run over by a flying saucer, I'll happily be sipping margaritas with the missus in Bermuda or some other warm place when we're (hopefully) comfortably retired in the '30s (that's the 2030s, as opposed to our 30s, which are almost over - eep).

Mr. Kimball is a youngish man and like many youngish men of his stripe and politics thinks he has love, life, and the universe all figured out adequately enough to pronounce on same.  He does not.  

Kimball:  Making it worse is that it's hooey that unscrupulous con-men and women are going to no doubt use over the next six years, to bilk as much money as possible from the credulous.

...Con-persons inevitably born as a result of the aforementioned "knowledge void" that Mr. Kimball facilitates with his denial of it and his albeit ineffective mocking of same?  Moreover, I suspect that it is not his concern for the poor credulous that drives Mr. Kimball's mocking agenda, but his wish to drown out the moans, creaks, and stirrings heard from the graveyard he insentiently tries to whistle passed.  More on those moans, creaks, and bumping*sounds* in a moment.

Kimball:  Others, well-meaning in an evangelical sense (whether as evangelical religious types, or evangelical UFO types, or whatever - it matters not) will use it to get the faithful in a tizzy, and probably to raise some money...

...Well meaning...? ...Certainly no measurable changes there, eh?  That's the status quo as it presently stands typified by churches we can no longer believe, governments we can no longer endure, and institutions we can no longer trust.  Con-men exploit ignorance, don't they.  ...And the provenance for that ignorance can be found... ...where?

Kimball:  Kimball:  (FYI - if you think the world is going to end, why donate money to the people who are telling you it's going to end? Better to spend it on a giant party, or a trip around the world, or something). But, as it's a free planet (well, some of it is), there's nothing much I can do about that, other than to urge people to employ some common sense - and to google two words:

"William" and "Miller".

Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose.

Or, as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

As for 2012, all I can say is - bring it on!

"Dubya" used the same expression precipitating the illegal war he's lied us into, and in the same belligerent, ignorant, and thoughtless way, too.  I suspect that it's going to take a chunk from Mr. Kimball's backside in a similar fashion.  Additionally, George Santayana does not have the relevance in the situation that Mr. Kimball grapples for, given that Santayana wrote from a point in time where history could more easily BE forgotten or disregarded facilitating the, alluded to, repetition.  It may be that a global electronic community, an internet, and the unrestricted flow of info an internet suggests... makes the threadbare (and overused) sentiment of Santayana somewhat less relevant than in Santayana's time.

Kimball:  For the believers, it will be the "Great Disappointment" (you'll see what I mean once you've googled William Miller).

This is ludicrous and at best a bad example.  For reasons alluded to below, William Miller (1782-1849) is as far away from us as the Sumerians were from him and it was the Sumerians remember, about 5000 BC, who demonstrated detailed knowledge of an asteroid belt and planets that they could have in no way perceive themselves... suggesting a huge mystery *science* ignors.  The question is suggested...

Kimball:  For the rest of us, living in the real world, 2012 is just the year that precedes 2013.

Uh huh... consider, reader:  All things, including time itself, are in a state of measurable acceleration that anyone in the business of measuring things recognizes ... We are presently living in what Alfred North Whitehead called the "short epochs." The epochs themselves are getting shorter as you read these words...

Real science, the IMF, the World Bank, insurance actuaries, monitoring government agencies, Think Tanks on both sides of the aisle, and persons studying population initiatives know that business as usual, business as it has come to be known...?...cannot be sustained at the present rate without complete disaster being the only result in the very near term. 

When these aforementioned entities perform their meager little measurements (on global warming, ocean death, the population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land, weather changes, glacieral melting, food production, housing availability and affordability, toxins in the environment, transmission of infectious disease... et sig al...)  and transcribe their calculations to graph paper?

Well, friends and neighbors, it's real close to 2012 that the lines of all those graphs start going straight up and achieving escape velocity!  The end of "...as we know it..." ... seems abundantly nigh.  That's the science...

Mr. Kimball may do well to talk to his broker and provide for some liquidity in his portfolio in the near term... eh?  Suffice to say merely whistling past the graveyard is not enough to keep from having to turn in, or in other words, Mr. Kimball is whistling too loudly to read all the way to the period.  Verily.

...Major world changes by December 21, 2012 seem abundantly reasonable.  Buckle up.

From Paul Kimball's WebLog

...Regarding his direct participation in a proposed debate on the merits/evils of EXOPOLITICS

My commentary in italics...

Kimball: Alfred Lehmberg, on Strange Days... Indeed last night, suggested that there be an on-air (i.e. radio) debate about exopolitics, between a proponent of exopolitics, and an opponent. While I usually ignore Mr. Lehmberg, I find myself agreeing with him - sort of - on this one.

Lehm: However you would care take it, Mr. Kimball. You might remember, though, that you are in the predicted 'reactionary' mode in a debate's regard... not having suggested it yourself... ...and now try to spin its seeming inevitability to facilitate your suspect agenda? That's all that's going on here. ...And ignore me at your literary peril, dude. I aim to be your huckleberry for reasons I suspect we're going to get into presently, in our own right.

Kimball: Of course, as with anything that comes from Mr. Lehmberg, appearances are deceiving. His agenda is not quite what it appears to be.

Lehm: Exactly the charge I would level at you, Sir, and for decidedly less self-serving reasons, I don't hesitate to add...

Kimball: First, he wants Victor Viggiani to be the "neutral" moderator of any such debate. The problem here is that Mr. Viggiani is an exopolitics supporter (he is a member of the advisory board of Michael Salla's "Exopolitics Institute", and organized the exopolitics conference in Toronto last September). He is not neutral on the issue, by any stretch of the imagination.

Lehm: You point up one of your more auspicious failings almost immediately. You need to stretch a palsied, banal, prosaic, and pedestrian imagination more that you have. 

Mr. Viggiani is an honored and honorable academician cognizant of the debate process itself and knowledgeable with regard to the aspects of this very singular one. He's not a shill or a ringer or an insipient ideologue unable to see the forest for the trees. Moreover, familiar with positions of both sides of the aisle, he is just the kind of man who can who can restrain the "dog" you would allude to later.

Kimball: Second, Mr. Lehmberg wants to be one of the on-air judges of who won the debate. Like Mr. Viggiani, he is hardly neutral on this issue (indeed, he suggested last night that my call to give exopolitics the "cold shoulder" was akin to book burning, missing my point entirely, and, I suspect, on purpose).

Lehm: I'm a regular on a program I respect and can be depended upon to not only admit any partisanship that might be there (without regard to your suspect assessments of what they might be), but I'd point out that the other individual on the "post-game discussion panel" is EBK, and he falls across the blade from me with regard to sensibility on this issue. Ideologues offend me, Mr. Kimball... neatly outlining the problem the problem I have with you.  "Judging" is too strong a word whoever uttered it to start... I may have. Not appropriate to judge? I still have thoughts on the matter. I'm not sorry or remotely apologetic that they run counter to your own...

