Culture of Contact Episode 34: Paul Kimball of Contact
| Played: 2273 | Download | Duration: 01:06:24
According to filmmaker/ufologist Paul Kimball, there are two separate but equally interesting aspects to ufology: The sociological and the evidential. On this episode the host and he tear into the sociological flavors of the moment discussing such hot topics as the Daniel Brenton/Alfred Lehmberg public brawl, Michael Horn/Billy Meier, the stupidity of online message board wars, and exopolitics--specifically Kimball's hysterical and sad encounter with Stephen Bassett. You will not believe your ears on this one!
Good show Jeremy-Paul's absolutely right about message boards and some of the personalities. I like Paul, he's a good guy, however the idea of O'Hare being a hoax to me is a pretty laughable statement. I don't get witnesses who corroborate a photo when they don't know it's location in relation to their sighting perspective, when it's "hoaxed". Nor do I get the kind of minute detail out of a description from people who don't know each other, or live in the same state.
Ah well, everyone's got an opinion.
~J
Reply to this
Havent heard the interview yet, but to Jeff Ritzmann HEY YOU! when are we going to have another one of your interviews with Vaeni or on Paracast? The two parter you did with him Jeremy some time back is an absolute keeper, i hope we hear more from you soon. Now ill listen to the interview.
Reply to this
Hey there-I just did a Paracast show scheduled to air soon. Jeremy's show I don't know about...he's still pissed that I didn't stop the pygmies from stealing his underwear to use as ceremonial headgear.
Reply to this
I've always said that my body is my temple. I guess if pygmies wanna pray at the alter, they're welcome to have at it.
Still, you're never coming back on my show. I just find you a complete bore with your detailed stories of gray alien robots implanting a vague destiny in you to play out in the future. Wait, that's Neil Freer. Never mind. You can come back anytime. Me showsa you showsa.
Reply to this
Fair enough, Jeff... but where are the photos?
Reply to this
You saw one of them, and we talked about it at the X-Conference last year. As I was told by witnesses, many people were using cell cameras. That said, the witnesses also relayed that the object was almost hard to see, as it's surface seemed like "static on a tv", yet reflective. My guess is a lot of people didn't see the object in their cell phone screens and got rid of the shot(s). Who knows.
I too would like to see more. Ackroyd claims to have more, as well as video. But as usual evidence is kept for a profit.
I don't know why we haven't seen more, as you'd think there would be more then a few. But one holds a lot of weight when its corroborated by a witness who had no clue where the photo was shot nor the objects position on the airfield. After pinpointing her location at first sighting, I knew where the object *should* have been in relation to her viewpoint, if the photo was legit. She related exactly the right direction, which btw, wasn't where the object was reported to be by mass media.
Sorry, thats too much to dismiss.
As a side note I also have 4 sequential shots from LaSalle Ill., that seems to show the same object as O'Hare, some months earlier.
Hoax? On that kind of scale? By an airline so deep in the red at that time? I don't think so. The airline if anything made a concerted effort to squelch the employees from talking about the sighting. Why would it be written off by officials as "weather phenomena" if it's a hoax? If it was a hoax you wouldn't get any comment at all. They tried to explain what people saw. David and I both recognized some seriously dirty shit in this case, but not one pointing to any hoax. One big one being an attempt to discredit the sighting by discrediting anyone to endorse the single unexplained photo. We gave our report and backed off to wait and see. Nothing further has surfaced to my knowledge.
One witness I spoke with was going to the airport to pick up a pilot friend, and she related he said his plane was held from landing due to the object. This person had no reason to lie, nor did she even want to be identified publicly. I do however have her name and number. She withstood questioning and never a misstep in her account.
I think, and I might be mistaken, that Mark Allin of abovetopsecret.com had radar records of the sighting as well. I'll check with him.
If anything, I'd say we simply don't have enough information on O'Hare despite the best efforts to get at it. However writing it off at this point as some grand hoax is irresponsible. Something went on, that was very odd. UFO or not.
Reply to this
Jeff:
I'm sorry, but irresponsible is claiming that a UFO definitely flew over a major metropolitan airport without more definitive proof.
Has this photo that you talk about been analyzed?
As for the weather phenomenon explanation, that's a possibility too.
Or maybe they really did see a spaceship from somewhere, or something genuinely weird. I just haven't seen anything that would indicate that this is the most likely answer, although I recognize that it's the one some people would like to be the answer.
Paul
Reply to this
Paul-is this really you? Because we spoke about this as I said, at the last X-Conference. We stood right in the elevator area and you asked me about it. I gave you the whole rundown. Yes it's been analyzed, as David and I did it. We're mentioned in the NARCAP report for that reason. Did you actually read it? Because I also note that you said something to the effect that you didn't find it comprehensive or compelling enough? That I find really unbelievable.
I provided information to Dr. Haines about the many hoaxes David and I discovered during the inception of the story, and the single unexplained image, that was corroborated both in appearance and location by witnesses I spoke with. We gave overlaid aerial shots of O'Hare with an approximate line of sight location of the UO (derived from the single photo), as well as one witnesses' location upon first sighting, and the account that was relayed to me that corresponded to that photo. I also provided the analysis info for the single unexplained photo David and I worked on.
I don't know *what* flew over, UFO/odd weather/experimental vehicle...who knows. But it was obviously out of the ordinary and garnered a hell of a lot of attention for that reason. Doesn't make it anything but unexplained. Others can call it ET or whatever they want, thats not my "thing".
No sir, irresponsible is calling a hoax when you haven't looked into the case. By virtue of the questions you're asking, it seems somewhat obvious to me you have not. Thats it in a nutshell.
There's really no point in arguing the premature hoax label any further, as I won't budge on that issue. From my perspective actually speaking to witnesses and examining the photo, I'm seeing an unexplained event of some kind at this point. Not an orchestrated hoax for laughs or publicity. If you've got something to support that contention, I'm all ears.
Reply to this
Jeff,
You seem to have a better recollection of that X-Con conversation than I do, but that's not really the point. I've seen nothing about O'Hare that convinces me it was an anomalous event, although I remain open to the possibility. I have indeed read the NARCAP report, and I disagree with your take on its thoroughness. If you choose to label that disagreement as a case of "not looking into the case", then I would suggest with respect that the problem is yours, not mine, because that is the tired mantra one always hears from people who don't know what else to say when someone disagrees with them.
And I never called the O'Hare case a hoax - listen to what I said, and don't mischaracterize it, or put your own spin on it. I said it was a possibility, one that I obviously find more likely than you do, for the reasons that I've stated.
Paul
Reply to this
Let me add that I wish I had a dollar for every time the words "allegedly" and "anonymous" are used in the NARCAP report. I'm sorry, Jeff, but that kind of stuff just doesn't cut it where a true investigation is concerned. The report reads like it was put together by people who had made up their minds beforehand.
