For some reason my friend Alexandra Holzer is being unfairly linked to Bill Knell over at the Paracast forums, with someone going so far as to suggest that he may represent her. So I wanted to set the record straight --
Alexandra barely knows Bill Knell. She once did an interview with him and then was linked at his site, that is the extent of their association. He is not her agent, manager or a representative for her of any kind and why someone would suggest that I can't even guess. Her manager and publicist are clearly listed at her website and have always been.
So now we are suppose to worry about who links to us at their site? I don't even know who all links to me and I am sure there may be some sites I don't like or agree with -- so what? None of us have control over who links to us. It is a link -- not a blood pact of friendship.
48 comments:
Some people are disappointed with their own inability to get to the bottom of a paranormal actuality. Then they lash out at others making their own attempts. What I find pretty revolting is the glee taken by some of these employing a criticism that may be valid, sure enough, but is degraded because they themselves behave so obnoxiously.
Bill Knell is a good example of that. What he did was wrong and likely illegal. Still, it isn't like he was a big player in ufology. I did hear that he had been on c2c recently (I am not sure that is true), but I haven't heard him mentioned by anyone in a good 10 years.
Another question that I may write about soon at Debunklican -- how far do we go with this? If businesses unrelated to ufology are fair game to discredit are more personal things like cheating on a husband or wife? What about drug arrests or things people may have done in their youth? Where is the line and is there a line?
There's so much in this field of UFOlogy and paranormal explorations to keep all of us intrigued and busy . . . why waste time with such neurotic and negative behavior directed towards others?
And, unless one knows for a FACT that an individual is doing something illegal,(which brings up issues of questioning authority, etc. some things are illegal that shouldn't be) immoral (subjective at some point, true) that person needs to be very careful. Libel and slander aren't far off.
Stirring up trouble for no reason other than to get attention and ensure that others are hassled is non-productive and unwholesome.
Otherwise intelligent people with nothing better to do than cause trouble and be petty. Always astounds me.
Although I do post on occassion and listen to the paracast I find their boards to be a little "angry" to say the least. I don't see why some feel they have to knock down others and other shows to build themselves up. There is plenty of room and I rather enjoy folks like Tim Binnal who simply let their guest talk as well as Noory who I admit drives me nuts but still has good guest. I like the paracast and their in your face style at times but a little of them goes a long way.
Ouch -- forgetting for a moment that's likely an accurate assessment of my self. "A little goes a long way..." I'd hope to be a little more included, eh? Too, it seems to me enough behavior like that and those with whom one would speak will not speak with one.
The reason that we mentioned that Knell represented himself as an agent for Alexandra, is that he was doing _just that_ on his website (which has now been taken down). I even went so far as to alert Alexandra of this fact, and she didn't seemed concerned about it. She didn't seem to know that Knell had her listed on a page on his site called "Speakers Bureau", the wording was fairly unambiguous. She was indeed linked to Knell in a professional context, and she's lucky that's no longer the case now that his site has been removed. We ended up doing her a favor, so I don't know what she's complaining about. Then again, she claimed that we ate her alive on the show, but I challenge anyone who actually LISTENS to the episode to confirm that accusation.
The idea that it was somehow wrong of us to expose Knell is ridiculous - the guy was pirating commercial DVDs, plagiarizing editorial copy (from no less than Angelina Joiner, a respected journalist), making wild (and untrue) claims and engaging in mail fraud. Those of you who have ever written articles and books in a commercial context can certainly understand the sensitivity of literary plagiarism, and if you've dumped your life savings into doing a great documentary about UFOs - like James Fox - imagine what it feels like to find someone claiming to be a UFO researcher, stealing your hard work and selling it for cash. It's heinous behavior, and while C2C and other shows gave this thief a platform, The Paracast did a good deed by taking this guy down. The avalanche of positive feedback has been something to behold, especially from content owners thankful that we brought this crook's activities to a wider level of attention. He's not well-known enough to go after? How many of you heard of Bernie Madoff before the last few weeks? For crying out loud, the soft-thinking behind those sentiments is astonishing.