Kimball: Most important, however, is that he wants the debate to be between Stephen Bassett and yours truly. Now, I agree that Mr. Bassett, as a defender of all things exopolitical, is a good choice (although Michael Salla or Alfred Webre, as the most vocal proponents, would be better). But me as the opponent? Why?

Lehm: We'll get to _you_ in a moment. ...But Bassett because Basset largely escapes the taint of your inauspicious tar-brush and furious witch-hunt Mr. Kimball! Bassett acquits himself with gentility and grace and understands the finer points of the debate you would lose, I suspect. Bassett is the best choice.

Lehm: You on the other hand, however you would try to spin it... you're suggested because it's you bumping your fatuous gums to the antithesis... ...much like Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell... and for more than a few of the same reasons, is my suspicion.

Kimball: Simple - the reason Mr. Lehmberg wants me to be the face of opposition to exopolitics is because I'm easy to attack. It doesn't require him, or others of like mind, to think about the actual issues - they dislike me from the get-go (neo-klasskurtzian, rampant narcissist, rapacious net weasel, Christo-fascist book burner that I am, at least according to Mr. Lehmberg). I'm the perfect straw-man to set up for such a debate. It makes it easy for them to support the exopolitical side if I'm the opponent, just as it was easy to support the ETH when you trotted out Phil Klass as your opponent (as opposed, say, to a ufologist like Brad Sparks who does not accept that the ETH is the ETFact)

Lehm: Simple? That's what's so pathetic about a slavish dependency on the balkanized and bowdlerized razor of Occam you narrow-focus scientistics have cloaked yourself in.

'Ordinarily'? Simplicity is the rule. Though, it's not the rubric you have used, Sir, a ready device to pick a preferred explanation... over the more uncomfortable one. Sometimes, Entities must be multiplied to satisfy necessity... No Sir, you are picked because you have tediously shoved yourself in on the spot. You got what you campaigned for, nes't ce pas?

As to "neo-klasskurtzian, rampant narcissist, rapacious net weasel, and Christo-fascist-book-burner"? Well, one gets known by even intimated fruit, Mr. Kimball.

Lehm: And since you brought it up -- climb down off your spuriously dodgy anti-ETH hobby-horse and know that the provenance of the "other" is immaterial. as you well know. It _exists_, regardless, be it psychological, extra-temporal, extra-dimensional, or extraterrestrial. This is forgetting you don't likely believe ANY of it... which is why you can blithely discount its importance for your canted pursuit of more pedestrian concerns...

Kimball: While I love debating, and have more than my fair share of experience (I would prefer a cross-examination format, FYI), there are better opponents out there, with greater stature, and decades of UFO research experience behind them. They would be a lot more difficult for the likes of Mr. Lehmberg to easily dismiss.

Lehm: The "likes," eh? That won't go unnoticed, Mr. Kimball, forgetting for a moment that you have claimed that you don't think like a lawyer... and what logical fallacies do we begin to tread upon here?

It remains that there is no better opponent out there than yourself... ...with your obstructionist, reactionary, and outraged point of view? Indeed, it could be argued that you intimate the beginnings of an "opt out" on the debate for which you have obliquely "called out". Courage Mr. Kimball. ...Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Kimball: They would confound his comfort zone - and that, in and of itself, would be fun to watch.

Lehm: Excuse me. When did this become about me? I don't think it is, do you? Does the patient reader?

I'm interested in finding out why Mr. Bassett suggests a validity for a concept that you, Mr. Kimball, take every opportunity you can to invalidate. Compare and contrast... what does Mr. Bassett find useful? What does Mr. Kimball find dangerous? Why?

Me, I'm already quite comfortable... and stay that way? Yes. Thanks.

Kimball: But, like I said, the principle of Mr. Lehmberg's idea is sound. So here's my counter-proposal:

Lehm: Read... advantage taking/ducking spin.

Kimball: 1. Make it happen, but pick a truly neutral moderator. No offense to Mr. Viggiani, but he isn't that person. He has, as Kevin Randle has been known to say, a "dog in the hunt".

Lehm: There is no dog in the hunt because you say so, in the first place. In the second, perhaps unlike yourself? Mr. Viggiani can curb his 'dog' and otherwise masters it.

Kimball: 2. Make the debate about the "methodology" that exopolitics employs, the "ideas" that underpin it, and the increasingly belligerent tactics of its proponents when confronting anyone who disagrees with them...

Lehm: Like yourself with regard to your reaction to my opposition Mr. Kimball? Can that be in the mix, Sir, or do you function without sin and proclaim for yourself the ability to cast a first stone?

The 'opposition' you protest likely finds it impossible to roll over for your brand of the smirking pedantic... ...or remotely countenance your style of short-throw sophistry.

Sure! Did you really think you were going to get by unchallenged and you could say just any old damned thing you pleased? Draw another stone.

Kimball: ...i.e. the use of the loaded "codeword" debunker to describe people like Stan, Brad, and Kevin, which was the "crossing of the Rubicon" to which I alluded, not Dr. Salla's views on Corso, or whomever (a point that seemed to be lost on some people).

Kimball: 3. Let the listeners themselves judge who "won" or "lost".

Lehm: This is the only thing we can agree to, thus far, and was not remotely precluded by me in any case. Draw another stone.

Kimball: 4. Get one of the following opponents of exopolitics (or the "debunkers", as they've recently been labeled by people - including, just yesterday, Paola Harris, all without a peep of protest from Mr. Lehmberg et al) to take the "con" side - Stan Friedman, Brad Sparks, Kevin Randle, Dick Hall.

Lehm: All persons without your 'particular' and tres 'peculiar' obstructionist take on the matter, forgetting that they are all men decidedly... ...not yourself. ...Which I suspect is closer to the real issue here?

As to my lack of "peep" in protest? If I don't feel I have something constructive to add to the ongoing saga? Unlike vituperous others? I shut the hell up and just pay attention. Take a lesson.  Next?

Kimball: That would really be a debate worth listening to - Stephen Bassett, or Michael Salla, versus Stan Friedman, or Kevin Randle. Or maybe Steven Greer versus Dick Hall. Or Alfred Webre versus Brad Sparks.

Lehm: A flurry of new ideas! A cornucopia of alternate contingencies! A plethora of plausible distractions from the original point of the exercise... ...because of a suspected inability to deliver on your own corrosive rhetoric? Let the listener decide, as you said. And make no mistake Mr. Kimball... the debate as proposed is the event worth listening to, yea and verily.

Kimball: It would require people to make a choice - they would have to answer the question Billy Bragg once posed: "which side are you on, boys, which side are you on".