Also, I can't resist noting that any report which quotes an interview conducted by Linda Moulton Howe (you want to talk about leading questions - whew) should be looked at pretty carefully.
I'm just sayin'...
Paul
Reply to this
Ok Paul, whatever you say buddy. I only talked to witnesses firsthand, and did the exam of the photos, both potentially legit and not. I don't think after this long in this crapfest I need pointers from you on what "cuts it" as far as investigations go. I personally find that a little insulting. I have a track record that stands up pretty damned good. No worries. I cant speak for NARCAP, but only for my own portion of involvement in O'Hare.
Whats funny is I'm not even remotely arguing that O'Hare was anything more then an odd event. Something odd occurred...thats about all I know based on my part and what I gathered. I don't personally care what it was, I'd just like to know one way or the other. If it's anomalous, I care. If not, oh well.
I don't use the phrase of you not looking into the case because I have nothing else to say, it's due in large part to your unawareness based on your questions here. Obviously there's items about the case you don't know or are not aware of. Thats ok too. But again, suggesting (note: suggesting) a hoax when you don't have a handle on the scope is not a responsible stance as far as I'm concerned. Thats just me. Hey, just your opnion right?
This isn't spinning what was said, I understand you didn't call it a hoax outright. But you really haven't answered the question I asked: Why do you see it so potentially likely to be a hoax. Motive? Profit? Gut feeling? I'm not knocking the idea if you've got some info. A hoax is always a possibility, and never off the table. If it's just an opinion thats fine too.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I know what David and I did (a small part in the bigger picture), and who I spoke with about the sighting, and the corroboration I received out of those interviews. It's published online, and it's old news at this point.
Reply to this
Jeff,
Well, we obviously agree to disagree about the quality of the NARCAP report, or the conclusions that can be drawn from it. Fair enough. Let me point out, however, that I have heard the "I interviewed the witnesses and you didn't" line many times before, and it's meaningless (it's one of the most oft-used lines by the defenders of the Roswell case, for example). You don't have to interview the witnesses to understand and examine what they're saying. The only thing that differentiates the person who interviewed the witnesses from the one who didn't is that the former can claim to judge the demeanor of the witness, etc., but that's meaningless in any evidential sense. After all, Stan Friedman judged the demeanor of Glenn Dennis, and Gerald Anderson, and he found them to be credible, trustworhty guys. Kevin Randle did the same with Frank Kaufmann. They were wrong, as subsequent events showed.
In terms of actual info in favour of a hoax, I use the same set of facts that you do... I just draw a different conclusion, at least in terms of probability. None of the reasons given in the NARCAP report for dismissing a hoax are definitive to me, and if you look at the original reports and the circumstances, I think the hoax scenario (let's call it "practical joke") makes a fair bit of logical sense, or is at least more plausible than the NARCAP report makes out. But unlike the NARCAP report, I don't claim to have a definitive answer, because I don't think one can be drawn from the material contained therein.
As for you being "personally insulted", I'm sorry about that, but if you're going to get involved in investigations, you should be prepared to have someone say, "hey, I'm not impressed with the results" without taking it as a personal insult.
Paul
Reply to this
Paul, please...it's the condescending thing. I've been doing this long enough to know people don't agree and I don't have issue with that. What I have issue with is the assuming tone thats presented as if I just started work in this study yesterday. I'm far from new, unfortunately, and 1988-89 wasn't a few months ago. (Although I can wish it was.) If it wasn't meant that way, then no problem, I've misunderstood.
Anyway, whatever. Thats personality and it doesn't and shouldn't really matter.
You go into the Roswell witnesses, however it's to be mentioned that they all wanted, and later got, some degree of celebrity or at the least notoriety from it. Witnesses I spoke with regarding this case did not, and still have remained out of public light since. That to me says a little about the validity. Not everything, but we rarely get what we want in this arena.
There is more to be said though for hands on. That cant be denied. Well, I guess it can, but we'll just have to disagree on that.
I agree with you that there's not remotely enough info to conclude anything. I've said this many times, and it's essentially where David and I left it.
Anyway, thats all I have to say...onward.
Reply to this
Btw, "anonymous" and "alledgedly" do not encompass the entire report, nor sighting accounts.
Reply to this
I never said that they did. But they do appear with a disturbing frequency, and I'm sorry but there is no compelling reason to think that people who are telling the truth in this case require anonymity.
Reply to this
By the way, and before this goes any further, let me just say that to me this isn't personal, I respect you and Biedny, and the work you guys do (although I think you were wrong about the Izatt stuff as well, for reasons I can tell you about privately if you'd like), and it's good to have folks like you around, even if I disagree with you from time to time.
Now, let peace, love and joy reign...
All hail Billy Meier!
Paul
Reply to this
It need go no further Paul, I like to think we're big enough to agree to disagree. And no, nothing personal. Hanging with you and Nick at X-Con was a lot of fun, one of the highlights of the trip, and I'd do it anytime.
Yeah sure email me about Izatt. As I said, my basis for any of it being interesting was only from the film. I'm not a rock solid endorser, but I found it compelling and interesting...and weirdly similar to certain things. Thats all. If you have anything interesting about the case, I'd sure be interested as I haven't gotten any feedback on questions I asked personally.
Reply to this
Jeff,
I didn't mean to come across as condescending (to you - I meant it with Bassett at Laughlin). I was also a bit too harsh about the NARCAP report, and even the O'Hare case. I don't consider it particularly strong, but it's still early days, and who knows what evidence / data will surface in the years to come. One should always avoid a rush to judgment - it can take years for the full story to emerge... and sometimes even then it doesn't. So, like you, I reserve judgment, the difference being that I accord the hoax angle a higher degree of probability than you do. No biggie.
All the best,
Paul
Reply to this
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could hear you. Better yet, wouldn't it be nice if they even tried. Instead the ole tales keep popping up.
I would like to see more individuals in the realm of ufology speak up accordingly about all of the nonsense and hoaxes we've had to sift through over the years. I guess my dream would be for someone to take them one at a time and dismiss the hell out of them. It would be so much easier to add an episode's link to our posts, websites or blogs that simply say, go here.
Jeremy, without looking like the RRR Group, I think it would be a great idea if you could find others in ufology who would come in to comment on other untruths and/or hoaxes.
Reply to this
When we switch over to the Culture of Contact mega site there will be a CASE CLOSED section run by Ted Roe to serve just that purpose. I'm sure it won't stop people from arguing though.
Reply to this
Very fascinating interview! For some reason (subliminal conspiracy programming underneath the conscious level of the interview?) I fell asleep for 3 hours afterward. However, I am sure this is sheer coincidence, even though the ghost of George Noory speaks over my shoulder (the left, for those obsessive compulsive types) and says there are no coincidences.
