This is from Jeremy Vaeni (who, as I've said before, is one of the few writing really good stuff on what goes in UFO World, as well as what's going on within us in relation to UFOs) on a highly offended individual named Sean Meers. [see Vaeni: Sean Meers, Internet Censorship, and YOU] We do not know if Sean Meers is his real name or not, but regardless, Meers has gone after Emma Woods -- remember, she is the victim -- for writing about her experiences with David Jacobs. He has also gone after Carol Rainey, who has written about what she observed concerning Budd Hopkins.
Now this is from Feb. 20, and in the world of news, be it everyday items or the anomalous realm, often isn't considered relevant unless it happened ten minutes ago. And while I've been following Emma's story (and Rainey's) since the beginning, this one escaped my attention at the time.
This issue is very much alive; internet trolls, deluded individuals, sexist morons, and the gullible who will defend the indefensible when their beliefs are seemingly attacked.
UFOs are real. Non-human entities are real. Government black ops fucking with our heads is real. So much high strangeness, unexplained, bizarre, spiritually uplifting, soul sucking degrading, wondrous, creepy, stuff, is real. I do not apologize or defend such opinions. If you don't believe in ghosts or UFOs or angels or Bigfoot or entities from afar, that's your issue, not mine.
People who somewhere along their path of exploration of these mysteries suddenly psychotically lose it do not negate my experiences or opinions, and it shouldn't yours, either. The fact that some have abused their positions and knowledge (Jacobs, to some extent Hopkins, etc.) doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of experience of the "other." But it sure as hell does mean a lot concerning ethics and morals and behavior and the nature of research.
And yet, it seems, some such as Meers cannot tolerate hearing that their gods have been exposed for what they really are. They go after the victims and the witnesses (Woods, Rainey) and demand that their stories be scrubbed from the internet.
Then again, we have people like Jeremy Vaeni, Jack Brewer, and Alfred Lehmberg among others, who have been continuing this good fight against the self-elected UFO Police who want to not only silence others, but make sure their experiences disappear, as if none of this ever happened, and only the perpetrators words remain.
4 comments:
Thanks, Regan. I think it is very important to keep emphasizing, as you did, that critical review of the work of such figures as Jacobs and Hopkins is not the same as negating all the reported phenomena. Sincere interested parties of all kinds should be supportive of the most truthful and credible research possible. In doing so, that means we should all demonstrate not only a willingness to consider the possibility that some so-called research is below acceptable standards, but scrupulously encourage review that shines light on such circumstances.
I try to be more of the solution than the problem. Thank you for your efforts, as well.
Regan wrote: "Jeremy Vaeni, Jack Brewer, and Alfred Lehmberg among others, who have been continuing this good fight against the self-elected UFO Police who want to not only silence others, but make sure their experiences disappear, as if none of this ever happened, and only the perpetrators words remain." - - -
"Internet Censorship" and "Ufo Police" to ""silence others"--Hmmm....well Jeremy Vaeni refused to allow a comment from me to his Wordpress essay the other day, which of course is his right as a private blogger.
However given what's he's supposedly crying out about makes his own censorship and labeling of others ironic. He wrote back I'm a troll and asked me why would he allow my comment. Yet, Vaeni clearly appears to be 'playing' (as in trolling) in his own comments section with the likes of Gene Steinberg.
This all begs the question - who really are the "ufo police"? And this has nothing to do with you personally, Regan, but instead addresses the topic at hand - censorship. [It also has nothing personally to do with Emma Woods or Carol Rainy.]
It seems apparent one ufo-centric group gets exchanged with another group and the perpetrators have simply exchanged roles and subject matter. And the beat goes on....
~ Susan
brownie -- you yourself said it's Jeremy's right to approve comments or not on his blog. As it is. Big difference between not allowing comments for whatever reason on one's own blog and going full force psycho and take down anothers 's entire website.
While I myself have disallowed comments (for various reasons; felt the person was a troll or trouble maker, the comments were racist or violent, spamming, etc.) that's very different from wanting the stories of witnesses removed entirely from the internet.
UFO Police (not a real thing by the way, simply a phrase to describe those who would decide for the rest of us what is right and wrong, allowed and banned, from UFO research) don't get to patrol the field, as much as they want to or think they get to. They don't get to.
So I do not take on ownership of the branding: that I too am merely a flip side to the same argument. Oh no no no….
This is all distraction anyway. We still have facts of the thing, which is, oh, you know, Jacobs planting suggestions into Emma Woods' head that she has Multiple Personality Disorder, or that she wear a chastity belt, or that she send him her underwear, or that they engage in a bizarre email game to trick the aliens --- this is research?
I think Jacobs is wrong so very very wrong wrong and I am aghast at those that think otherwise, but the difference between me and Meers is that, while I will continue to state my opinion, I am not going after website hosts and demanding they remove Jacobs from the internet.
Regan - I completely agree with you -re. Sean Meers. It's one thing to defend an abduction researcher who you think has helped you or you are friends with but quite another to attempt to take down a website or youtube video. For me this is the whole point - censorship. Whether it's from Meers or Vaeni.
And, I think you know, if you've read my comments anywhere, how I feel about Woods and Rainy. I've been a supporter of both from the beginning of their exposes. If I have but one criticism of Rainy it would be she probably should have waited until Hopkins passed on and not have released what she did when he was fighting his last months of cancer. Anyone who's been a caregiver to stage four cancer patient (and I have for my mother) learns the horrors of those last months.
As I'd pointed out in my first comment, it's not a comment or criticism of you but of the wordpress essay you referred to.
And, thankyou for posting my comments, Regan.
~ Susan
Post a Comment