Lehm: Yeah -- business as usual with reflexive support for a failed status quo...?...or new courses charted into a future bearing down on us like an accelerating train. The "status quo" has us standing indolently on the tracks frozen in the glaring eye of the approaching train, Sir. Another of these 'courses' you protest may move us off those tracks. Why... we might even discover that there's more that just two sides to the issue... or to any issue. Another of your projected logical fallacies?

Kimball: Given the choice between Messrs. Bassett, Greer, Salla, and Webre on the one hand (buttressed by the ghosts of the contactee movement), and Messrs. Hall, Sparks, Randle and Friedman on the other (buttressed by the ghosts of Hynek and MacDonald), I know which side I'm on (and yes, folks, sometimes it is about picking sides - there are times when there is no room for squishy relativism).

Lehm: You can consol yourself momentarily, Sir, by hiding behind the reputations of great men and spin the recollections of them to suit your own reluctance to stand and deliver on your own spurious rhetoric and biased pontifications... but these self-same men won't argue the case as you would, nor would they adequately prosecute your canted agenda.

You've squeaked your 19th Century wheel, Mr. Kimball, accept your grease. Moreover, Einstein is pretty clear on absolutes... Mr. Kimball. They only exist in your mind. Relativism is the reality, squishy or not.

Kimball: I think it would be the end of exopolitics, and would return ufology back to what I see as its proper course - serious research about a serious question (about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree).

Lehm: May be... May be! But the real issues behind this looming donnybrook may come to the fore, too... ...that decades have been spent in the business-as-usual "head in the sand" ufology to which you allude...and subscribe ...and we have not progressed a hair's width to gaining on an ...understanding... that your culture, your society, your conflicted agencies, institutions, governments, and religions... ...stand so steadfastly opposed to.

You front for these Mr. Kimball... be not proud. Moreover, I suspect you are not that "reasonable person" "reasonably disagreeing," by any stretch of the definition. Put that cloak back on its hook...

Kimball: And that would be a good thing.

Lehm: Uh-huh... ...several days ago you said you were going to leave these ufological concerns for a time... and devote yourself to "Paulitics 101," something supplanting the ufological which you deemed decidedly, and by definition... much less important.

...Your Canadian political process, that is to say, as it pertains to electing a majority government more in line with the neo-political insanities of the Bush Administration, so, in effect, neatly turning Canada into the worst and most illegitimate parts of an expression that is the United States.

If the 'other' is real in some fashion, and you have made some tacit agreement that this is so... what, indeed on Earth, _could_ be more important, Mr. Kimball?

So you see, Sir... your little smirky sneer that UFOs can be back-burnered because you have bigger (more self-involved?) fish to fry is ludicrous on its face, forgetting that it paints you more as you are... a churlish pedant with a dodgy politics who treats ufological concerns without the respect you, vitriolically, maintain is threatened by any alternative thinking on those self-same matters.

That's why your direct participation is key, Mr. Kimball. It hauls you out of defilade to be more clearly seen, yourself, and THAT would be a good thing. This is the root of your back-stepping contention, I suspect.

LATER THAT EVENING!

Kimball:  I'll leave Mr. Lehmberg's link up, because if you wander over to his Website, you'll see exactly how he "thinks" - and why his debate proposal was really just as an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues at hand.

Lehm:  I thought the "real issue at hand" was Canadian "paulitics," Mr. Kimball, not the piqued wailing of a rabid nutria dragged from comfy defilade by his back-fat so he could more properly justify ~his~ thinking in a peer review... ...thinking only masquerading as a faux-step forward to mask its two steps back and a slide to the neo-conservative right.

Kimball: He is an exopolitical attack dog / spin doctor. Nasty, and not very effective, but an attack dog / spin doctor all the same. Kind of like an impotent, exopolitical Karl Rove. Just as mean-spirited, just as intellectually dishonest (still not a word of protest at Salla and Harris's labeling of Stan et al as debunkers), and just as intent on using wedge tactics to push his views forward. 

Lehm:  I'm forever amazed at the capacity of some to accuse others of that which they themselves are so guilty.  Nasty, Mr. Kimball, are attacks on character when the character in question refuses to acknowledge your *genius* or validate your regressive "paulitics."

On my, apparently disturbing, lack of protest... As Dave Furlotte said on SDI last week, "Stan et al" all wear long pants and are marvelously capable of taking care of themselves.  Besides, Mr. Kimball, when Mr. Friedman was smeared by the late Peter Jennings on prime time American television last year... ...I was there with an impassioned and timely defense... where was your own?  Perhaps I missed it.

Oh -- and that well designed jibe regarding the very despicable Karl Rove was effective only until I remembered how much you are coming to resemble same.

Kimball: Examine his writings (for years now), and then ask yourself - what has he ever contributed of substance to the serious study of the UFO phenomenon? Nothing. Rien. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And so on.

 Lehm:  Examine my writings (for years now), please!  ...And then ask yourself. 

Are these sincere contributions to an aggregate personal truth-seeking exploration of conscience and consciousness?  Then, ask what what was required to contribute (...besides honesty and sincerity and considering all the levels and situations and conditions where a *contribution* of some type can make the minimum difference)...

...And discover... Naught but "...Nothing. Rien. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And so on..." That I did contribute remains...

That's as good as it gets reader, admitted or not.  And be that as it may, Mr. Kimball's contribution, such as it is, is just a different kind of illusion... but one perhaps less creative, less inclusive, less of an appreciation of novelty and more of a slave to habit... ...than some others, perhaps...

Let the reader decide...

 No... I show up... do the heavy lifting (however enjoyable!), pay attention, and then write my conscience.  That, as humble as it might be, is my contribution, and the only one who really has to be happy about it is me... ...I'm happy. 

Dude, I'm near manic! [g]. 

Moreover, I've a considered respect and demonstrate a loyalty to a coattail on which _I_ would ride ... Anything else is just trying to HAVE your cake too... you know?

 Honestly, like Mr. Kimball... I'm happy to let the individual reader make their own call on my impact... as meager as it likely is, eh?  It may be nice, but it's not necessary, you know?  It can't be.

Kimball: Welcome to the future of ufology as envisaged by the exopols. It isn't a pretty sight.

 Forget the reviled *exopols*... ...that's not the issue, reader.  The issue is progressiveness of any type, the liberal expansiveness of mind that that progressiveness entails, and so then copping to the accelerating concrescence of time that even Mr. Kimball's worshiped science is slowly waking up to... and bearing down, remember, like the aforementioned train... 

Anything else is "paulitics 101" ... pedestrian, perfunctory, prosaic, and... banal.  "...Move along... fight's over... nothing to see here..." paraphrasing SouthPark's Officer Barbrady...

 Given even Mr. Kimball's grudging admission to the existence of the *other* ("...There... ...but, Oh please God, not... ...here"!) some evolution of *politics* (the only process available to our constipated mainstream) seems reasonable... ...at the very least!

 This is... without REGARD (of course!) to the individual persons who attach themselves to that process of a so-called exopolitics... ...the EXACT same way these self-same individuals are regarded in Mr. Kimball's plebian Earthbound *paulitics*. 