I love when the ufology community rags on each other from a perspective of sanity. Paul was fascinating, although I think everyone should let Daniel B. recover from his battle of the titans, since his so-called "crimes" do not belong in the same line-up with Michael H. and Stephen Bassett (the sheer waste of energy being a ufo lobbyist is staggering. Who is paying his salary for this misguided pursuit?). Oh, Vaeni, thanks for the lovely view of your backyard (in the COMING SOON) page. I assume that stunning model in the I LOVE LUCY fright wig was you, even though it was cleverly disguised as a Pleidian.
Reply to this
Why do people believe Meier when he says he's got a picture of a Plejaren but when I say mine is a Plajeren you assume it's me in a wig? That's an actual alien, people! Wake up!
As for Daniel Brenton/Alfred Lehmberg - God, I certainly didn't mean to juxtapose them against Horn. Please don't take it that way. It was just a flavor-of-the-month topic to prattle about. I don't think Brenton's committed any crimes, actually, except that of being hypersensitive. (Not that that's a crime.)
Reply to this
Jeremy,
Thanks for having me on the show. It was lots of fun.
Paul
Reply to this
Yeah, for you.
Reply to this
Jeremy,
Did you actually have Paul Kimball - on the show?!?! Rumor mill, rumor mill...Jeremy and Paul are an item (is there a ufology "Society Gossip Column? Oh, wait...that's what ufology IS!). sorry to hear that there are although rumblings of discord (evidently being had was a lot more satisfying than having?). Life is so complex nowadays. I hope the Space Brothers come soon and make everything simple.
Reply to this
I love you too.
Reply to this
*
***********************
MP3 VERSION OF PODCAST
***********************
http://tinyurl.com/33y5a5
Look for the file named:
CoC Ep 34 - Paul Kimball Unleashed.mp3
Just click the filename to download.
Reply to this
LOL great interview. The angry ass slapping Basset Story had me in rolling on the floor! I've heard Paul before but somehow this is the first time i really got to listen to him. The guy made a lot of sense, and i agree Project Beta is the best Ufo book in the last 10 years. Anyway great interview Jeremy.
Reply to this
Maybe the ass slapping incident was a subtle invitation? Someone should have caught all this on film for the 2009 "Sexiest Male Ufologists" calendar. I assume Alfred, Paul, Jeremy and Steve would be featured, along with Steven Greer!
Reply to this
That award would definitely go to Redfern. He's got that "bad boy" thing going.
Reply to this
Excellent show! COC still my favorite UFO podcast. And Mr. Kimball, as always, was a fun guest.
But there have been plenty of super-duper exciting cases since the mid seventies. How about the 1986 Japan Airlines incident? Or the 1997 Phoenix sighting that happened before flares were dropped? How about the Belgium sightings starting in 1989? Or the Hudson river valley sightings in the 80s? The 1995-America West 564 UFO isn't bad, either. There are lots. The phenomenon is still with us.
I would post my real name but it wouldn't matter. I'm not anyone famous in UFOs or anything else.
Reply to this
Paul , you're a typical know it all who loves the sound of his own voice . Look someone in the eye before you call him a liar , son .
I hate communicating with people that I don't know , but I make an exception for you . Message ? You missed it , and you lost it .
Bye Bye , Pimp .
Reply to this
My, aren't you the stereotypical humourless sort.
I would happily look Billy Meier in the eye and call him a liar to his face, on two conditions - one, he pays my airfare to Switzerland (I'm sure FIGU has lots of $), and two, we do it away from his compound and his guns.
And if you're looking for the real pimp, look no further than Meier's American Media Rep., who has made a career out of pimping Meier's baloney.
Reply to this
I haven't had time to listen to the interview yet, but I plan to soon.
Anyhow, I have always wondered does Michael Horn receive an actual salary for his work? I think that he must and yet I find it hard to imagine that Meier makes enough money to pay anyone, or at least pay them a "real" salary. I admit that I don't keep up on Meier, so maybe he is far more popular than I imagine.
Reply to this
Lesley-
I don't know how Horn's slice works out, but Meier's members of FIGU are expected to give a percentage of their income last time I looked. It's something do with what kind of member you are. There's passive membership and I believe a more active one where you have to work on the farm for so much time a year and donate percentage of income.
I have not been to the FIGU site for a long time, so that may have changed, or at the very least might not be publicized anymore.
It's about as crazy to me as 800 bucks for an evening under the stars with a country doctor, waving flashlights in the the air. A bargain at any price.
Reply to this
As if on cue, I got this e-mail today:
ACADEMY AWARD-WINNING
FX EXPERTS ON MEIER UFO FILM:
“PROBABLY EVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE”!
Deathblow to attacks by James Randi, Derek Barholomaus, David Biedney, Paul Kimball; frustrated skeptics threaten to sue!
by
Michael Horn
LOS ANGELES, CA – Professional skeptics, who for years have been claiming that Swiss UFO contactee Billy Meier hoaxed his numerous clear, daylight UFO photos, films and video, received something that they weren’t expecting in their ongoing quest to debunk Meier. Instead of getting hoped for ammunition against Meier from special effects experts who had seen Meier’s films, they ended up with a stinging, professional rebuttal of their unproven theories.
Soon after having been forced to retract his own claims that Billy Meier hoaxed his UFO photos, films and video using model UFOs and model trees (see: http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm), skeptic Derek Bartholomaus, the lead investigator of the Meier case for CFI-West/IIG, contacted the owners of Uncharted Territory, the special effects company that won the Academy Award for Independence Day.
Bartholomaus, whose company had long referred to Meier’s UFO photos and films as “an easily duplicated hoax”, sought to convince Uncharted Territory to refute any statements attributed to them that could be construed as supporting the authenticity of Meier’s photographic evidence, as reported in the new film, The Silent Revolution of Truth (http://theyfly.com/products/products.htm#srot).
However, speaking also on behalf of his partner, Volker Engel, Marc Weigert made the following statement in his response to Bartholomaus, on January 30, 2008:
"But, to reflect on the statement that's in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can't conclusively say whether it's real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires - but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot - it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot." (See: http://www.theyfly.com/photos/photos.htm#movie)
Uncharted Territory’s expert opinion delivered the deathblow to virtually all challenges and claims by skeptics who have loudly accused Meier of hoaxing his “too good to be true” photographic and film evidence. The most recent case in point is that of amateur UFOlogist, aspiring filmmaker and very vocal Meier critic, Paul Kimball, who found even the thought of trying to reproduce Meier’s video
(http://www.steelmarkonline.com/media/Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg) of a stationary UFO so daunting that he declined to even attempt it..
Reply to this
as he had been challenged to do.
Though admittedly possessing far less impressive credentials and qualifications than Uncharted Territory, Kimball’s filmmaking abilities and technology greatly exceed that of Meier’s, who took the majority of his films in the mid-1970s.
But as has been the case with virtually all other skeptics and debunkers (even so-called experts like David Biedney) when challenged to demonstrate and substantiate their theories, Kimball suddenly went mute.