It's great that some of you are happy listening to someone talk for hours without being asked a single in-depth question, but on The Paracast, we prefer to have in-depth conversations with our guests, and based on the number of people who listen to the show, it seems there are lots of folks who are also hungry for something other than platitudes and lite chit-chat. I personally take these subjects very seriously, and have an emotional investment in the pursuit of some answers, even if this proves to be an impossible task (I rarely take the easy road in life, my bad). I understand that there are lots of folks who see this all as entertainment, but I'm not one of them. And when I can help expose a charlatan, a crook, I'll be more than happy to do so in the future. It's called "making a mitzvah".
dB
Just a few other things:
- Knell was indeed on C2C this year, in the summer. He's also been on a couple of other podcast shows since then, it's not like any of this is difficult to verify. And it's also pretty straightforward to search the New York Times, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal databases and find that Knell is lying about ever having appeared in any of this publications. Same thing for the IMDB. Being a journalist in the high-tech world has instilled certain habits - including integrity, verification, analysis, deductive reasoning - into my approach to everything, including discussions of the paranormal.
- While some would make the claim that we're nothing but a debunk or trashing show, a look through our show listings makes it clear that we've done this a handful of times in around 150 episodes. Those we did take down deserved it, IMO.
- We KNOW that Knell is involved in illegal activites, there's no guess work there, and it's not like we had to dig very deep to verify this. Libel and slander never entered the question.
And you wonder why more people don't take the UFO field seriously? Most people are willing to believe in any BS, give any shyster the benefit of the doubt, call consumer advocacy "non-productive and unwholesome". Yeah, I suppose taking folks' cash for a little puppy and delivering nothing in exchange is what, wholesome? If you want to know why our country is in such shambles, look at yourselves in the mirror. When's the last time you called your congressperson and gave them a piece of your mind? You want to go ahead and love everything, have a good time. I choose to share my love with a bit more discrimination, and if this makes me an asshole, so be it.
dB
It's obvious a nerve was struck, so I hate to sound glib, but you protest too much Mr. Biedny. Moreover I think you do yourself a disservice with a belligerent bellicosity of such dark ripeness that whatever might be remotely constructive is lost in all the unnecessary black bile. Additionally, you but credit your opposition which only comes across as more reasonable. I say all this and I still consider you one of the good guys or one to, at least, aspire to such.
Don't lecture... convince, eh? Failing that? You did your best and hold ethical high-ground, and your energies are best employed _anywhere_ else I would think.
Why pop a vaeni in the brainy? Chill... unclench... wiggle your toes... ...your finest works are as filthy rags in the eyes of the lord, anyway, right? Too, the universe hides behind a grain of sand.
http://tinyurl.com/axgrqy
Then the moving finger writes, right, and having writ moves on?
For my part I suspect you are capable of something a little more efficaciously palatable. What'cha got? Presently it's bitterness and a cloying aftertaste. Please don't take this criticism as an endorsement of your opposition. There is none.
Remember the first debate in 1999 when everybody thought Gore was a bully beating up on poor GWB? Is there a lesson there? I think so.
No matter what Bill had Alexandra linked as, she was not associated with Bill in any way other than doing one audio interview with him. By saying she is associated with him or that he is her booking agent is completely false. He may have linked to her and was letting people know that she was available to speak since she had been nice enough to do an interview with him. Possibly he could have even been running a scam, but there was no business association or even personal association -- she had spoke to him once in her life.
I will admit my bad -- I could not listen to the entire interview and assumed it was all about selling puppies. I did check the paracast forum to see if anything else had been revealed, but only saw more stuff about puppies. To perfectly honest, I think Bill is creep for selling puppies and also for not refunding after not delivering what he promised. That said, I find it hard to feel very sorry for people who are buying puppies from some guy that they don't know, who isn't a licensed breeder and could be a puppy mill when thousands are put to death each week in shelters because they can't find a home. Still, I would think these people could sue and get their money back and then they would have more money to contribute to sanctioned frauds, like the bailout.
If Bill is ripping off people in ufology that should be talked about more and the puppies less, IMO.
Seriously, you should chill a bit. It doesn't mean you have to stop exposing crooks or whatever, but lighten up a little. If you take every fraud and scam this seriously you are going to explode because no matter how many you expose there will still be more. Even the ones you expose will still have people that believe them. It isn't healthy physically to put that kind of pressure on yourself.
