« COMING SOON TO A BLOG NEAR YOU | Main | If It's Tuesday, It Must Be Poland »

They called us crap ...

Our esteemed magazine has been getting a lot of hatred hurled at it lately, and I have to tell you that it really hurts to read it. It’s daunting, sickening, and upsetting. For me, the more horrible part is when the ones hurling the insults are out-and-out lying or just too stupid to pick up an issue and check what we’re doing here.

Therefore, I think it’s time to defend the turf and do what we do best: present the facts. The facts -- in any topic -- have to rule the day, or we are all doomed. People who lie almost always do it in a very loud voice and repeat the lies over and over. Loud stupid bullies. Mostly fat, lazy white men with too much time on their hands, a radio microphone as a phallic enhancement near their lips, and hate hate hate dribbling out in sad, impotent spurts.

Turn on your TV, and you will see what I mean.

Here on the internets, folks are hating on the magazine, the TV show I created, and especially my husband. I believe it is time to counter these attacks with some facts, and so I have invented the FAQ ATTAQ!! Read it and save it and refer to it and link to it. It is the whole truth, the kind of truth I can prove in a court of law if I have to, and it’s the truth as I have lived it.

I am not going to name a few of the people in the FAQ for one really great reason: the folks spewing the hatred are doing it so that you will give them your attention, and by not typing in their names, I will deny them their search-engine recognition. At least for a little while.

They are publicity hounds of the very first order, demanding to be the center of attention in any conversation. It becomes harder and harder to stay in the spotlight if you can’t invent anything except insults, and I would feel sorry for them if I weren’t the one getting insulted. It’s got to be awful to be so angry so much of the time. The world has displeased them!

This FAQ ATTAQ!! is a work in progress, constantly changing and growing, and it has been shaken into existence because the subject at hand is the UFO. We know so little about this topic, and it is so important. Is there such a thing, at all? Is our beloved government lying to us? Can you trust what we’re trying to uncover and report?

I work for you, the reader and the viewer, and you need the truth so that you can figure out what’s going on. Let’s get started! Here is the FAQ ATTAQ!!

Posted on 04.5.2009 by Registered CommenterNancy Birnes | Comments26 Comments

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (26)

Thank you for the post...
Yes the work is VERY important...will be
watching the site for updates on this situation...

This info has been Twittered at
http://twitter.com
and shared with 400+ Twitter UFO enthusiasts
worldwide. We track the latest in UFO News,
Views, Pix and Vids.

April 6, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterIQXS

Hey! We'll dance to the music that's playing when it's all said and done. We'll go to the bone on every leveled charge. Full sails! Spinnakers deployed!

With regard to your colony of less than entirely agreeable columnists? I can't read 'em all myself, but that's not remotely the point is it. Not a question. See, many can.

You honorably try to make a pretty modest bit of coinage, as it's measured, providing an eclectically informational magazine about a popular interest and that interest's ancillary issues... as these issues are thought enough about to be written upon! It remains that this magazine must be sold so that it is not, every freakin' month, a loss.

Offered with a wider focus, said magazine may get the pompous purist's panties in a pathetic wad, but it remains that the magazine exists, then, STILL... to get that so impassioned purist's message out at all — where the purist's magazine already expires, largely because it is tedious, arrogant, non-progressive, and exclusive... when it is not irrelevant, oppressively anthropomorphic, authoritarian, unimaginative, incompetent, mendacious, or disingenuous... or, because of the preceding, just plain boring. Hey! I'm not the least bit apologetic. As ye swing your elbows so shall an elbow be swung.

So — with regard to the sincere if diverse colony of writers mentioned at the top and outlined with a bereft niggard's likely jealous criticism. I stand with them (us) proudly, given the comparison, and will sail in with cannons blazing regarding a malfeasant or inappropriate attack on any one of them -- even Vaeni. Ducks better be aligned... rows toed. I add that one should be prepared to have their entire premice unaccepted for "in your face" reasons given behaviors displayed thus far. Hey! Posted!

Questions? Comments?

