The Left vs. the Right and 'Constricters'

 Satanic Abuse/ Egregores & the Occult - Shows (Coast to Coast)

Last night's Coast to Coast was interesting. Except for one point; the point I've been writing about these past few weeks. Which is the relationship between the political right and the left in context of UFO, paranormal research.

I think it was guest Russ Dizdar, (I think it was Dizdar) who, on discussing the deep state, negative energies, mind control, etc. -- which makes sense, and is, in my opinion, a non-debatable reality -- went off on what he called "constriction." Except, according to Dizdar, it's the left who is responsible for this constriction!

He went on to talk about Communism, which, according to him, is the agenda of the left. And then placing blame for all kinds of crazy onto the left, in context of "constriction," which is the egregores, and the occult's, purpose.

If anyone, anything, is doing "constricting" it is Trump, the orange one, the POTUS, the 45. He, and the followers, supporters and kiss assers, are the ones who "constrict." And if I have to explain it to you, you are doomed.

I have no argument concerning negative energies, from our own -- humans -- as well as non-human yet intelligent entities. Call these energies Satan, demons, daimons, Djinn, fallen angels, ET, aliens, faerie, elementals ... wait. They are not all the same thing. But they are all, all. Some of them are negative. Malevolent.

Some are not. Some don't care either way. Sometimes we just get in their way. Other times, there is a specific agenda to fuck with us. Some of the energies involve humans.


But to seriously inject that liberals are the cause -- this is the point I find myself in despair. I can only go so far when I hit that wall. That wall put up by conservatives who abruptly veer off from delving into the paranormal -- the real, actual, at times insidious, paranormal, including UFOs, and all its deception -- and scream "liberal."

Coast to Coast's George Noory Pushes Newsmax

New television program: Newsmax. Coast to Coast's George Noory pushed this program on his radio show. Newsmax is a conservative channel. A few of the various pundits demonstrate this right wing bias.  Conservative ex-congressman Joe Walsh, who aligns himself with the tea party and, according to Wikipedia, told Obama to "secure our borders with moats and alligators." Walsh had a career in broadcasting before joining Newsmax. Here's a bit of Walsh for you:

On July 7, 2016, the night of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, Walsh wrote on Twitter, "This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out Black Lives Matter punks. Real America is coming after you." These comments were interpreted by some as threats.^[79][80] After deleting the tweet (by his account it was deleted by Twitter), Walsh wrote later, "I wasn't calling for violence, against Obama or anyone. Obama's words and BLM's deeds have gotten cops killed. Time for us to defend our cops."^[81] The next morning, Walsh stated in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that Twitter suspended his account and deleted the tweet itself: "The pre-condition for me reopening my account was they had to delete that tweet." He said, "Of course I didn't mean 'let's go kill Obama and Black Lives Matter.' I was not trying to incite violence against Obama and Black Lives Matter. That's crazy and stupid and wrong. It would end my career and it's wrong."^[82]
On October 24, 2016, Walsh wrote on Twitter, "On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump. On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket. You in? (Wikipedia)

Alan Dershowitz is also a member of the Newsmax crew. I know, surreal, but he's been out there for awhile. Supporting Trump proves that.

Callista Gringrich, ex of Newt, is also a pundit.

African American Jesse Lee Peterson, Biil O;Reilly (!)

And on and on.

So what this have to do with UFOs?

I've written beofre about those holding right wing views -- particularly Trump supporters -- who are also involved in UFO research. (and by extension, other types of paranormal research.) Why does this matter? Should it matter?

It does matter. Our views are part of who we are; how we percieve things. If you're conservative, to the point you are so brain damaged you support Trump, how can you be trusted to not judge based on class, race, cultural affiliation, religion?

Joining the far right and being a UFO/paranormal researcher seems contradictory. The government covers up, but, we trust the government, don't we? Not only does the government cover up, but experiments upon its own citizens. Why support such a government?

