UFO Magazine Readers Want To Know Where I've Been....
The second article, however--the one I'm printing here--I mean OUCH! In retrospect I can totally see why they wouldn't want to run it. It's pretty brutal. Mainly they didn't like me "attacking" fellow writers at the magazine. They didn't mind my criticism of the magazine itself and, in fact, encouraged me to rewrite it only as such. I refused because my main beef is with one writer in particular, the intolerable Kate Mucci.
I've never met her; I'm sure she's a great person. End disclaimer.
I did run this article by Alfred Lehmberg shortly after I wrote it and although he doesn't agree with me--and I actually like his criticism. I think it's fair and hope he makes it into an article someday--he thought it was intellectually honest and so wasn't offended by my barbs.
Still, I do punch so many people in the face here, I can see why UFO wouldn't want to run it. I suggested they run it like a top secret document, markering out all of the offensive lines but...reading it back...there are too many.
Okay, so all of this preface is to say that A.) This is why I've not been in UFO Mag in a while B.) DO NOT take this to mean that I feel UFO Magazine is censoring me beyond acceptable practice C.) I'll be back in their pages next issue.
I harbor zero ill will. I just want to publish the damn article so here it is. End disclaimer.
More Cowbell
Hey, remember that follow-up story I was supposed to have published here regarding the big change in ufology from scientainment to something substantial? Whelp, turns out UFO wouldn’t print it. They said it needed “more Vaeni,” meaning there wasn’t enough of my own writing. In it, I quoted heavily from other people, including an entire email exchange between Nick Redfern and me.
More Vaeni. Right. It got me to thinking that, with the influx of new readers due to the success of UFO Hunters, what this column really needs is a new introduction to me and what this magazine needs is not more Vaeni but less crap (we’ll get to Kate Mucci in a minute) and less incestuous assumptions that the general reader even has a clue who we’re talking about when we reference without context lesser-known ufological characters.
So now who am I? Why am I here? I’m an alien abductee or “experiencer” if you prefer. For the sake of argument I’ll say that whatever this ultimately means, it applies to me. If it means I’m suffering delusions, fine. If it means aliens interact with me, fine. If it means some trickster force pretending to be delusions of aliens is suckling at the teat of my soul, fine. Whatever it is, it’s there and I’ve written about it, shot a movie about it, talked about it publicly, and so on and so forth. I’m not going to give my full resume here but tell you that getting to the truth of this is important, personal business to me and even though I make a lot of crass jokes (we’ll get to Kate Mucci in a minute), I’m feeling more and more responsible for how and what I promote in this field. I think anyone vying for the public’s attention has a duty to make sure they know what they’re talking about, within reason, and care enough not to promote known, case-closed charlatans. Even my pal, Tim Binnall, who hosts the Binnall of America podcast, won’t promote known charlatans. I single him out because he is more interested in the personalities behind the stories in this field than getting to “the truth.” He doesn’t think that’s even possible—so even a guy with that bent will not promote known hoaxers and con artists. This brings me to Kate Mucci….
Last night I was on the can, filling it with stew and my pupils with UFO Magazine. Thank Zeus I was already seated because by the time I got through Ms. Mucci’s glowing review of Michael Horn’s DVD The Silent Revolution of Truth, I was ready to shit myself. Seriously, Kate?—If you had been in front of me, and I not on the toilet, I would have accidentally vomited on your head. If you, the reader, are offended by the imagery in this paragraph, fantastic! Now you have a sense of how I feel anytime I read an endorsement of lies about a subject that affects my life like no other.
In her convolutedly titled farticle, Believing Is Not Knowing, Mucci writes:
“Despite the shrill protestations of the debunkers who continue to assert that Billy is faking the thousands of photos and videos he has acquired during his experiences, there can be no doubt that this one-armed farmer in Switzerland has had amazing contact with beings from a distant star system.”
The Flat Earth Society called, Kate. They want their argument back.