Lesley, Alfred, David, Regan, et al,
Happy New year to all!
Before we get too carried away here (if that hasn't happened already), might I suggest that folks listen to the Paracast show in question first (its entirety), then read the comments about it in the forum (in their entirety); at that point everyone will be "up to speed" and one's opinion will at least be from an "informed position."
Lesley, you wrote:
my friend Alexandra Holzer is being unfairly linked to Bill Knell over at the Paracast forums, with someone going so far as to suggest that he may represent her.
First, as David said, this was "a fact," nothing unfair about it. Moreover, David knowing Knell's nefarious ways chose to "warn her," and for what ever reason, it didn't seem to bother her, which David thought peculiar, and and in my view rightfully so. With your confirmation, Knell was "acting" as her representative "behind her back," and attempting to "channel funds" to him "using her." The "expected response" is infuriation and gratitude; the former for this fraud perpetrated by Knell, and the latter to David in informing her of this criminal act.
You wrote:
He is not her agent, manager or a representative for her of any kind and why someone would suggest that I can't even guess.
Again, important to do a little homework; "the someone" is/was "Knell" (who represented himself as such) and "the why" is to defraud people of their money, which is what Knell has made a career of doing.
The Paracast Show on Knell, and the post discussion of it, isn't about "lashing out" (in general) and or "non-related UFO dogma"; it's not about "being negative" or "stirring the pot."
What it is about "is a charlatan" who has made a career of defrauding people out of their hard earned money by using the subject of Ufology as a prop, and the internet as a "tool" or perhaps "weapon" would be a better metaphor to perpetrate his dastardly deeds.
The dialogue (at the Paracast forums) re the pet fiasco was just one "theme" of his heinous behavior and criminal acts, and used as an example of such.
Again, if anyone bothers to read the comments in the forum and or listen to the show that y'all are impugning, you'd realize that Knell has been involved with Ufology for decades; although no where near the capacity that he portrays:
In the past he was sued by John Ford for millions; he has threatened Jim Moseley's life. He has in fact spoken at many events. He has and continues to be a guest on various radio venues (not for long though) including C2C as late as last July. (C2C has been brought up to speed and should have his material removed posthaste--along with several others).
Where he is prevalent is in his articles that permeates the Net, which he inserts links back to "scam sites" in order to defraud people. This quite frankly is how I became aware of Knell and his criminal behavior; he chose to "plagiarize" an article we (The UFO Chronicles) published for Angelia Joiner; I was completely ignorant of this man's crimes until he chose to "lie" rather then just insert an attribution of the material he stole.
From that point on, I began my education. That brings us to the Paracast Show, as that is exactly what that episode is--an education!
Many of us feel that until the authorities put him in jail, one thing that people can do is take away his weapon, i.e., the internet. To date, there have been several sites that have, are or will remove any inkling of Knell's material. Although his main site has been shut down, being a career criminal, he quickly reinvents himself; moreover, having his penscript on popular sites only helps to legitimize him; henceforth, the quicker we can get "all" mention of him eliminated from the internet, the quicker we halt his nefarious activities.
Bill Knell's criminal activities has precipitated investigations of him by the Attorney General's Office of the states of Indiana and Arizona, as well as the FBI and local police agencies of the a fore mentioned states. Additionally, some (so far) victims of his (UFO) DVD pirating have been notified and are cooperating with authorities in the hopes to stop this once and for all.
Bill Knell and his ilk not only give Ufology a bad name, they hurt positive proponents of Ufology by way of stealing their copyrighted work! James Fox was one of the victims, as Knell was selling a pirated copy of his "Out of The Blue"; Linda Moulton Howe another victim, who by the way sued Knell for the same thing over 10 years ago! John Greenewalde, another victim; Paul Kimball another! The list goes on!
Has a nerve been struck--I should say so!!
Respectfully,
Frank
The fact remains that Knell was never Alexandra's booking agent. By saying that he was sounds to people that there was some sort of business agreement between the two of them and there wasn't. That is what I take issue with, that it is made to sound like they were working together when they were not. Also, with the website gone I can't tell what was going on with Knell. If there was a link that went to his email, he was trying to scam people. If there was a link going to her website he was merely letting people know she was available to do speaking engagements.
