Monday, February 16, 2009

Note to Mr. Jeremy Vaeni

Was just listening to the latest edition of Paratopia. I was accused of cowardly posting at the UFO Mag thread after you claimed you were going to stop reading it. Being that I have access to the stats I knew that you were still reading it (actually checking back quite often) and therefore could respond if you wanted. Even had I not known that, I can't see that it would be any different than you commenting on almost everyone who had posted to that thread on your podcast -- where nobody could respond.

Also, that post was in direct connection to you storming off as though people were attacking you by not agreeing. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are against you.

Just a suggestion -- next time maybe you should not end your post with "bring on the hate mail." It didn't seem like you even wanted to stick around for disagreement, let alone hate. When you write something like that you are expected to chin up to the bar. :-)

Your show also made me feel as though I was being tossed into the basket of Meier believers. So let me state for the record -- I am not a believer. I think his photos are fake, which doesn't mean he never had a ufo or some sort of experience, but I really don't care about him either way.

Side note to Jeff Ritzmann -- You are right, I don't know you. However, I had heard you on the paracast and various places enough to know that it was possible that Alfred would say something that would make you turn blue. Or was it purple? Anyhow, I promise to use Jeremy next time I write about someone changing colors.


Alfred Lehmberg said...

I know what you mean...I always hate to have to pay for someone else's inability to come to grips with this UFO business, you know? I resent, too, that unintentionally, I think, sloppy editing or inattention made it sound, unless you were listening very closely, that I was slandering and name-calling David Biedny among other inaccurate and unsavory activities.

Ill winds blow back and forth across the plain, eh? I wonder where it comes from, really.

...From me making my own observations and my own reports; from you taking your own pulse on aggregate "reality" to tab and index same, from Regan being in a position to bravely fly down real close to the flames of a paranormal reality and then strive to get a cogent report back on a plethora of boards and blogs; from Mike Good for daring to embrace the alternative heresy or perceive the new sedition then write about it humorously and without real rancur? I don't think so.

Finally, I remember, actually, when I could be as similarly certain as our friend Jeremy about that which I _knew_ nothing at all.

Yeah... I'm ready for a little point by point on the issues, eh? Only, one should not expect automatic acceptability of _any_ premice, one and, two, one has to be ready to go to the bone, right?

Atrueoriginall said...

I just listened and you're absolutely right Lesley - he is the one keeping the Billy Meier issue alive. The funny thing is that he made that comment and then passed over it in the program as if it didn't exist. That comment was 'the answer' - if he's still looking for an answer.

I have more proof to such than anyone could ever have. I have extremely tight Google Alerts and open up over 400 emails a day from Google due to those alerts. I know who's doing what and when all of the time. Highlight and underline "all of the time".

The Billy Meier issue is dead on the Internet and has been for quite some time. Occasionally (very rarely) I'll get a YouTube alert where someone has posted something Billy Meier, an 'occasional' post from Tom Horn or an alert where a newbie (fresh to the UFO community) has re-posted something about Meier taken from another website. (You know what I mean there). Outside of that there are only crumbs and this has been the case for quite some time - except in Jeremy's case.

Jeremy IS the one keeping the Billy Meier case alive period! Consequently, the problem he sees or feels is simply one that he is creating.

I could tell you more about what I see every day but I don't need to. You see it too when you surf or click into the various blogs and websites for your daily posts in here.

Jeremy is just vindictive - there I said it! I've never seen anyone go after people with such passion as Jeremy. When he does, it's as if he makes it a life-long commitment. I mean really, I've heard all of his Culture of Contact shows and I saw his Truthvolution videos. There's your proof in the pudding and it's staring him in the face but he doesn't want to believe it. Either that or he really doesn't know it.

I believe that there is an underlying issue here and it has everything to do with Tom Horn and probably nothing to do with Billy Meier.

This I believe because of his vindictive nature. I know of nobody who's in the attack mode as often as Jeremy in the whole UFO community. Do you?

Atrueoriginall said...

By the way, are you allowing us to link this particular post into the realm of UFOs & aliens?

Jeremy Vaeni said...

Tom Horn?

Atrueoriginall said...

Oh shame for shame I got my horns mixed up. Michael Horn.

Bruce Duensing said...

Not being privy to the thread that seemed cause a great deal of upset,and so after some amount of hesitation, of course my curiosity led me to read it.
While I don't have a horse in the race, I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and step back. I have read all of everyone's comments as an outsider to the conversation and everyone had something important to contribute to it, so who is more praiseworthy or blameworthy? No one. All of you are intelligent and sensitive souls, and so why escalate this into a point of further division in a divided field?

Best Wishes

Jeremy Vaeni said...


So you contend that you've heard all of my Culture of Contact podcasts and walked away with the felling that I'm vindictive? Thanks for listening and all but... are you sure you had the right show? Of the 57 or 58 episodes, how many were of an angry nature? Not more than 5 I don't think. And of those, even less are vengeful. I mean at least 2 were road trip episodes where you can hear my anger and confusion unfold in real time. That's not vindictive, that's just honest.

Lesley & Alfred:

What's sad is, if I had only made rebuttals to comments in the UFO Mag thread with a sense of kindness and prefaced everything with "In my opinion," we wouldn't even be here right now. So really, you gals and guys have a beef with my lack of savoir faire and my stating something as factual and not an opinion. Meanwhile, and this bugs me to no end, meanwhile Mike Good says grays, contactees, Buddha, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi are all directed by an alien intelligence aaaaand nothing. Not one peep out of the lot of you.

I guess if he had said that and then called you retarded, that would have been something to argue over. But he said it nicely. And so it's valid. Me? I'm arrogant. So I'm wrong by default.

When I said "Bring on the hate mail" I actually expected Horn to chime in disguised as someone else. I didn't think it would be anyone else, certainly not my fellow UFO Maggers.

The piece wasn't even about Meier, he was an example. It's about our trying to resurrect a dead subject--contactees.

Lesley, in your very first post you make a one-line swipe about how I'm keeping Meier alive. That's the sort of lazy brush-off I expect from less-thought-out people because I think I wrote a much better blog post than that.

And Alfred--how many sentences in before you called me a "hosser." Answer: zero. It's in the first sentence. Seriously, and you're offended by "retard?" You can call me names but I can't? Welcome to fifth grade all around.

And what is it either of you are saying again? That we can't know if charlatans are charlatans, including the ones who tell us they're charlatans? Because why? Because the great alien intelligence is controlling the whole thing. Or the trickster. Those are other words for god at that point. If not, what is the difference, you tell me.

I'm sorry that you all are so stuck on having to hear the words, "It's my opinion..." No, dudes and dudettes--them's the facts. People see something unexplained and a bunch of people will step forward and falsely explain it to you. Psych 101 as I said. If you don't believe in psych 101 then that's your belief about a fact.

I'll try to say that nicer next time. I'll coddle and baby you so you don't feel like I'm telling you what you're saying is dumb. It'll sound more like a gentle disagreement where we both may be equally right or wrong. Because there are no facts about anything in life. It's all a giant mystery.

And so on and so forth and blah, blah.

You think I'm George Bush because you're with me or against me? That only works if we have a difference of opinion over something that is opinion. Let's hold up that mirror, shall we? Because I think saying that everything in life is opinion; there are no facts here and anyone proclaiming such is pig-headed and judgmental is George Bush disguised as enlightened reasoning.

And now we've moved from psych 101 to philosophy 101. What's wrong with this statement: Nothing is true.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Well said, Mr. D... true in spirit!

Thanks for being most reasonable and I hate you already. [g].

Provoked as such, though, resentments flare understandably. The irony is Mr. Vaeni could just as easily have gained some consensus, but his mind is made up and he is not hearing but what he wants to hear. He argues his perception is what is... end of discussion. I only suggest that the explanation of what is demonstrably paranormal, how it might be regarded, and what it might mean likely won't end with Mr. Vaeni and even well meaning persons agreeing with him. I'm not convinced of a fraud with its opposition shaking its finger in my face and calling me an idiot. I haven't learned how to respond productively to that yet.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Mr. Vaeni --

I've used the appellation "hosser" for years as a friendly nickname, like "pardner" or "dude," even with you I think -- no problems with anyone... till now. I regret you were offended. Rest assured it will be a while before I use it with you again.

Jeremy Vaeni said...


I don't know if you meant in our show we made it sound like you were slandering and name-calling with Biedny, because that wasn't our intention at all... I really can't even think of where you thought you heard that even as sloppy editing. So if it is our show you're referring to, we weren't saying or implying that.

And once again I'm not arguing my perception is what it is. Some things really are there regardless of my perception. Sometimes a hoax is just a hoax. A delusional response to the unknown is a delusional response to the unknown. I don't know why that's such a hard pill to swallow. It's actually how shit works. I'm not saying the world is black and white I'm saying black and white exists along with the gray. It seems you're stuck on "Only gray."

Jeff Ritzmann said...

"I can't see that it would be any different than you commenting on almost everyone who had posted to that thread on your podcast -- where nobody could respond."

Just to make it clear, all comments are done via our extensive message board (linked to the front page), where any and all are welcomed to post about the show. That's why comments are turned off at the actual podcast inserts.

No ma'am, we do not restrict comments whatsoever, aside from the aforementioned Meierites and their fearless leader stateside, who are banned due to the ridiculous behavior they are known for across the net.