Skeptics Had Threatened to Sue
When a new article (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm) had been posted about Bartholomaus' desperate efforts inadvertently resulting in his authenticating a key Meier photo, and when a new DVD by Michael Horn was announced (http://theyfly.com/products/products.htm#mhmcu) that also included the new information from Uncharted Territory, Bartholomaus and CFI-West/IIG threatened to sue to prevent them from being made available. Such are the fears and agendas of those whose purpose it is to debunk the Meier case, at any price, rather than to examine it, objectively and scientifically, to determine the truth.
We Were Warned
For those who have let the years of groundless, often very mean spirited, accusations by the skeptics dissuade them from examining the Meier case, it is hoped that they now will do so and discover the truth for themselves. In doing so they will find that, more than just amazing (and still irreproducible) UFO photos, films, etc., the very keys to our future survival have been placed in the information, if we will only grasp and use them before it is too late. In light of the news of the day, such a warning is anything but hyperbolic, as this from the Henoch Prophecies (http://theyfly.com/prophecies/prophecies.htm), published in 1987 and on www.theyfly.com since 2002, should make clear:
"The USA will set out against the Eastern countries ahead of all other financial states and simultaneously she will have to defend herself against the Eastern intruders. In all, America will play the most decisive role, when in the guise to strive for peace and to fight against terrorism she invades many countries of the Earth, bombs and destroys everything and brings thousand-fold deaths to the populations. The military politics of the USA will likewise know no limits, as neither will their economic and other political institutions which will be focused on building and operating a world police force, as it is the case already for a long time. But that will not be enough, and, in the guise of a so-called peaceful globalization, American politics will aspire to gain absolute control of the world concerning supremacy in economy..."
"Far in the West, it will be different; the United States of America will be a country of total destruction. The cause for this will be manifold. With her global conflicts which are continuously instigated by her and which will continue far into the future, America is creating enormous
Reply to this
Hmmmm....I take it from the above prediction, that McCain must win the Presidency and continue Bush's brilliant neo-con policies to the point when other countries will band together and start bombing the place? Sigh...maybe Arizona can withdraw from the USA and voluntarily escape the carnage by annexing itself to Mexico. Stores already accept pesos and half the bill boards are in Spanish. In embarrassment for giving the world McCain, we will secede from the Union before the apocalypse.
Or, the prediction is a steaming pile of pompous s**t. Yeah, that's more likely.
Reply to this
Sorry to post this is three parts, but as usual Horn is so verbose the "press release" ran to over 3,000 characters.
I think Jeremy is a pretty good prophet himself, seeing as how he predicted that this would be Horn's reaction!
I'm sure that will be part of his new film...
"...hatred against her, worldwide, in many countries. As a result, America will experience enormous catastrophes, which will reach proportions barely imaginable to people of Earth. The destruction of the WTC, i.e., the World Trade Center, by terrorists will only be the beginning..."
And, while we must give a nod to the candid comments of some masters of “phantasmagoria” for helping to solidly refute the last of the skeptical arguments against Meier’s evidence, perhaps a perusal of this very comprehensive, and equally disturbing, excerpt from http://theyfly.com/lost/meier.prophecies.1958.htm is in order:
127.) And in the Third Millennium the time comes when big parts of the continents disappear and the people will have to flee to the mountains, yet their sense of the catastrophes will only be of short duration, because they will forget everything again quickly and therefore make an effort to do much rebuilding, because they are already creating phantasmagoria, through movies and television, as well as later through a worldwide netting of computers and electronics, through which they deceive themselves and see things that do not exist, and are only visually determined for the eye, subsequently their sense for reality disappears and they can no longer distinguish between reality and fiction, whereby they lose themselves more and more in the labyrinth of life, while those who produce phantasms commercially as well as religious and sectarian phantasms, have an easy game with the people of faith, who they deceive in every possible manner and make them into humble beings, like cringing dogs.
Once again the question must be asked, “Will we wake up and take responsibility…in time?”
Michael Horn is the Authorized American Media Representative for the Billy Meier Contacts and the Producer/Writer of The Silent Revolution of Truth (see: www.theyfly.com)."
Reply to this
My my , aren't you the suspicious fearful sort ? And cheap too !
Guns ? Meier has been sniped at and afterward invited the would-be assasin (after the failure of) to visit , with a warm ,friendly welcome , because he's a real man , a real human being . You , on the other hand , are an artificial personality who bashes people whom he has never met , appears through "media" like some kind of WANNA-BE Howard Stern , giving no proof whatsoever to the falseness of the person you are bashing . You do so glibly , as if the audience likes people like you . You are absurd and characterless .
A free airplane ticket to Switzerland ? Ha ! Who the hell are you , that anyone gives a damn about your opinion of anything ? Because you have some cheap a** video shot of you with a stupid plush toy on your shoulder ? You look rediculous , but you do have kind of a reasonably listenable voice , which is typical for those who love the sound of their own .
You picture yourself as some kind of media mogol on the rise . Try television . Can't ? That's right , you CAN'T .You're a nobody .But you have the brass to cast aspersion on a stranger , a well respected man like Billy Meier .
Me , no humor ? Those that know me know that I'm a real riot , boy . I don't joke when I investigate someone , and , as of now , your'e under my scrutiny . Congratulations, genius , you never know who's watching you .
Reply to this
Hmmmm...I take it this post by B. West ilustrates the spiritual enlightenment and refinement exhibited by avid followers of the Billy Meier cult. Seems like the same old ego based attack, attack, attack ("My religion is better than yours. YOU are an outsider = infidel who must be destroyed"). Ho hum....same old ego game repackaged and resold. Is hate one of those higher consciousness ascensions that the Pleidians (or whatever they are called in 2008) have brought to the True Remnant? And so it continues...
Reply to this
You know, with all the airline mergers being announced recently, this might be the path of most expediency for ufo and other religious cults. I can see a merger of the Meier Cult with Scientology and the Reverent Sun Moon Cult. Geez, they might even be able to afford their own cable channel, like the Vatican channel free via my cable service (I can't watch it. It is just too frightening to realize people believe this jibberish in 2008). Anyway, give it some consideration. Maybe Meier could do a leveraged buyout of the Scientology Enterprise and end up with Tom Cruise as the NEW IMPROVED Meier USA representative (Sorry, M. Horn - back to working in a shoe store for you!).
Reply to this
Aaaaah, Culture of Contact. Bringing people together one listener at a time.
You know B. West, somebody in the Meier camp must find Paul to be influential. After all, the Official Super Duper Dungeon Master American Representative For The Billy Meier Contacts decided to mention him in his farticle as posted above. And after all, here you are arguing with him.
By the way when you do investigate Paul you'll find out that he has produced specials for TV. That's right, he CAN.
If you have any new evidence to add that illustrates how Meier isn't a fraud, please present it. We'd all love to see it. Or at least one negative of one photo.
