But here goes. I’m doing this as a pro-active tactic; because you and I know, dahlings, there are those that despise Alfred Lehmberg, and myself (I know, it’s so unfathomable!) and so, in reading Lehmberg’s latest on Daniel Brenton and my recent UFO Magazine article (article is at end of this post) on Red Moon and Brenton, those trolls, thugs, snarly skeptics and uptight on - the - fence - sitters will say to themselves: “A-ha! Lehmberg has gone after Regan Lee! Regan Lee is a victim of Lehmberg’s wrath! Oh, what a delicious day!”
Oh big heaping stacks of moldy green bologna.
For one thing, we can all think for ourselves, thank you very much. I have great respect for Lehmberg but we disagree on a few things; Jeff Rense, for example. Big whoop.
I liked, Daniel Brenton, and when I wrote this article I meant every word of it. Then he got strange with a few people, myself included. It’s too bad, and I’m sorry it happened. But stuff like this does and will happen. I have nothing against him, per se. I don't agree with his call for some sort of UFO Oversight Committee, for example, but so what. We don't all agree with each other on things. So you can all go back to your caves and choose something else to gloat over.
Regarding what Alfred wrote, I have some comments. For example, I had to laugh when Lehmberg compared Brenton to cheese. Oh lighten up, it's funny!
...but one man's rotten milk is another woman's cheese... so maybe DB remains to be a good camembert. An especially soft and squishy one.
Okay, moving on...
I wrote, in the article, about Brenton's Signal to Noise project, which I took part, discussing the Contactees:
Daniel is optimistic, hoping that Signal to Noise will generate “. . . a model for working through a premise to a conclusion, or at least coming to an amicable disagreement.”
And Lehmberg commented on that with his own remarks:
Lehm: Cut from the discussion with no fanfare amidst meepy protestations of my inability to be understood, he then whisper-campaigned behind the scenes subsequently subtly trying to get me disallowed from any discussion. So much for "amicable disagreement.”
True, now that time has passed. Oh well. And “meepy” is a great word.
Alfred wants to know why I went on about Brenton's book Red Moon; because it’s science fiction; what does that have to do with UFOs? he wants to know. Also, I suspect, often science fiction fans and writers, oddly enough, don't have much patience with UFOlogy. Well, the moon is a planet. We went there. (some say.) There’s aliens up there, I hear tell. And it has something to do with the plot of the book:UFOs. Although I do agree; I prefer none to very little fiction in magazines like UFO magazine. I want news, meat, personal stories, research, theories, not fiction.
Anyway, the point is, everyone's entitled to their opinion. And it’s irony in typical Trickster fashion my article on Brenton would appear the day after DB e-mailed me, all in a huff (Daniel, you did you know.)
As to the rest, all what happened on Culture of Contact, etc. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. Can’t comment on that.
Well ladies and germs, the circus has once again left town, so go back to what you were doing, which, hopefully, is research, be it armchair or field, or just musing under the starry skies.
See Lehmberg:http://www.alienview.net/news.html
Daniel Brenton�s Signal to Noise
Daniel Brenton has a blog and it's called The Meaning of Existence and all that: The Odd Little Universe of Daniel Brenton. What makes his blog different from many blogs, is that it�s a very good blog. Brenton writes insightfully about what�s on his mind concerning UFOs, UFOlogy, and many other topics, including his own connection and responses to the spiritual or metaphysical side of things. But these things aren't the only reasons why his blog is among the best; it�s because he�s also a good writer.
Daniel is also co-author with David S. Micheals of the recently published Red Moon, a fictional story about finding a surprise on the Moon. Explains Brenton:
It's 2019, and a crew of a "return to the
Moon" expedition discover a Soviet manned spacecraft that's been hidden
for half a century. They discover it holds the darkest secret of the
Moon Race, which in turn may help them find an elusive lunar resource
that could very well be the last hope of humanity.
The book has been getting good reviews, including this one from Paul Levisnon, ex-president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America:
"This is not just among the best
first novels I've read in years, it's among the best novels, period.
Red Moon is a masterpiece."