This was a surprise?

Hot flash?  There may be some *skunks* in EXOPOLITICS!  Astonishing!  Who would'a thunk it, eh?

 ...But, conversely,  there may be some *non-skunks* too.  *Non-skunks* showing up... doing the heavy lifting (however enjoyable!), paying attention, and then acting on their  consciences.  Guys like Stephen Bassett? 

Perhaps.

All that said... I don't really know exopolitics from bunny-pants... apart from being it's "wedge agent, spin-doctor, and attack dog" (a ludicrous charge).  Outside of one decidedly immaterial link on one of Stephen Bassett's old web-pages... I'm nowhere in evidence in it... so Mr. Kimball apparently sucked that out of his... ...thumb.

No... my interest in exopolitics as it stands is largely fueled only by Mr. Kimball's rabid campaign against it, reader, in as much as I suspect that something deserving of Mr. Kimball's vitriolic *attentions* might have something positive to it, after all.   

To the extent that it seems appropriate? For hyperbole?  Embrace what Mr. Kimball reviles and discount what he supports.  You can hardly go wrong.

  Alternately?  

Don't let Mr. Kimball tell you what a "pretty picture" is.

Earlier?

Debate's suggested t'wixt these two, these two opposed in point of view.  One contrives to burn a book; the other wants another look.

One presumes to know all things; the other knows that that view stinks?  One believes the status quo; the other knows he doesn't *know*?

One 'dismisses' and pretends that he has balance, no pretence; the other walks more dangerous ground, considers subjects more profound?

These are two who have to meet... ...illuminating drums they beat... one who champions what won't float... the other floating different boats.

I'm partisan I must admit... ...but others take a different bit,
though I am fair in my beliefs (if bellicose beyond surcease)... ...I can call a spade a spade, admit mistakes that I have made, and say, with fairness, I am wrong if sense would sing a different song.

Stephen's first to stand up proud and be on board to speak out loud.  Paul remains to acquiesce, but he then must is my best guess.  He's the one who campaigns loudly, demonizing much too proudly, that which he finds so offensive... ...but we might be more... ...comprehensive?

Paul's opponent wants to talk... will Paul accept?  Or will he
balk...

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«*** »§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.

He balked...
 

Canted Bias Lacking Balance...

Cartman's Tedious Top 10 Series...

...#9 Paul Hellyer & Exopolitics

ERIC:  Remember, when I started this list, I said it would be the top 10 developments or events of ufology in 2005, for good or ill. #9 definitely falls into the "ill" category.

Lehm:  Another "List."  Another tedious "box" defined by self-limiting assessments born of an equally self-limiting ideology in turn fueled by a bogus philosophy of ardent self-limitation.  Eric should go back to listing scantily clad females.

ERIC:  I have dealt with Hellyer's entry into the UFO field elsewhere; see Paul Hellyer - The Big Fish Flops and Ladies and Gentlemen, Meet the REAL Paul Hellyer, columns that anyone who thinks this is "good" news should read carefully, and objectively. The man has been an embarassment for ufology, and, frankly, for Canada. He and his exopolitical fellow travellers have set the cause of the serious and scientific study of the UFO phenomenon back, not moved it forward. Last night on Strange Days... Indeed, Hellyer was called "courageous" by two commentators. There is nothing courageous about what he has done, because he had nothing left to lose (What? His reputation and credibility?? Sorry, but that ship sailed years ago). None of the exopolitics crowd have anything to lose. How is that courage?

Lehm:  The 'dealer' alternatively 'dealt' with here, here, and here...

Lehm:  ...And by all means, reader, read "carefully, and objectively."  The convenient "embarrassed" may become the more obvious "embarrassment" in the fashion of the pointing man pointing thrice back to self...

Lehm:  Secondly, Ufology's "Movement" forward and back is a ludicrous implication given that there has been no movement forward in a century... ...needlessly complicated by a mainstream imperative to only move backwards on the pervasive issue of an "other" in the multi-verse besides ourselves... ...intimated tentatively, but otherwise suggested by the UFOs Cartman seems to admit must be there, still... ...but not in the manner of the easy salve of *explanation* proffered by him with regard to... loons and whackos and exo-politicians... ...His specious reasons for an 'unflawed' mainstream's judicious and ongoing  retreat from ufology.

Lehm:  Flying monkey Balls!

Lehm:  The powers that "be" have heard of McDonald, have waded Vallee... ...they've read Hynek and groked Hall...  They've been ufologically "Norman Mailered and Maxwell Taylored"!  

Sturrocked and Haines-ified and Draked... ...Maccabeed and Friedmaned and Randled... ...They know what's what... they know we are not alone... ...they know UFOs are real... ...they know it threatens their largely illegitimate control...

Lehm:  ...They turn away, regardless!  By design.  On purpose.  Patently irrespective. With prejudice...

Lehm:  Thirdly, I was one of the "commentators" assessing Hellyer as courageous, and I submit my real world experience as a battle tested warrior makes me minimally qualified enough to detect same in another.  The reader could rest assured Mr. Hellyer has the quality in proverbial spades. 

A true progressive (and the real thorn in Eric's ample bottom?) he'd have to have courage.  Moreover, Mr. Hellyer seems a quality "instrument" of the required abundance in the "Hynek" sense and worth a listen of at least minimum respect.

Lehm:  Additionally?  It would seems Mr. Hellyer might be brave enough to look forward to his own conclusions, humble enough not to be crippled by his own baseless and homocentric conceits like notable others, and progressive enough to be actually moved to do something about those conclusions...

ERIC:  Answer: it isn't.

Lehm:  Paffled Bat squeeze!  Only when it's seen through the reactionary filter of the reflexive partisan!

ERIC:  Still, this development does symbolize two things, in a broader sense, for ufology.

Lehm:  More paffle!  It only illuminates your too sullen intransigence, Sir, to support a mainstream as corrupt as it is canted and as unbalanced as it is corporate.

ERIC:  First, it highlights the frustration felt by many people at the failure of the mainstream to take ufology seriously (a situation which isn't as bad as they sometimes make it out to be, and which as much ufology's fault as it is anyone else's).

Lehm:  The failure of the mainstream is contrived of its own design, Mr. Kimball!  There has ~always~ been quality work done in the service of investigating UFOs!  It is ignored by the mainstream you pander too, for cause, and it only uses the aforementioned loons and whackos and exo-politicians as an excuse to excuse its inattention and intellectual cowardice.  Moreover?  It's a liar!

ERIC:  Most of these folks are good people, like Vic Viggiani, the Strange Days... Indeed co-host who organized the Toronto exopolitics conference this fall where Hellyer had his coming out party (and where Philip Corso's The Day After Roswell got a new lease on life).

Lehm:  Vic?  ...Vic?  LOL!  Astonishing...  "Vic..."  ROTFLMAO!  What impertinent presumption!

ERIC:  What these well-meaning people don't realize, however, is that things like exopolitics (and the constant, conspiratorial nattering on about the "Truth Embargo" and "disclosure" that goes with it), and Paul Hellyer's involvement therein, do far more harm than good to the serious study of the UFO phenomenon.

Lehm:  Good thing "Vic" and his fellow mouth-breathers on SDI have you to swab out their throats for them or they'd strangle on their own SPIT, eh? 

Lehm:  It remains, though, that the truth IS "embargoed" and "disclosure" IS required for global sanity without regard to the uses of mere words to which you would attribute such ungracious baggage.  The aforementioned baggage is your  invention after all.

ERIC: It is the 21st century equivalent to the contactee movement of the 1950s. The attention that it draws to ufology is uniformly negative.

Lehm:  The contactee movement of the 1950s was ANOTHER result of the very needless information void provoked, facilitated, and maintained by the hijacked mainstream you fawn over and would pretend is so virtuously blameless, Mr. Kimball.  So, as it is everywhere else?  No points here either in your little literary disengage, your seeming rationality, or your unctuously duplicitous literary manner.

ERIC:  Second, it highlights a "methodology" that has elbowed it's way into the study of the UFO phenemenon, which is not really a methodology at all, but rather an evangelical belief system masquerading as a methodology. A read-through of any of the convoluted writings of Michael Salla, or Alfred Webre, reveals exopolitics to be nothing more than an unscientific, a-historical sham, foisted upon people who desperately want to have their belief in the Extra-terrestrial hypothesis confirmed, and will follow any pied-piper, no matter how ridiculous, down the merry-little path of self-delusion. It isn't science; it isn't even pseudo-science.

Lehm:  Verily, forgetting the 'wailing' and 'moaning' of some as regards a "so called" 'dependence' on the ETH... that "need for some to have their ETH reinforced"... ...which is a mere smokescreen to scatter attention from any kind of real focus about what remains to be the... ...'other'... at all... ...and at the bottom of 'it'...

Lehm:  ...even if 'it' is hyper-dimensional, or extra-temporal, or alternatively cultural, or Para-psychological, or... ...take your best guess... ...the 'other' remains  without REGARD to the provenance of this 'other' that the 'critics' of Mr. Hellyer say must be out there...

Lehm:  ...somewhere...

Lehm:  "...Just not here... (...oh-please-God-no-not-here!), ...not now (....oh-please-God-no-not-now!), and not recently... ...or at any time in the 'perceivable' future... or the 'discoverable' past... please... please... please..." 

Lehm:  The preceding would seem to be, on the other hand, your suggested methodology... ...not merely "elbowing" but THROWING elbows it would seem.  ...Flabby 'elbows' of dodgy hubris and nineteenth century sensibility. 'Elbows' three steps back and a slide to the right only masquerading as a step forward.  Kneel down and feel the hum in the freakin' TRACKS, Cartman!

ERIC:  That would be fine, in the "hey, each to their own" sense, except for the fact that in the process of their whacked-out, New Age, ETH evangelism, the expolitics crowd taints all of ufology.

Lehm:  The only thing tainting ufology (et al) is the corrupt, cowardly, and likely criminal mainstream you worship like a doting god, Sir.

ERIC:  It is, after all, easy to dismiss someone like Dick Hall, Kevin Randle or Brad Sparks these days - just point to Salla, Hellyer, Webre, and Steven Bassett (a self-important quartet if ever there was one), and say, "well, they're all part of the same bunch."

Lehm:  Uh-huh -- pretty much the way you do right here, with a glad hand and a ready smile.  Thing is?  After one works in your very portentous parochialism and pedantic political partisanship your words lose heft, your ideas drop weight, and your points become moot.  Sincerely, I suspect "exo-politics" would have been a fine idea if you'd been the one to put it together...

Lehm:  ...And...consider, national and local?  EVERYTHING is politics!  Revealed, resolved and rationalized? Aliens will be, too.  Other thinking is ludicrous. 

Lehm:  Politics!  It's all we presently know.  Of course aliens, without regard to where they come from... ...other times, alternate dimensions, or different universes will be dealt with... ...politically.  War, you will remember Mr. Kimball, is only politics by a more vigorous means.

Lehm:  "...a self-important quartet if ever there was one)," ... pot -- kettle -- black, Eric.

ERIC:  Indeed, it forces good guys like Randle, Sparks, and Hall, to waste their time countering the garbage put out by the exopolitics cadre, in the hopes of setting the record straight. Alas, as the exopolitics gurus seem to be making a full-time career of it, it's almost impossible to keep up; they drown out the voices of reason simply by the amount of material that they produce, almost as if they were being paid by the word, like a hack pulp novelist churning out bad sci-fi paperbacks.

Lehm:  Crap!  All the "misinforming," "misinformed," and "mentally ill" loons and whackos and exo-politicians could disappear over-night in some bizarre "rapture"... and the mainstream would still practice its specious denial of the paranormal, and you know it, SIR! 

ERIC:  Alas, quantity seems to be trumping quality these days, as the guys who are getting the publicity are the Hellyer's of the world - ridiculed on American television, in the Canadian press, and so forth.

Lehm:  Alas, partisan popinjays pretend, proclaim... pronounce... ...no praise... and so forth...

ERIC:  This is a good thing?

Lehm:  Are you a good thing.  A balanced thing?  A forthright thing.  An unbiased thing?  A non-canted thing?

ERIC:  Nope.

Lehm:  Portentous Paffle from out of the sun... suspicious, suspect... a knife against guns.

ERIC:  Lately, Webre et al, with Hellyer as front man, have been calling for public hearings / disclosure here in Canada (does this remind anyone of similar calls for disclosure made a few years ago by that Steven Greer south of the border??). Here is a confident prediction for 2006 - nothing will come of it, except for more ridicule heaped on ufology in general, and more television and radio appearances for the publicity hounds that steer the exopolitical ship - a "ship" which, more and more, seems to be dragging ufology in it's wake.

Lehm:   Pfffftttt-tup-pup...! ...et rude al...

ERIC:  It's time for ufology to change course... before that "ship" sinks, and drags ufology down under, once and for all, into the depths of complete and utter irrelevance.

Lehm:  Oh put a sock in it, Eric.  Let's first untie ourselves from the furschlinger mooring dock!  Until we do that it won't matter HOW fast we spin our screws. 

...But I suspect you know that and are content to remain moored...

...Achtung!

Cartman's Lament

Kimball:  In one sense, it's nice to know that a position you are advocating is shared by others. However, in this case at least, it's sad to see that nothing has changed.

Lehmberg:  In another sense, it's disheartening to be reminded of the single-minded temerity of the pompously conflicted and ufologically obtuse.  However, as is usually the case with self-important and hubristic popinjays, they expose, too much, their artlessly suspicious  resistance to efficacious and inexorable change.

