Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> May -> Here

From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:35:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 02:59:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Book Burnings & Conspiracies


>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>Subject: Re: Book Burnings & Conspiracies
>Date: Tue, 25 May 99 12:09:58 PDT

>>From: Greg St. Pierre <StrmNut@aol.com>
>>Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 23:15:23 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Book Burnings & Conspiracies
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Book Burnings & Conspiracies
>>>Date: Sun, 23 May 99 19:35:37 PDT >>
>
>Hi, Greg,
>
>>Do you believe governments are covering up information about
>>UFOs? I do. Does that make me paranoid, or a conspiricy
>>theorist? If I worry more about it, does that qualify me for one
>>or both of those titles? If I take a less concerned stance, do I
>>not run the risk of being caught unprepared should all this
>>stuff turn out to be true?

>Suspecting that a few agencies of the U.S. government are
>concealing UFO secrets -- an entirely reasonable position --

>>>>>>Your argument, sir, seems to suggest that there is _no_
>>>>>>conspiracy.

>>>>>Precisely.

It would appear that you want to have it both ways, sir. <not an
affectation but a sincere expression of respect. I owe everyone
initial respect.>You seem to _admit_ to the tips of some very
dirty 'bergs.

>is not the same as believing in vast, sinister conspiracies.

In as much as there is no real forthcoming way to know the
breadth and scope of the conspiracy you _admit_ to, your
preceding statement is meaningless, isn't it?

>Of course all governments keep secrets;

I believe you and I think it _may_ be possible to that this
prerogative has been _richly_ abused.

>that they participate in
>vast, sinister, international, all-encompassing satanic plots
>is quite another matter.

A leap to the absurd, sir. Benjamin Disraeli, an early empire
era British Prime Minister, wrote "The most powerful men are not
public men: a public man is responsible, and a responsible man
is a slave. It is private life that governs the world." That
private life has a frontier that you and I, motes of
consciousness without any real significance, and hearing only
what they tell us, have no real opportunity to appreciate. There
is _room_, certainly, even for an unlikely Satanic plot. _You_
can't know.

>For the difference between sane
>speculation on one side and mad fantasy on the other, just think
>of Donald Keyhoe as representing the former and the Dark Siders
>(Cooper, Lear, English, et al.) the latter.

A division forgetting, for a moment, how the latter can gain,
maintain, and keep the popular attention, while the former
languishes in amused and unfounded ridicule. What's the
mechanism of that, sir? I'm sure the answer would surprise both
of us.

>>Lets examine some hot topics: All over America, government
>>troops are staging mock assaults from helicopters at night,
>>frightening the hell out of civilians. How SHOULD we interpret
>>these events? The military has shown little or no regard for the
>>people they scare. It's all done for training, they
>>say....sorry. Excuse me, but I thought the military already had
>>places set aside for this type of thing. By holding these
>>exercises in civilian areas, they are exposing the populace to
>>undue hazard, particularly in light of the military's recent
>>safety record. They act secretive. They scare people. They don't
>>care. Doesn't this concern you at all? Frankly, it is suggestive
>>to me of an ulterior motive, and I don't think one has to be
>>paraniod to see it. At the very LEAST, it ought to raise serious
>>questions. Remember, the activity I've just described IS
>>occuring...its' reality is not open to debate.

>I don't know the relevance of this to conspiracy speculation.

In an era of decreasing privacy, institutionalized erosions of
civil liberties, and pervasive aggressions of a fundamentalist
right there is a concern that there _may_ be those that
cooperate to some *profitable* advantage in the continuance of
these things. In a condition of respectful forthcomingness from
media, government, and religion there would be _none_ of these
concerns. People smell smoke (for _whatever_ reason) -- it
cannot be a surprise that _some_ of them (yourself perhaps?)
suspect fire.

>If you feel personally threatened, bothered, or irritated by
>this, I urge you to contact your Congress member and share
>your concerns with him or her.

ROTFL. The land of "disapproved -- resubmit in thirty days for
final disapproval." Truly, the last dismissive advice of a
scoundrel. <g>.