I don't think anyone here is disputing that Knell is a crook.
and one more thing -- why is Alexandra expected to contact Knell and have him remove a link based solely on David's word that he is a crook? She doesn't know David anymore than she knows Knell. She is mostly a ghost researcher and hardly knows anyone in ufology. Unless she had to time to listen to the interview it would be stupid of her to ask to have a link removed and maybe accuse Knell of being a crook based on what someone else that she doesn't know told her.
I appreciate where you're coming from, Frank, but facts are not inert things impossible to misuse as it could be argued DB has in this case.
See, it's a "phact" that one scurrilous dog of a scatological and dissembling slanderer Rich Reynolds found my name on a page where sex with children was sought after... and wondered publicly to my "employer" and philosophical "enemy" how such could be so?!?
http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoke-and-fire.html for the tedious tale
I'm only _too_ aware of how these facts are hitched to some pretty dodgy wagons, sometimes. Even with all good intention I suspect that that is what occurred here to a degree... trying to be fair.
The puppy-humper may be all bad... (don't know that either) but where is it writ large that everything dispensed from the pen of Dave Biedny has to be sermon from the mount? Frankly, All the guy has ever done for me is go out of his way to piss me off.
Lesley,
You wrote:
The fact remains that Knell was never Alexandra's booking agent. By saying that he was sounds to people that there was some sort of business agreement between the two of them and there wasn't.
This is exactly the point! He never was--he is perpetrating a fraud--which is what he does! Hence David attempting to warn her.
The only person (that was) "saying" that is Knell!
You wrote:
That is what I take issue with, that it is made to sound like they were working together when they were not.
As we all do! This what Alfred calls "striking a nerve."
E-mail me, and I'll send you a screen shot (I saved the evidence).
You wrote:
why is Alexandra expected to contact Knell and have him remove a link based solely on David's word that he is a crook? She doesn't know David anymore than she knows Knell.
I don't believe there was any "expectations" he was merely surprised by her nonchalant attitude.
Cheers,
Frank
"I don't believe there was any "expectations" he was merely surprised by her nonchalant attitude."
As long as we're ascribing the state of the art inner workings in the mind of the esteemed, and certainly steaming ParaCrat, Dave Biedny, some of us wonder that it might be a little more "succumb and hop to as you acknowledge my effortless wisdom, flawless logic, and perfect rationality." The preceding may be slightly overstated. [g].
Her nonchalant attitude was due to the fact that she saw nothing on the his website about her that did not link directly to her website, which has her manager clearly listed.
If you have something showing that Knell was referring people that wanted to book her to himself you can email it to me -- lesleyinnm@gmail.com
Alfred,
Again, I invite everyone to listen to the Paracast show in question; the post banter is optional; however, it appears that most involved in the conversation are ignorant to what's going on.
This isn't about Biedny or mudslinging or he said, she said--this about a criminal!
I certainly empathize with your position, and your reticence Alfred, as I recall the incident to which you refer to; however, this isn't even similar--this isn't hearsay, innuendo or conjecture; dozens and dozens of victims have come forward (if not hundreds)! There are court records and police reports! I captured the snapshots of the pirated DVD page before it was removed and contacted a sampling of the victims to inquire if Knell was an "authorized dealer" of the respective work--the answer was emphatically "no!"
Linda Moulton Howe was absolutely livid, as she (along with ABC) has sued Knell for the very same thing 10 years ago!
The Lebanon police department is on a first name basis with Knell (and is investigating him!)
The list goes on . . .
Cheers,
Frank
Leslie,
I just sent you the screen shot of Knell seemingly to represent Alexandra.
-FW
Again -- the issue is not the activity of an alleged criminal, the issue is about a disservice done Holzer. The long and the short of it, eh?
Too: Amazing how a demand for fair play is labeled as a defense of charlatans when the guilt of the charlatan remains unquestioned. Isn't that what a fallacy propounding "debunklican" would do?