To be fair, much of the left -- the majority, in my non-scientific experience -- seems to simply ROFL when it comes to UFOs and the supernatural. That's not good either.

I've mentioned before how, years ago, I spoke with Peter Davenport about a UFO sighting I had. He is very conservative, politically. So he scolds me for being hesitant to report it since I had a "duty as an American" (his words) to report such things. A duty to whom? My government, who denies, lies, hides and manipulates the UFO phenomena?

It seems insane, this, not patriotic feeling, but nationalistic behavior, in context of UFO study.

Our Big Fat Massive Pentagon Multi-Researcher Government UFO Reveal

Listening to C2C this past Sunday night, host, George Knapp. Guest: Dr. Eric Davis discussing UFOs. Points -- important points -- UFOs are real. As Knapp said, "Duh." What they are, that's another question. Although Eric Davis did say the origins of UFOs are "non-human." Inter, outer, inner, other . . . but not human. So far, fine.

Lots of researchers of the nuts and bolts kind involved in the Pentagon's study of UFOs. Although Davis did say that there is a definite paranormal aspect to UFOs. (Which is clear, and something many a UFO witness, including myself, has experienced.)  Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) involvement in this has always troubled me. Davis blithely acknowledged many conclusions remain classified, and (paraphrasing) will never be released to the public. At the top: Bigelow, who has said in the past that people don't have the right to know everything. Bigelow is a private citizen. A wealthy one, with all kinds of connections to government as well as industry, including aviation. A sort of anomalous Howard Hughes type. 

I definitely have mixed feelings about Bigelow. He's poured a lot of money into paranormal research. He's gathered people of various disciplines to study UFOs and the anomalous realm. On the other hand, he's too damn cozy with both government and private industry. Both factions include those who don't give a damn about the truth concerning findings and how it will affect our society as well as culture. They only care about how those findings can benefit them. The rest of hoi poli be damned. We don't get to know. 

Bigelow has had his own UFO experiences, which he doesn't talk about. I do love the fact that he doesn't care what people think about his opinions and beliefs concerning UFO reality. He has the wealth and connections to make things happen with research. Who hasn't daydreamed about having all the money in the world to spend on paranormal and UFO research? (Well, if you're a saucer nerd, that is.) 

There's Bigelow's work with NASA. He wants to go out to space. Trump wants a 'Space Force.' MUFON. NIDS. Skinwalker Ranch. Project BEAM. BAASS. Conspiratorial minds are busy musing on the implications.

From the beginning, and more so as time has gone on, I've had a nagging feeling about Bigelow and those he works with -- something not right. 

Government has acknowledged UFOs are real. The rest of the world goes on. There's been a kind of shrug and 'hmm, interesting' response to this news and then, nothing. But what can we do? Regardless of UFOs, the world, and the U.S., is in a rotten and sad state. I'm not naive or ignorant, of course I'm aware and involved in the very real day to day madness of our current POTUS and what he has unleashed in our world. It's sick, it's deranged, it's bad.

So no wonder the obvious news of late from the Pentagon, from mainstream publications like the New York Times, that UFOs are real doesn't cause the huge reaction it might have not long ago. Meanwhile, much of what our government, as well as private industry and a handful of citizens knows about UFOs remains hidden.

I've long believed that the government knows a hell of a lot more than it says it does, that information released to the public is on need to know basis, and, the information itself is parceled out according to their needs at the moment. Does anyone out here really believe that all is revealed?

MUFON's Inner Circle.

Kevin Randle has a piece on MUFON's Inner Circle: A Different Perspective: MUFON, Racism and Dodging the Questions.

Another huge WTF moment in the continuing sleazy saga that is MUFON these days.

For some time, MUFON, as an institution, been very suspect. MUFON began (one assumes) with good intentions on bringing a respectable and acceptable, light regarding UFOs to the masses. Excluding the more embarrassing witness narratives of course.