Kimball: From UFO Updates Archives, at
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/nov/m05-001.shtml

Lehmberg:  You know?  For one so disgusted and disappointed with what Errol Bruce Knapp's UFO UpDates is and now, apparently, WAS... does the reader also find it odd the degree with which our intrepid Mr. Kimball LARDS his tediously meepy (sic) lamentations with references to the unique service that UpDates provides?  And, reader, could it not be argued that the lovely Mr. Kimball steadfastly attempts to continue to ride coattails he seems so ready to use for toilet tissue?

Kimball:  The "Rod" is Rod Brock, who finally left Updates about a year ago, for many of the same reasons as I have. He was right then and, unfortunately, he still is today.

Lehmberg:  The "Rod," Mr. Kimball?  As in spare the "rod"?  Or do you betray yourself to us in some other manner, Sir? 

Lehmberg:  Seems an odd inflection, at best, and perhaps one used north of the border and of which I am unaware ...?... That said, perhaps you should qualify your unctuous sentiment (...whatever it was...) with "In My Opinion." The idea that a canted and anthropomorphic nicky-new-guy-neo-nascent-filmmaker... ...with delusions of grandeur and a famous relative upon who's coattails he can ingloriously ride (imo)?  That such a person can pronounce authoritatively upon ufological reality, is ludicrous (imo). Or, would be if it wasn't so chilling.

Kimball:  The post below is from seven years ago, however.

Lehmberg:  Even whiney-ly reminded that I am in receipt of some imaginary approximation of a left handed "Olive Branch" (which is entirely laughable) one remains astonished how far a-field, temporally and otherwise, Mr. Kimball is forced to reach in support his dodgy, two color, and self-serving contentions.

Kimball:  The lesson is that nothing will ever change - indeed, things will just get worse - unless people want it to change, and then actually do something about it.

Lehmberg:  Here we may agree, Mr. Kimball.  Except pretend it was me who banged the words out on the keyboard with my forehead, and not you. 

As long as we pander to a corrupted scientific mainstream which is incapable of qualifying a ufological giant like Richard Hall (et sig al), as long as we treat that which disrespects us the most with the most respect, as long as we qualify persons such as yourself... ...persons intellectually crippled with insentient hubris and limited by unjustified homocentricity, persons inflated with self importance and persons gleefully supporting a suspect status quo -- nothing will change.  You nailed it.

  Good show!

Kimball:  If they don't, then they have no-one else to blame but themselves - not the government, or the media, or anyone else - for their irrelevance to society as a whole, and the scientific community in particular.

Lehmberg:  Respect my Authori-tai, or die, eh "Eric"?  You are a classic example, Sir, of the guilty man pointing a finger at others and unaware of the three pointing back at himself. 

The government and the media, forgetting the klasskurtxian community you won't admit to, are everything you would glibly pretend they are not, Mr. Kimbull.  You solace no one but a juice sucking like-minder, Sir, and the lack of apparent response to your shallow-draft manifesto seems indicative of same.

...Step off...

...Where are my CheezyPoops?

Cartman's Contrived Conniption ("C"Cubed)

["Respect My Authori-tai"!]

Kimball:  I cancelled my subscription to UFO Updates last week, after several years of receiving the posts on a daily basis.  Why?

Lehmberg:  The tone suggests that the loss is unquestionably the readers of UpDates loss... forgetting the loss to UpDates itself...  Loss of what?  The keen acumen and incisive cogitation... presumably (let's not leave out the engaging wit and illuminating repartee) of one Paul Kimball, Esq? 

I wonder if this could somehow be true.  Have I somehow misjudged Mr. Kimball's motives and intentions and contributed in some small way to this tragedy of his piqued departure from UpDates company?  I suspect not.

Kimball:  Because Updates has become more about ego gratification and personal attacks, and less about a reasoned and rational debate / discussion about the UFO phenomenon. Frankly, I had enough.

Lehmberg:  Yeah... me too.  I've had enough of strutting and officious popinjays who practice what they accuse, engage in unethical well-poisoning activities, and use 19th Century sensibilities to prosecute back-stepping and self-involved agendas improving their own ufological stock at the expense of an aggregate ufological stock.

Kimball:  Then, just days later, this latest brouhaha erupts between the RRR Group and Alfred Lehmberg. Because RRR cc'ed me on their original question re: Mr. Lehmberg, which was sent to Errol Bruce-Knapp, Mr. Bruce-Knapp cc'ed me on his response. It can be found at http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/oct/m31-007.shtml.

Lehmberg:  I don't believe that it is remotely unreasonable to think that baseless accusations of PEDERASTY qualify as mere "brouhaha," Mr. Kimball.  My lawyer doesn't think so, Sir, either.  Moreover, it is perfectly clear to the most casual observer why you might be copied on same.  Your note here is an abundant example of why that might be.  Moreover, do you think a readership is so readily taken in by your pompous outrage and faux-offended manner that they cannot readily surmise... Sir ...that you were actually counted upon to help bring me down because my opinions run passionately (and I suspect righteously) counter to theirs... ...and yours?

Kimball:  My response, sent in an e-mail to Messrs. Lehmberg, Bruce-Knapp, and Reynolds et al, and copied to a number of List subscribers and leading ufologists, was as follows:

Kimball:  "Gentlemen:

Kimball:  I have withdrawn from Updates, prior to this current RRR - AL brouhaha. Therefore, there is no need to send me anything that is related to Updates.

Lehmberg:  That's "Mr. Lehmberg", Mr. Kimball.  "AL" is not found anywhere in your too tightly boxed, conveniently complacent, and two dimensional little universe.

Kimball:  What Jay did was wrong.

Lehmberg:  ...To little too late, Mr.  Kimball.

Kimball:  Even in private.

Lehmberg:  Good LORD but you conflicted neo-ufological right-wingers are a dissembling lot!  Apparently, dissembling as a matter of simple reflex!  That letter was in no way, shape, or form a private letter, Sir, and it is despicable that you would suggest so here.  That letter went out to both sides of the aisle and was published on a blog with some small readership.  Got that?  That letter got WIDE release almost immediately!  I got E-mail from overseas, Mr. Kimball, and calls from all over the United States and Canada.  Said letter was NOT "private".

Kimball:  If I had been Errol, I would have booted him from Updates too. I have a great deal of difficulty thinking of anything worse than being linked to child porn, short of murder. So - and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding here - it was wrong. Wrong.  WRONG.

Lehmberg:  ...too little to late, Mr. Kimball.  ...Too Little Too Late.  ...TOO LITTLE TOO LATE! 