Reply to this
Please tell me you're going to use some of this in the Truthvolution... it's fucking GOLD...
Reply to this
Believe me when I tell you that Truthvolution needs no help. It writes itself.
Reply to this
Typical Meierite. They cant debate the issues, so they attack you personally or professionally.
Welcome to the club Paul, Dave and I have our own table in the corner.
Reply to this
Jeff,
It's a strip club, because that's what the Meier-ites have done - stripped the truth of any meaning, and paraded all sorts of lies out in front of the clientele, hoping somebody is dumb enough to pay money for a lap dance and mistake it for true love.
Me, I'm just there for the drinks!
Paul
Reply to this
I'm not cheap... I just prefer to not waste my hard-earned money on a plane ticket to see a guy about an obvious (and BAD) hoax. Now, visiting Switzerland as a tourist is another matter, but there are places higher on my list, so it could be a while, and even if I did go, I can guarantee that Billy Meier's compound wouldn't be on the list of places I would want to stop as a tourist.
As for those assassination attempts, puh-lease. More Meier bunkery. Show me the proof. Oh, right, you can't, because there is none - note: 21 attempts, or whatever it is? The supposedly all-powerful intel agencies must be less powerful than I thought, because that's a pretty sad record of failure. Oh, wait... I forgot - the Plejarens magically save Billy every time.
As for watching me, big man of threats, bring it on. I'm about as public as you can get. Good luck digging up any dirt on me - any that exists is already well known. I don't hide the less flattering aspects of who I am.
Here's a hint, however - unlike some Meier supporters, I don't have a criminal record.
Reply to this
This place is a riot! (But I hope Tom Cruise does't drop by. One can only manage so much bunk in a day.)
Kudos on the Kecksburg, Paul. I haven't bothered to study Aztec because I don't believe the story on Roswell as most ufologists promote. I'll take your word on that.
Didn't know Redfern had taken a beating over Roswell either, but I lost interest so I stopped reading about it.
Good interview.
Reply to this
CC,
Thanks.
I was one of the guys who was critical of Nick's Roswell theory - I don't buy it, and told him so, in person. But at least I read his book before I offered an opinion, something a lot of Roswell advocates didn't do then... and still haven't. I actually had one prominent researcher write me a couple of years ago, when the book came out, who said that he didn't have to read the book, because he had read a synopsis of it in some magazine, and it was clearly bunk.
And so it goes...
Paul
Reply to this
The brass cast media mogul's "respected farticle" is on the rise.(simple declarative) Smellovision, anyone?(tripartate question. (sbd)) Cheese Curdle.(emphatic stage direction Stanislovski method)
goldfinch
Reply to this
Fair assessment, Paul. I'll have to read Redfern's book now. I honestly don't know his argument so can't comment.
Reply to this
CC,
I didn't mean to imply that you had to read Nick's book, so I hope you didn't take it the wrong way. Obviously, there are lots of books out there, and one can't read them all, even if one was so inclinced. If a person isn't interested in the Roswell case (and I'm really not), then why bother reading books on it? But if you're a known UFO researcher who supports the Roswell case, and a major book comes out that questions your views, and you decide to attack that book, then I think it's incumbent on you to have actually read it.
So, unless you fall into that latter group, you can give it a miss.
Paul
Reply to this
No, I didn't take you the wrong way. I read an article by Nick R. recently and felt he'd made a good argument, though for the life of me, the topic escapes me now.
Anyway, that suggested to me that I ought to look into what he has to say on other related topics.
As boring as the topic of Roswell is to me, it seems advantageous to read other arguments that refute the popular theory since I don't find it plausible. That's where my head was when I made the comment. All is cool.
Reply to this
More foolishness from Horn in an unsolicited e-mail to JV and I received today. Horn could be the subject of a fascinating university psych course someday!
"Jeremy,
A quick note. While you guys have been yammering on and on about the
"negatives" (how appropriate) you neglect to acknowledge what UC said,
which reiterates what Wally Gentleman said years ago. You've never
mentioned David Froning, who I met and who spoke those words at a
presentation of mine in L.A. some years ago.
The reason that neither you nor PK address specifics, irrefutable,
credible, solid specifics, is because neither of you are true
investigators or researchers. In PK's mind he thinks he'd love to
engage in a courtroom type scenario. I'd mop the floor with him. He
has no facts at his disposal, no knowledge of the actual, lengthy
investigation, which has over 1,300 pages of published, substantiated
documentation.
Neither of you is able to refute what the expert consultant to the
U.S. Special Forces said about Meier and Phobol's credibility.
Speaking of her, neither of you have the credentials, the implicit,
expressed trust of your nation such as to be able to represent it at
the UN, and neither of you are fit or qualified to attempt to
discredit her (or anyone else in the case).
Neither of you have interviewed Meier, the other witnesses, the other
photographers, nor have you interviewed witnesses to 12 of the
attempts on Meier's life...as I have. I've studied this case for
almost as long as you've been alive (JV) and I've successfully
defended it against people with top secret security clearances.
For both of you, this is simply sport, something to use to exercise
your egos but not your minds. For all the posting that PK has done
attacking the case, he's submitted zero evidence to support his broad
brush claims of hoax. All of this is abundantly clear to me, and to
the ever growing number of people who have seen and commented on our
film. It's a simple statement of fact that virtually all other UFO
films/documentaries will be long forgotten while this one will still
be discussed.
And, as long as all either of you can do is hurl childish insults and
make unsubstantiated, nonsensical claims and accusations, you really
contribute to an accumulation of self-generated, self-discrediting
material. How stupid is PK to make those comments about Meier's
guns...when they weren't all Meier's and when they were absolutely
appropriate (even required) for both his son (Swiss Army) and him
(money transport, night watchman, etc.) to possess? How inattentive to
details is this poor wannabe, how distracted by his own opinions and
self-importance, my, my.
It should have occurred to you as well that when even the top
international professional skeptics organization can't make a dent in
the credibility of the Meier case -" (cont'd)...
Reply to this
(cont'd from above)...
"when they've been trying for over
seven years - that attention seekers like yourselves would certainly
not do any better, as you've clearly proved. Yes indeed, put on your
red wig and tell us just how much of a hoax the Meier case is...and
take a moment to wonder just why no one will be researching either of
your lives for 40 minutes, let alone 40 years.
So, since I've generously taken an end of the day opportunity to
remind you that your days as having anything relevant to say regarding
the Meier case have ended before they started, allow me to suggest
that you both sit back and watch as each historical step in the case
unfolds, according to its own timing.
And since I am in such a good mood, I can assure you that, should you
resist the temptation to parade your ignorance each time the impulse
arises, I will gladly avoid the temptation to hold you up to any
further ridicule, or, more accurately, point out how you ridicule
yourselves with your ineptitude.