April 6, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterAlfred Lehmberg

UFOs. How does one write about them? In a rational materialist culture, the materialists demand that we write about the "nuts and bolts"! What nuts and bolts? Broken branches, easily faked photo images, swirled grass, tainted soil samples: this all adds up to little more than a big question mark. SOMETHING appears to have caused these things. But, what?

So, the UFO phenomenon is rich in lore, but in matters material it is little more than a gaping void. It is an intellectual vacuum made up of piles of anecdotal evidence which anybody can interpret anyway they choose. Whose interpretation is "valid" when hard answers are unavailable? There will always be those malcontents who insist that any such reportage or pontificating must conform to their preconceived notions about what is "valid" concerning the yawning empty chasm of "hard" UFO data. Personally, I do not believe that anybody knows, with any degree of certainty, what this is all about.

So, ALL OF US choose our particular favorite beliefs about what it all means. It is a choice, not a "truth".

When the UFO cat is finally out of the bag, as it must eventually be (if we do not destroy ourselves in the meantime), those "Old Yellers" will discover that the whole thing (regardless of their subjective viewpoints) was not what they expected it to be. Inevitably the universe will be broader than the breadth of our prejudices.

Those who go into this thing believing that they "know" what it is all about are clueless. So, I write about mystery and cluelessness. That is because these are the two things that are unquestioningly endemic, persistent and consistent to the UFO phenomenon.

If people do not get that, it is because they are not paying attention...

April 7, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMike Good

"Inevitably the universe will be broader than the breadth of our prejudices."

I'm not suggesting we move to Vermont and adopt, but that was simply wonderful. If you didn't steal it, I certainly shall! [g].

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

April 7, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterAlfred Lehmberg

Al,

No, I didn't steal it. Well, I did paraphrase it from something I wrote a couple of years back. It seems that most of my plagiarism is from myself. I have no explanation other than laziness and limited time.

As for Vermont: well, I am happily married and have no proclivities for ex-military types. But your desire for prose larceny is duly noted, and approved! :o)

April 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMike Good

Dear Nancy and Bill:
First time visitor to the website. Have picked up the magazine from time to time. LOVE the show. Bill's theories can be a bit out there for me, but I revel in his passion and energy. Sorry to see Ted and the narrator depart, but that won't deter my watching. Without narration, the show loses some of its authoritative and documentary feel, but does make it a bit more personal and personable. Keep on keeping on, folks, and take care!

April 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterPaul

From the FAQ ATTAQ: "MPP decided they were going to cast the show and they wanted Bill to be on screen, along with Pat. At first the magazine was mentioned every once in a while and of course Bill was wearing his hat, so that was good. I expected to be included somehow, since I thought it up, but that didn’t happen. Women who work in media already know that you have to be bold and even a little pushy to be able to hold your own with the guys, and I just didn’t have the time or energy at that point to do this. Bill, especially, wasn’t willing to rock the boat because it’s very hard to get a TV show sold, let alone steer it to success. The last thing anybody needed was a female demanding equal time.
Plus, I was working pretty much single-handedly on the magazine [see FAQ 6], so Bill got the brunt of my unhappiness at not being included each time he came home that first season. Eventually, the company did put up a chyron at the end that says: Created by Nancy Birnes and Pat Uskert. Yay! No money was ever paid for the sale because ... I guess that’s how these things are done in TV. It’s all about the opportunity and the exposure. And now, it's on the record."


I came back to read the above part of the FAQ that Nancy wrote and kindly linked us to. Honestly, it bugs me. Now I'm not a fan of affirmative action but I most certainly believe in equal rights and equal opportunities for qualified individuals.

In Ufology there have been and are ufologists (worldwide) that happen to be female. One of many examples would be Ann Druffel, who was interviewed by Bill. She's an excellent example of an investigator who was way ahead of the curve regarding abductions back in the early 1970s {Tujunga Canyon Contacts, written with D. Scott Rogo}.

I don't see why Nancy or any other qualified female should be excluded on the program as one of the investigators. I don't see it as a negative or "pushy".