Leon1234 said...

Hey, how are you doing? Hope all is well.

Bruce Duensing said...

It was not meant as a criticism but rather a concern in respect of your
contributions. I have walked the same ground...sometimes its a razor's edge.
Best Wishes

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Mr. Duensing;

No criticism taken, Sir, but appreciative of the considerate and conciliatory tone and reasonable aspect. Very much appreciated. Very, very much.

LesleyinNM said...

Jeremy - once again, you seem to toss me and everyone into the basket of Meier/Contactee believers. How much more clear do I have to be?

I am not denying that Meier and Adamski have lied and hoaxed. My beef with you had to do with your comment during your podcast, which made seem like I was somehow afraid to confront you directly and waited until you had left the blog to comment. No, I was just busy with a guest visiting from out of town for most of that week. Although, my first comment that I didn’t have much time for is pretty much how I feel. I don’t get your obsession with Meier. I don’t think that in the scheme of things that Meier matters in the least. Yep, I think you give him far more importance than he deserves and I have a feeling that he enjoys any attention he gets, good or bad. Like that old saying -- I don’t care what you are saying about me as long as you are talking about me.

As to your claims about people being against you I just read through the comments at the original post again and I see nobody there denying that Meier and Adamski are liars and/or hoaxers. So I don’t get what is there that caused you to get so upset or why you think everyone is against you? People were only trying to point out to you that there are other aspects that they personally find interesting.

As to Ritzmann’s comment about being able to respond, obviously people can respond if they want to join your message board or at their own blog as I have. However, it is very hard to respond to 45 minutes of ranting which is why I concentrated on the part about me. It is much easier to respond to a written post, you can respond to certain points and know that you are quoting them correctly which is nearly impossible with a long podcast.

Jeff Ritzmann said...

No one has to join anything to post at Paratopia. There are guest settings to allow for those who don't wish to permanently join the board.

Your assertion in your initial post was that people were "gagged" or somehow prohibited from responses on-site, and that is incorrect.

Lets please not move the goalposts from your recent assertion.

This seems to be an M.O. for you when called on certain statements, much like a "purple" swipe in UFO Magazine...shall I remind you it wasn't the thought that I "possibly" would "turn purple"?

What you wrote was:
"I was kind of half-hoping Alfred would say something so outrageous that it would make Jeff Ritzmann turn purple, but it didn't happen."

So, without knowing a damned thing about me, much less knowing me personally you feel the need to make some sideways swipe. In print. And for what.

What bugs me about that is the same issue that bugs me about this current situation with Jeremy's post: Commentators and who aren't actively engaged in research past the internet, but like the drama and feel the need to weigh in...when their "educated opinion" - clearly isn't.

This, in Jeremy's case is about professional jealousy more then anything, and it's glaringly obvious. The man has significant, formidable abilities as a writer, and it threatens the rest to have his work next to theirs every issue.

Jeremy Vaeni said...


If your beef is with being accused of coming in with grandstanding comments after I said I was leaving the conversation and that's a coincidence, I apologize. You knew I was coming back and reading because you were monitoring my personal activity on the thread. Or you had guests in from out of town. Or something. Whatever it is.

I'm going to say this one last time for the cheap seats and then I'm done because I'm just repeating myself and you're not hearing me. The issue isn't Meier. The issue isn't agreeing about hoaxers. The issue is that you guys are saying that even the hoaxers are being controlled by the aliens. It's all part of the great unfolding trickster plot or what have you.

Furthermore and overwhelmingly disappointing NO ONE has disavowed Mike Good's assertion that MLK, Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Mickey Mouse, and Ziggy Stardust are also controlled by the aliens. You either believe that too or beliueve it's as valid an opinion as anything else. AND THAT is my problem--The complete lack of discernment in the name of being all-inclusive, when some things can, in fact, be excluded.

And either way, if you have an alien with god-like powers, why would you write anything else about the subject? If Mike really believes that (or if you do) then that is the final word on the subject, is it not?

And your one-line Meier brush-off speaks volumes to me. It says this: 1.) I don't get or don't agree with your post so I'm going to comment on this one thing that bugs me about you. 2.) I didn't watch or didn't like your film because I've never said anything about it before. And therefore 3.) I am more supportive of their "work" than yours.

Maybe that was wrong of me. Maybe it said "I have friends in from out of town and can't write a response now." But then why write anything at all? Why would you feel compelled to write that bit of wisdom?

Perhaps I started the overtly hostile tone but it was because A.) I perceived your brush-off and B.) perceived Alfred's slight insult (which apparently is a term of affection even in the context of that sentence--who knew?) and then Mike's completely invalid BS disguised as deep thinking that everyone went on to support like a scene out of "Idiocracy" - yeah all of that felt like a gang-up by the wrong people. By the people who should know better.