Maybe he was trying to scam her. I know it is easy to think Alexandra should have confronted him (if she saw this), but there are those who try to think the best about people and she may have well thought that he would refer these people to her manager and unless there is some evidence to the contrary he never booked anything. I am sure Alexandra or her management would take action if he was booking her without her knowledge.
And yes, what Alfred said -- trying to tie Alexandra to Knell is rather like trying to tie Obama to Ayers. There is a small connection, but to certain people it would seem that they are in business together to rip people off (or blow people up). That is what I feel is being missed here, by bringing her up at all is to some people making her look guilty something dishonest. That is the part that I don't like.
Alfred,
You wrote:
Again -- the issue is not the activity of an alleged criminal, the issue is about a disservice done Holzer. The long and the short of it, eh?
A disservice done Holzer "is" the activity of "the criminal."
"A demand" for fair play is what "keeps charlatans in check."
Cheers,
Frank
Leslie,
You started this colloquy by writing:
Alexandra barely knows Bill Knell. She once did an interview with him and then was linked at his site, that is the extent of their association. He is not her agent, manager or a representative for her of any kind . . .
The blurb that I just sent you was just "a small piece"; he had a detailed write up on her on that page, and devoted "another entire page" to her.
The lay person coming away from those pages certainly would think that Knell represented her. As you can see he states to contact "him" to book her; he indicates that she is "one of 'his' speakers" etc.
Additionally, as you emphatically state--he did this without her knowledge! This is what he does!
I might add that the other speaker, "Wooline" has "publically" stated that Knell has pirated one of his DVDs and has a warning about him up on his web-site; it's a safe bet that he is unaware that Knell is directing people to him (Knell) to book Woolwine as a speaker (for $$$).
In my view, you can add Alexandra's name to a long list of victims, as David was trying to warn her about.
Cheers,
Frank
Well, this is getting silly because it is obvious that we agree.
My whole purpose of this post was to point out that if there was something illegal going on it was Knell and Alexandra was the victim. I felt I had to do that because certain comments at the paracast forum were downright mean towards Alexandra. Some people seemed to be confused and think Knell really was her booking agent and others seemed to think that she knew David well enough that she should just believe what he said, be reactionary and email Knell, call him a crook and demand to have herself removed from his site.
I did not feel comfortable trying to straighten that out at the forum because I am connected with BoA. I see the comments there about BoA and obviously they make me feel unwelcome and as though I would be attacked no matter what I said.
I can't really say I felt a warm and fuzzy from the Paracrats regarding Ms. Holzer. I didn't get the impression she was a victim but a Knellian minion, eh?
Frank,
Why I certainly appreciate you coming on here and trying to clarify the situation, realize that you're talking to folks here who will NOT listen to the show, who are threatened by what The Paracast represents, and have already decided that I'm not to be trusted. And you know what? I don't give a damn. They'd sooner give the benefit of the doubt to charlatans, crooks, and morons. Let them swim in it - they're part of the problem, not the solution.
dB
"Too: Amazing how a demand for fair play is labeled as a defense of charlatans when the guilt of the charlatan remains unquestioned. Isn't that what a fallacy propounding "debunklican" would do?"
I've listened to the show. Gleeful maliciousness masquerading as default rationality and singular experience. Unflagging belligerence provoking compassion for what it would critique. Insult over inspiration and too pompous where it is not assumptive. Something _else_ not to care about.
"...they're part of the problem, not the solution."
Astonishing! Right from specious playbook of Karl Rove. Mr. Biedny should appreciate the irony.
"...With _us_ or for the terrorists..."
Frank Warren said:Frank Warren said...
Lesley, Alfred, David, Regan, et al, Again, if anyone bothers to read the comments in the forum and or listen to the show that y'all are impugning,
Wowza.
I was commenting on things in general, sort of on the culture of UFOlogy, no one in particular, although naturally I was including the little bit about the link. I didn't name names, I didn't reference anything specific, just commenting on what I observe so much of the time, that is, people lying, accusing, going after others, and so on. There is no denying this happens. It happens way too much. And yet, it's assumed I have issues with the hosts of Paracast, with the forum, with the show, that I'm defending Knell... wow.
