UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 10

Alfred's Odd Observation #18

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:07:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:39:38 -0400
Subject: Alfred's Odd Observation #18

Alfred's Odd Observation #18 (Monday -- June 10, 2002)

Like I said, ladies and gentlebunkies, just rock the freaking
head back! Visibility was about 80% of "as good as it gets"
around here this Monday morning... wash the dirty buttermilk
glass from #17 and you get an approximation of it. There was a
perceptible starfield all around which is a great aid in rate
detection of these 'things' that go over, bumpless, in the
night... hmmmm.....

Forgive a short digression...: the observer can easily use
finger/fist/double-fist (1, 5, and 10 degrees respectively) to
gauge the distances between stars in the view field and count
seconds (one-thousand-two-thousand-three-thousand... etc.) as
'objects' race or creep across that measured distance. As one
continues to do this over a period of time one begins to
appreciate the diverse rate of speeds that these 'things'
display and the 'strange' component that this gives them. It
implies different orbital altitudes or objects moving at the
same altitude at dissimilar speeds et al, stuff that lends
quality to ones observations...

Three objects were observed this morning between 03:15 and 03:45
Central, flying nearly one right after the other. All were the
same pale peach color. All maintained a slow steady one degree
every five seconds rate. All were observable over about 45
degrees of arc along their different tracks. The first flew
north. The second flew south. The third flew a couple of degrees
to the left of due east and was the oddest of the three.

The first two shared a magnitude of about zero (so, dimmer than
Sirius) and maintained that bright component throughout their
observation. The third slowly increased its brilliance to as
bright as Jupiter (as seen the night before) and then abruptly
dimmed to about magnitude three, barely visible and requiring
off center viewing to keep it in sight.

I checked with NASA via J-PASS for a forecast of traffic that
'should' be seen for the time period concerned (they make it
_so_ easy), and was not surprised to discover no record of it...

...All in all a vindication of a growing suspicion that things
are not as they appear, good friends and gentlebunkies... and it
gets even weirder than that. As the ufological 'field' gets even
more obscured in our trying times, one can't even see what the
players are doing on that "gridiron", _forgetting_ a useless
scorecard with names that jump from side to side as individual
convenience suits them (and the non-admitted agendas that are
being met)...

...But you know what really steams me, respected reader? It's
when these shape-shifting and self-admitted authoritarian
sociopaths forget these "things that fly" to pursue self-
involved personal agendas, marching the rest of us (in my HUMBLE
estimation) _back_ to the wishful thinking of some earlier time
which has already demonstrated how well it _does not_ work (or
where have we really _gotten_ ufologically since 1947?).

Discussion on the arguments, conscientious expressions of
conscience, and perceptions and insights shared between rational
individuals about the subject -- _threatens_ these seeming
psychopaths who use guile, innuendo, and fallacy to prosecute
their less than transparent ends. Ironically, it is these
individuals who are first to desert their suspicious positions
to pule the predictable protestation that they no longer have
the "time" nor would they desire the "inclination" to continue
the debate... so these _will_ get their wish.

I'll talk to them in mass ('refer' to them) and not individually
as it was them that recused conveniently, them that turned their
artless backs, and them that are apparently reluctant to discuss
(or even support) their flawed, destructive, and convenient

I was greeted this morning with reactive evidence of this
artless authoritarianism, and though I won't _deign_ to identify
the writer of this public message, I'll share it, and my
response _to_ it with the appreciated reader _here_ because it's
all grist to ufological mill regarding real reasons why, as a
species, we can't look up into the sky to see what's there!

 >Hello Alfred,

 >You wrote:

 >>Sightings are "down" friends and scabrous bunkies, not because
 >>UFOs are going away, but because there are fewer people LOOKING
 >>for them these days! Lately, people who might otherwise be
 >>pondering the skies are, instead, only looking over worried
 >>shoulders for 'enemies', real AND imagined. They have no TIME
 >>for a puzzling enigma in the skies over their heads while
 >>staring down the suggested barrel of a terrorist's gun! All
 >>part of the master plan (uneasily?) dismissed by Jerry Clark?

 >It's an amazing thing to watch someone take a leaping swan dive
 >into the deep end of an empty cement pool. Oblivious to the fact
 >that there is no water beneath to break the fall.

The writer is quick to proclaim awareness of where the "pool"
is, what a "swan dive" looks like, if the pool even has a
"shallow" end, and whether or not that pool is filled with
"water." Forgetting for a moment the limp attack on character
that this string of empty cliches would convey, this is the same
writer that indicated on the radio recently an ability to "hear"
veracity, honesty, and sincerity in the tone of one's voice.
I'll leave the reader to decide if this same writer is remotely
competent to pronounce upon _my_ character... as we all
understand what kind of person takes a "dive" of ANY kind into
the "deep end" of an "empty cement pool".

 >Since you mentioned (made wild accusations about) the 'abduction
 >report' thread I'd like to point out the following:

The writer has a seeming (and on reflection completely
understandable) difficulty in distinguishing between wild
accusations and honest observations honestly expressed. I point
out that the exact same post (#17) provoking this corrosive and
insulting exchange... written a month ago, even a week ago,
would not have elicited a peep from the responding writer. What
has changed in the interim but my active defense of a position
of some demonstrated quality now that the writer finds
personally, and I suspect invalidly, objectionable. Let's
continue on to see what the writer would "point out."