Nobody addressed Jeff's post.

Nobody addressed Gareth's post.

Nobody addressed the absurdity of Mike's post.

I'm not concluding what you endorse and don't endorse out of thin air. You don't endorse critical thinking. You do endorse "every notion carries equal weight except the notion that that's not true."

And Alfred thinks I'm the glib one in this equation? Isn't that ironic?

Christ, is it so much to ask for adults who write for a global magazine and presumably influential blog to climb out of Michael Jackson's Wishing Tree and THINK?!

Jeremy Vaeni said...


I've gotta disagree with you on the jealousy thing. Alfred, for one, was the first person to really reach out to me in this ufological community, after Nancy Birnes, and has been nothing but supportive of my writing. Of course I can't read peoples' minds and I do know of some jealousy issues not involving anyone here, but I think up until this spat, we've all been friendly enough for long enough that I can't see jealousy issues being a factor.

Jeff Ritzmann said...

Understood on Alfred, as far as the rest we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I also don't feel that way about Regan, who seems to be very critical in thought, and to boot a very kind, intelligent person...I have no understanding of why she'd subscribe to the same thought voiced in the replies, unless she's misunderstands the point. She's better than that.

This kind of petty drama and lame thinking is exactly why this field of study has rotted into what it currently is.

Anyway, onward.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

no no no ... you guys have got it all figured out really, you've assigned all the parts, programmed all the idiosyncratic hurdles to your required respect, assessed the prerequisites, levied the conventional wisdoms, provided for the "common sense"... _everyone_ take your foil hat and go home... support a campaign to "clear out the riff raff..." live long and prosper!

The offending wad and showstopper in Mr. Vaeni's shorts, Good's:

I may be a lot of things but gullible is not one of them. To be honest, I am in many ways an agnostic, a skeptic who does not have any hard or fast rules or beliefs about what any of this stuff means. But there is one thing that seems very clear to me:

There is something out there communicating with us.

It talks [perhaps]through the agency of little gray space trolls with their intrusive agendas, it speaks through channelers and new-age love muffins, it speaks through contactees and their philosophical space brothers, it speaks through cultural prophets like Gandhi and King and Buddha and Jesus and popular music and poetry and art and if you look at the posting just previous to this one, I point out where it speaks through popular movies and even in "rogue transmissions" on English TV sets."

Maybe a little glib in his own right but not so _offensive_ really... even as it is not completely original... looking at the great personalities and personages of history near and far as reflections of the totally unspeakable, unutterable and inconceivable thing filtered down to us... as it is, from between the stars. You know, that thing we sense beyond the common sense we are otherwise restricted by — to one degree or another. The aggrieved outrage and demands of explanation for this unutterable phrase from Good seem unreasonable and just has us looking down at our plates waiting for you to be a little more of a freakin' mensch I suspect.

Moreover, not the weirdest thing I ever heard either given I know a guy who takes a strange-agent Asian spirit-force up his back side by report. So, how is this asked for response a huge intellectual deal-breaker and otherwise obviated shorts-wad given all the other weirdnesses touted? Maybe deep breaths and naps all around... as a group hug is decidedly out of the question presently.

Really, you just alienate what could be compatriots and allies in the struggle extant rolling your shoulders, producing big arm movements making implied demands, and being pretty insulting, not a little impertinent, and wrongly motivated, I'm beginning to think. What's all this interest in getting "credit" all about?

Jeremy Vaeni said...


I've been upfront with what is happening in this here body. I know it sounds nuts and you can take it or leave it. That is far different than Mike Good's nonsensical hypothesis. One is an ongoing, ever-present personal experience of SOMETHING (I don't really know what) - and the other is a blanket hypothesis that eludes all reason. Incidentally I could point you to all sorts of lit on kundalini that sounds like what's happening with me. Can you point to anything that suggests aliens were influencing contactee hoaxers? Or Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Did I just write that? Seriously?

As far as having everything figured out, you've got that backwards. I don't have everything figured out but I do know some of what we can eliminate from the question. It seems if you believe that there is an all-powerful alien influence calling all the shots like mind snatchers then it's you who have the all-encompassing answer.

Ultimately, where does my snooty hostility come from?--It comes from knowing--yes, in THIS ALONE I am certain--in knowing that this is a fart of a false debate and it's the kind of shallow stuff that allows people who think we're all crazy stupid loons to shrug this subject and us off. It's a conference of ideas, if you will, the likes of which Steven Basset would endorse on his stage.