What also happens way too much is the assumption by some that it’s all about them.
As to the specifics of Knell, etc. he's a fraud in regards to UFOlogy, point made. I don't have a problem with that. None. Never said otherwise.
(The dog thing, personally, I think that's sleazy as well, just on GP, and I agree that something like this does call into quesiton someone's credibility. However, -- and be clear, this has nothing to do with Knell -- breaking the law does not necessarily detract from one's credibly as to UFO, paranormal, etc. research. I do agree with Lesley however that anyone buying a dog in that context is a bit off as well. Do not make the mistake of assuming that I mean, when I say that, that I think Knell is any the less sleazy.)
So don't put me in this basket of seething fights, arguments, insults, and the like, I have nothing to do with it, other than saying that people need to be careful and aware of what they're doing if they choose to accuse, out people, and so on.
I wasn't "impunging" anything and I have no intention of doing so.
It seems strange to me that Mr Biedny goes all drama queen about us not listening to the show when it is apparent he did not read the comments here.
If he had read the comments he would see that nobody is defending Knell.
Myself, I was defending Alexandra, not Knell and I think the same is true of everyone else. There is no reason for nastiness to be aimed at her.
Regan,
You wrote:
And yet, it's assumed I have issues with the hosts of Paracast, with the forum, with the show, that I'm defending Knell... wow.
Speaking "only" for myself, YES I did assume you "have issues with the hosts of Paracast, with the forum, with the show" (although I don't view it as "defending" Knell)--because in your rejoinder to Lesley you said as much--you wrote:
. . . why waste time with such neurotic and negative behavior directed towards others?
And, unless one knows for a FACT that an individual is doing something illegal,(which brings up issues of questioning authority, etc. some things are illegal that shouldn't be) immoral (subjective at some point, true) that person needs to be very careful. Libel and slander aren't far off.
Stirring up trouble for no reason other than to get attention and ensure that others are hassled is non-productive and unwholesome.
Otherwise intelligent people with nothing better to do than cause trouble and be petty. Always astounds me.
Based on your comments I assumed the a fore mentioned, as well as assuming that you didn't listen to the show in its entirety, as I don't believe you would have said that, had you done so, although I reserve the right to be wrong. Moreover, and again I could be mistaken; however I don't feel Lesley would have wrote her piece employing the allegations she did, had she done the same (listen to the show in its entirety).
Here's what David wrote in the Paracast forum:
. . . I decided to get in touch with Alexandra Holzer, to let her know about this latest episode, and the fact that she might want to rethink her association with Knell (he's got her bio on his site, and is acting as one of her booking agents). Her reply? She doesn't care about his background, and is not worried about the negative connotation of associating with him. Make of this what you will.
Now I have re-read the post-comments in regards to David's declaration, "none" including David's original elude to the notion that "she was in cahoots" with Knell, only that "she didn't seem to care" about the implication based on her own words.
I see her as a victim, as I believe David does, and this is reconfirmed in my view, with what Lesley brings to the table; for example she wrote:
Alexandra barely knows Bill Knell. She once did an interview with him and then was linked at his site, that is the extent of their association. He is not her agent, manager or a representative for her of any kind and why someone would suggest that I can't even guess.
This crook took someone he "barely knew" and perpetrated a fraud! He made it appear that he "legally" represented her! This is just another one of his "many" criminal acts!
You wrote:
breaking the law does not necessarily detract from one's credibly as to UFO, paranormal, etc. research.
Regan, we're not talking about running a red light; this guy is a conman, who uses Ufology as a prop to defraud people--so his crimes "most certainly" "detract (to put it mildly) from his credibility.
You wrote:
So don't put me in this basket of seething fights, arguments, insults, and the like, I have nothing to do with it . . ..
The only basket I put you in was the one that includes the contributors to this dialogue, as well as one who was impugning the Paracast forum, and or the specific show in question "based on your rejoinder to Lesley." If you didn't mean what you wrote, then I apologize for my confusion, as I took you "literally."
I can't say it enough, I feel much of the verbiage written here wouldn't have taken place had everyone listened to the show in toto, as well as the comments made in the forum.