Then the strange relationship with cagey and coy millionaire Bigelow, John Ventre's racism, and now, the Inner Circle, where, for five thousand dollars, you can join. Members include JZ Knight. Yes, that JZ Knight, keeper of the entity known as Ramtha.

Oy.

Kevin Randle has written a good piece and thanks to him for putting this out there.

Gatekeepers: On Whose Authority?

UFO Gatekeepers. They come from all sides; uber-skeptics, debunkers, as well as those who believe, but insist on scientific approaches to exploring all that is UFO. The Gatekeepers wrangle one tentacle of the UFO Kraken, ignoring the rest -- even while it strangles them -- rejecting the elements that annoy them.

They decide who gets to, what methods, which cases.

On what authority?!

There is none.

James Mcgaha, uber-debunker, asks UFO witness if "she's qualified to look at the sky"

There is no UFO Authority, no matter how desperately some want there to be. There is no Official Method, case, researcher, witness, spokesperson.

No one is more, or less, qualified than anyone one else in this realm.

As soon as someone starts spouting off a need for standards: academic, scientific, "legitimate" cases, etc. I do not take them seriously.

Honesty is expected, at all times. That's about all we should expect. Sincere desire to explore, to share, to research, while holding the ball of integrity.

Other than that, the rest is a form of bullying. Self-righteous and arrogant demands to join, if you don't, then you're not honest, sincere and legitimate.

UFO Researchers, Witnesses: Learn These Signs of Psychotics, and, Beware Deviant Homosexuality

Because if you don't, that proves you are!

I do my best to avoid giving the verbose stuffed shirts at UFO Iconoclasts -- now UFO Conjecture (s) --  any attention, but sometimes one has to present the insanity in UFO Land to the rest of the inhabitants. Particularly so since so many otherwise reasonable researchers insist on playing with them.

Usually their posts are a form of UFO Guerrilla Theater. At least, that's how they see themselves; players in an unreasonable realm, (UFOs)  bringing reason to the rest of us deluded misfits.  Doesn't work; they're far too pedantic for any true surrealism, even while their spewing ends up being extremely surreal anyway. But that's simply a product of their clumsy hoax attempts (Trent photos, etc.) or dry and wordy laments about the time wasting study of UFOs. Even as they, themselves, pontificate thusly. (See what happens after reading their posts? One begins to sound like them.)

In a post dated earlier this month, they write about the inspiration given to them reading Hervey Cleckly, who wrote a  book on "homosexual deviancy" :

"The Caricature of Love by Hervey Cleckley (1957), a tome outlining the deviancy of homosexuality"

and found inspritaton in Cleckly's classic The Mask Of Sanity, (1941) outlining the traits exhibited by psychopaths. What does this have to do with UFOs? 
Well . . .

In a bizzare leap (told you they were surreal, in spite of themselves) Cleckley's book on psychopaths should be read by UFO researchers. The traits presented by Cleckly should be kept in mind when UFO researchers interview witnesses, or, when dealing with researchers themselves. 

(Remember, this is a book on psychopaths. Suggested for use in UFO Land. By a man who wrote about the "deviancy of homosexuality." )

Number six in Clecky's list is interesting here: "Lack of remorse or shame." In what context? Seeing a UFO? Studying the subject?  Oy. And so it goes. 

The jesters at the Conjecture(s) blog recommend UFO researchers learn about these traits:

"That UFO researchers do not have the qualifications, usually, to pursue personalities lies at the heart of the UFO dilemma, as it's UFO reports that make up the core of the UFO story, and that core is besotted by liars or psychotic personalities, telling the stories or asking the questions."

(Snarky little bastards aren't' they?) So that's why we can't get anywhere in solving the UFO mystery, er, "dilemma." And here I thought it was because of a tangled complex mass of cover-ups, misinformation, disinformation, religions, politics, infrastructures, fear, greed, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, manipulations, shadow governments, folklore, conspiracies,myth, power, corruption,galactic wars, vying entities, and simply not having gotten there yet in the whole magical mystery tour thing of mind, soul, universe and "them." When really, it's just been us psychos all along.

I don't think they're entirely serious; I do think they enjoy intentionally being ridiculous. Still, it is annoying. 

In UFO Land as well as the mundane world, psyopaths exist. This is news? It's good to be aware of the psychos among us. The more you know and all that. But really, the juxtaposition here of "psychopath" "deviant homosexuality" and "UFO witness/researches" is too much. 

Notice how I didn't link. That's on purpose. 

Revisiting the Tempest in a Teapot: McMinnville UFO Photos Faked. Again.

UPDATES: lots of comments at the Bragalia blog, to be expected, but one thread I find interesting concerns the boy on the ladder photo. Which, according to some, was not taken by Trent... and so, this iconic story continues as the mystery it is. Nothing proven to debunk or that shows definitively, that the Trent photos were fake.

Were the famous McMinnville UFO photos fakes after all? The iconic snapshots nothing but a hoax? Does this mean it's curtains for the annual UFO Fest in McMinnville, Oregon? Speculation from The Bragalia Files: MAKE-BELIEVE IN MCMINNVILLE: FAMOUS 1950 UFO PHOTOS FAKED? says it could be so.

After all this time, it's almost impossible to determine if the photos are of a genuine UFO, or simply fakes. The evidence presented by Bragalia is only speculation surrounding the facts: a photo of the Trent's little boy, on a ladder under the wires where the spaceship was seen, and photographed. The fact the Trents were "repeaters" -- repeat witnesses. But that last bit; the "repeater" label, doesn't prove anything either way. Many UFO witnesses (myself included) are "repeaters." Some of us have had encounters going back to childhood. Granted, Bragalia comments: "As Jerry Seinfeld might say, “not that there’s anything wrong with that” but then puts a judgement on how a witness should respond to a sighting. Referring to Mrs. Trent, Bragalia writes:

...but when you combine her prior UFO interest and prior sightings, her later sightings, her family discussions about UFOs- with the fact that Mrs. Trent reported being the first to see the photographed UFO- it is Mrs. Trent who should have been given more attention when investigating the photos. Paul finally got his wife a photograph of one of her coveted UFOs. She was certainly one darn lucky “repeat witness.”

Then there's the note, sent to Paul Trent, with Bragalia's oddly gender specific observation that it's in "male writing." This note was no doubt written by a close friend, Bragalia tells us, since said friend used his initials. From that we are to infer note writer and Trent were close friends, and the note itself? Hints that the whole thing was a hoax.

Finally, we have the over the top classist assumptions about the Trents and the community of McMinnville in Yamhill County Oregon. Phrases like "farming folks", "farm boy" and this description of "simple farm folk" pulling one over on them there city slickers:

“Fun” during those times, in that kind of place, may have encompassed playing around with a new camera, wanting to outwit the city folks, involve the family in some UFO entertainment and satisfy a wife’s saucer interests.

The Trents never were paid for their photos, or anything else concerning the UFO images. When the Trents wanted the photos returned in the 1970s, this was because, Bragalia speculates, they wanted the "accrued value" of the images.

 This is not the first time Bragalia, as well as his associates, have attempted to expose McMinnville as a hoax. I wrote about that for UFO Digest in 2007. Revealing a third, "lost" Trent photo, we were promised, sort of, a revelation. Turns out the whole thing was a hoax. Er, that is, not McMinnville, but the third lost photo. McMinnville, at the time of the Trent sighting, was an active place for UFO sightings. More than fifty years later, that area is still a little hotspot for UFO sightings. Whether or not the Trent photos were fakes, well, we still don't know to this day. This recent speculation is just that, interesting, but certainly not proof in any way that McMinnville was a hoax.