"Aliens made me do it." Can't wait to hear that from the witness stand.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Sure -- Ask Dennis McKenna about any of the books his brother has written talking about a regard for "the other" reflected with increasing frequency in world class personages and somehow reflecting the terrible energy of some kind of approaching singularity or concrescence. Not so ridiculous as you might too reflexively assert given Kurzweil and others. Also, dismissing all this conjectured influence as "alien control" misses the point, frames a false argument, and provides for still more insult, Mr Vaeni. Good work.

LesleyinNM said...

Jeff Ritzmann -- Actually I was just commenting on your comment. My original comment had to do with the fact that in a podcast you can rant about people for an hour and since it isn’t a live show there is no way for someone to call in or somehow defend themselves during the show.

Onto the purple comment -- I will admit my bad and apologize. I honestly did not think my lame attempt at humor would be so offensive. So I will also agree that you are right and it is obvious that I should not think that I know someone when I do not. Sincerely you have my apology for that.

Commenters that aren’t actively engaged in research? Are you talking about things like MUFON field research where you rush out to people’s houses because they saw a light in sky? I don’t have time for that. I have enough strange occurrences and actual objects in the sky here to keep me busy.

I don’t understand how you can be so offended by my purple comment and yet you imply that I have some professional jealousy towards Jeremy and feel threatened by him when you don’t know me. I will say that I admire Jeremy’s writing, Regan Lee and Alfred’s lovely form of writing also. Likely everyone at UFO Mag is a better writer than I am. I write because I enjoy it -- I have never claimed to be particularly good at it. I never got into ufology or writing as a profession. My sole purpose was to meet others that had similar experiences as myself, so that I wouldn’t feel so alone about those experiences. Unlike others, I have no need to make a dime from Ufology. Not that there is anything wrong with making money from ufology -- just saying that I don’t need to or want to. I have nothing to sell and I am not interested in picking up any ufology gigs.

Jeremy -- I don’t know where you get that I am saying the hoaxers are controlled by aliens. I guess you think that because I didn’t comment on Mike’s post. I didn’t have time to read it at the time, but since have read it. Honestly, I am not sure that is what he is saying. If he is saying that -- I totally disagree. Although, to the overall point of collective consciousness, I would agree. I think there is enough research that shows there is some truth to that and I am sure hoaxers and liars can tap into that just like anyone else. However, I don’t believe it has anything to do with aliens or God, but that is merely my opinion.

I am not going to watch your film or Meier’s because I have no interest in Billy Meier. I am sorry that I am not as interested in him as you are, but I can’t help that.

I will agree that I shouldn’t have posted that first comment because I didn’t have time to think on it and it seems snippy.

Sure I would love to put Meier to rest, but who is keep him alive? Oh sure, Horn and various people on internet message boards, but I mean are there respectable people within Ufolgy?

Contactees are a different story. There are more than Adamski and they are still interesting and fun for the reasons that Regan mentioned. If Gareth is reading this -- Regan had already answered his question in an earlier comment. Besides that there are still Contactees. Many people would consider Strieber to be one. There are many people within Ufology that think he should be put to rest. I am a big fan of Whitley’s and I don’t agree with them, but are quite a few that feel that way.

Sorry folks, I am going to try to be done with this post. If I have to type the word Meier one more time -- I will be the one turning purple!

Jeremy Vaeni said...

Lesley, sadly George Noory also keeps Meier alive and he's got the big audience.

Alfred, alien control was the point, whatta ya mean? Mike said it. It's right there. You think I'd purposely frame a false argument so I could insult you?

Alfred Lehmberg said...

Alfred, alien control was the point, whatta ya mean? Mike said it. It's right there.

No, Mr. Vaeni. "Communication" with the conjectured other was the "point." Control was a word not used anywhere in the bold text I provided. Good did _not_ say it. It is not "right there," by any blow or stretch and there at all on an unaccepted premise and a frame _you_ provide.

You think I'd purposely frame a false argument so I could insult you?

Apparently! Additionally, you opted for the alienating public discussion when the private one was immanently available and the call yours, too. Don't bother now, Sir, if you thought you might; you no longer have that kind of idiosyncratic credit. We're here now, right where you appear you want to be.

Jeremy Vaeni said...

Alfred - communicating with us THROUGH US (and TV sets, apparently) is alien control. We are receivers for them in this instance. You're stretching.

As for alienating public discussion, please. I was responding to your comments on my post. What should I have done, called everyone individually?

I didn't start a false debate to insult you. Get a grip, man.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

I've the grip I want, and thanks. And you're right! It does seem like you could have done something different. Lastly, I don't think I'd call it responding as much as dictating policy, using those around you abusively to define yourself, and feeding some apparently pretty substantial egos, eh?

Jeremy Vaeni said...

I know, I know, anyone who says "fact" and not "opinion" is a dictator. Got it.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

It _is_ my opinion: you're a little light in the experiential drawers for any kind of reliable "ufological fact determination." These are experiential drawers, btw, gleaned in a more complete understanding of a ufological milieu I'm _well_ south of myself, let me remind you.