Lehmberg:  Besides, what ~else~ could you say and still maintain a shred of high ground?  "R" Cube's very actionable accusations regarding my alleged involvement in PEDERASTY were a result of incompetence, bias, stupidity, ineptitude, insentient enmity, and philosophical infidelity.  The charges were without foundation, support or fact and were raised at all to shut me down without regard to common sense, base integrity, fair play, or my SPOTLESS reputation.  All that is required is accusation, Mr. Kimball, smoke must always mean fire in our presently very corrupted nation even as it's a smoking bundle thrown into your yard by others.  You know this to be true, yet dismiss it as mere "brouhaha". 

Kimball:  Having said that, let me say this:

Lehmberg:  ...And then, Sir,  prepare yourself for my rebuttal.

Kimball:  I would have booted Wendy Connors from Updates when she smeared Rich [see: www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/06/good-bad-in-ufology.html].

Lehmberg:  Of course you would have!  This comes as no surprise to anyone, Sir.  Ms. Connors is not taken in by you, runs counter to you, and refused, as I do, to validate your senseless faiths and thoughtless paradigms, such as they are... ...or respect your homocentric self-involved view of things, such as they reveal themselves to be.  I suspect a philosophical like-minder, follower, or other social stepping stone of which you approved could expect an alternative treatment.

Kimball:  I would have booted Mr. Lehmberg a long time ago, for his smear attacks at Alien View (to which www.virtuallystrange.net, which hosts Updates, has a direct link) and elsewhere on me and so many others.

Lehmberg:  I suspect, Sir, that what passes for a smear in your universe is a failure to make your case and be defeated in debate in mine.  I am proud to stand by what I write in any case.  A smear in my universe, conversely, is typical of the baseless charge viciously leveled at me yesterday by others with an inability to make their case or be victorious in debate.  To be accused of PEDERASTY, Sir!  Now, there is a smear worthy of the name!

Kimball:  Errol, you did nothing about Ms. Connor's remarks re: Rich, and you have done and continue to do nothing about Mr. Lehmberg.

Lehmberg:  I suspect that Mr. Knapp's only real failure, Sir, is to not readily skip to your boring, pedantic, and officious tune... or take your direction in any way.  That said, your pretentious whining that something must be done about me is the wounded carping of a petulantly offended martinet, Sir, and should be an embarrassment to you.  Verily, I am embarrassed for you.   

Kimball:  Again, that is wrong. You are employing a double standard.

Lehmberg:  Again, this is ardent crapulation of the thinnest weave.  The problem with the standard is that it is not your  "standard," Sir!  A standard of easy elitism, ready sneers at contrary opinions, and intellectual cowardice... imo.  Your standard suffocates, Sir.  Mr. Knapp's more efficacious standard facilitates.  I promise not to be surprised at your lack of agreement with the preceding or your inability to perceive a clear difference between the two.

Kimball:  Of course, none of this has anything to do with the UFO phenomenon, or a reasoned and rational debate.

Lehmberg:  Hot flash Mr. Kimball!  It's you, Sir, who likely has less to do with the UFO phenomenon... ...unless it is to push the reality of same so far away from you that you no longer feel threatened by their unsettling actuality.  You are about a limited humankind that is supreme in the universe... ...and the evidence right here on this planet (and in what remains of a suspect written history) makes every indication that THAT is just not so.  A quick trip in Mr. Peabody's "Wayback Machine" sees a real dichotomy between Cortez and Montezuma and these were MEN a lot closer to each other than an Alien from beyond the stars (which you must admit to on some level) has ANY expectation to be.  Cortez kicked Montezuma's ass with a handful of syphilitic Spanish nay-bobs. 

If they can get here, and they can and have (a faith I don't ~expect~ others to validate)... ...they can kick our ass, likely on any level you care to name.  Cortez kicked Montezuma's ass with a handful of syphilitic Spanish nay-bobs. 

Kimball:  People can disagree - even vehemently - without it getting personal.

Lehmberg:  How "personal" is your unjustified, well poisoning, and dismissive sneer, Mr. Kimball?  Moreover, you losing an argument and not having your way does not a SMEAR against you, make, Sir.  We have already discussed what one of those might actually be.  Finally, "getting personal" may mean trying to anger the community to expel one of their (more sincere?) own out of personal pique, interpersonal infidelity, and a clear inability to fight your own battles?  You would inflame the community to expel or banish me...  ...Now, that's personal.

Kimball:  But that isn't the way it seems to go with some in ufology these days.

Lehmberg:  I suggest 1- 800- WAA-AAAA...  ...You are the discredited and ineffective past, Sir, officiating a half step forward to justify three steps back.  I aspire to a future bearing down on us like a comet from space. You are a staid and dodgy conservative, Sir.  I aspire to an obvious progressive.

Kimball:  And it was for this reason that I left Updates (without any public fanfare),

Lehmberg:  Right... what's this churlish screed about then?

Kimball:   ...which was once a significant tool to aid in legitimate research.

Lehmberg:  It still is, Sir, and I am of the opinion that it has improved perceptively with your departure.

Kimball:   Not anymore.

Lehmberg:  Why?  ...Because you say so?  UFO UpDates functioned well before your coming, and I suspect will operate better as a result of your moving on, Sir.  We shall see.

Kimball:   It is now a symbol of the intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary ufology.

Why?  Again... Because you say so?  Ha!  That's so much craptastical nonsense based on you not being able to refrain from pissing on your own shoes, Sir. The "intellectual bankruptcy" to which you refer is your invention, and, I suspect, your fault.  Outside of Videos you now disavow, your smarmy networking ability, and the coattails that you ride on... ...what have you brought to the table but a whiney petulance and an officiously smirking belligerency.  

Kimball:   There are good people in the "field" - I am copying this e-mail to some of the ones that I know and have corresponded with over the years, or worked with, in the hopes that maybe they'll finally stand up and say "enough," and withdraw from any list or group that allows this kind of behaviour - no matter what the source.

Lehmberg:  In effect, well-poisoning and operating like any right-wing Christo-fascist?  I propose that persons such as yourself put on their yellow plastic swimmies and take a long walk off a short peer.

Kimball:  Frankly, to paraphrase the Joker in Batman, what ufology needs is an enema.

Lehmberg:  Frankly, Sir?  I suspect it's that you're the inadvertent result of your own, too reflexive, high-colonic!  Verily, I can see you sliding commode bound through the clear plastic tube as we speak.

Kimball:  Here's another suggestion - ufologists agree to draw up a uniform code of conduct, with same basic general principles.

Lehmberg:  Seems to me a transparent device to make over a stalled ufology in your own image so as to continue to pretend a "progress" in no way evident since your arrival just a few months ago.  I suspect you are an un-clever hurdle to same, Sir.  That's my feeling. You're pretense, I feel, is making Dodge safe for townfolk, Mr. Kimball, when I suspect you're running people off their claims because you know a railroad is coming through.

Kimball:  Lawyers do it.

Lehmberg:  Oh, by all means!  Lawyers!  Now there's a sturdy model worthy of the name.  And Mr. Kimball _is_ a lawyer!  What an efficacious dovetail!  Why, he could set up the whole thing and officiate it as its Czar!  He'd get the trains running on time, to be sure!

