UFO Conjectures

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

Ufological Bozos

It’s not only tiresome to read, at some blog venues (Kevin Randle’s among them) the ignorant and/or idiotic ramblings (sometimes ravings) of UFO aficionados about the open disclosure of falsehoods which Paul Kimball (mostly) and others presented in open forums, but it’s also maddening.

That society is suffused with ignorant, stupid people is a given, but those in UFO circles are the worst of the lot, in that they think they are intelligent and intellectually meaningful, about UFOs, ethics, morality, and truth (or lies).

Take a look at comments, written by persons with bizarre and funky pseudonyms, at Mr. Randle’s blog, Above Top Secrets site, or the Unexplained Mysteries internet locale.

And, of course, there is UFO UpDates which harbors the absolutely worst of the lots: Philistines flush with Neanderthalian observations.

Ignorant redundancies abound everywhere and even try to sneak in here, but we are
vigilant and stem the tide of moronic meanderings.

That e-mails from Kevin Randle were provided to the UFO community, after being given assurances that they would remain private, has the patina of what one expects in a lawyer/client relationship, or a doctor/patient relationship, and even in priest/confessor situations.

But the Randle e-mails fall in none of those categories, and required disclosure in light of the onslaught of spin and obfuscations that were attempted to be shoved down the throats of the unknowing UFO community.

Some Roswellian researchers, and you know whom I mean, tried to cover their asses and newly discovered information by pretending that there was no such thing as new information when, in fact, that alleged new information was leaked all over the place, to Nick Redfern, Paul Kimball, Frank Warren, and even me.

Should any of us, privy to the leaked, supposed new information, sit on it? I’ve provided my rationale for not holding information in secret, and you know my views, which are journalistically based, and Wikileak oriented.

Nick Redfern sat on the information because he had promised, not the originator of the disclosure he received but a secondary person who supplemented the original tale Nick was told, that he would hold it in private, which he did, until the matter ended up out in the open.

Frank Warren sat on his information; he didn’t want to get involved in a squabble with anyone.

Paul Kimball kept his Randle-provided insights and information, private from the get go, but let it loose when Mr. Randle, and others, pretended that there was no new Roswell information to impart.

This grated Mr. Kimball, who demands a truthful accounting of things in the public and private domains of life; his life is spent on uncovering truths, about art, history, music, literature, and UFOs, among other subsets of human existence.

But along comes a raft of non-players (Lord Jim, oh_marone, Lou Sheehan, Nitram Ang, et al.), far out of the loop, in this instance, offering panegyrics for Mr. Randle, in comments at his blog, while trying to smear Mr. Kimball, which stupefying asides that have nothing to do with the brouhaha, or ethical behavior; they merely wanted to assure their sycophancy for Mr. Randle, remained intact.

I like Kevin Randle, and I think Paul Kimball still does too, but Mr. Kimball was disappointed by Mr. Randle’s apparent duplicity, and I accent the word “apparent” here.

There was a pile-on of Don Schmitt also, but I know next to nothing about Mr. Schmitt or his alleged misdeeds of the past, so I have nothing to add here.

Tom Carey is unknown to me and wasn’t hit by the scattershot of scandal which seems to have wounded Mr. Randle’s Roswell Dream Team.

I don’t care whether or not that Dream Team hoped to keep their new Roswell finds private. The finds seem to be open, thus far, to debate and skeptical scrutiny.

What irks is the ongoing mental mendacity of those who wallow in the UFO topic and who have the intellectual abilities of gnats, but presume to address the behavior of a Paul Kimball or Nick Redfern, even that of Mr. Randle, without being privy to the whole story or stories.

The great unwashed are having a field day via Twitter, supported by news media and businesses, who keep asking for their input, as if anyone in media or business is really heeding the hoi polloi’s masturbatory outreach.

That the UFO community has always opened the door to kooks and fringers is known by readers here.

The UFO community is nothing without those kooks and fringers. UFO UpDates and the internet venues named above would be bereft of material without their solicitations.

But in the matter of disclosure, Wikileakian and otherwise, I am all for it, so long as personal information is not endemic to the disclosure.

Information about UFOs, or anything, should not be a matter of secrecy – even those disgorging spleen about Mr. Kimball’s disclosure of “private e-mails” belabor their angst and displeasure at the government or military’s attempts at secrecy about UFOs.