Truly, I mean no offense but you've both earned being nailed for the
phonies that you are in this matter. If you ever can produce something
even remotely resembling a credible rebuttal to the facts in the case
you would have my attention and respect. Considering how often such
attempts have been made by numerous others, only to fall resoundingly
flat, I doubt that we shall enjoy such an opportunity arising from
your efforts.
MH"
All that I can say to Horn is that if he thinks he would wipe the floor with me in a court of law is: bring it on. Don't just talk about it. Do it. I can't wait to hear the sound of the judge laughing, or the cheque I'll receive for costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
In the meantime, stop stalking us, and get a life. Jeez...
PK
P.S. When most people say "a quick note" to start an e-mail, they generally don't then run on for a dozen or so paragraphs. FYI.
Reply to this
M.H., I assume you have to substantiate your salary by logging in some sort of daily activity to further the Meier cult, but does this email qualify?
See, this is the reason Tom Cruise would make a much better spokesperson. If PK or JV attacked Billie Boy, Tom would be on Oprah bouncing up and down on a couch as part of his verbal rejoiner (I can't visualize Tom sitting at a keyboard and writing a 12 paragraph rebuttal). I think Billie Boy has no clue about American culture if he thinks M.H. is a worthy mouthpiece. Billie Boy needs someone with good looks, Entertainment Tonight (tabloid TV) appeal, someone who can flash those pearly whites like a Switzerland sun glinting off the Space Brother space ships (as Julie Andrews sings below the disks about the hills being alive with the sound of moo sick - dang panentheism never dies!).
Anyway, you'd think M.H. could at least send a zesty retort to the New York Times. Whatever he is being paid by the Meier cult is too much, me bethinks.
Reply to this
Bubba,
The problem is that even Tom Cruise wouldn't be fooled by the Meier crap.
The sad thing if you're a Meier supporter is that Horn is probably the best that they can find.
Paul
Reply to this
This just in from Horn, in yet another unsolicited e-mail:
"Gee, I guess I'm just good enough to show you up for the preening, posturing and inept monkey that you are!
Wanna provide any...facts, Paulie? Or dost thou choose to remain...non-responsive?
(Aside to the judge) Rhetorical, your Honor, rhetorical...
And doncha wonder just how ego-deflating, how galling it must be for the poor fellow to have an upstart like me make a film that his "pales in comparison" to?
Poetic justice, pure and simple.
MH"
Ahh... to be stalked. All sorts of fun. I think from this point onwards we should all refer to Horn as The Creeper.
It's good to know that he still pops by Jeremy's site, however.
Reply to this
Paul,
Re: the O'Hare sighting, the simple fact is that there are too many folks who contacted Davenport and Hilkevich with independent reports of the sighting for any of us to think that this was a "hoax". I'm not saying that we have a handle on what exactly happened that day, but it's pretty unlikely that a bunch of United employees got together and decided to risk their jobs on a fake sighting report. As far as the photos that have emerged, Jeff & I share the frustration that more evidence hasn't surfaced, but there is indeed one image that is very interesting, and also disturbing, in that it does indeed appear that it's genuine, and tampered with in a way that could easily be used to discredit any image analyst that would definitely dub it as not being a faked or fabricated photo. Something happened that day in Chicago, and if you choose to ignore it, no problem, there are those of us who will continue to look at it and explore the situation.
As far as that sick little psycho, all he does is monitor an array of websites and forums to see how he can engage in abusive behavior. At this point, the only reasonable way to deal with him is to ignore him. He has nothing interesting, constructive or factual to add to the conversation, so why bother with him? He lives for the little bit of attention he musters, he's a pathetic person with little to live for, and ANY attention is like crack cocaine to him. Deny him, and it makes him even more insane.
dB
Reply to this
Dave! Are you here at the hotel? Bassett had me stand up for applause because I'm completely awesome. The downside is that Lynne Kitei then knew who I was and figured I'm a powerful ufological mob boss of the greater East Coast. She cornered me and shamed me with the index finger for...you know... laughing. Dolan told her he really appreciated her singing, that it was heart-warming. Suck up. Then she asked me to set up a gig for her at a movie theater in New York so that her Phoenix Lights doc can get Oscar consideration--and I think I agreed to help. I interviewed Bruce Maccabee about the "Chad Drones" - and then, of course hit ERASE ALL on my recorder killing off everything I've ever recorded with it.
SAVE ME!
Reply to this
Yikes! Am I like "he who shale not be named?" I spend some time each day monitoring forums, BUT the crucial difference is that my goal is to spread a little sunshine and goodness whereever I post, along with occasional sincere responses to what is being discussed. "He who shall not be named" needs a good woman/man/dog (whatever might offer him a meaningful emotional and sexual relationship). My theory is that those who aren't getting any good loving project the pent up anger and frustration out as attacks and trolling activity on the net. Each is just a call for love, so perhaps the best response is to pitch in and get such a person a nice life size blow-up doll.
Reply to this
For better or worse, part of the reason I listen to these interview shows is entertainment. Yes, I know it irritates some hosts, and for understandable reasons...but still... In any event, The Paracast was excellent this week - a ton of fun, and if you missed it, you missed out. They apparently plan on having the guest back again.
Reply to this
Yes... a laugh riot and penultimate incontinence provoker to be sure. I laughed. Oh yes. To be sure. Sincerely. Depends (tm) were required.
How could you not laugh? What was there to be had was a three-way perfect storm of same!
First, we have a guy my age, I presume, dry as day old toast with the inveterate sack to use the non-word "Rock-oid" in the title of his book. He busily prosecutes a minimal street-cred to facilitate the combative second***, a shoulder-rolling ruffian apparently as inconstantly fickle as a 14 year old girl. Both of these are hosting a third: a ufological pre-Cambrian now old enough to have absolved himself of any requirement to endure a criticism, suffer an assessment, or tolerate an appraisal.
A person grandfathered and passed my critique, at any rate.
I bow in respect to this legend mentioned third; I would urinate on him were he on fire. Too, I'm betting the preceding is not entirely beyond his comprehension, eh?
These three rather seemed to piss and moan at length that they didn't fare better in a minor little awards program they would have showed a lot less respect for had it not been associated with a person all three appear to court, Paul Kimball. The three actually whined at some embarrassing length in an unsettling, unseemly, and inappropriate petulance. There's a laugh riot right there.
All man's foibles in exaggeration contribute to humor, verily, even as it was perhaps not the one intended. See, this was a humor without shelf-life and leaving a strange taste on the tongue, still, like licking duct-tape after using it to pick lint from a carpet in a third grade class-room, I suspect... no... second grade. More fecal matter.
That said -- I wonder if I'm going to have to look at the podcast recommendations of "whw" with arms akimbo and eyes askance in the future.
Good, interview with Mr. Kimball... "...Paul," Mr. Vaha-aniooni. [g].
Why do you get a "by"? Simple.