I personally was ignorant to Knell's nefarious ways until Angelia (Joiner) informed me that Knell had plagiarized her article; even then, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and "assumed" he just took "the essence" of her piece to write his own; upon a close-up inspection, I realized he did a "copy 'n' paste" as Angelia had indicated! Still, rather then demand he take it down, we offered him a simple solution, "insert the proper accreditation as well as a "link back" to the source! He responded with a lie . . . then another . . . then another! This sent up the red flags of course, and I began to investigate Mr. Knell!
To my utter shock I learned of his nefarious ways, and the "history" of this pathological behavior.
As stated previously:
This isn't about "lashing out" (in general) and or "non-related UFO dogma"; it's not about "being negative" or "stirring the pot."
It's about "exposing a charlatan" who has made a career of defrauding people out of their hard earned money by using the subject of Ufology as a prop, and the internet as a "tool" or perhaps "weapon" would be a better metaphor to perpetrate his dastardly deeds.
As to David going "all drama queen"; quite frankly I certainly empathize with his sentiment; he takes Ufology seriously, as I do; I take offense when the subject matter is just misrepresented, much less used for criminal endeavors.
Knell gets away with his crimes mainly because people are ignorant to them; he hides in plain sight and reinvents himself when he does get caught . . . as I'm sure he's doing at this very moment!
I'm not one to dwell on negative issues; however, in this instance I applaud David & Gene's exposé on this career criminal! Until he's arrested illuminating his dastardly deeds is the only defense.
Like Lesley, some of his victims are personal friends of mine; however, the contempt I feel for the man would be the same in any case!
Taking emotions, egos and attitudes out of the mix I'm thinking we're all on the same page (again I reserve the right to be wrong :^))
Cheers,
Frank
Dave Biedny has a good man in his corner, that's for certain, and I'm not sayin' that jus' 'cause I covet my little spot on your blog page. [g].
Alfred,
Thanks for the kind words; however, I don't see this as "taking sides" or "being in someone's corner"; in that vein, I wholeheartedly agree with Regan, there's too much of that which goes on in Ufology, (as you and I know all to well).
I see this as "defending Ufology" from those that would "taint it" and "hurt many" within its annals by stealing and or misrepresenting their work and profiting from it. Of course exposing a charlatan who would defraud children and disabled folks by other means is an added bonus!
Cheers,
Frank
Knell's a sleaze. I'm not defending him.
"as well as one who was impugning the Paracast forum,"
I've never done so, why would I?
Nothing more to say. People can think what they want, no matter if it's based on assumptions and misinterpretations and being an exposed nerve. Nothing I can do about it. Just makes me tired sometimes.
Noting more to say.
No argument there, only, a body has to land somewhere. If we were really concerned with regard to a tainted ufology deserving of more respect, we'd explore that perhaps the fault ain't with the "woos" besmirching same as I've very tediously pointed out for years: it's the mal-active "official information void"
_provoking_ the vacuum sucking all that in, in the first place.
Most criticize the toothpaste where the brush itself has no bristle. I indict bristle, brush and paste for 60 years of ufological inaction, degradation of official authority, and solidification of social infidelity, not the humanity more or less forced to use these bad tools.
Crooks see an opportunity for graft and prosecute same. Nothing new there. Get one when you can but tilt at a windmill, too.
That said, I call for the mandatory sterilization of all puppy-humpers and rip-off artists, to start.
Frank Warren wrote, quoting me:
breaking the law does not necessarily detract from one's credibly as to UFO, paranormal, etc. research.
Regan, we're not talking about running a red light; this guy is a conman, who uses Ufology as a prop to defraud people--so his crimes "most certainly" "detract (to put it mildly) from his credibility.
You either misunderstood or took that out of context. I don't defend Knell.
I was making an aside that, merely because one may break the law (NOT refering to Knell) doesn't, by default, bring into question their credibility.
In Knell's case, I think his other fraudulent activities do call into question his credibility.
Again, please understand: my point was that, breaking the law does not necessarily mean someone is dishonest, or not a credible UFO researcher. In Knell's case however, it certainly does.
Please don't insult my intelligence and assume that I think Knell is a groovy guy. I most certainly don't, and have never said so.