If we look at the closest thing to UFO Hunters in the paranormal on tv - we have Ghost Hunters(Sci-Fi) and Paranormal State(A&E). Both programs, from their beginnings, have had female investigators. I think the latter show, at this point, may have more female investigators than males. Oh and none of these female investigators are 'babes' put on screen for eye candy. They're average looking women. Most importantly - they're qualified. Surely in the UFO field there are qualifed females that could have been added to or perhaps could be added to the investigative line up on UFO Hunters.

April 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSusan

Thanks, Susan! Of course, I totally agree with you and I think that the women in ufology are the best in the business. You might want to check out Regan Lee's blog http://womenesoterica.blogspot.com/ as a good starting point.

This field desperately needs the female perspective, just as much as the entire world does. We've tilted too far to the rigid straight path of black and white nuts and bolts and I think we have to consider going off-road and exploring some new uncharted paths.

The women I know are fearless and can do this. I also recommend an interesting book for going off on these tangents: The Alphabet vs The Goddess by Leonard Shlain: http://www.alphabetvsgoddess.com/

I accept the concept that the change I'd hope to see won't be happening on my watch, nor my daughters'. I have a granddaughter now, so who knows?

April 9, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterNancy Birnes

Thankyou for answering Nancy! And, I completely agree about Regan Lee! I read her blogs and also her column in UFO Magazine. She's an excellent example of a female who'd be great as an investigator on UFO Hunters {Oh, and no folks, I don't know her.}

Nancy, I'll be sure to check out Leonard Shlain's website as well!

April 9, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSusan

Hello Bill,

Being a MUFON Field Investigator, I watch the series and enjoy it very much and glad that you have fellow MUFON members as guests on the show. As for the "attacks" you have been receiving, one must expect these especially when you have a hit TV series. Keep up the good work!

April 11, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterN.Gagnon

Susan and Nancy, thank you for the nice comments, shucks!

I loved the FAQ Nancy and glad you wrote the piece. It's just so damn sad and ugly that so much crap goes on in this field in that regard.

April 11, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRegan Lee

You're welcome Regan! :-)

April 14, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSusan

(Previously posted on the history channel)

I miss Dr. Ted as many of you do. I also respect his decision to leave the show. I felt the show had really good Chemistry with
"Bill" (the guy not afraid to ask: "why not")
"Pat" (the guy not afraid to ask: "why me")
and:
Ted (the guy not afraid to ask: "Is this all you got"?)
as for Kevin: (The little kid that keeps asking:"WHY")
I keep hoping he'll fit in and bring some of that Chemistry back to the ensemble. But I guess his "role" is to keep Bill grounded. The problem is; he hasn't found his persona yet. Until he does, he just comes across as obstinate and annoying.

*Note to the producer writing Kevin's character: In science, there is a thin line between non-acceptance due to linsufficient evidence and the denial of ignorance.
Perhaps this is what Einstein was alluding to when he wrote: "The imagination is more important than knowledge".

I agree to a point with the pundants that say the show never finds a smoking gun. But for me, that doesn't make the show "crap" as some of you more loquatious bloggers are starting to acuse.

I tend to think of it as more of a scifi-reality show with a touch of Gilligan's Island thrown in. (it would be nice to have a regular "Ginger' or Mary Ann")

As for the repetitive absence of a smoking gun; usually the answer is right in front of us. The most common reason for not being able to detect it is because our minds are closed, not our eyes.

Bill Birnes has the courage to search with his imagination. Einstein would have said Kudos to Bill.

So do I. Kudos Mr.Birnes. Keep up the good work.

And Kevin; find your mojo before you start to kill the ratings. Some of us love this show and don't want to see it cancelled. Trust me, you could easily be replaced by Katee Sackhoff or a reasonable look alike and she wouldn't have to say a word.

Ace out......

April 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterAce Andres

Ace Andres text:Trust me, you could easily be replaced by Katee Sackhoff or a reasonable look alike and she wouldn't have to say a word.
Ace out......