 >Mark Rodigheir of CUFOS made the statement that 'new' abduction
 >reports to that organization were down for the last couple of
 >years. I wrote a post that was in agreement with it. Will
 >Beuche, the former Webmaster of PEER wrote in to corroborate my
 >and Marks statements. Simple statements (or reporting) of fact.
 >Nothing as 'sinister' as you imply ever transpired.

So the writer would "point out" an _inexplicable_ defense of the
scabrous bunch at CSICOP, the scurrilous bunch in a
Bush/Ashcroft administration, and bunches of other blighted
psychopaths among us and around us hindering disclosure? These
were the identified groups earning my evaluation of 'sinister',
not Mark Rodigheir of CUFOS. The writer, clearly conflicted and
with a singular axe to grind, would interpret #17 as he has
interpreted it here -- when the same post a week or a month ago
may have even gotten a public "right on" or a private "well
done"!  What has changed in the interim? The writer seems to
have convenient sensibilities that change as the wind blows and
seemingly apes the most mercurial of ufological vagaries, while
I think it could be argued that the _only_ one maintaining a
rational consistency or even tone in this exchange is me. I'll
leave that call to the respected reader.

Moreover the short (and cited) discussion regarding ufological
'waves' and a "distracted population" in #17 as good reasons
providing for only an _appearance_ of reduced 'occurrence' falls
on the predicted deaf ears of the writer, is ignored by the
writer, and is seemingly discounted by the writer. For some
*reason* the writer has significant difficulty seeing a hand in
front of his face and seems to prefer some weak literary razzle-
dazzle (with no support) as opposed to _real_ contribution. what
I would aspire to. I'll leave that to the reader, too.

 >You create a fantasy in your own head,

The reader is reminded that they weren't fantasies just days
ago, and I had a _celebrated_ 'head' as far as this writer was
concerned a week ago... or a month ago. What has changed but a
false assumption or unsupported realization by the writer that
if I'm not 'for' him then I must (of needs) be 'against' him, a
pretty juvenile take on things after five years of professional
cordiality if you ask me, demonstrating only the suspect
provenance of his, perhaps, not so inexplicable irritation.
Fantasies? Indeed.

 >your 'imaginings' piss you off,

LOL! Like they don't piss off the writer! That will become more
clear as time goes on, I'd predict. And finally -- no rational
person would agree that there is not an awful lot to be
_righteously_ pissed about. EBK pushed _that_ up the... nose of
mainstream Canadian TV recently, I recall. The writer seems to
conveniently forget that real reasons for disgusted rage
actually exist.

 >and then you express anger toward people in the *real world
 >(*those who live their lives outside of your fantasy) as if they
 >were _actually_ responsible for their behavior in your somewhat
 >fevered dreams.

The writer would pronounce _now_ on the production of the same
"fevered dreams" he found so satisfying last week or last month,
label me delusional, and in the process say so much more about
himself than he has the bare bones competency to say about me.
The writer would have been _much_ better served maintaining his
lack of "desire" and "inclination" to communicate with me about
ufological issues, I begin to suspect.

 >How you manage to turn a simple series of posts into the
 >convoluted and genuinely paranoid plot that you suggest above,
 >boggles my mind.

Where was this writer's confusion, his accusations of paranoia,
and his respect for CSICOP and a Bush/Ashcroft administration a
week or month ago? [g]. Indeed, it is the writer's own mercurial
sensibilities and wind-blown awareness demonstrated here that
are peculiar and not _my_ expressions of conscience.

 >Lately you've taken to attacking some of the 'good-guys' Alfred.

Who are the good guys that the writer refers to? How is 'attack'
defined? How is consistent behavior (heretofore respected by the
writer for many years) suddenly noticed just "Lately"?

 >Maybe a short vacation from the fray is in order.

In as much as the writer has demonstrated the need of a nap for
some time now, I would suggest same for the writer with some
immediacy and with all deliberate speed.

 >When you start
 >to perceive plots and schemes everywhere, and you see 'spooks'
 >lurking in every corner... it's time to do a Dave Brubeck and
 >'take five' bro.

_Again_ the writer insultingly indicates that I have just
"started" behavior that has not changed substantively in half a
decade. How many of us _don't_ perceive "plots and schemes",
suspect "spooks" in "corners" darker than they need to be, or
"wonder" what might be lurking around a future corner... Finally
I'd suggest a review of Lennon/McCartney's "Blackbird" for the
writer if he is truly interested in quality musical advice.

Truly, like a ufological tonsil, this writer seems so corrupted
with fickleness and lack of resolution that he's abdicated his
community responsibilities and joined the other side vis a vis a
"nose to spite the face" mentioned somewhere else. I wonder how
he can expect _anyone_ to accept his pompous proclamations,
imperious pronouncements, or insulting accusations, now.

 >Get a grip.

I think it may be that the writer makes this dismissive
suggestion only because he suspects that he's losing his own.

 >You've created a veritable soap-opera out of what
 >was essentially a pretty dry, innocuous and short-lived series
 >of posts. Check the archive and reread em. Nothing 'heavy' going
 >on except inside your head. :)

I'll let the rank and file reader decide the veracity of the
preceding statement, something that the writer, by _all_
reports, would seldom (if ever) do. Start with the obfuscating
trademark emoticon, reader.

At the end now, with no snippage on my part, that's enough. I
continue to watch our skies. Rock your own head back, when you
can, good reader. They continue to fly despite the carping,
complaining, and confusion that goes on down here. Read on.

EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his VSN URL.

JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually.
He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put
one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he
gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged
-- $200.00 collected!

"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite.
What others see from afar, I leave far behind me."
- Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrously specious scurrilous.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com