Regan,
Throughout this dialogue, I have never said you "defended Knell." In fact quite the opposite; in my rejoinder to you, I wrote:
Speaking "only" for myself, YES I did assume you "have issues with the hosts of Paracast, with the forum, with the show" (although I don't view it as "defending" Knell)--because in your rejoinder to Lesley you said as much
You wrote:
Please don't insult my intelligence and assume that I think Knell is a groovy guy. I most certainly don't, and have never said so.
To be clear--I don't think (nor have I said) that you sanction anything Knell has done or said, or that you are defending him in anyway. Moreover, it isn't and hasn't been my intent to be "offensive" to you or anyone here. I am not trying to be smart or crass, I am merely responding to the comments addressed to me, in hopefully a respectable and gentlemanly manner.
If anything I have said to you has come off as "offensive," then I offer my sincere, humble apologies.
Sincerely,
Frank
Alfred,
I guess we all choose are battles; for me I became involved by happenstance when Knell chose to plagiarize an article penned by a friend (Angelia Joiner) that we published at TUC.
Like Lesley, I came to her defense, and offered Knell a simple solution; had he opted to take it I would be "none the wiser."
Instead he did what comes natural to him--he lied!
Cheers,
Frank
Frank,
Okay, thank you.
So ends what passes for a "flame war" at the Debris Field, eh? ROFL!
lol!
I am happy to go back to my normal non-controversial and rather boring posts and news.
Thanks to all that participated in the flame war! :-)
Whew, glad that's over :)
These things can get a little tedious, sure, but ya gotta stand up when ya gotta stand. Ms Holzer was getting tarred with a too busy brush and you were only helping to put that right. Know you done good, Regan.
[Fire Extinguisher in Hand]
Alfred,
Alas . . . I see my words have fallen on deaf ears. Alexandra "wasn't getting tarred" . . . at least not by the Paracast, the tarring, or more accurately, the "fraud" was perpetrated by Bill Knell.
Lesley's commentary was precipitated by her (incorrectly) believing that folks at the Paracast were "unfairly linking Alexandra to Bill Knell"; Lesley "assumed" the banter was originated by "a mere link." Moreover, the "indication" (from Lesley) is that she believed the these folks were melding the two together in talking about Knell's nefarious activities.
As I have shown here that was not the case by any means; Knell was fraudulently acting as her representative--and as Lesley clearly points out--behind her back!
Biedny took the time to give Alexandra a "heads-up"; for whatever reason, she didn't take it too seriously, and David made comment about her reaction (or lack thereof) on the Paracast Forums--this does not constitute a tarring.
I commend David for taking the time to warn her, and if he hadn't I would have.
OK . . . I'm done--nuff said . . .
Cheers,
Frank
I don't want to start this thread again, but I don't feel my post was incorrect. Certain people at the paracast seemed to misunderstand David's post. They may not have tarred her, but certainly didn't seem to see her as a victim. Enough said, hopefully. :-)
Almost willing to let you have the last word, good Sir, then I recall the abundantly clear intimation to the fence sitting observer that Ms. Holzer was more knellian minion than innocent victim by our esteemed Paracrats, one; two, the questionable utility of hopping attentively where our Paracrats sneeringly indicate we should hop as our default activity, and the inevitable three, the seeming inadvisability of succumbing to angry authoritarianism even because of some alleged emotional investment.
That's hanging on the way up my flagpole, eh?
I've got emotional investment myself based on hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost wages, the irritated indulgence of friends and family, and scurrilous character attacks from scabrous cyber-scuts like Rich Reynolds. Still, I don't propound the ufological grail from on high, presume my certitude, or sneer at others refusing to exclusively consider UFOs in the manner of a tech Manuel or shop book. I just write my conscience. See, One book in the library is not the library, eh?
That's where I'm coming from apart from all agreement and respects I still have for Gene and Dave's decidedly less than efficacious Paracracy...
...uhhhhI got _more_ to say! [g].
All,
So how about those San Diego Chargers?! :^))
Cheers,
Frank
...Is that the ball pointy on the ends? [g].
Aliens. Ghosts. False molestation allegations. Puppy fraud.
Man alive, this thread has everything.
Post a Comment