Still, Mr. Vaeni, despite having some experiences decidedly eclipsing your own, actually, in a longer life involving high pressure activities and other special high intensity training, military school commandant and career, husband-ship and fatherhood, accredited college, and some pretty costly integrity... I _still_ saw us as shoulder to shoulder in the shared struggle or progression on the path to a little... what? Truth? Reality? Enlightenment? Not so much any more. You've kicked off pretty hard... barked my shin.

What are your demands and expectations?

"Rules Of Evidence" Now there a squirty laugh! Let me digress a taste. Thanks.

"Rules of evidence" are useless until all _agree_ on the rules and are even willing to _accept_ the evidence. Otherwise it is just a turgid mantra of authority appeal and fallacy in debate. What's another one?

"Common Sense" Right. Unfortunately the evolving reality set we all endure demands a little more imaginative discernment than merely determining between shit and shinola.

Too, excessive worry about offending Occam sometimes provides for more hindrance to enlightenment than help, I've come to believe. What's another?

Logic? Ok. Remembering we're all aware of observed phenomena defying _all_ logic... how reliable is the logic defied? What's another?

The Scientific Method... Sure! Though it remains. The representatives of the scientific mainstream would set themselves up as the default arbiter of that which they will not even deign to investigate! That's science?

Another... "Psych 101" Those are sneer quotes, oh yes. Never has such a conflicted morass of cobbled conjecture and variegated abomination tried to pass itself off as even the softest of sciences. Still if we _really_ wanted to redress the psychological aspects of things we could explore the mechanism of hostile outlooks fueled by "religious assumptions" and canted by possible "abandonment issues", "unconscious and conscious projection," "passive aggressive thought patterns," the sociopathy of the unbridled ego... You can begin to see how dark and twisted psychology must be when it, for example, is allied with pharmaceutical companies drugging millions of kids into sub-sentience! Psychology 101! We've all our answers there, you bet'cha!

No, things are a little weirder than is going to be regarded in an, I suspect, a naive certainty so perfect that absolute offensiveness and easy hostility on your neighbors is readily justified.


Jeff Ritzmann said...

Alfred states:
""Rules of evidence" are useless until all _agree_ on the rules and are even willing to _accept_ the evidence."

Nonsense. There are rules of evidence as it applies to rational thought and facts gained through simple baseline investigation of accumulated data.

A guy takes a photo of a UFO. Through digital examination, there's a string found attached to the apex of the UFO. The UFO shows no signs of atmospheric hazing, consistent with a real object some distance away. Later, found objects are located that match precisely in ratio to the UFO.

That's not a matter of opinion, that's a demonstrable fact backed by measurement and logic.

A standard of evidence is simple: either the UFO photographed is large and far, or close and very small. The standard is established by environmental facts in the world we live in.

Should the photo not pass the filter, it's discarded. As I understand your premise, it would be passed off as some sort of alien or trickster effect rather then someone trying to pass off a fake photo for fun or profit.

Go right ahead. That kind of limp thinking sets this field of study back decades. However, one can stand up to peer review of a dataset as described here - would you stand up to peer review to state that every faked UFO is "part of the "alien" effect?"

It's like Jim Deadorff's "plausible deniablity" excuse: it's convenient, and an easy way out of actual work to establish compelling evidence on an elusive enigma.

I'm sorry to say I won't be replying to further comments, as this has gotten a little ridiculous and really isn't worth a further waste of time. And yeah, thats my opinion.

Jeremy Vaeni said...

You don't believe there are rules of evidence.

You don't believe in psychology. (And can't separate the legal criminal drug enterprise of psychiatry from the facts of psychology, it seems.)

You sneeringly give the scientific method a pass.

Yeah, I'd say you're all set to find the truth! Check check and check!

Alfred Lehmberg said...

"Go right ahead. That kind of limp thinking sets this field of study back decades. However, one can stand up to peer review of a dataset as described here - would you stand up to peer review to state that every faked UFO is "part of the "alien" effect?"

"Peer review"... now there's another of your unsullied and faultless paradigms! Thanks for bringing it up! Peer review only works when the "peers" are not cowards and morons!

I'm underwhelmed. See, characteristically and predictably you sail further off into the arrogantly egotistic and fatuously pompous like you held a high ground. I submit you will continue to do so until come to realize that it is _not_ such as myself hobbling an inquiry into UFOs you and your good buddy Rich Reynolds trot out, one way or another, with such smarmy regularity. Pretty "limp" itself, ironically.