Even as you may mock... you don't sneer. You are seemingly without hubris. That's for the record. You can go back to our other correspondence —the ones festooned with cute little kittens playing with balls of yarn— for other explanations, eh? Though, few will tell you "why," am I right? Paul didn't. Why is that, do you figure? Why is Vaeni charmed?
***This is a person second only to defunct neo-martinet Don Ecker, a factious churl who will not direct a word my direction until he explains his part in the genesis of the term "FastWalker."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martinet+
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incontinence+
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factious+
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/akimbo+
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/askance+
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penultimate+
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inveterate+
¥
Reply to this
I don't understand the intent of the Paracast to have Jim Moseley as an ongoing guest. If some sort of support cast is needed (like Harvey Corman for Carol Burnett), I would much prefer Al Greenfield. I thoroughly enjoyed his discourse from the Paracast archives. Fascinating fellow with presumably a long mind altering and ufo related history trailing behind him like a royal bride's wedding train. As he might say, to end this post with a declarative statement "I am not now nor ever have been a member of the Communist Party."
Reply to this
Thanks for writing that Bubba. I will have to dig in the paracast archive because I somehow missed the Al Greenfield episode and I always enjoy Al's interviews.
Reply to this
Look for the August 26, 2007 episode. He shares the limelight with Jeff Ritzmann.
Reply to this
Alfred,
Yeah, the complaining was bit much, wasn't it, even if much of it was tongue in cheek?
Still, considering that it didn't really matter, they did seem to go on at great length about it.
As my dad always said, it doesn't matter what they're saying about you, so long as they're saying something.
Paul
Reply to this
I was referring to the second half of the Paracast interview. It was fun. Grampa Mosely? He's the kind of a guy Letterman might say, "has to be told to close his robe." Enjoy? Not so much. Kimball? He missed his calling doing propaganda video for Cheney's run-up to the Iran war, and preparing the video record for the Bush library. Classics each. Not so much, either. But the interviews were fun. Vaeni's got a halo around his butt - and all I've seen is the halo - (until you send the video).
Reply to this
The only thing sadder than a lonely little puppy looking for attention, is a lonely little puppy rolling around in it's own feces, begging for a bone, no matter how petty and putrid.
Here, Lemby, have a nice little doggie bone, and try to get over your wasted life. Must be sad to have no professional credentials, never been published in anything other than a UFO magazine, so very sad. Jealousy is an ugly trait, though, in puppies, pricks or any other species.
Oh, and thanks for listening to the show!
Reply to this
David,
I like you, but sometimes I think you need to grow up.
Paul
Reply to this
Hmmmm....I wonder what Lynne Kitei thinks of Billie Meiers? Isn't she sort of on the outskirts of the Space Brothers camp? Her singing, which I whole heartedly endorse for its sincerity and depth (in this crass age), makes her the Diva of ufology. I hope she cuts a CD soon. As for Jeremy's plight, this is all the result of your split mind. Become ONE with the aliens (meditate, man, meditate!) and they will save you. I fear you are beyond human intervention.
Reply to this
Good interview Jeremy, Paul was every bit entertaining as he is knowledgable. The 'ass-slapping' incident had me rolling on the floor also as an earlier commenter noted.
Whether you consider ufology or hard scientific study of the phenomenon, these areas of study certainly has it's sects and beliefs.
Reply to this
As an example of the ever upward-sliding, and therefore unachievable, scale for valid Ufological evidence, Kimball’s is spot on. Because there are no good photos of the O’Hare incident, we can ignore all the pilots, passengers, ground crew, etc., testimony. The new standard is (and only for this case – the next sighting will have a new evidentiary standard for which it will also be disqualified) the sighting must come with a great photograph – and probably more than one - for triangulation purposes. Good luck with that, you would-be witnesses. Otherwise, we can simply pigeon-hole the entire O’Hare incident as “a joke that got out of hand”…or, any one of an infinite number of alternative theories. This event can’t even be put in a gray-box for Kimball. It’s just out. Case closed. And for those who think I’m slamming the interview, I’m not. Vaeni drew this problematic critique out of the conversation, and without taking a side. That’s a good interview. Hell, there aren’t many mainstream media hosts and interviewers who can do that.
As for Alfred Lehmberg receiving the double whammy (ie “I just don’t know what that guy is talking about…yeah, incomprehensible,”) treatment on both The Paracast and CofC shows…eh, not so good - and more than a little shallow. To be clear, this was the view of the guests, not the hosts. Aside from respecting his viewpoint on many, many topics, Alfred is unique. He is utterly sincere. He paints, he writes music, and he writes poetry. To those guests, do you look at a painting and never revisit it? Do you ascertain its total value in one glance and then chuck it away? Do you hear a piece of music and immediately hear everything worthwhile and then never “hear” it again? Don’t you have a favorite passage by an author and marvel at it over and over? If not, pardon me for digging through your dumpster. Do you think Alfred might spend time developing his essays and posts so that they become a kind of poetry and the reader may want to return to read it just one more time? Do you suspect he’s trying to make it stick? Does _everything_ you read in Ufology have to be dumbed down into fragmented sentences with guttural meanings - with brevity the high-water mark measure for all of Ufological writing? Yes, I realize our politics have devolved to this point, but must that ‘George Bush standard’ of communication be used as a model for absolutely everything else, too? And by the way, nobody is breaking any new ground, here. The research issues haven’t changed since the 40’s. Do you want to keep reading the same arguments voiced the same ways for the next 50 years? Can’t there be just _one_ person in all of Ufology who uses an art form to express this UFO mystery? Even if you don’t like it, or it doesn’t work for you, should Alfred be blamed for at least trying to do this? Does every painting have to be paint by number? Does every post Alfred writes have to come with a glossary?
Reply to this
It always amuses me when people take what I say and then distort it. It says a lot about them, and nothing about me. I would suggest you listen to the interiew again WHW - nowhere do I dismiss the O'Hare case out of hand (which implies that I haven't looked into it, or familiarized myself with the data). Nowhere do I state that I am convinced that it was a hoax. I simply stated that I give that possibility more credence than some ufologists do, apparently. There are other possibilities out there as well, including that something anomalous happened. But in my opinion, the case just isn't good enough at the moment to warrant my in depth attention. That may change with time. So, if it makes you feel better, it sits in my grey basket.
As for the changing standards of evidence that should be required, of course the bar should change as technology changes. Fifty years ago, with a similar case, asking for photos might not have been as reasonable, because not everyone carried cameras; today, they are everywhere. In circumstances such as this, it is not unreasonable to "raise the bar". After all, in criminal cases, DNA is now all the rage - rasing the bar, if you will - whereas not that long ago it was unheard of. All things considered, if I had a criminal case to prosecute now without DNA, I think it would be perfectly legitimate for a defense lawyer to ask why we didn't have it... at which point, the Crown would have to explain why, and then make the case without it, which could still be done, but with the understanding that it would be a bit harder without something that by all modern standards should exist, or be obtainable.