Brenton gives full credit to David S. Micheals, saying:
"David S. Michaels was the real driving force behind it, but I feel my contribution to the book is still some of my best writing to date, I
think I can say with a pretty good sense of certainty if you start with
the novel at the beginning of the prologue and get to the end of the
first chapter, you'll either be hooked or you won't. I've literally
met only one person who didn't like it. I'm really pleased to have been part of writing this novel.
Brenton writes not only well but thoughtfully, which has led him to create something new: a sort of �point counterpoint� blog thing. Called Signal to Noise, Brenton hopes to offer his view on an aspect of UFOlogy on his blog, and another blogger respond on their blog. Sort of like a UFOlogical intellectual version of blog tag.
His first Signal to Noise was about the Contactees, with my response following on my blog Vintage UFO. In that piece, Brenton showed why Adamski and other Contactees could not have possibly traveled to other planets, given what we know about physics and space travel. To that I responded, "Well, der." Okay, I didn�t say that. But that's obvious, and focusing on that misses the point. If we take their stories literally, we're missing out on what the Contactees can teach us. Instead we're wasting time debating the logistics and reality of their visitations within the solar system.
In other words, when it comes to the Contactees, I believe them. I just don't take them literally.
Signal to Noise
I asked Daniel what he hoped to accomplish with Signal to Noise? He stressed the importance of "reflective discussion," and underscores the word:
I'd like Signal to Noise to be a place for reflective discussion:"
"underline dis-cus-sion. There are so many fronts in this subject that folks can't seem to come eye to eye about. Having an ongoing dialogue
can be rewarding in a number of levels, let alone maybe even being fun
and can suggest ideas and approaches that the individuals may not have
come to on their own.
One of the things I admire about Brenton is his willingness to seriously consider those aspects of UFOlogy that are too out there for many researchers:
"There are a group of subjects under the UFO umbrella that strike me as being just too strange to be taken seriously, such as the whole Nazi
UFO thing, shapeshifting reptilian aliens ala David Icke, or the
Branton "Dulce Wars" material. Another: the whole Ashtar Command
"faith" is just too far into the "tin foil hat" crowd to even twice
about. And yet, maybe by raising the right discussion with the right
person something useful could emerge. Looking at the Ashtar crowd, for
example -- obviously someone takes this channeled information
seriously, even though most of these kind of things are full or logic
problems and contradictions. Why do these people take it seriously?
And more importantly, where does this stuff really come from?"
That last statement of Brenton�s is very important: . . . where does this stuff really come from?�
Daniel is optimistic, hoping that Signal to Noise will generate ". . . a model for working through a premise to a conclusion, or at least coming to an amicable disagreement."
Worthy thoughts, but as we know, and as many of us have experienced, there are many within and the outside looking in within UFOlogy who seem to desire the opposite. Like many of us, Brenton's been pretty much flamed for things he's written; what's irksome is that these people didn't take the time to fully read his work:
it was clear the people in question had simply given a
knee-jerk reaction to only part of what I had written without absorbing
the whole message.
Signal to Noise might help to be productive and constructive in the on-going discussion -- genuine discussion -- of the UFO phenomeana.
There are certain individuals Daniel has in mind that he'd like to see participate in Signal to Noise;author and blogger Mac Tonnies being one:
Mac Tonnies doesn't blog articles as such very often, but I'd be delighted
to work with him on pretty much anything.
Whoever participates, it's important, Brenton says,
that the right person is matched to the right subject for a constructive discussion.
Some researchers criticize UFOlogy for being the mess that they consider it to be. I don't consider it a mess, and the circus like atmosphere that's a part of UFOlogy is just what's to be expected. It's just part of the Trickster that's an inherent part of the anomalous, including UFOs. Still, some are bothered by this, including Brenton. In this we disagree, but that's for another day! The point is, Brenton has made some steps toward creating quality discussion, with honesty and sincerity, about the UFO phenomena. And no one can argue against that.
Notes:
Daniel Brenton: The Meaning of Existence and all that: The Odd Little Universe of Daniel Breton
http://www.danielbrenton.com/
Daniel Brenton and David S. Michaels: Red Moon, Breakneck Books, 2007
http://www.luna15.com/index.php
Regan Lee: Vintage UFO
http://vintageufo.blogspot.com
