Friend of Women of Esoterica Alfred Lehmberg writes yet another wonderful piece on what will go on in UFO Land. Posted at, among other places, UFO Proletariat, Lehmberg writes on the whys of so-called "carnival" characters within UFOlogy.The UFO Proletariat: UFOs In Particular...
The ostensibly "serious" and "respected" learned of our torrid and anxious community decries the "carnival atmosphere" of studies "paranormal" in general and UFOs in particular. These persons aforementioned—self-assured that they are at the cutting edge of reasonable entelechy—bemoan the tolerated huckster. They lament the lack of qualified peer review. They weep regarding the "provoked disinterest of mainstream science." Finally, they rather toothlessly bewail the incorrigibly inconsistent and even damaging protocols employed by suspicious "amateurs" in the field. How dare they?
Continuing, Lehmberg offers us a theory:
All have their personal favorites, from Meier to Greer et al. We all know who "they" are or have been, and many of us attendant to the "paranormal" have even been labeled, ourselves, rightly or wrongly, as "hucksters,"—or worse—at one time or another. But why are these "first-wash hoaxsters" with us, at all, those who seem to—so inexplicably—rise again from "complete discredit's" blazing censure bonfire; how do they return and then puzzlingly linger?
I think I can offer a reasonable answer. Here it is: These rise again, return and linger quite simply, reader, because there is nothing or no one of effectual quality—as might be provided by credentialed academia or qualifying authority—to take their place! Yes. The officiators of our mainstream society—ironically compiling and providing for their own discredit—remain very suspiciously moot on these compelling subjects, except to cast moronic, unimaginative, and non-scientific aspersions on same. ...And what's up with that?
Consider, reader, the current skepti-puppy "darling," Bow-Tied Bill Nye—The (erstwhile) "Science Guy." In a nutshell, Nye does not read "UFO Dean" Stanton Friedman's books, for example, because Friedman's books are, in the words of uber-skeptic Michael Shermer, "...Ridiculous nonsense apart from good science and a distracting foolishness serving only for the destruction of same."
But I don't want to hijack or give away, nor dilute by editing. So read it for yourself, in its entirety.