Further reading:

• The Trent Tempest
• The Trent Trickster Three
• Still a Mystery, and a Big Question: The Trent Farm/McMinnville Oregon Case
McMinnville, Oregon UFO: Festivals and Hoaxes Saucer Gossip: A Bit of History and Silliness About the Trent Case

The Skeptic in All Those Shows...

I haven't seen National Geographic's Chasing UFOs yet, since it doesn't air until tonight. Only those in the "industry" got a preview. Responses from those who have seen the show seem to be miffed there isn't enough skepticism; while others are miffed the show exists at all. In most paranormal and UFO shows the skeptic is included. For "balance" it is said. Nope. It's for ratings and action; that American brand of competition. Everything's a contest. Anyway... With UFOs, we can debate forever about what they are, where they're from, what it is people are "really" seeing. (Wait, we are debating that.) Focusing on strictly observations of craft for the moment, what use is a so-called skeptic? A WITNESS SAW SOMETHING. Is that debatable? Skeptic, schmetic. What you need, always, are those who can help -- as in assist -- with observations. What wondrous and strange forms clouds can take. Astronomy. Aircraft. (Ours. That we know of.) I know, I know, the moon's been mistaken for a UFO, Venus has been mistaken for a UFO, pranksters like to float up night flying kites and balloons ... sigh. And while the strict observation of a craft is straightforward, there's more. The researcher has to take into account more than just the sighting. If the witness describes feelings of disorientation, anxiety, yipes, missing time even! -- that has to be taken into account. Has to. None of this means that the thing seen is an alien craft piloted by space brothers. That's assumption and while it could be true, we can't prove that. We can prove someone saw something. And we can prove, in many cases, the physical, emotional and psychological effects of a sighting. Aside from the idea that aliens exist and are, indeed, often responsible for UFO sightings, is another idea. One not often brought up; especially not by the "skeptics." That is covert human activity. I mean deep dark ebony black shadow human factions. Often the closet acknowledgement of UFOs being human made is an almost glib explanation that it's "just" military. Just? Not if that "just" is an insidious creation that, whether intentionally or not, causes adverse physical effects upon the citizenry. Or afffects the weather or envirnoment. Or is a cover for spy operations. Etc. Once it's shown that a UFO is now an IFO and a human made object, the job is not always over. Not in cases where a lot of strangeness has occurred.

Meanwhile, UFO sightings continue. Explaining one away, be it the moon, Venus, classified military or a producer's classist take on a witness ("red neck," "hillibilly," "hippie", ...) leaves thousands behind.

What is the beef, the thing that bugs, these skeptics when it comes to UFOs? (Oh and oh god, please "skeptics" that's a rhetorical question) Shows aren't doing the topic of UFOs any favors, except for Ancient Aliens, which, thankfully, has avoided the trap of having skepti bunkies on every two seconds to give their two cents. It's show biz, it's distraction, it's playing into the culture of "vs." And it keeps us spinning inside the wheel of nowhere.

Grass Roots Welcome Committee

The latest scandal in UFO Land -- Phil Imbrogno's lies about his academic and service background -- is still being discussed. I'm not supporting Imbrogno's lies, nor defending him for doing so. His ideas about things UFO -ish are still interesting, and, while not new, still worth exploring. I had respect for Imbrogno and am sorry this happened. But, it does seem clear it did happen. Which made me wonder: why would someone feel the need to lie about his or her background, when it comes to UFOlogy? Phil Imbrogno isn't the first person to have been exposed for lying about his credentials, and realistically speaking, he probably won't be the last. Yet, why do some people feel they need to lie, in the context of UFOs?

UFO culture is a grass roots culture. Anyone --- despite the UFO Police and snarky researchers who dismiss whatever, or whoever, they don't agree with -- can live in UFO Land. (Well, except scofftics.) Anyone. It doesnt' matter if you have degrees or not, or what those degrees are in. Degrees do not denote intelligence; oh, they point to a specific type and tell us the degreed person has focus and perseverance in order to receive that degree. Don't misunderstand me, I am not "anti degree" and I have one myself. [Sidebar: full disclosure in case anyone tries to out little ol' me: I have an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Ed, a Bachelor's in English lit with an emphasis on Folklore, a Certificate in Ethnic Studies and Folklore, and two years of grad school. ] Does this make any more or less qualified than anyone else? Nope. Not a damn bit. I'm intelligent if discussing Beat poetry or folkloric applications but a goddamn dummy when it comes to math, business or 12th century military history.

