The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Friday, September 16, 2011

Nick Redfern makes a traffic stop?


No, Nick didn't....but you might find his tale, about the license plate pictured, fascinating.

Click HERE to read it

11 Comments:

  • It's not a license plate.

    I'm sure he had a real one on the back of the vehicle.
    It is obviously a conversation starter for someone who desperately wants to talk about UFO's. That Nick felt such bullshit deserved further discussion is sad. You know civilians are often allowed on bases. What would have insured that word of this (painfully fictitious) interplanetary organization didn't get out after some civilian accidentally saw the super secret tag?

    The whole thing is so stupid that I do feel compelled to comment upon it. How dumb is the idea that the top secret group decided to ADVERTISE their presence by putting tags on their vehicles? It's like the Bond villains who decided they need the BASE SELF DESTRUCT button at their hideout.

    I'm curious if Nick ever gets tired of pretending that he believes the stuff he is selling? Does he ever get tired of the schtick in which he repeats the unsupported nonsense of UFO hucksters without commenting upon it--thus tacitly approving of it without actually committing.

    Lance Moody

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • Rich:

    Finally, there's a bit of feisty action at my Fortean Pics blog!

    Check out the comments section to my post you've just linked to...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • For those who want to see my 4 replies to Lance, you can do so at the blog link.

    Or, you can check them out below as copy-pastes:

    REPLY 1 TO LANCE:
    Lance

    No, there was no regular back license plate. I took shots of the whole car and will dig out the others and post them showing the rear of the car with the same plate.

    That was the genuinely curious thing - we drove around Taos in a car with no "real" license plates. Never stopped by cops, nothing.

    No, I do not believe his story - regardless of what did or did not happen at Roswell, most people know I hold very little faith in the idea that aliens crashed at Roswell.

    Salter believed aliens DID crash at Roswell, so of course I don't agree with him.

    I felt the story was worth telling because I did (and still do) find it interesting. But do I think it's bullshit? Yes!

    I do believe the stuff I am "selling." And if there's anything that I think is bullshit, I'll say so - as I am saying to you now. I don't believe his story.

    But was it a weird, fascinating and odd experience speaking to him, etc? Yes it was. And do I feel it's worth relating the story? Yep.

    **************************


    REPLY 2 TO LANCE:
    Lance:

    You say: "Don't you get tired of schtick in which you repeat the unsupported nonsense of UFO hucksters without commenting upon it."

    This is totally wrong.

    Check out my latest book, The Real Men in Black. I note that one has to eb very careful analayzing the claims and accounts of Keel and Barker. I point out that Albert Bender was an obsessive compulsive who had an illogical fear of cancer, and that many of his experiences were clearly borne out of his subconscious.

    My "Contactees" book relates my views on the whole Space Brother phenomenon, and I note that most were hucksters, some may have had real experencies, some were nuts.

    I've spent years telling people why I think MJ12 is bullshit - and publishing my thoughts.

    In other words, I do not avoid commenting on such matters. I'm doing so right now!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • REPLY 3 TO LANCE (This is based on Lance's second comment, which he has not posted here, but which you can find at my blog):

    lance:

    I wouldn't say that I have a higher tolerance.

    Here's my view: it's clear to me that much of what passes for UFO lore and history has far, far more to do with the people in the subject, than the phenomenon itself.

    Or, at least, it's 50-50 in terms of how much of the phenomenon as we perceive it is based on its reality and how much is based on what alleged witnesses tell us.

    Yes, of course there's a real UFO phenomenon (in my view), but would it have achieved the scale it has without its odd and eccentric personalities? Nope, there's absolutely no way!

    Like him or not, agree with him or not, Dan Salter became a brief and minor player in UFO lore. People listened to him and to his claims. He's now dead, but he's still a part of Ufology and the phenomenon - like it or not.

    I met Wayne Aho in 1998 in Nevada and had a very long conversation with him. I think he was a wonderfully eccentric character who believed what he was saying.

    Me? I think he may (and I stress may) have had some experience - almost certainly of a complex and internal nature, and borne out of a subconscious desire for something different in his life.

    But, yes, I do - definitely - find it very interestng to sit down and chat with odd and eccentric characters with equally odd and eccentric stories to relate.

    No, I don't find them dull at all. Largely, I dont believe their stories are the literal truth. But do they fascinate me? Do I find it intriguing and noteworthy that such fucked up accounts have helped mold Ufology in major and significant ways (particularly in the 50s - look at Adamski)? Yes to both!

    The people in the field (even the bullshitters, the liars, the deranged, the fucking losers, and the plain insane) are of equal importance to the real phenomenon. Why? Because - for all their fucking nuttiness and fantasies - they have helped shaped the phenomenon.

    And this is why I listen to them. But don't always agree with them - in fact, rarely. Because - like it or not - they have proved to be important in the development of Ufology.

    For good and bad reasons? Yes. But they are still important.

    *****************************

    REPLY 4 TO LANCE:

    Lance:

    There's a very good way to determine if someone is speaking truthfully or not. Or, at least, I think it's a fairly good indicator. Granted, we can never be sure, but it relates to working in publishing, and it's this:

    Every person (and I do mean every person) I have interviewed for my books has had to sign a release-waiver, confirming (for the publishers, not for me) they are who they claim to be, and with their address and complete contact info available to the publisher and their lawyers and fact-checkers.