If you missed it, the flick documents the claims of a
one-armed Swiss farmer named Billy Meier who says he’s had a lifetime of open
contact with aliens. He has the pictures and film to prove it. Except they’re
fake. And the guy directing the documentary, Michael Horn, is the American
representative for Meier. This is like Karl Rove directing a pro-war
documentary on
Might. But do you have to? What is Kate’s responsibility? Or “Old As” Dirk Vander Ploeg, another contributor to the magazine who gushes over this hoax? Is it anything? What about Alfred Lehmberg? He showed me his positive review of the Horn movie prior to its publication. Alfred’s take on any contactee experience that makes a splash is that there must be something magical/mystical behind it or else we wouldn’t be talking about it. What else but the real sparks our imagination thus, he wonders? Hey, I know! The imagination! That’s right! The imagination sets off imagination every bit as wonderfully as the real events it sometimes ponders and reorganizes. This is one of the benefits of having rich interior domains that transcend instinct as we humans do. We can even daydream about nothing at all while the world blows up around us. We’re fascinating that way.
I shared with Alfred my—make that Bruce Maccabee’s, Jacques Vallee’s, Jeff Ritzmann’s, Timothy Good’s, David Biedny’s, Nick Pope’s, Derek Bartholomaus’, Paul Kimball’s, an average five-year-old’s, some goldfish I showed it to’s—misgivings about the…um…evidence. Yet and still he went on to write said glowing review made passable only by the closer: “Give it a watch, even as a total fabrication and complete invention it is instructional because the truth of all things beckoning us will be just that kind of weird, only weirder I'm thinking.”
Kate Mucci did not write that. Kate Mucci wrote that Billy
is clearly in contact with aliens and anyone opposed to this notion—you know?
Experts in photography, film, and special effects?—are shrill debunkers. Madam,
me thinks thou doth protest retardedly.
Kate’s not just a writer like the other fellows, she’s also
co-host of the paranormal talk show, Out
There TV, which airs in the
Actually, it’s not like that, it is that and the answer is yes it does. That’s the nature of proof, Kate, Dirk, Alfred, Tito, Jermaine, and Michael—IT PROVES THINGS.
Yeah, but what about all that expert testimony used in the flick to support the reality of the UFO footage, huh? What about that? Again, do your homework: Those experts have not panned out. Horn is misrepresenting most of them. The credible ones. They say so themselves in written correspondences found at abovetopsecret.com. Seek them out. It’s your job. If it’s not your job, what is? If you’re not an experiencer, historian, philosopher, expert—what is your job? Just someone with a curiosity who can slap words together monthly? What qualifies your voice to be heard over anyone else’s?
If the writers aren’t capable of delivering material worthy of the long bus then what about the magazine itself? Does UFO see any value in quality control? We have a lot more readers now, eh? So what do you want to feed them? Facts or lazy journalism? Truth or wish fulfillment? Sorry to pick on you so badly here but I have a bit more vested interest in this than sales stats and don’t really want to be writing for a magazine that promotes known, proven, debunked garbage alongside genuine research performed by the likes of Stanton Friedman and Bruce Maccabee, as if it’s of equal value.
So here I am picking on the editor. I understand that the goal of the magazine is to sell advertisements and to appeal to a wide audience. I also understand that I’m not always going to agree with everything coming through here. But known hoaxers? Come on! You said yourself circulation has grown dramatically. How about a little discretion now that you can afford it? Does it not hold that many of the new readers are likewise new to ufology, and in plunking down cash for this periodical, expect to learn something real-ish from experts and educated pundits? Can we at least agree to cordon off the bobble-headed whimsy in its own leper section so visitors know to protect their eyes when reading?
If I’m wrong, tell me. Tell me what the mission statement of UFO Magazine is. Tell us all. Again, I want to stress, my only concern is that known junk is being promoted. I’m not even talking about the column by that New Age dude with the Gandalf beard or the radio show host who thinks moon gas is an angel. Purely the hoaxers hoaxing is my dilemma. Meier’s UFOs are only unidentified in that we don’t know the manufacturer of the toys and garbage can lids floating before the lens.* How apropos he used a garbage can lid for one of them. He may have lost an arm but his sense of humor is intact. So is mine. It’s my tolerance for BS that’s missing.