No, Mr. Ritzmann! It is non-forthcoming governments, Reptilian institutions, Sociopathic corporations, threatening agencies, and bogus churches creating the information void about UFOs and other things for the rest of us. The _entirely_ aware, authority officiated, and thoroughly corrupted mainstream holds the study back! You would court this mainstream, fawn at it like a school boy. You're your own enemy and don't even know it. Good show.

Too, that should be obvious to you given your logic, evidentiary rules, common sense, and peer review.

This is a nature abhorred if officiously facilitated vacuum, Mr. Ritxmann, drawing you and Vaeni and Horn and Greer into it forcefully where you fuss and whine like you have clue what's happening, purporting yourself as a wholly original voice of reason in the wilderness, a new voice that can lead the rest of us through the ufological morass successfully... while you throw elbows into the faces of divergent persons around you like there will be no consequences. Guess again, huh?

Hey! Boyo! It's not tolerated from Nye and Shermer and Oberg and Magaha! Why do you think you, Vaeni, and your good buddy Rich Reynolds should get a by?

Rules of evidence? You try to argue Ivory-Tower School House Spirit and how that plays out in your Cartesian "perfect" world of common sense and conventional wisdom... I'm arguing mud, blood, and beer.

You wish in one glass and I'll vomit in the other... we'll see which one fills _first_, eh?

Finally, you rush off not because your head hurts and you can no longer endure the nonsensical thinking. You _slink_ off because you don't make your case adequately, you fail to remotely justify your obnoxious behavior to your comrades, and you discover that some persons are not just going to roll over for you and let your arrogant, egotistic, and irksome attitude slide by unannounced and unchallenged.

Read on!

Alfred Lehmberg said...

"You don't believe there are rules of evidence."

Nonsense. I questioned it. I would have thought you could tell the difference.

"You don't believe in psychology. (And can't separate the legal criminal drug enterprise of psychiatry from the facts of psychology, it seems.)"

Mr. Vaeni. There are no "facts" in psychology. There are contradictory models. There are conflicting theories. There are hopeful approaches. There are convenient suppositions. Sometimes it _appears_ to work. Most times it doesn't. Yes, its most respected adherents drug school children for profit. That's just to show you where the professional head may be at.

"You sneeringly give the scientific method a pass."

More nonsense. I acquiesced to it and then challenged it's kool-aid drinking reflex adherents. You're not at your best game, Mr. Vaeni. I think I know why.

"Yeah, I'd say you're all set to find the truth! Check check and check!"

My sincere apologies that I just don't think its worthwhile waiting around for it from yourself, eh?

...And here I was thinking maybe you'd stuck in your thumb and pulled out a plum. I imagine this won't be the last time I'm disappointed, eh?

Read on.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

I have to say on reflection that you tend to too readily, Mr. Vaeni, mis-characterize what someone says to you back to them like it was a good report or an accurate paraphrase, when you must know that it is not.

By your own rules I suppose I must affix that filter to other things you've said, causes you've been involved in, or campaigns you've waged? Associations you have made. Agendas you seem to persue.
Efforts you undertake. You know... what's behind Paratopia and is it reflecting the paratopiary? Fun questions. ...And who knew?

Jeremy Vaeni said...

I see, Alfred. Thanks for correcting me. Take care.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

You too. Bye bye now.

Jeff Ritzmann said...

Clearly you cannot engage in a rational argument, without resorting to name calling and personal attacks galore.

A standard of evidence shouldn't be such a threat to you, as it's there to separate the "shit from shinola".

In your argument, every component of an inability to debate the point or issue is present: venomous personal attacks, moving goalposts, and attributing non-events and characteristics to the opponent.

Perhaps if you were more involved in this study past being a sideline commentator, you'd have a different view.

Perhaps if this enigma had impacted your life in some profound or terrifying way you would as well.

Perhaps if UFO hoaxers had phoned death threats at your or family members because you have proven their case fraudulent, you'd also have a different view...and would want to leave these "cases" in the dirt where they so richly deserve to be. These exposed cases by the way, were not based on opinions, but again, demonstrable facts which were presented publicly and freely available to everyone for review.

But sadly this isn't the case. You feel the need to impose dissenting views with no real substance, experience or knowledge behind them, and my guess is it's because you desire drama or confrontation. That's just a guess.

Or perhaps you see this argument as imposing some sort of authority. It's not. It's about simple common sense, and examining data. I am certainly not the first to suggest that we ignore nonsense and use critical analysis, as a portion of this field has done it for decades. But, perhaps you have some deep seated need to oppose anything you *think* is authoritative in any way.

Next, I do not know Rich Reynolds, have never met him, and was only aware of his blogs recently when another researcher forwarded me his "UFO Destroyers" post regarding of all people, yourself. As he refers to you:

"They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.

They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs."

Jeremy and I both were astounded at this post, because it's accurate to what we're seeing...only it's months old. Obviously, we're not the first to notice.