>>Another topic is the contrails. I will confess that this whole
>>thing is out of control. Some people are now suspicious of
>>everything that flies over. It's only a matter of time before
>>bird droppings are suspected of containing biological or
>>chemical agents. But again, I must confess to having noted some
>>unusual activity up there, not consistent with that which I have
>>observed in the past. Some of the pictures I've seen, and
>>stories I've read do sound unusual. By the same token, my father
>>is all but hysterical over this subject. I tried to explain to
>>him about moisture content at altitude, and temperature
>>differences, and why one may see no contrails one day, and a
>>plethora the next. He won't hear of it, and looks insulted.

>Contrails are the latest fad on the far right, perhaps soon to
>replace black helicopters as something to keep conspiracists up
>at night, weaponry in hand.

And all of them basted in an ignorance that you won't cop to the
mechanisms for;  all of them smelling smoke easily blown away by
a forthcoming unprevaricating breeze.

>A website I checked the other day
> is run by sober conservative
>monitors

uh-huh.

>of far-right paranoia.  They understand that far-right
>paranoia may be confused with genuine conservatism, to the
>latter's detriment (they remind me of serious ufologists who
>monitor and critique saucerdom's fringes).

. . . While forgetting to question the genesis and maintenence
of those fringes. I would speculate that on your speaking
engagements you observe the squalid commercialism (that fans any
interest in your own work) in a more forgiving light. How's the
air up there in your ivory tower? A little thin I'll bet. Could
it be you are just another elitist dismissing your supporting
rabble? I sure hope not -- they're enough of those guys in the
skeptibunky legions.

>They looked into the
>background of the contrails claims, demonstrated that they have
>virtually no evidential basis, and characterized them as a new
>urban legend.

The accepted party line having been dispensed, hailed as
credible for assimilation and accreditation -- I assume we can
all fold our tents and go home. Woof. What a relief! The
enigmatic nightmare is over! Thank you Mr. Clark!

>This conclusion is predictable, of course; these
>things do tend to collapse under scrutiny.

And then there are the things not collapsing so easily. I'll
leave the reader to fill in the blanks of what those things are.
Some are outlined in the writings of Dr. Keyhoe, Stanton
Friedman, or David Rudiac. Assuming these gentlemen are labeled
"light siders" over "dark siders."

>Just as predictably,
>the far right will reject them and accuse the critics (as I was
>accused in private e-mail last week) of being "arrogant
>socialist one-world do-gooder liberals" answerable to "CIA
>handlers."

Boy -- wish _I_ got mail that kindhearted! <g>.

>>Where do I draw the line? Where do you?

>I try to keep this principle in mind: the real world is bad
>enough.

The real world is a lot badder than you know. "Enough" is just
wishful thinking.

>It doesn't need lurid imagination and unconstrained
>paranoia to make it seem even worse.

"Lurid imaginations" and "unconstrained paranoias" easily
dissipated in a nonexistent wind of forthcomingness.

>If this world is going to
>be a decent place for human beings to live in and on, we'd
>better address our _real_ problems.

AMEN TO THAT! You see, sir! We _can_ agree!

>Going off in flights of
>fantasy about pretend problems is not an option wise persons
>will elect to pursue.

Uh oh -- what's a "flight of  fantasy"? Further difficulty --
which of the problems are pretend?  Geez! What *options* do we
have? Finally, where are we inarguably wise? You're right, sir.
We do inhabit different realities, forgetting (for a moment)
that Heisenburg, Freud, and Einstein made that abundantly clear
about everyone. Indeed -- it's the source of our strength. You
could use a little more angry bile, sir, and a little less
righteous condescension.

Lehmberg@snowhill.com
--
Ponder the Wit & Wisdom of Ching Chow!
View "Unstill Life" -- Animation . . . and more.
Consider Matter, Mind & Movement.
See the current HTML "Apology to MW" with illustration.
Take a ride in the Teleporter.

Explore "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his Fortunecity URL.

http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/
<Updated 15 May>

John Ford Restoration Fund -- Send your checks and
money orders to _me_, Alfred Lehmberg
(cut out the lawyers, they got their's) at:
304 Melbourne Drive, Enterprise AL, 36330. Strict records kept.
$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, burned at the
fundamentalist's stake.