Deluded, Mentally Ill, Or Publicity-Seeking Little Nobodies...

Deluded, Mentally Ill, Or Publicity-Seeking Little Nobodies...
by Alfred Lehmberg

In a previous paper, I've illustrated the disingenuous quality of "push-back" on the whole subject of  UFOs and their attendant genuine experiencers. This would include other illustrations and treatments regarding the mal-appropriate character of their intimidators or those behaviors as they are fervidly exhibited by those same intimidators. To these intimidators, ..."experiencers," (even genuine ones and perhaps especially genuine ones!) in sum total, are regarded as nothing more than "Deluded, psychotic, or publicity-seeking little nobodies." That's in total, mind you.

This is a fair portrayal of the attitude as painted and portrayed. The "misinformed," the "misinforming," and the "mentally ill." "M" cubed, as it's weaponized by the intimidator. See, there can be nothing else for the reducing fundamentalist.

No. Just, no.

That brush is too broad, forgetting its "paint load" is little to none! Even true in the odd case? It's not true enough to count! With UFOs and their ancillaries, one is enough of an abundance! Seven massive categories of enduring evidence give pause, as was pointed out in the links above.

Sadly, it remains that some of these experiencers could still deserve every bit of even a scurrilous debunking or untoward institutional bracing by the CSI, and more. Public humiliation. Tar and feathering. I say true. 

Not enough of these to count, again, mind you. The proverbial baby is too often thrown out with the bathwater as a matter of standard operating procedure at the CSI, as was noted above, and that facilitates the scabrous debunker, only, anyway. It's but one required, recall.  

...Though, and here's the headline: I believe, still, that there are upfront and genuine researchers with a pioneer's spirit and an explorer's soul examining all this twitchy stuff out in the outre. One recalls the reputation of the late Ivan Sanderson to illustrate. 

Well, "Sanderson," lives.

In the existential "meatspace" of our shared moment's felt presence, I observe firsthand and in person the reputations of solid persons the likes of Stanton Friedman, Frank Feschino, Robert Hastings, and Richard Dolan. These intrepid explorers, et al, overcome detractors, debunk the reflexive nay-sayer, and obviate the noisome negativist with art, intelligence, and elan. 

Rather, and in opposition to the ham-handed reductionist aforementioned, these celebrate the rising and advancing of... call it the efficacious human "existentialia," is the sense of this writer. These are persons, in other words, rejecting a psychotic androcracy and embracing a constructive gylany, so aspiring to leave behind what others choose to see so far ahead, frankly, in a looming remainder of a 21st Century! Persons right and true.

I believe, likely along with the reader who gets this far, that these inveterate reporters investigate something that is real in the real world, something with immediate importance to us all, and something that specifically defines the future we're all about to have to live in. I've met with these persons, heard them speak, read their books, and spoken to them on the phone. Meatspace, one on one, as I said. These have remained essentially true for better than a decade. Something... stirs. They're on to it.

...Forgetting for a moment that I've been wrong before, I believe that the aforementioned have been abundantly convincing regarding the validity of their overall work and yet, STILL (as we come to the crux), cannot be expected to have to demonstrate spot-on, 100% accuracy in every case to remain credible in our eyes. Efficacious sincerity must count for something or we're tedious and insensate robots, to put a point on it. Copping to error establishes credit too, forgetting that, of course, error is to be minimized... if candidly admitted, I reiterate, it's a step up, still.

The late Dr. John Mack, Harvard Chair and Pulitzer winner, another credible researcher by way of example, has had prepared "ringers" slid into his sincere seminars by "self-ringing" Robertsonian CSIcopians, those "skeptics" aforementioned... to destroy, dispel, and otherwise discourage a brave initiative. His one-time associate Elizabeth Anglin bears this out in a recorded conversation. I'd predict that others have had to endure similar charlatans, scalawags, and sociopaths. I've endured mine. The reader has endured theirs. This matters not!

This must not detract, overmuch, from the honest if erring researcher's overall contribution, their competency, or their veracity. Their credit! I believe these to be the genuine article, even if I believe a few of their cases are not. All we need is one, remember.