But stepping into the recent Roswell-slide imbroglio, without all the facts or background, making pronouncements about what is right or wrong, goes to the heart of ufology or UFO fandom: the topic and its pseudo-scientific sobriquet are the arena where bozos reside and pontificate, me among them.

It’s either laughable, or pathetic; take your choice.



  • Rich, as you well know, I've viewed the topic as pure entertainment...I've not been disappointed.

    This latest "cluster F***" has even opening my eyes to my own interest in the subject from a psychological standpoint. Do I continue with the oppositional approach on my blog, or simply chuck this whole enterprise and go back to reading ancient religious texts?

    I patiently await the next act of the Roswellian Greek tragedy...or if you wish, Greek comedy.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • There is a case for keeping personal communications confidential, but only when either asked to by the sender of the info, or when it is genuinely personal (such as a family or marital problem).

    Otherwise I see no reason for confidentiality in the UFO field. On the few occasions I have been told something in confidence I have kept that confidence.

    Ufology needs to be more, much more, open. We simply cannot continue with this incessant secrecy and hints of 'more to come' that permeates ufology (and I do NOT mean official secrecy either, which is a different matter entirely).

    In the case of the current photos/slides, I predict they will turn out to be as worthless as all the other Roswell evidence since the first book in 1980. Therefore I am not going to lose one moment's sleep worrying about them.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • Rich, my apologies, I failed to answer the last of your post:

    "It’s either laughable, or pathetic; take your choice."

    I would choose "all of the above."

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • ...yes RRRGroup, luckily this newest kerfuffle has failed to taint the saints of the DT: Bragalia and Rudiak...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • Yes, KP...

    Rudiak is free of sin. He told no lies and tells no lies.

    He is a Roswell nut but an intelligent nut. He has provided lots of interesting information and his ET prognosis for Roswell does not offend me (or many others).

    He's just a bit too vibrant about Roswell for us laid-back UFOers.

    Mr. Bragalia has apologized to me, and I to him. We remain friends, even though I'm sure he hates that I keep bringing the matter up here.

    So, yes, they are free of scandal as is Chris Rutkowski, the real saint in all this.

    And Mr. Randle? He got a comeuppance from Paul Kimball and I think that is enough of a hit.

    He's withdrawn and one has to give him props for doing so.

    These are not evil guys....they haven't murdered anyone nor stolen anyone's life-savings.

    They are just guys blinded by Roswell, to their personal detriment.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • In the case of all activities related to The R Word, all an intelligent person can do is grasp at their sides to keep them from splitting from uncontrollable laughter.

    Watching from the sidelines, I can only wish that TV sitcom writers could be as imaginatively funny as all of you who embedded yourselves in the "who's on first?" routine about the slides.

    The slides are a Maguffin of no substance, but still you all go right on jabbering about them in circular and accusatory arguments.

    Laughter is the only appropriate emotional response.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • Ah, but PG, the laughter might subside, if the slides and other new evidence shows up, as the latest rumor provides.

    I, take from a credible source -- and there are credible sources still -- that Roswell isn't shorn of all possible evidence of a surprising incident.

    The desire to write off Roswell is, I'm afraid, premature, despite the need to make it so.

    Just as the bones of Jesus keep popping up, the alleged alien presence in 1947 Roswell also keeps popping up, in shards of material that the Dream Team remnants is pursuing, seriously.

    So, being smug may come back to haunt you and others, even me.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • I'm still rather in the dark for what exactly Kimball "outed" Randle about. I've read til I'm blue here, and I'm not getting the picture.

    Randle claims not to have investigated the slides. Does anyone have evidence that in fact, he did?

    Or was it that he believed the slides were fakes, and allowed himself to be involved in the DT at all after that?

    I had Schmitt and Carey on my program Sept. 5th, and asked them about the rumored "new evidence", if it was true, and when we might see it. The response was stone silence for about 5 seconds, and then one remarked that I should be able to guess from the silence.

    When I pressed further, it was affirmatively stated there was new data, but it needed to be fully checked out before bringing it to public light. When I asked if this was really new data, or another Greer alien - the response was if it checked out it was a smoking gun. (Which now that I know what the data is, it rather absurd.)

    So...everyone seemed to be up front that there was new data, and Randle seemed up front that he wasn't involved in examining it.