Apparently, Reynolds engaged in some sort of personal attack on you which I wasn't aware of - but it was apparent that it was highly distasteful and completely uncalled for. So, I'm sure you see him as an enemy who attacked you, both in a personal nature and in the "Destroyers" post.

However, by your own thinking and the venue in which these attacks happen: the aliens/trickster/enigma are responsible for his why be upset with him? I mean, he didn't really do was him being told or controlled by the trickster, right?

So, exactly where does figuring in your "alien control/trickster" idea help this field? It's another dead end from the start, where every aspect is attributed to the phenomena. According to your "theory", nothing can be quantified, disproved, or gleaned from experience, direct or otherwise. Sure, the enigma does some very strange things, and further tangles it's path - but there's also human nature, greed, stupidity, and self gratification.

You would roll that all together?

That's further muddying waters already clouded with decades of nonsense. "Destroyer" may not be far off the mark. However, perhaps Reynolds overstates it: I don't believe you hold enough meaning in this "field" to really destroy anything. And perhaps the reason why you aren't recognized more is due to your defensive attitude and inability to see others points...or for that matter the soft thinking of attributing every UFO malice to "aliens" or the trickster rather then examine it with critical reason. Or again, perhaps it's because you are simply a a movie reviewer - you don't make films, you just write about how good or bad you think they are. Or a sports commentator - you don't play the sport, you just critique everyone else who does. Reviewers are a funny sort, who are often failed at what they attempt to do, and so, write about others as if they have an "authority" to even speak of the subject.

"Courting the mainstream" meaning actually going outside UFOlogical circles to look? Yup, guilty as charged -however this is not to "court" anyone. This is about seeking new directions of thought in a community or field of study that has been stagnating for years now. The answer or new directions won't (obviously) come from inside the field. Progress comes from doing things in new and unpredictable ways, in areas we may not be familiar with.

I see many aspects of your insults to me as nothing but projection, especially in the sense of "egotistical" and "elbowing". I've personally witnessed such activity from you around the net: Glass Houses...and all that.

I've let fakes, idiots and cultists "get to me" before, I'm not proud of that, and I freely admit my wrongs. But in the end, the point was made and I realized there's little to be gained communicating past making your definitive case. All the rest is adding more noise and a useless waste of time.

I think it wasn't until today that I realized why the use of three dollar vernaculars permeates your writing to near incoherency for the public: It's a distraction from the aspect that you're not really saying anything. It invokes an air of disdain for your "reader's" when even your writing style is confrontational. "I dare you to try and read this" comes to mind. "Egotistical" and "elitist" defined.

Of course I'm sure the response for this is that it's a problem with all of us, rather then communicate in a way for a mass audience to understand your point. Then again, there isn't a point there anyway. You hold something truly similar to the trickster - we humans who love communication can gain very little from what either of you are trying to say.

But, whatever. Just be aware I don't exit this conversation because I don't have an argument. I laid out a perfectly reasonable, detailed argument - and you essentially spit right in my face for it. I leave it for the same reason I left the Meier argument - it's ridiculous and insulting. And, not worth the time or aggravation when there's far better ways to devote what time I have, to studying and investigating the anomaly or speaking with others who might have serious guidance in looking for new directions.

Tangling with you becomes an effort in futility, and irrelevance.

So, goodbye.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

"Yadda, blah blah [facile insult] yadda [pompous proclamation] blah, blah (appeal to authority] blah [fatuous closer] pant snort yadda [Biedny impersonation] blah blah."

...And in his finest shop-manual concision, too. Also, I think it possible that he believes he'd be the one owed an apology!

Uh-huh, sorry he tried to poke me in the eye and pulled pack a nub for the effort... not looking near as erudite, with-it, or cute as he would have us see him.

...But there you have it. Whining in departure for swinging elitist elbows and getting them buffed up for his trouble. Now maybe he can begin to snark and heave ungracious and unflattering sound effects for me the way he does with others not realizing that the more he does same the more filled with himself and self involved he seems to be. Exactly, what had been accused in some others.

Oh yeah... Ritzmann and new buddy Ritchy Reynolds know a feces of _rare_ consolidation. In at the ground floor on _my_ irrelevance, you bet, Ritch and Jeffy, have seen the enemy and it is me. Rofl.

They may be right, yet!

Alfred Lehmberg said...

But seriously -- he should substantiate his charges more specifically about my plagiarism — better qualify his assertion that his right to self-expression is somehow biologically superior to mine ... or just stfu.

Alfred Lehmberg said...

...Seems "stfu" found some utility, after all...

That said, the reader can go here for a point by point discussion of Ritzmann's weepy concerns and abundant coal to Newcastle, eh.