I agree that genuine experiencers (from rape victims to alien abductees) who come forward against opposition are first among heroes on this planet. They endure, as I have personally seen, the slings and arrows of outrages cowards, duplicitous ax-grinders, and scurrilous de-bunkers... these further fueled by the ever grasping fraudulent, in it only for the odd purloined buck... 

...But I know, also, that I cannot, in good faith, support the claims of all experiencers, credit all their assertions, validate all their paradigms, provide citation for all their experience, or prop up all their stories in every way. Let's be real as this writer aspires to be true to himself... 

Could I be wrong about some of these "fraudulent" experiencers? Of course! My opinion, sir and madam, that manipulative corporate-minded "turn-around persons," like Mortellaro (the "I've been wrong" link above), with noses for "product enhancement" and the minimal sense required to flesh out a bogus audit trail... (just like the linked example above) might be just the kinds of persons able to convincingly fabricate a first-rate "abduction" hoax... He sure sucked in the "heavyweights" of the time. ...And myself... I digress...

This shouldn't raise anyone's hackles that much. What can one expect? I'm just one considered opinion, after all. Some of these *suspected* might still be genuine... water, by report, has been processed into wine, at least once, in the last 2000 years! Anything is possible, however unlikely... improbable, doubtful, implausible, dubious, dodgy, or even suspect! The universe is big enough for even considered opinions not to matter a wit. Current events are an example of that.

On psychopaths... I think that there are legions of these "just business" monsters. These are those entirely willing to subvert the work of the aforementioned honest researchers to their own ends. I've produced a cited paper on that general theme. There are more of them than you think. It could be you... it could be me. Three in a hundred, to start, are considered odds...

I think some of these individuals do their own research and can cleverly appropriate the experience and the work of others to facilitate their scurrilous and disingenuous (by definition) ends. I think that some of these persons have lived their whole lives this way, moving fretfully from one group of 'facilitators' to another, advantaging themselves on the work/talent of others, and then moving on (one way or another) when the well of good faith runs dry, returning in a few years for a new crop of suckers, where they can. These are legion. All these get sucked in via an official information vacuum. Just what happens when you dismiss something without remotely investigating it... the behavior of our officialdom.

I think that some of these persons have become so adept at advantaging themselves on the backs/reputations of others that they are as "capable" as credible experts... fooling me or even the reader. I am abundantly outraged for all.

I know that some people lie, reader, and moreover, many of these don't even *know* that they are doing so. I know that it is very hard for even the practiced adept to ferret these persons out... and so any other credible researcher should not be held accountable and liable for the testimony that they guilelessly accumulate. 90% of everything is supposed to be crap! The lie is on the liar's blame line.

Moses and Solomon can be taken for a "ride"... as can I... as can the reader. The trick is to avoid the impacted illogic of the ideologue—fun as that can be—and get off the "ride," in time. No one can rationally expect your complete infallibility, reader, and it must be understood that we are all just doing the best we can. Only, cop to your error, eh?

Somethin's happening here... what it is ain't exactly clear... The sneer of the reflexive and unthinking skeptic prosecuting his religion of reductionism is not instructive. The preceding is especially true when there must be a reason for our societal trepidations and nameless fears and these are in no way addressed by this same "officiality," already alluded to, except to ridicule. "Fool me once," and all that...

Some of these persons, unfortunately though, remembering, deserve every bit of criticism they provoke! I think its a tragedy that genuine experiencers are minimalized in their unasked association with this noisy non-genuine! I think it's a travesty that earnest efforts are marginalized, derided, and defamed by the actions of a self-serving few. I think its a shame that the valuable work of the tireless and wholly genuine suffers as a result. Sincerely. It's a digressive tragedy. It's unjust. It's unfair. It is... unsustaining and unsustainable.

So, "Deluded, Mentally Ill, Or Publicity-Seeking Little Nobodies"? Maybe, but this writer suspects that it's like Michael Lindemann informed him once in conversation when he complained the line between truth and falsehood regarding the outre got so smudged one couldn't tell the difference...

"Much of it is fake," he said. "Some of it... is not." Some of it is not, reader. Some of it is not.

Behind a grain of sand held at arm's length... 
galaxies seemingly numerous as stars!

Drake's numbers show *they* are, 

and Fermi moved *they* will; 

that a plethora of evidence shows 

*they* have's a real thrill!