If nothing else, New Reader, I want you to know that there are those of us who will not put up with frauds. It’s been said that I and all abductees are in the same category as a Billy Meier, but we’re not. Yes, you have to choose whether you believe my story and what it is you believe about that story. This is because I come before you with nothing more than anecdotal evidence and my word. Sucks, right? On the other hand, what I don’t come before you with is fake photos. Billy does. So what’s to decide? He’s decided for you that he is not to be believed. Now try telling that to the writers and editors here in whom you put your trust and your money to know the difference.
Am I being too harsh? After all, the magazine did take out a blossoming scam artist named Dr. Dan Burisch not too long ago. Danny boy claimed to speak to an alien at a secret military facility but his background didn’t check out. So the magazine is capable of outing the awful. They also weren’t afraid to dedicate an entire issue to squeezing the life out of Project Serpo, a lame concoction from bored minds at the CIA. And I haven’t seen too much in support of Stephen Greer, yet another man with a preposterous set of stories. He sang a show tune at a press conference, wears muscle shirts, has a lisp and a limp wrist, and—get this!—claims to be heterosexual! Does that add up? Oh, also something about aliens or something. I don’t know. Is he even a doctor? I hear that part is true.
It’s ironic that the biggest piece of ufological fiction in history, The X-Files, got it right with their two seemingly paradoxical slogans: “Trust No One” and “The Truth Is Out There.”
Both are facts. The former needn’t be. If we don’t want to demolish scientainment can we at least make a vow to not willingly sell the tainment part as science?
*NOTE: Actually, we might. The drum lid used for the “wedding cake” UFO probably comes to us via Harcostar and the nozzle of the real(ly plastic) alien ray gun probably comes to us courtesy of the friction motor Super Jet Ray Gun, a child’s toy made in Japan.
OK, I fail to see the controversy. The sight of Cindy McCain makes me itch, and not in a good way. Although that's enough to get me registered on the 2 million member terrorist watch list, I fail to see how your opinion about Mucci's work is too controversial for UFO Mag editordom.
Reply to this
Me too. She should buck up and take it like an adult. You want to be a public figure, you've got to expect public criticism at some point.
But from the magazine's point of view I'm attacking fellow writers with cruelty, as opposed to straight-laced counter points, and it makes them uncomfortable.
Reply to this
This seems similar to the issue you had with them addressing politics and UFOs - and I don't see Alfred finding this essay particularly cruel either. It's the Golden Rule at work...
Reply to this
That was under different management and actually, Nancy Birnes went to bat for me a lot in those days, including this.
Reply to this
Honestly, I think it was because you're outing Greer...
Also, the Meier case always generates money, no matter what, no matter how inexplicably, money seems drawn to it like moth to flame. UFO Mag is choosing money over truth. Shocking.
Reply to this
No, I know what the reasons are and they're private. It's really not a big deal. But FYI, the powers that be at UFO aren't Greer fans by any stretch.
Reply to this
Hey Jeremy, I voted that I liked the article. That said, I'd like you to consider an issue. Observations have often been made, that the abduction experience shares characteristics with shamanic initiation. Now whether that's true or not, or without trying to press the case that they are "the same," the idea has always led me to make a sort of typological comparison between the two. In your case for e.g., there seems to have been very much an "initiation" of sorts that has "changed" you in a sense...into a rather shamanic sort of being... Now looking at shamans or medicine-people (I've had plenty if not extensive contact), one of the "techniques" as it were, in the traditional "bag of tricks" - is tricks... At least, looking at it from a particularly Western sort of mindset, that's what it seems like. Fakery...tricks...slight of hand...a "con." (and I'm curious...does "con" have a relationship to some sort of "priestly" thing?)
