Thursday, August 18, 2016

Lockers Ruptured...


UFO History Imperiled 
by Alfred Lehmberg


Periodically, the "noisy negativists," plying their proud scientistic, faux-reductionist, and hubristicly homocentric hoo-rah, revisit old UFO cases, employing the sad craft of a decidedly insentient cant, to invalidate and discredit same! They do this because these cases alluded to, exhaustively prosecuted, investigated, and evaluated examples showing decided support for the UFO's extraterrestrial hypothesis, are precisely the cases we need to keep looking at for current relevancy and historical context. That's why these cases are touchstones we've grown most dependent on as they validate the perceived larger reality for UFOs over time. They provide real substance for the whole concept of them.  

See, even fallaciously blow the "old UFOs" up and any "new UFOs" lose all substance and traction, unjustly losing validation right out of their gates! I say true.

...Hardly seems sporting or fair... ...forget brave.

See, some "new investigatory scan," for example... say of some long accepted photo evidence "pro," by that ever up-popping garden-variety skeptibunky ringer, "reveals at last" the etherial hint of bogus coherence of the "at last detected fishing line" of a "suspected" hoaxed UFO! The once respected historical case is encouraged to blow up in observer's faces. 

...Because that's what science is about? ...Chipping away at "belief"  until all that remains is "fact." Skepticism in the purest sense of the word, "debunkery," if you will, since it's foolish to tolerate bunk.  

...And it is, foolish that is. ...But, was it?

Three cheers for brave science and the person who practices it! That default arbiter of all that's laid before it to include even the ironic uninvestigated. Hoist its prideful banner high... Onward scientific soldiers, marching as to war... and we'll fight-fight-fight on to triumph and the glory, and the honor, wiping the slobber from slack jaws encountered as we go and fighting the never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the scientific way...

I don't mean to mock you, Mr. Scientist, but notwithstanding the unerring accuracy of your rather pompous sentiment on the purest and so unachievable idealistic of the preceding? You are in no way allowing for the dark side of same. And there is a dark side, Sir or Madam. Who but a fool or coward would proclaim and pronounce on the wholly uninvestigated?

The "dark" alluded to remains predictably unacknowledged, first by persons of the debunker's conflicted caliber but then, because I believe others of a even a constructively "skeptical" bent are honorable persons willing to continue to play by the honorable rules as constructively codified... ...others, too? Even by men of such erudition, intellect, and honor as the late Richard Hall and still very much with us Jerry Clark.  The sought after lure of a perceived positive legacy reflecting responsible reasonability is strong.  

I remember, on the other hand, that all but a precious few of us are consigned to forgettable legacies, so why not risk reaching for the transcendent... perchance to grasp, now!  One can be one's own Magellan. I digress.  

It remains that persons embracing varying strengths or degrees of debunkery contrive to discredit credited cases already receiving abundant accreditation.  Less than intellectually honest mechanisms are employed to achieve that end.

I resurrect my analogy of the "locker rupture" and the mal-intellectual thugs who continue it:

In my country, while attending high school, one had to be very careful to ensure that one's gym locker door closed and locked completely and didn't let so much as a thread of gym shorts show through the small crack betwixt door and casement. If you didn't, that thread would be ferreted out by a diligent juvenile delinquent and the shorts torn and ruined as they were worried and jerked out of the locker crack, shred by tattered shred... We called them "locker ruptures."  I did one or two.  I'm not proud.

Our ufological delinquent's intransigent "locker rupture" performance would be almost admirable if he balanced his obsessive energies in the service of ferreting out, once in a while, threads of evidential, procedural, and logical error abundant in the arguments and anti-research of "pelicanists" and "skepti-bunkies" (while pretending to not notice that their own ufological gym lockers hang open like a half-wit's mouth at a fireworks display)... but that's not likely... It counters the by-laws of garden variety pelicanists: (1)Don't inform what's not known, (2) attack the man when you can't assail the argument, (3) prosecute research by proclamation, and (4) make rock-hard conclusions unassailed by new facts.

The debunking revisionist adroitly employs all four as he ferrets for fabric's tatters he has largely manufactured himself, out of the ironic whole cloth. The Trindade case (like Socorro, Roswell, and others) has an obvious solidity that our glad debunker attempts to ruin like the ufological gym shorts just described.

Vis a vis Trindade, he has grasped his "find one more witness" fabric tatter (of Trindade for example) like one of those juvenile delinquents I alluded to earlier, and biting down hard on it in his little bulldog's impassioned if powdering teeth, he is content to hang on for dear life, prosecuting his dull obstinacy like his obdurate stubbornness was a virtue. It is not, just as it's not about our Skeptibunky's plea for "one more witness." It wouldn't matter to "Pelican Boy" if Philip Klass stumbled forward from the grave and said that he was on the boat at Trindade, in the yard at McMinnville, or in the cab with Heflin and in truth, saw, himself, the true UFOs in contention...

