UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Apr > Apr 15

Re: Another 'Explanation' - Lehmberg

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:07:17 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:14:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Another 'Explanation' - Lehmberg


>Source: The Chronicle-Herald - Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

>http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/637833.html

>Sunday April 15, 2007

>Strange But True

><snip>

>Lights in the sky

>Q: Ever seen a UFO? Are you in the mood for seeing one tonight?

>A: Not to be facetious,

No? I'll make that call.

>but the following demonstration, in all
>likelihood, accounts for a good percentage of sightings around
>the world.

So? So what? Does this pompous little white paper about a facile
perceptual microcosm remotely delegitimize a ufological
_macrocosm_ spanning six categories of quality evidence over
thousands of years of history recorded by dozens of disparate
societies? Is it an honest percentage, Sirs? Is it a
_clarifying_ one? I suspect not.

And pray, good Sirs! What might determine a "good" percentage?
Is it a comfortable one for you? Does it supply you with a
moments respite of solace and succor. Does it reassure you? Does
it encourage you? Does it validate you?

Does this percentage validate you? Does it encourage you. Does
it qualify you? Not well!

Does it justify an intellectual cowardice? Does it rationalize
same? Does it allow you to keep your fear of the unknown at bay?
Does it explain your need to co-opt your own imagination to
facilitate a lack of same? Does it provide for your startling
_lack_ of wood? Too bad.

>Try this: In a totally darkened room, stare at the glowing tip
>of a lighted cigarette in an ashtray a distance from you. Within
>a few seconds, it will begin moving around - or seem to - as
>your eye muscles grow tired from fixating too long on one spot.

What facile nonsense. A combat pilot well aware and forewarned
with regard to "auto-kenisis", I have had point sourced lights
on the ground swirl around my head like fire-flies... But does
it ape a silent point source light obviously weaving due-
westerly across a clear star-field? Does it hover fist-sized and
glowing in front of dozens of competent witnesses while making
impossible turns at incredible rates of speed? Does it leave
physical traces at landing sites, account for a "one in four"
unknown "percentage" of it own, or show up on radar? No!

>"It will appear to wander around in an erratic manner, swooping
>in different directions or oscillating back and forth," says
>Ronald K. Siegel in Fire in the Brain: Clinical Tales of
>Hallucination.

Oooo! A _citation_. Impressive? No.

One must then perceive how inappropriately it is concerned. How
clumsily it is applied. How duplicitously it is contrived. This
is not citation. This is crass misdirection to facilitate a
bogus intransigence of character typifying canted reporting,
only!

I'm not fooled. And fewer _are_ as time marches on. Bet on it.

>"With proper suggestions, the light can appear to move several
>feet. Despite such movements, the light always comes back to its
>original position."

Hmmm. I would suggest its _eventual_ position, and its _ultimate_
one. A very dark place indeed where the sun is said never to shine.
Keep an aloe leaf handy.

>Now go outdoors and stare a while at a solitary star and watch
>it begin to move around (the "wandering star illusion").

Right. We'll forget for a moment that the preceding is a _thin_
explanation at _best_ insufficient to make the broad point you
would have it make, and that you would have your reader accept
this "sow's ear" for an intimated silk of _real_
thoughtfulness... _Your_ lot has to be right every _single_
time, eh? Your opposition only has to be right... once.

Sure... ninety "percent" of "everything" is crap. But ten
percent is decidedly not. And as recent French disclosures, the
ironic Condon report, and Blue Book Special Report #14 indicate,
closer to TWENTY percent in the case of UFOs. That's a lot of
room for ufological righteousness, eh?

Moreover, how about _ 'them'_ "percentages"? LOL!

>Or pick out an unidentified colored light far off near the dark
>horizon. In a suitably suggestible mood, you may soon witness
>your own UFO "visitation."

Thanks, but you're going to have to do better than inappropriate
citations facilitating bogus explanations of that which you don't
have the stone to address yourself. Visit _that_.

See? You have not been remotely helpful.

Suggest that you try to get on board with anything "Rich
Reynolds" is producing; you're apparently a born "Iconoclast."

In closing: Please witness a meaningful digit appropriately
hoisted in your honor. Then?

Be dismissed.

Next!

alienview.nul
www.AlienView.net
AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com





Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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