So why do some feel the need to lie or exaggerate in context of UFO research? I have a theory. Ahem.

It's the damn debunker skeptoids. As well as those within UFOlogy, many of whom are in the UFO Police camp, who drone on about being "scientific" and academic and all kinds of -ics. No, I'm not implying science is useless, of course it isn't. We need it all in UFOlogy. But because someone holds a degree in the sciences, or at the least, in academia, does not make them any more qualified in any way to research UFOs. Not one damn bit.

In this culture we place a lot of esteem onto those who have college degrees. We automatically think they're smarter and better than the rest of us. Studying UFOs is a fringe thing to do, a kooky, silly thing to do. You're not serious or smart if you consider UFOs to be anything more than a curiosity. (I know, some co-workers and acquaintances think I'm not as smart as they thought I was, once they find I'm "into" UFOs. Surely someone intelligent wouldn't waste their time...) Some think that having a degree gives a little bit of legitimacy to an illegitimate field.

But there's no need. No need to lie about your background, whatever it is. As long as you're using your head, are truthful and honest and following your own voice, you can't go wrong. Despite what some others might say to you about that, the research and the work will stand on its own. And that's all you need.

Brazen Hussies Invade Earth! Serious UFO Research Attacked!

 Cigarette Smoking Woman Single-handedly brings down UFO research! In her slip, no less!

Disclosure:  I write for both the on-line 'zine, UFO Digest, as well as the print publication UFO Magazine. 

When Deirdre O'Lavery of Interstellar Housewife and JAR announced she was UFO Magazine's newest columnist, I was thrilled. She shared some of her ideas for her column's title with myself and a few others, including fellow UFO Magazine columnists Lesley Gunter at The Debris Field  and Alfred Lehmberg of Alien View.  The one column title that really said "Deirdre" to me was Saucers, Slips and Cigarettes, which is the one she chose.

A member of the Stuffed Shirt faction of the UFO Police doesn't appreciate Deirdre's cheeky 'tude, the brazen hussy, she.  David P. Kuhlman, FFSc, in his article for UFO Digest (UFO Mag Columnist is an Insult To Readers,) tells us why O'Lavery's column is offensive. Clues to Kuhlman's personal philosophy can be found in comments like the following: 

Do people give in to secular pressures, which can change the outlook and product for everyone? [bold and italics mine]

Indeed, in another article he wrote for UFO Digest; An Alien Reasoning, Kuhlman wrote:

I am a Christian. I was brought up through the years in church and I have strong roots with all Christian beliefs. I believe in God.

The use of the word "secular" in this context is clear: Deirdre O'Lavery has been seduced by the devil and away from the light, and is bringing the rest of us down with her into the roiling pits of hell.

John Collier, Lilith, 1892

Kuhlman goes on for quite awhile discussing what we all know far too well: UFOlogy has a difficult time being taken seriously, hoaxes hurt us all, there are good researchers who are "respectable," but some are not, and they're talking the rest of us down.  One of those who are not respectable, writes Kuhlman, is Deirdre O'Lavery, who should cause us all not only "concern" but "out-rage." Something about slips and cigarettes causes Kuhlman great distress:

Paging through to the seventh one [column] I noticed an unfamiliar face, a columnist. It initially caught my glance simply because I am familiar with the magazines layout since I read it often, and I knew this was a new addition immediately. I was curious and thumbed back to the index page and sure enough, the magazine had added a new columnist to its list, Ms. Deirdre O’ Lavery, Hmmm… never heard of her. Instantly I knew this was the place to start my reading journey through this months issue and quickly paged back to the column titled “Saucers, Slips, and Cigarettes”. That is where my blood began to boil!