    So what exactly am I missing here. My not seeing it may be put down to my admitted lack of sleep the past 2 weeks, but I'm really at a loss as to all the hubbub. Your response can be as short as you like.


    By Blogger JR, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • JR:

    It would be redundant and aggravating to some to rehash the whole brouhaha.

    I suggest you go back in here to The Anonymous post about the "rumor" and take it from there.

    As for Mr. Randle, he claimed that he wasn't in on the slide investigation but detailed enough about it to convince Mr. Kimball that he (Randle) while not precisely part of his Dream Team's discovery did know enough (from being told) that he was, in fact, part of the "operation" as Paul saw it, forcing Paul to present Randle e-mails to him (Kimball) saying as much.

    Mr. Randle tied to shade his participation it seemed to Paul and he (Paul) provided information that Mr. Randle, in his own words, knew more than he let on.

    The controversy now is belabored by those who see Mr. Randle as dissembling and those who think Paul Kimball shouldn't have exposed Mr. Randle's private e-mails to him about the slides.

    We're with Paul on this. The slide information, leaked to a number of people, including me, was out there, and pretending it wasn't was a lie of the first magnitude.

    Mr. Randle knew about the slides, even if he didn't work on the pursuit of them personally.

    Paul Kimball cleared the air by presenting what information he had that clarified Mr. Randle's spin.

    So there you are: Mr. Kimball considered the truth more important than the privacy of e-mails.

    We agree with Mr. Kimball as I have try to make clear with the postings here the past week or so.

    No information, aside from personal material, about UFOs or a lot of other things, is sacrosanct.

    Non-personal information should be available to all.

    We are Wikileakians in that regard.

    Mr. Kimball is a truth-teller and regards truth as an essential part of his personal philosophy of life.

    We admire him for that.

    We, however, go rogue on occasion as part of our journalistic background: news is meant to be disseminated not hidden for a select few.

    That's the short answer.

    Now hie thee to the postings here and at Mr. Randle's blog for more thorough renditions.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • for PG:

    ...for a similar TV sitcom treatment of the hilarious high-jinks of high desert hopefuls, please refer to the CBS show 'The Big Bang Theory'

    While not exactly 'The Roswell Dream Team Theory', it does feature a group of talented but amusingly flawed individuals struggling to overcome their non-inclusion in real life... the Physics fields they work in are potentially groundbreaking, yet as individuals they are naught but sad clowns....

    ...yep....it's a LOT like Roswellania...

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • This has probably been mentioned (or even done!) before, but UFOlogy is long overdue for a Christopher Guest-style mockumentary. I would be very likely to support a Kickstarter campaign for such a project.

    By Blogger AJG, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • Please, dont drag Bozo into that awful public mess.

    By Blogger kolyma, at Tuesday, October 08, 2013  

  • AJG, Christopher Guest took that on in Waiting for Guffman.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Wednesday, October 09, 2013  

  • Perhaps one day we'll use the term "Roswellian" much the way we use the word "Orwellian," to indicate a culture dominated by the manipulation of history and the denial of present truths.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Wednesday, October 09, 2013  

  • Terry...

    This is that day.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, October 09, 2013  

  • Part One!

    I see that I've been made famous and gained a mention in this post.

    I came to this blog from a different direction and was surprised to see this post here. I was more surprised to see my 'name' lumped in with people who are supposed Randle devotees.

    First, as I've said elsewhere, it seems obvious to me from the 'leaked e-mail' that Randle is two-faced when it comes to his public statements/private feelings about Don Schmitt.

    However, the idea that Kimball had some public duty to release the e-mails is laughable. The asskissing in this post in this regard, which would have Kimball as some sort of Snowden, is pretty pathetic.

    UFOlogy is not a discipline, it is a sub-culture. And as a sub-culture is a tar baby. That means, if you touch it, you get covered in tar. Other people, as your post mentions, managed to act in a way that did not expand or perpetuate the fiasco. Other people had information and stayed out of it. Kimball, owing to his abundant disrespect for UFOlogy in general, but more precisely, the so-called Dream Team in particular (especially Schmitt) decided that because the parties involved were not deserving of respect, he would simply release the e-mails to show Randle a liar, and perhaps the other two, too.

    Well, whether he succeeded is arguable. Randle has maintained that he was informed about developments in the investigation but was not 'in' the investigation because he had no power to direct it, was making no decisions, etc. This is his statement now, and the e-mails seem consistent with that. So the idea that Kimball exposed Randle here seems pretty questionable.

    Second, that Randle might be exposed a liar for saying publicly that there were no slides, etc., when there were -- so what? It's an untruth. But if there were slides, and especially if they were real, the white lie of saying they didn't exist in order to protect the investigation until it was finished -- where's the compelling public interest in jumping in here and publishing the e-mails to refute it?

    I'd hate to point out the obvious, but rather than being some heroic or purely ethical act coming from pure principle, Kimball's 'outing' of Randle was an emotional reaction. It stemmed from the fact he had a general contempt for what he views as a set of charlatans and hucksters in UFOlogy. Randle fell into that category for him the instant he started making public statements that didn't jibe with his private ones.

    It is also no coincidence, I hasten to add, that Kimball is skeptical of the Roswell story, and perhaps takes a different view. Others in his clique do the same: Redfern, for example.

    By Blogger Lord Jim, at Monday, October 14, 2013  

  • Part Two!

    My view on all this comes down to one primitive example, an allegory if you like. A mother is passing by the entrance to this building the other day with her two kids in tow. There's an older girl, probably 11 or 12. There's a little boy, maybe 6. As they near the door, the boy and girl start yelling and hitting each other. The mother whirls around and starts castigating them both, pointing at them with her finger, full of wrath.

    Anybody with siblings has been in this situation. It was obvious at a glance that the younger kid was tormenting the sister, until she exploded, unable to take it anymore. Then the sister gets yelled at along with the little brother as if they were both equal parties, and naturally the sister protests, whining back to the mother 'He hit me first!' or some such like.

    Who is right here? I would submit to you the *mother* is right. The sister's reaction was understandable -- even inevitable. But the second you hit the little brother back, you're *now just a part of a pair of screaming kids*.

    This is why I've criticized Kimball, both at his blog and at Randle's. I don't consider it a 'distraction' to focus on his action of leaking the excerpted e-mails. First off, his disclosures from these e-mails served *no meaningful public purpose*. If Kimball had leaked government documents saying Roswell was real, or if he'd leaked documents saying it was all a psyop, a fake, or even crash test dummies, that would have had a meaningful public purpose. Revealing that: a) Randle is two-faced about his sometime buddy, Schmitt; and b) actually did have some sort of involvement in the investigation, even if that just amounted to knowledge of its progress -- in no reasonable person's scheme of things does this amount to anything at all.

    Second, it is not a 'distraction' if Kimball himself does it in such a way to draw attention to his own act. If it really hadn't been questionable in any way to quote private e-mails in a public venue, why did people notice? This blog post, of course, suggests that the only people who think this way are Randle fanatics.

    Are there such a thing? There are Steven Greer fanatics. Are there really Randle fanatics? And if there are: do they differ much from the Kimball fanatics at this blog?

    All I see in these posts, here and elsewhere, is basic UFOlogical tribalism. It's factionalism and wounded feelings. My issue with Kimball's performance is that you cannot honestly, reasonably maintain that you are outside the melodramas of UFOlogy *and* act in a way absolutely consistent with it. You can't rush to quote private e-mails simply because known liars are telling lies that are inconsequential. Had the lies been consequential -- had there been a compelling public interest -- well, that might have been a different story. If Kimball had a tape recording of a private chat with Steven Greer in which Greer admits he doesn't 'believe' in UFOs, is just in it for the money, and Kimball released that, well, that would be one thing. It might actually protect people who otherwise might have paid Greer $500 to go see a UFO with him, or contribute $1,000,000 to his non-existent alternative energy research. But since all Kimball proved was that Randle doesn't really like Schmitt, and that there really are slides that are probably fake and which no one has seen...well, I'm not about to go write a paean to his heroism.

    By Blogger Lord Jim, at Monday, October 14, 2013  

  • Lord Jim:

    Normally I'd delete your comment(s) above, but because you present what appears to be a viable plaint, I'm letting them stand.

    But know that I've presented our view here, which is that nothing is sacrosanct, e-mails, God, or UFO folks.

    Personal info should remain private but everything else is ripe for public scrutiny.

    In the case of Paul Kimball vs Kevin Randle. I'm on the side of Mr. Kimball, as you know.

    Mr. Randle's e-mails and contacts with Paul and the work of his Dream Team are grist for exposure, in the journalistic sense, let alone the idea of truth.

    Mr. Randle presented views diametrically opposed to what Paul knew, I knew, and others knew.

    His attempt to make this writer look mad or creatively imaginative opened the door to exposure and opprobrium.

    Paul Kimball inserted the truth when it was needed, and most of us who hang around here admire him for that.

    You are splitting moral/ethical hairs in your argument and have many who agree with you.

    But we are not among them.

    Paul Kimball, for us, is a saint.

    Mr. Randle, to go back to another posting here, is a Trickster.

    (But we continue to like him.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 14, 2013  

  • I'm glad that you decided not to delete the comment, if only because I took the time to write it. However, that you might be inclined to delete whatever you don't agree with isn't very encouraging.

    There's a difference between splitting hairs, as you call it, and making distinctions. For instance, there: I just made a distinction.

    I think if you're committed to the truth, you have to be committed to telling as much truth possible, not settling for 'just enough' because you happen to like this person or that.

    When it comes to the particulars of Kimball's point of view on the facts, I'd be inclined to agree with him on almost every point. Randle seemed fairly two-faced when it came to his feelings about Schmitt, though without knowing more I could well be wrong. Kimball was also right to regard the Dream Team enterprise as dubious inasmuch as: a) here was Randle calling Schmitt a liar in private e-mails; b) here were all of them talking to anybody and everybody when there was supposedly an NDA in effect.

    Now, at that point a person might well have contempt for the whole situation regarding the slides and the Dream Team and intentionally decide to burn some bridges by publishing some e-mails.

    My criticism of Kimball from the start has been less about even the 'leaking' of the e-mail(s) as the way that leaking was presented afterwards. You might call this hair-splitting, but again, I call it trying to tell as much truth as possible. So I'm going to draw a distinction between Kimball's actions in the now almost-forgotten fiasco and his understanding of the meaning of those actions.

    In the example of the mother and the kids I gave, the daughter has clear knowledge of what she was doing, hitting her brother, and so on. But her understanding of what the significance of that is, how it appears to everybody else and to her mother is lacking, being stuck in the viewpoint she has, of being goaded by the little brother, etc. From her point of view, she is the wronged party. From the outside point of view, as soon as you start hitting back, the whole situation is a loss -- just a bunch of kids fighting.

    And there are other examples you could give. To put as fine a point on my opinion on the whole thing as possible, I'd say this: If Kimball had come out and said: 'I know this is a somewhat shady thing to do, and I know it's just what you'd expect from UFOlogy, but I'm planning on leaving UFOlogy forever, I'm burning every bridge; and besides, Randle *is* a liar, so here's an email where he shows how two-faced he is...' -- this sort of thing would be an honest assessment. 'Yes, I'm participating in the UFOlogy melodrama...Yes, I'm doing it on purpose...' That is one thing.

    But doing it and then insisting that it is all really something else, an unblemished act in the public interest completely above criticism...well, I don't buy that. A grown-up can, for example, decide to be childish on purpose. He can do something childish knowing it's childish and not apologize for it. If Kimball said: Yeah, I know what this means, but I don't give a sh**, I'm not sure I would criticize him. But the whole leaking-of-e-mails is so like UFOlogy, which is only about personalities, there's no mistaking it. Trying to say it is justified is dishonest. Saying that it is a purely willful act designed to stick it to some people who don't deserve respect -- honest.

    Anyway, late night here. Good luck to you and with your blog. Cheers.

    By Blogger Lord Jim, at Monday, October 14, 2013  

  • I understand your point LJ...

    But I'm with Paul all the way about this.

    The concerted effort by Mr. Randle and members of his Dream Team to pretend there weren't slides being looked at, along with Mr. Randle saying he wasn't in on the investigation of those slides needed clarification.

    Mr. Kimball cleared the air. Me? I was being Wikileakian.

    Nothing,for me, is held to be sacredly secret -- except personal issues: health, financial status, sexual preference(s) (sometimes), and a few other things.

    Roswell is fair game. Research work about it also.

    And I think you agree, but you find Mr. Kimball's actions to be anathema.

    I don't, and others do not either, although their silence is deafening.

    You've made your point. I honor it by placing it online.

    But, normally, as Mr. Kimball noted, I treat this blog and comments to it, fascistically: I don't allow miscreants to step in here and befoul the place.

    That's just the way it is...


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 14, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home