    Sometimes, when I tell people they have to sign a waiver (my most recent The Real Men in Black book required, I think, 22 release forms sent to the publisher), they back away and won't let me use their story suddenly.

    Do I think these are the bullshitters and liars? Yes I do.

    Granted, it's not the ultimate litmus test. But, i do think that when people are willing to sign a form knowing its going to the publishers' fact checkers and legal people, then that offers (to me) a high probability they are being earnest.

    Those who suddenly back away - the bullshitters.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • There's one issue I should probably expand on with respect to my ufological studies.

    Many people "in" Ufology would consider themselves Ufologists. And, by that, they mean they investigate UFO sightings and encounters and they try and form some conclusion.

    Do I do that? Yes. But, I don't consider myself as a Ufologist. I'd say more of a Fortean.

    And, I don't just study the phenomenon. I also study the people who are part of the phenomenon - including the bullshitters.

    Why? Granted, they may not tell us much about the actual real UFO phenomenon (and, make no mistake, there IS a real phenomenon).

    But because they tell us a great deal about Ufology as a movement, and about its development and lore, they ARE important.

    Do I think that George Adamski told us much about the real nature of the phenomenon? No.

    But, he was certainly someone who impacted on the creation of Ufology, the lore, and public perception of the subject in the 1950s to a far, far greater degree than the likes of Keyhoe, Stringfield, NICAP etc ever did in that same period.

    Keyhoe and Stringfield were "serious ufologists." But Adamski - for all his tales of Venusians and god knows what else - made more of a cultural impact. It's things like this that fascinate me.

    That's why I do a lot of "people watching" in Ufology (Bender, Barker, Angelucci, Aho etc), regardless of the level of bullshit they spewed out or didn't: the lore and culture of Ufology is as significant as the phenomenon. And these people helped shape and mold Ufology.

    In different ways? Yes. But in equally significant ways in terms of the history of the overall subject? Definitely.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • I apologize to Nick for posting my same message here. I honestly wasn't sure if my posting at his site went through. I will continue my part of the discussion there.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • And one more comment from me regarding this statement from Lance:

    "Does he [Nick] ever get tired of the schtick in which he repeats the unsupported nonsense of UFO hucksters without commenting upon it--thus tacitly approving of it without actually committing."

    Er...what???

    Let's look at my written output. The reality is that I overwhelmingly DO comment on the hucksters and players in Ufology.

    Here's the facts:

    2011: My "The Real Men in Black" book demonstrates (in my words) that Albert Bender was obsessive-compulsive, deathly afraid of cancer, fantasy-prone, sex-starved (something which is clear from his dream-like encounters with hot space-babes he describes), and possibly may have had epilepsy, and a fear of being visited by "the Government." The result - a brain-borne vision of the MIB. That's failing to comment, Lance?

    In the same book, I note how carefully we need to interpret the work of Gray Barker - who was a master at turning a bright and sunny day into the proverbial dark and stormy night in his books, if it suited his purposes. And I say so! That's failing to comment, Lance?

    2010: My "Final Events" book discussed a think-tank group in Govt that thinks UFOs have demonic origins. Instead of supporting the scenario (as a cynical, money-drivem author might do), I actually - in every interview I have done for the book - pointed out the group's views were based on belief and faith (which is what every crackpot religion is based on), not on fact. That's failing to comment, Lance?

    2010: My book "The NASA Conspiracies" includes an entire chapter knocking down the arguments of the players (named) who believed the Moon landings were faked. Of course we went to the Moon! That's failing to comment, Lance?

    2008: My "Science Fiction Secrets" book includes chapters that are majorly critical of the Serpo saga; the Alien Autopsy film; demonstrates the flakiness of Philip K. Dick; and more. That's failing to comment, Lance?

    2005: My book "Body Snatchers in the Desert" demonstrates why I think MJ12 (the docs and the group) lack validity. That's failing to comment, Lance?

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on about how and where I have specifically addressed, criticized and commented on ufological flakes, questionable characters etc.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • Lance:

    Yep, the posts at my blog will go through. However, I have the comments set to moderation. So, they have to be approved by me before they appear.

    So, if I'm offline for a few hours or a day, they won't appear until I'm back online and approve them. But soon as I am, they WILL appear!

    Spam comments from Nigerian banks aside etc, I never censor or refuse to post comments.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • And, I forgot: my 2009 book, "Contactees" where I offer my clear views on the largely bogus claims of Adamski; the undeniably criminal and shameful acts of the little-known alleged Contactee Harold Berney; etc etc.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 16, 2011  

  • Am I right in thinking that for a fee you can have a car licence plate showing anything you like up to 8 characters (barring certain obscene words) in the USA?

    In that case the final line 'WA 25 DC' constitutes a valid plate number.

    That is my learned conclusion to the discussion.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, September 17, 2011  

  • CDA:

    I have no idea re what the situation is re license plates.

    Frankly, anyone who needs a personal license plate also needs their head examining. It's all just ego nonsense to have a personal plate.

    What's wrong with a normal random collection of numbers and letters? Nothing!

    It's all a bit sad and pathetic for someone to get all hyped up because their plate reads "Chupacabra 666" or something LOL.

    These people don't need personal license plates. They need lives!!!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, September 17, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home