Now, to a certain degree, it seems to me that frequently the shaman/m.p. him/her/shimself, seems to approach this "trick" issue in different ways...some mention something like say, a comparison to someone wearing a nice suit to a job interview...but it's not their suit...or it's got a fake label, or whatever...but if the fake is good enough...it helps the magic to occur...you get my drift? Others of course, deny any trickery at all, but take a more hermetic "as above so below" sort of sympathetic magic approach...on one level it seems to be a "trick/fake" but actually what is happening is occuring on a level that is unobserved...for e.g. using an object in the mouth to serve as a temporary vector when doing "sucking" of a "foreign object" (spiritual/psychic in nature) from a body...the patient can NOT "see" the spirit-form, but "can see" the object that serves as the vector... Or, sticking pins in a doll instead of a knife in the actual target.
Now another technique pretty common to shamanic/m.p. workers...is humor or the absurd...because humor relieves stress...or energy patterns...or thought patterns...and allows things to happen...I see you working very much within that technique...
Yeah, I know you can't stand fakers...or con artists...but maybe they do a certain kind of work too...just use a different technique that gives the "serious" folks a bad name...
Anyway, I know you'll never change your opinion on Miers, and frankly, I haven't paid much attention to his whole mythos myself (and am probably not even spelling his name right) other than a few peeks now and again, for various reasons...and particularly because it doesn't "do" anything for me...
But obviously he's doing something for someone...what is he doing? Is he just tricking everyone and muddying up the waters? Maybe muddying up the waters is part of his work...and if that is objectionable, disgust may be justified from certain perspectives...
But hey...it is an old and well-established tradition, "This is the body of Christ" lie?
Reply to this
The body of Christ lie? You mean eating bread for flesh? Isn't that "lie" what dun away with cannibalism and animal sacrifice?
I have thought about that, actually, mainly because I have a friend who believes it (or something similar): Perhaps Meier & Greer are liars being controlled by the greater good to appeal to people who can only "hear" from that level.
That's interesting to me on the level of science fiction. But in reality, they want your money and need to be held accountable. If we're going to say that in the GREAT SENSE of things, everything is a manifestation of One, fine. But some of those manifestations include psychotic behavior, serial killing, pathological lying, and con artists. These con artists are different than shamanistic "cons" who know exactly why they are doing what they're doing. Do we let them continue on their merry sprees simply because we're all different expressions of the same stuff?
In short, if I give Meier a pass I've got to give Pat Robertson a pass.
"Wouldn't be prudent...at this juncture."
Reply to this
I liked this article actually! Now, would I have published it if I were Birnes? No, not in its present form due to the spirit of the thing (which you've already mentioned). But it was a fun read as a blog post and oh, so true.
Reply to this
Of course your point is 100% valid and this article in a perfect world should be published just like anti attack Iraq articles should have been published all over the place before we went to war.
But.....I think it's worth playing the game somewhat and toning things down a little to get your overall message published (selling out for the greater good!).
This is a really important message and a microcosm of the stuff that happens in this non scientific new age world, so I think it would be worth being more non specific about the writer who supported Horn and less pissy if it would increase the chances of it being published or else important messages like this will miss the uninformed who read the magazine. Now new readers of that magazine will only see her article and run and buy a fake DVD of crazies!
FYI - I don't know anything about the magazine, so my opinion is not very informed on this so I could be completely wrong, wont' be the first time
Reply to this
Hey Jeremy,
That creepy "JOKER" picture of Dr. Greer might get you beat up. Be careful, that guy lift's weights!
xoxoxo
M!
Reply to this
Maybe we need Greer, Horn, Meiers (GHM) and others of their ilk.
It's undeniable that they lend contrast to a field that is beset with a large array of characters. Their attention-seeking ways may annoy the more seriously inclined, but without them, whom would we rail against? They help focus the lens in a way that a group of like-minded individuals cannot. They sharpen perspective, not cloud it. It helps the serious to choose their points of arguments for the existence of these phenomena. It forces a honing of position, of points for debate. Without this contrasting perspective, what would drive the investigative process? Maybe it would drive itself, but maybe that niggly thorn in the side helps move it along and even guides its direction?