Kimball:  We do it in the film industry.

Lehmberg:  Oh yes... another industry known for its flawless perspicuity, fairness, humility, restraint, and good will.  Not.

Kimball:  Most groups of people do it.

Lehmberg:  Sure!  All the freepers, jingoistic juice-suckers, and Klasskurtxian Kool-aid drinkers are ~renowned~ for sticking to their talking point ideologies and maintaining the staid status quo! 

Kimball:  Perhaps it's time for ufology as well.

Lehmberg:  On the other hand, if we expect to be able to hear a report that the emperor is stark-freaking naked... ...maybe not.

Kimball:  People could then sign it -

Lehmberg:  ...Like one of George W. Bush's loyalty oaths before he lets you in to cheer at one of his Hitler-ian rallies?

Kimball:  as Canadian producers do, for example, with the Independent Production Agreement with ACTRA - and would be bound by it. They would agree not to participate in any list or group that did not agree to be bound by the uniform code, nor attend any conference etc., or appear on any radio or television program, that did not similarly agree. And so on.

Lehmberg:  And so on...  Does Mr. Kimball try to set himself up as some kind of ufological Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy... or Smileytown's Eric Cartman?  I'll pass, forgetting I would not be invited to his bleak little party to begin with.

Kimball:  In other words, get together and set an example.

Lehmberg:  An example of what?  Rigid ideology?  Homogenized sensibility?  Lock-step non-progression?  Ardent hubris?  Rampant anthropomorphism?  Ufological fascism?

Kimball:  Until then, the considerable efforts of the various people I have copied this e-mail to will continue to be largely ignored.

Lehmberg:  Oh!  You are so full of CRAP.  The considerable efforts of the brave persons you refer to are largely ignored , Mr. Kimball, because they are overlooked by the conflicted, constipated, and clueless MAINSTREAM for which you gleefully front, and not, Sir, because I am passionate about ufology. 

Kimball:  And that's the real shame.

Kimball:  This is a subject that I have addressed before at The Other Side of Truth - see "The Good & the Bad in Ufology" for example (www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/06/good-bad-in-ufology.html) and "Separating 'Business' from 'Personal" (www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/07/separating-business-from-personal.html).

Lehmberg:  Paffle! ...Self-important canted yawn-age pedantically prosecuting patent self-promotion... Foop nibble ... ...moot-pooty, imo.

Kimball:  Until this nonsense stops - and that will require the "elder statesmen" of ufology to put aside their differences and agree to some code of conduct (does anyone think Mr. Bruce-Knapp would countenance Mr. Lehmberg's viciousness if Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle, Dick Hall, Jerry Clark, John Rimmer, Brad Sparks et al told him that they were leaving unless he did something about it), nothing will change.

Lehmberg:  Does anyone else think the whiney puling of an, I suspect, anti-ufological fascist who can't make his own dodgy case will have the desired outcome iterated here?

Kimball:  If they fail to do this, from hereon out they can consider themselves as far beyond the pale as people like Alfred Lehmberg and Christopher Jay have become because, by their silence, they will be allowing such behaviour to continue.

Lehmberg:  Classic misdirection, reader.  Now I am shoved into the same classification with the self-same little monster who has accused me of the most serious crime you can accuse... worse than murder.  And... if the reader does not take Mr. Kimball's insidious lead... ...then he or she can forever be associated with what must be beyond detestable because our faultless Mr. Kimball has so proclaimed same.  What tedious crap.

Kimball:  Here's a suggestion...

Lehmberg:  Mr. Kimball would be in no way pleased with my counter suggestion as it pertains to forced storage in sunless places.

Kimball:  Adopt some of the relevant rules that govern lawyers in the Province of Nova Scotia (similar rules exist in all Canadian jurisdictions).

Lehmberg:  ...Does this not raise the hair on the back of ~your~ neck, reader?

Kimball:  A good place to start would be Chapter 13 of the Nova Scotia Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Handbook - "Duties to Other Lawyers."

Lehmberg:  ...A better place to start is in the direction to a UFO UpDates list server who has performed flawlessly for almost a decade and was quite competent before the inauspicious arrival of Paul Kimball and is likely only improved afterwards.

Kimball:  "A lawyer has a duty to treat and deal with other lawyers courteously and in good faith."

Lehmberg:  A person has a duty to treat and deal with other persons courteously and in good faith, Mr. Kimball.  You would, in your perspicacious and perfect wisdom try to legislate common sense and good will?  You sneer, belittle, mock, and insult your betters insistently and obnoxiously, and then have the temerity to lecture on "courteousness and good faith"?  Pause for riotous laughter, Sir!  You took your Phil Klass lessons well...

Kimball:  Substitute "ufologist" for "lawyer."

Lehmberg:  Mr. Kimball would be in no way pleased with my substitution for "lawyer."

Kimball:  That doesn't mean an end to spirited disagreements about theories, or evidence, or even the question of the existence or non-existence of life on other planets / in other dimensions. What it does mean is an end to the petty bickering and the personal attacks on people who might hold views other than your own.

Lehmberg:  Crap-o-rama!  What it would mean in your perfect little world (not even existing in your own head I'll bet) is that you would only be able to get away more easily with what you accuse, I suspect.

Kimball:  After all, one can criticize the position a person holds without criticizing the person. Educated, rational and mature adults understand that.

Lehmberg:  Educated, rational and mature adults understand when you piss on their legs and call it rain, Mr. Kimball.  You just think you have a right to perform same... imo.

Kimball:  So, for everyone willing to conduct themselves as adults, it's time to stand up and be counted.

Lehmberg:  That's right folks... ...you know what you have to do.  Speak the truth to power and tell the rest to buss your derriere!

Kimball:  Past sins and transgressions should be considered water under the bridge. Let everyone - Mr. Lehmberg and Mr. Jay included, if they agree - begin with a clean slate, should they accept the basic rule set out above.

Lehmberg:  Mr. Kimball!  ...Put me in the same sentence with that artless little bastard again, Sir... and I'll parse the reason why from your literary hide!  ...You follow?

Kimball:  Let the focus be on the issues, the cases, and the evidence, from hereon in.

Lehmberg:  Swimmies?  Long walk?  Short peer?

Kimball:  Consider me the first person to step forward.

Lehmberg:  ...Followed by a long fall, a huge splash, and then furtive little grunty splishes as Cartman makes his way back to shore.

Kimball:  I hope I won't be the last.

Lehmberg:  ...Last hot flash?  You've only stepped forward once for the predicted three steps back.  Verily, you are not the solution, Sir.  You are the personification of the real problem:  ready support for the suspect status quo reflexively dismissing UFOs and the easy justification for a mainstream that cannot respect Richard Hall (by way of example) without itself being destroyed. 

Step off, "Eric."  Just... Step off.

<click>