I understand not liking a column, but really, his "blood began to boil?"  Sex, -- especially the "wrong" kind of sex, as in, anything you don't approve of between consenting adults -- is clearly the issue here, not UFO research. Women should be demure; we should speak softly and refrain from being sassy. Especially if we're wearing underwear. (Note to Kulhlman: some people prefer that kind of thing.)

The title of the column was strange I thought after reading it, it really didn’t seem to “fit” a serious publication on UFO research, but sometimes the title is to get the attention of the reader and it certainly did its job there and at least one word did correlate with the cigarette hanging out of the side of Ms. O’ Lavery’s clown painted, rose red lips. [italics mine]

Deirdre O'Lavery, get thee to a nunnery! And lest you think I am being overly flip here, Kuhlman himself is serious; of all the things in UFO land to get upset about, he finds O'Lavery's "rose red lips," cigarette smoking, and use of the word "slips" to be the targets of his repressed and misogynistic outrage:

"I have never been more agitated at any other piece of writing on UFOs than I am on this one . . . As I read I was disgusted and nauseated at her attempt to break the ice with the reader. Foul language and an utter sense of ignorance and disrespect to serious readers was her route. She goes on to write her column like a heathen speaks. [italics mine]   

He was nauseated? And "heathen?" "Heathen?" Did he really write that? Yes, yes he did. 

All that mishegas aside, he completely misunderstands O'Lavery's column, focusing instead not only on her lips but her "drunkenness":

Can people really take the UFO phenomenon seriously when it is painted that only sorry drunk people with no life dabble into this subject? Folks, this article is a disgrace to everyone that considers UFOlogy worth of investigation!

Kuhlman borders on the libelous; if it weren't so damn funny, it might be of concern. He not only finds Ms. O'Lavery "drunken," and what not but also believes she should be shunted off to the nut house:

She is certifiable for this piece of worthless paper with all of her slang and ignorant insight.

Her "slang?" Hey Daddyo, you sound like a real square!

Of all the columnists that write for UFO Magazine, this is the one that has caused Kuhlman --- after just one column! -- to stop reading the magazine altogether. If O'Lavery's one column can upset a supposed UFO researcher so much that he writes a rant about it and demands a "formal apology" from the publishers, then Ms. O'Lavery is one hell of a writer!

Painting by James Rich

One last point about Kuhlman's apoplectic response to Deirdre O'Lavery: he includes all of "us" (well, except for O'lavery) in his rant, beginning with his title: UFO Mag Columnist is an Insult to Readers. No, Kuhlman, it's not an insult to all readers; not to me, obviously. Speak for yourself. Clearly it's an insult to you, and possibly, to some others, so be it. But don't include me in your campaign to rid UFO land of Ms. O'Lavery. This is the problem with the UFO Police; they expect everyone to join them in their outrages and edicts about what they perceive to be right.

Congratulations, Ms. Deirdre O'Lavery, for bringing UFOlogy down to such a shameless level with just one column!

Career Advice From Uber Skeptoids

Oh for crying out loud: Requirements to be a UFO investigator by way of the JREF.

Not at all unexpected but head bashingly annoying all the same. Here's what the OP wrote:

My 12 year old nephew wants to be a UFO investigator, he asked me what qualifications he needs

I told him

1, you need the ability to believe in something with no supporting evidence

2, you need the ability to ignore facts and evidence to the contrary while inventing a reason for doing so

3, you need the ability to not be a critical thinker

4, you need a tin foil hat

5. you need to have zero credibility from your peers

There are many comments, well, all comments, that follow which are the usual batch of pathological debunking/jokey crap, but this one really got me for its typical and cheap fall back onto classism:

All you need to be a UFO Investigator are:


- A single-wide trailer.
- Electrical service.
- A fridge full of beer.
- An internet connection.
- A five-year old computer.
- A ten-year old CRT monitor.