No, Klass would be asked if he had been "drinking."  That's how it goes with a receding evidentiary horizon . No evidence can be acceptable where conclusions, howsoever contrary, have been made, eh?  That's how things roll in the skeptibunky aviary.

The regard for the ufological is about looking beyond the usual, thinking out of the box, and removing oneself from the center of a trumped-up "God's" universe and it's poorly understood "Laws." It's about reading to the para-perfunctory period, accepting the larger reality, and combating reactionary denial discomfited in its novelty of a looming future. It is about truth, justice, and the sentient's way. In my opinion, anything else is reactionary stodginess, obsessive pig-headedness

Delinquent CSIcopians should let that current errant tatter go while their humiliation can be remotely repaired. They waste their energy and our own, and so they perform no service, still. Verily, they're unaware that the locker and gym shorts they're trying to rupture through the locked door... are actually their own!

See? The mechanism of re-hashing the musty hash on the already well-parsed hash of "old cases" is two-fold, and it's all aimed at the otherwise distracted observer who still sits on the fence regarding the basic legitimacy of UFOs. If the "pelicanistic-skeptibunky-klasskurtxian" can demonstrate, even fraudulently, that a conjectured jury is still out on the best cases... it is these cases they can first discredit, and then, by extension, to all ufological cases.  

A ufological macrocosm is then invalided by a purposely errant invalidation of the microcosms making that macrocosm up! That seems the province of liars, cheats, and thieves!

If the old "bulletproof" cases can be made to appear dodgy, then all ufological cases can be made to be perceived, to the fence-sitting masses, as the same kind of dodgy... and by fallacious extension the impetus to investigate any and all ufological cases, past, present, and future is thwarted and ham-strung.  See how all that might work?

In an ideal world, this would clearly be perceived to be the case as prosecuted by these craven and duplicitous revisionists. The world is; however, less than ideal and the perception fraudulently remaining is that UFOs have a cloying potential for being bunk!

Are we going to forget for a moment the debunkers complicity in keeping us from the benefits of that ideal world actually there? Are we to disregard their scurrilous affect and duplicitous campaign with regard to same? Are we to overlook their program, their design, their prosecution, and their mechanism to facilitate what they would pretend to decry? Not on my watch. These are not "truth-seekers," friends and neighbors! They are a truth-"bleeders"!

...But in the real world, it might be argued... as is all too obvious from postings in the community, this does not happen.  The scurrilous cur is lauded as a person of science while the potentially far-reaching and intrepid are discounted and marginalized.

Yes, only because of the insentient and duplicitous "worrying rat" activity of the uneasy debunking squad, that list of UFO denialists, and their portentous willingness to destroy a perfectly good set of gym shorts torn from a perfectly serviceable locker on which they've unethically broken the casement or warped the door! The Hope diamond can be turned to dust with an errant sledge of the skeptibunky, reader... proving nothing but the inadvisability of leaving diamonds, around them, at all.

True, no matter how often the metaphorical "fishing line" alluded to has been revealed as bogus and contrived, even the serious ufologist can become uncomfortable with cases, that they regard well parced and buttoned down, constantly under suspicion. The attempt to re-examine what has already been exhaustively credentialed with an abundant criticality is not a heresy as much as it is the deliberate muddying of water that had an abundant clarity with which to begin!

Oh, what a pompous load of klasskurtxian crap the skeptibunky revisions and reexaminations prove to be. No matter how often the 'fishing line' can be demonstrated not to have been there, bumptious "avians" have become so adept and comfortable crapping on these validations that they regard any attempt to protest their duplicitous 'reexamination' as a form of reverse heresy! There's some irony! What you would have said in that better world about which you moan through your crocodile tears, you insentient drongoes of the "skeptical" community?

Cases such as McMinville, Trindade, Socorro etc, are part of the canon of a legitimized ufology and must be defended from the errant pecking of the pompous pelicanists for cause and in the spirit of scientific fidelity.  In a fractal universe, we are our own proof that we are not alone. We might start there!

Ceaselessly criticizing cases such as McMinnville, Trindade, Socorro , etc, are part of the klasskurtxian bag of scurvy skeptibunky tricks and shall be criticized justifiably, and with all logic, from the protests of braver and more honorable truth-seeking men and women opposing them.

You lords of bumptious Scientism! You and yours... shredding metaphorical running shorts from the broken casements of ruptured gym lockers, is the only way you can mount your disingenuous challenges or prosecute your inconsequent mal-critical assault on UFOs. The pelicanist is known by its squawk and the fetid droppings it leaves in its wake, only, and by anything they would utter in an otherwise reasonable and reasoned discourse. Be not proud, or fooled, that your tedious and exclusionary reductionism is a default discipline... you anxiously and intellectually asphyxiating avians*!

Read on.

ÆL

*You know who you are.  Say it five times fast.

0 comments: