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

Re: Got Sack? - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:38:07 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:46:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Got Sack? - Lehmberg

 >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:04:10 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Got Sack?

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:51:50 -0500
 >>Subject: Got Sack?


...More than willing to respect an individual's wishes regarding
consideration for their personal lack of "desire" and
"inclination" to respond, respected, tolerant, and patient
reader, I share that writer's post regarding my "...Got Sack?"
piece with you, along with my response to it.

 >Hello Alfred,

 >Wow, and I was wondering why it's been oh so peaceful on the
 >List for the last couple of months. :)

The writer of the preceding artfully assumes an amused tone,
good reader, all jocularity and trademark smiles... forgetting
unjust behaviors, inappropriately prosecuted attitudes, and a
cornucopia of trashed feelings. But remembering he's only
fiddling tunelessly while a ufological Rome burns, the reader
should be reminded, ".Rock your head back and they are there,
while we quibble, after all."

 >My thoughts?

Were this writer to demonstrate that he was considered (if _not_
considerate), non-canted (if _not_ perfectly balanced), and
sincere -- bereft of pointlessness and cheap, groundless, or
unsupported insult ? Yes! Of course. Where have _I_ ever
indicated otherwise.

 >Never have I seen _anyone_ go the lengths that Mr. Mortellaro
 >has gone to to promote himself, and to (forcefully) gain
 >acceptance for his 'case'.

Mortellero has made a _total_ of two radio show appearances, I
remind the reader. How many has the writer made? Dozens? How
many times, on this List alone, has the writer rather forcefully
attempted to gain acceptance for his own case and the reality of
the abduction phenomena in general? Too many times to count. I
ask the reader: Who is the more self-absorbed?

 >Most abductees have to be prodded and cajoled into going public.
 >Mr. Mortellaro seems to be engaged in a non-existent popularity
 >contest which he approaches as if it was a sanctioned Olympic

And why wouldn't he, given what _some_ have done to derail his
honest attempt at formally and publicly examining his experience
for the benefit of researchers and abductees alike?

And _have_ some born apparently false witness that Jim was a
'liar' -- that he'd stolen the abduction accounts of others
"word for word"? I've seen evidence of some of the whispers
flying around behind the scenes and given an opportunity to see
just how strong the language used was. One called Jim a "f__king

Just what, besides the writer's personal experience, perhaps,
gives the writer any more authority to judge the reality of
Jim's experience than Jim himself. Wounded pique? Threatened
turf? What... really?

But some wouldn't stop there. Some continued a whisper campaign
to inform others on the List that Jim was _indeed_ lying about
his experience. When that tactic didn't seem to pan out, one
attempted to smear the research attempt (the true facts of which
Jim's detractors knew and know _nothing_ about [no fault of
Jim's]) in that the methodology wasn't... acceptable.
Acceptable? Isn't it decidedly odd when a highly educated
medical team gets criticism on research techniques from someone
who has never conducted any. ...Irony one can cut with a knife.

 >He came onto this List and informed everyone that he was an

.And the writer is perhaps different in some substantial
(telling) way, I point out to the reader?

 >Everybody seems to have accepted that and taken him
 >at his word. It seems that the only one hung up on Mr.
 >Mortellaro's status as an "abductee" is Mr. Mortellaro himself.
 >It makes me wonder just 'what' it is, _really_, that he is
 >trying, with almost breathless desperation, to prove to

No, I must point out to the reader that the only one seemingly
hung up on Mr. Mortellero's status as an abductee is the
_writer_ by all reports and indications. If Jim is "breathless"
about anything, it's to get to the bottom of the abduction
enigma, is my experience -- over _many_ years now. In fact, it
is only significant 'others' that seem "breathless" in their
attempts to set up fallaciously invalid and duplicitous
roadblocks in a scurrilous campaign to bring that innocent
effort down.