It's that third one that eliminates him from the profession -- you need to be 21 in most (all?) states. 6th-grade grammar and spelling skills are useful as well, but not necessary.

With Help From My Friends: Bringing Down UFOlogy

I try my best to stay out of messes within the UFO field; all those who attack and insult others have no business doing so, and I've long ago decided not to address those who do so to me. It's all just non-productive flaming and very sad. (Even while Ive tried to stay out of things, it's amazing how often I get e-mails from others who want me to get involved; even though I had nothing to do with whatever thing it is they're upset about. When I decline, I'm often dragged into it anyway. Astounding.)

However, now and then something comes up that must be addressed.

The thugs at UFO Iconoclasts and their mirror blogs have decided that I, yes, simple, little ol' me, is "destroying UFOlogy." They haven't quite heaped all the credit on me however, it seems that Lesely Gunter and Alfred Lehmberg are also co-contributors to the downfall of UFOlogy.

The smug arrogance of such an idea -- that anyone or thing can "bring down" UFOlogy is so fantastically hilarious it doesn't need to be addressed.

Really, I don't care what else these bozos have to say, except for the fact they have slimed on over that line from mere opinion to slander and libel. Here's what they have to say about me, and my co-conspirators in bringing down all of UFOlogy:

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

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

Specific examples of this "stealing and gathering" or "purloining" along with arguments to support their allegations are not to be found. They just state it as fact, without backing it up. This passes for UFO commentary these days?

It's amazing to me how others in this field continue to support and hobnob with these jerks. Remember, Rich Reynolds, presumably the leader of this odious pack of drooling jerk-wits, is responsible for the very illegal and heinous crime he perpetuated on Lehmberg some time ago. Reynolds is also a shrink, (he says) which is literally frightening.

Sure, they've made fun of me in the past, insulted me, -- for some reason, they can't stand me, and that's their right. No use at all in responding or defending.

This is a bit different though, since they're accusing me of stealing. Call me a woo, a kook, a fruitcake, nothing I can do about it. We're entitled to our opinions. Call me a liar or a thief, and, while I won't defend myself since there's nothing to defend, I am going to point it out to others.



I also have to wonder why they see fit to mention my name, if I'm a nobody, which I happily admit I am. (As one commentator said on their stinky little blog, he's never heard of me -- or Lesley.) I just do what I do because I really like doing it. (Oh, and there's the part about me trying to figure out what it is I've seen and experienced; missing time, UFOs, silly things like that.) So what do they care what I have to say? I see contradictions zipping about in their thesaurus loving brains. Why be bothered about me at all? Are they really so bored as well as insecure that they think for one moment I, or anyone else, can destroy UFOlogy? I don't know if I should be insulted or honored. After all, that's some awesome crown of power to wear! Just think, me, with the help of my friends, bringing down UFOlogy all by ourselves! Pretty groovy. I like it!

So watch out, I am now giddy with power. That, combined with my penchant for stealing, which clearly means I have no morals or ethics, and the fact my "psychological well-being is in question" there's no telling what I might do! I'd be very careful if I were you out there; you're dealing with a mad woman here. Any day now, I can just see it. . . UFOlogy will be brought down! Destroyed forever! Bwahahahaha!

Quote of the Day

The Regan Lees, Frank Warrens, Don Ledgers, Moulton Howes, Steven Greers, Chris Rutkowskis, et al. are the UFO proletariat; they don’t count or matter. ~ UFO Provocateur(s)

Heh. Hey, I made it first on the list! Hooray for me.

Proletariat: pro·le·tar·i·at (prl-târ-t)
n.
1.
a. The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor.
b. The poorest class of working people.
2. The propertyless class of ancient Rome, constituting the lowest class of citizens.


All their other nonsense aside, they sure are a snooty bunch, aren't they?