How to defend this stance? Imagine a world without them. How do you distinguish yourself now? You (I'm using the generic "you" here) would now be the target for the "crazy" label. Wouldn't you rather they be the ones with that distinction? There will always be followers who lack discernment in these areas, but they are not the ones the serious are addressing anyway. It's like being angry at those who believe in Santa Claus, Jesus, angels and other unprovable things. How do those beliefs impinge on your own? Do they?
And I realize the most despicable aspect is the idea of defrauding folks of money. But if they weren't giving it to the GHM lobby, they'd probably be spending it on miracle diet pills and other nonsense. You ultimately can't save people from themselves. They will learn, or they won't but it's not anyone's job to save them.
What about being tarred with the same brush? That happens, but mostly from a superficial perspective by those who have not done their research in this area. If that's the approach they use, they aren't your audience anyway. Do we need mainstream media with its vapidness? There seems to be a critical mass building online, completely circumventing the corporate TV world. That's where the energy seems to be best spent.
In the end, we all draw our lines in the sand. It is these distinctions that define us, and hopefully, challenge us.
Reply to this
You know, as I look at that Joker picture I can't help but wonder... is he a pisces?
Reply to this
Ok, stating that billy meier's case is a fake: "—you might want to check the sources before giving it a glowing review." = JUST SHOWS HOW LITTLE RESEARCH YOU HAVE DONE! Keep the ignorance at bay, eh? SIGH, GROW UP AND SMELL THE ROSES IGNORANT ONE!
Cheers!
Reply to this
Indeed, you are sad. But you needn't be. There's tons of expert testimony to the effect that Meier is hoaxing, so much so that it's not worth going into here. You can find most of it at www.abovetopsecret.com if you care to look.
What I will do now is bypass all of the "debate" and prove to you an unequivocally hoaxed Billy Meier photo. If you still do not believe this is a fake, a model, then there is no cure for your sadness. You would have to turn off all reason to actually think the below photo is more than a model. You would have to have a will to believe so strongly that you cannot afford to see this clear hoax. You'd have to be Michael Horn or a cultist--someone completely invested in this being real.
Look at the top left of the "craft," just underneath the second row of bulbs. Notice something Billy missed? That's right, one of the pegs or pins or nails--or whatever it is--fell out of place and onto the hull.
It came unglued and fell onto the hull. Billy says this is a real spaceship. Do you now believe it is? Not if you're sane.
The end.
Reply to this
Point. Set. Match. Vaeni.
Reply to this
hilarious
Reply to this
So THAT'S the wedding cake model people are talking about. That is really really bad.
Reply to this
I know. It's embarrassing, isn't it?
Reply to this
well, I'd imagine that on a long trip through hyperspace, at least one of your brass doo-dads would drop off. Of course, this craft was made in the 50's - long before the technological advances that gave us Superglue. Before Superglue, aliens were forced to use Elmers and a very low grade of duct tape.
Reply to this
... laughing OUT loud ...
Anyone have the picture of the oil drum (or whatever type of drum) the lid came from in order to construct that nifty piece of poop? Thought that told the whole tale too.
Reply to this
Yeah but you know there are still defenders in spite of that obvious piece of evidence. They say it's a coincidence. Here it is, the lid from Meier's own compound:
Reply to this
Yeah, that's it!
People really need something to believe in, don't they?
Me? I believe Meier makes pretty lids.
Reply to this
great article dude. But seriously how big is that UFO suppose to be? Is it powered by elfin magic?
The fact that people even debate the Meirs issue scares me.
Reply to this
At least Billy Meirs didn't trance-dance with invisible aliens, like you do Jer.
Reply to this
No I don't. And what is that? "At least Billy Meier..." Besides sounding like a four-year-old, are you really saying, "Well sure he's a fraud....but at least he--" NOOOO! No, "At least he," you fucking pinhead! HE IS HOAXING YOU! THE END! GET IT THROUGH YOUR RETARDED GOD DAMNED SKULL!!!
Reply to this