Reply to this
"It always amuses me when people take what I say and then distort it."
Well, I’m happy you’re happy, but I really don’t have the energy or desire to attempt to harangue you. Just this short post, is all – and honestly, no attempt at distortion, either. Arm wrestling - out of the question.
"I would suggest you listen to the interiew again WHW"
To be fair, I’ll give it another shot.
"nowhere do I dismiss the O'Hare case out of hand (which implies that I haven't looked into it, or familiarized myself with the data). Nowhere do I state that I am convinced that it was a hoax. I simply stated that I give that possibility more credence than some ufologists do, apparently. There are other possibilities out there as well, including that something anomalous happened. But in my opinion, the case just isn't good enough at the moment to warrant my in depth attention. That may change with time. So, if it makes you feel better, it sits in my grey basket."
I’m feeling in top condition, kind of, but the sad fact is that’s usually the case with these things, isn’t it? …credible people reporting incredible events, very few cases of which ever rise to the level of consideration. They always seem to be easy to dismiss.
"As for the changing standards of evidence that should be required, of course the bar should change as technology changes. Fifty years ago, with a similar case, asking for photos might not have been as reasonable, because not everyone carried cameras; today, they are everywhere. In circumstances such as this, it is not unreasonable to "raise the bar". After all, in criminal cases, DNA is now all the rage - rasing the bar, if you will..."
That’s an unfair comparison, don’t you think? It’s the old, ashtray argument. If UFOs existed, we’d have an ashtray. In this instance, however, it’s the switcheroo ashtray – it’s whatever we place a value on that doesn’t exist – THAT’S the important piece of evidence. Photos are not the equivalent of DNA evidence on so many levels in this example, it’s not even worth talking about. DNA is so accurate it essentially proves a case – you show up on time with your expert witness, is about it. You may as well require the saucer itself - or alien DNA, better yet. And if the witnesses did take photos, wouldn’t they be dismissed as well? I’ve heard time and again from researchers that since digital photography, photos mean nothing. Nothing, I guess, unless the witness didn’t take any, in which case they’re crucial. The assumption being that because the ability to take pictures with ease exists, had the anomaly truly occurred, the witnesses would have taken photos of it. Huh? Pencils and pens are plentiful as well – you know those pilots, always writing down phone numbers when they should be flying the planes - how come the witnesses couldn’t get any signed, alien affidavits? Maybe you just don’t have the _time_ to invest in this case – that’s a valid reason for not doing so.
Reply to this
Wonderful endorsement for Alfred's style and substance, whw. Ya done him proud.
What I most enjoy is his humor. If he's a little testy sometimes, it's really due to the challenge he sees in ideas rather than personalities who question him. At least that's what I see. He doesn't feel threatening to me.
Aliens are another matter. LOL
Reply to this
Howdy,
That's cowboy speak for 'hello.' I'm out here at the Bush ranch, clearing brush...kidding. You have mentioned this 'fear' thing and feeling 'threatened' before. If you don't know of Debbie Jordan-Kauble, or haven't read her accounts, I'd recommend them. I don't know the focus of Jeremy's next show with her, but you should listen to it, and if I can find her books around here, I'd mail them to you. Deb dealt with that fear issue very well, and I think it would help you, that is, if you haven't already read her stuff.
Reply to this
Sorry you felt compelled to to even make the denial, Paul. ...Didn't think for a minute that was you... not your style... Fare well, eh?
.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«***»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.
The only thing sadder than a lonely little puppy looking for attention, is a lonely little puppy rolling around in it's own feces, begging for a bone, no matter how petty and putrid.
...How right you are, Mr. Biedny; how _right_ you are.
Here, Lemby, have a nice little doggie bone, and try to get over your wasted life.
Sorry I got thrown a bone... but honestly... what waste? Guaranteed for life "three hots and a cot" and some decent medical insurance from a military retirement precludes, pretty much, a —total— waste... and I write for a national magazine. Seems like sitting in pretty tall cotton to me, eh?
Must be sad to have no professional credentials, never been published in anything other than a UFO magazine, so very sad.
...Pity you couldn't think of a way to work in teaching at Yale, too. I haven't done that either. Say, wasn't Yale the university graduating current-occupant-of-the-White House George W. Bush?
Jealousy is an ugly trait, though, in puppies, pricks or any other species.
Perhaps, though I think anyone looking at this from top to bottom would see this tinge of green as _your_ projection, Sir. Too, if it's a bone you need you can certainly have one of mine or maybe "Dr. Sue" can work you over with a broom handle.
Oh, and thanks for listening to the show!
You're very welcome. It's not up to "SDI" standards, to be sure, but I find it useful as an example of how not to perform, generally, on a PodCast, so it's not —entirely— beyond use, eh?
[g].
¥
Reply to this
Alfred,
So I guess I'm in league with the Bush family, huh? Wow, that hurts. Implying that I find something admirable about your words, thoughts, feelings, Alfred? Nope, from what I see, you enjoy starting the kinds of fights online you would NEVER have the courage to engage in while in meatspace. I've made a few enemies online, but in your case, you seem to have them crawling out of the wordwork.
Just FYI, I was not happy that Moseley decided to bring up the Zorgies, I felt it was a waste to get into it on the show, but hey, as I remember it, I stated my opinion about your writing - it's exceedingly verbose. I'm sure you would not deny this, you're proud to use 50 words where 15 will do the job, and that's obviously your prerogative. Any professional editor would likely be horrified by your writing style, and I'll go on a limb here and guess that you've not been in the situation where you were submitting your work for commercial or educational use - hence, you've never encountered said editors. Can't take the criticism? Too bad.
Like so many other people in this "field", you don't seem to have any significant professional credentials. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. My professional background is a matter of public record, my interest in the paranormal is a result of a lifetime of odd experiences, and I'm engaged in a quest to gain some understanding of what I've seen and experienced. That said, I'm outspoken, have that reputation in the world of technology, and in that sense, nothing has changed. People are threatened by me, hell, that's the story of my life. Does that mean I should back down? Not a chance. In my two years of doing the Paracast, I've made some enemies, primarily people promoting hoaxes and selling lies. On the other hand, my inbox is overflowing with emails from happy listeners, who commend us on asking the questions no one - including you, Alfred - seem willing to ask, in a straightforward and reasonable way. I met Rob Simone this weekend, and my lovely girlfriend dubbed him "paranormal paparazzi", which is just perfect. Is that the kind of paranormal radio person you look up to, Alfred? George Noory do it for ya?
Tell us, Alfred, ever seen a UFO? Seriously. If so, I can certainly understand your interest in the topic. If not, well... why come play in the sandbox? I'm just wondering... You recently wrote a column in UFO magazine referencing me, and I decided to decline commenting to you directly on it. Did that offend you, rub you the wrong way?
Reply to this
So I guess I'm in league with the Bush family, huh? Wow, that hurts.
There you go again jumping to convenient and self-serving conc