Although it seems to be difficult for the writer, the writer
could get honest about this for a moment. There are countless
examples of how the misbehavior of some is egregiously suspect
when it comes to Jim. The most cursory glance at archival posts
speak to this. And by the way, if one wanted to discuss inherent
honesty, the writer could juxtapose _his_ language about
abduction with Jim's, who continually uses the words, "perceived
abduction" to describe his and other's encounters. Jim isn't
pushing his interpretation of the reality of his experience on
anyone -- least of all himself. Others could be accused of that
long, long before Jim would be expected to bear _that_ particular

 >If I recall, it was _his_ choice not to post because _he_ was
 >'upset' with the lack of response from List members. Now _we_
 >are supposed to "invite" him back? And according to you, with an
 >"I'm sorry," and a "pretty please with sugar on top." (?)

No, the writer ignores the macro to embrace the convenient
micro, respected reader, given the fact that Jim's story is now
supported by the well respected likes of a Medical Team, Budd
Hopkins and potentially David Jacobs and that he is now involved
in the most comprehensive bit of research the abduction question
has ever garnered, it seems to me. No, I'm simply asking that
some grow up a little, forget past differences and petty prides
for the sake of the issue at hand, and extend some common

...In a word, though, yes! ..."Pretty please with sugar on top"
would be _most_ welcome. ...Serge and Bobbie could be invited
back too, while we're at it.

 >In his quest for recognition and attention maybe he now realizes
 >how he has cut off his own nose and spited his own face by making
 >the premature melodramatic Hollywood exit that he made.

The writer does not take into consideration, good reader, how
wounded and betrayed one can feel when one makes a disclosure
among friends and subsequently discovers fewer friends present
than one had thought were there! I can _testify_ how badly
wounded Jim was, very needlessly, as it turned out. Appealed in
a higher 'court', Jim's vindication seems assured if not
complete. He _is_ the real deal, as I have indicated. Some
should just get _used_ to it.

 >EBK did
 >not throw him off the List, and neither did any of its members.
 >Why does anybody have to "invite" him back? _We_ didn't go
 >anywhere. He did!

The writer blithely misses the point, reader. not 'unsubbed' but
ejected, none the less, like if _I_ walked away right now it
would be because of some of the more repellant principals in
principle running me off with their odious behavior -- like
UpDates was use-net. Like somebody was corrosively flatulent in
the UpDates 'room' and was serially flatulent with extreme
prejudice... I'm run out. Oh sure I can go back in, even
speak... but if I'm blowing chunks...?

 >Hey, how about _he_ asks us if he can come back on the List?
 >After all, it was he who chronically complained about how
 >screwed up the List is.

The writer could be reminded, honored reader, that in some places
an inability to tolerate criticism is the first step to a tyranny
serving the few at the clear expense of the many.

 >As far as I'm concerned he can post or not as he wishes.
 >Personally, I haven't 'missed' him at all.

The reader can be assured that there is no surprise _there_.

 >BUT... (big 'but')

 >I _reserve the right_ to respond to his on-list proclamations
 >and to express my opinions (as I choose to or not) when he does
 >post. No 'special' treatment. We're all adults here.

More irony, good reader, as the writer has exercised his rights
many, many times without prejudice and should find no need to
campaign for it now.

Additionally, I wonder how many others can similarly reserve the
right to reply? That would be, oh let me count them up, that
would be, ah... everyone! Anyone, on the list at any rate!

Even if some continue to believe that Jim Mortellero is a liar,
good reader (or in the words of one, "a f__king liar") wouldn't
it be the "adult" and consequently _more_ effective thing to let
Jim play this out without harassment. After all, aren't we ALL
dedicated to finding out the "ultimate truth" of this conundrum?
Additionally, shouldn't some have more faith in an entire
medical community, Budd Hopkins (whose name has been invoked by
the responding writer many times) or Dr. David Jacobs... to
arrive at the truth of Jim's experience? Or, is all that some
are interested in, really, is belittling and discrediting Jim.
The writer has belittled Jim, good reader, belittled him so
much, after all, it may have, by now, just become a point of
pride and easy reflex.

 >"If you can't take the heat... stay out of the kitchen."

Which, in this case good reader, is a little like saying, "If
you don't want a bullet in the face, don't stick your head up
over the counter during the robbery," not to put too fine a
point on it.

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