Starbuck wouldn't put up with foolishness, that's for sure! ;-)

April 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSusan

I was moved by your article about the hate mail you have been reading regarding UFO Magazine. Please know it is not just your magazine. There seems to be an all out assault on UFO experiencers, material, photos, videos, etc. In the past year I have been getting some phenomenal photos and most of the feedback has been negative, mostly that I have faked, altered, or am mistaken about my photos. I have had close encounters in the past complete with contct and believe me people are very hateful when you try to tell about your experiences. So I have learned now to just keep most of my experiences to myself. I can certainly sympathize with your feelings.

Best Wishes,
Christine Dickey

May 12, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterChristine Dickey

Here Is the Question everyone wants to Know.And can you put It on < FAQ ATTAQ!!><www.ufomag.com/front/faq.html> When will UFO Hunters be back on TV? If not on History Channel,Why not start a new show called UFO Magazine? Thank You<Love all you Do>

July 9, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLove UFO

Here Is the Question everyone wants to Know.And can you put It on < FAQ ATTAQ!!><www.ufomag.com/front/faq.html> When will UFO Hunters be back on TV? If not on History Channel,Why not start a new show called UFO Magazine? Thank You<Love all you Do>


Hello - I only recently discovered that UFO Hunters was cancelled...did Bill and company get too close to something? If History Channel is too scared to continue the show, some other channel certainly would, right? As for the complaint that there's never a smoking gun, so what? There's definitely a preponderous of circumstantial evidence...much more substantial that evidence presented on other mystery shows such as MonsterQuest, or that ridiculous Hauntings series.

I've signed the petition to bring back the UFO Hunters. I tend to believe, however, that the real reason it is gone is because there was actually TOO MUCH evidence. Can you comment on that?

Take care and best of luck to you in the future.

December 28, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJ. Ganser

I don't think this is the media shutting out the women in this case, after listening to Nancy over on the Inception Radio Network. Very good network running some quality shows, Nancy and Bills show on the other hand is a very frustrating thing to listen to because the show consists of Nancy interrupting Bill or any guests who happen to be on, and talking at great length about something completely unrelated, derailing a very interesting point that we will never get to hear the end of. Sometimes Nancy you even interrupt yourself before finishing a point. It's verrry frustrating when you want to hear an interesting point Bill is making for Nancy to randomly interrupt him and change the subject to a conversation about wood panelling on a boat, hamsters, rubix cubes, computer monitors, ice cream, or any of the other random things you think we all want to hear about.

No I'm not surprised the producers or whoever didn't want you in on that gig. Try and stay on point and let people finish their points.

February 24, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterwill79

Forgetting for a moment that, on the team, any accolades attributed amount to bupkis, I'll concede that you may have something here, at least as it pertains to Future Theater's unusual affect and its unfortunate effect on "will79." The short version of "...look, hoss, you just don't get it, and would be best served, I think, just to mosey on over to a "PZZZ-Cast" for the gulled standard of predictably tanked cant or, really jonesin' for wing-nut 2D, a "DZZZMatter" for 'radio done in the dark so it doesn't matter,' " but there's more going on than that, eh?

The Birnes' are trying for something different in a program that frankly is seen in abundance everywhere else. The program is a dependable and revisit-able camp-fire, a campfire with all manner of high strangeness out in the illuminated shadows, and we huddle around that weekly fire for good light and better warmth. Nancy pokes the fire in a manner found efficacious to her over a long experience with Bill, an experience I offer a "will79" does not have, and, I would submit, nor is there a seeming capacity to appreciate same.

See, when the foot and meter grind into the arguably avoidable pedantic, Nancy's gonna poke that fire. No apologies... There is the odd time when the particular point poked is nonplussed. There are the more usual times where a flash of light or spark is produced revealing something in dark previously un-illuminated. The very occasional interruption of a singular point seems a small price to pay, though, for most of us to sit at the fire extant... which is friendly, not personally involved, creatively intelligent, bereft of the biased sneer, wholly unusual and wholly sincere.

Push on through an expectation of your own experience,"will79"! Grok a different kind of campfire wishing Nancy well and ones god of choice's speed with the admonition not to change a thing. Don't. Change. A thing. Valueless, I know, but still.

February 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterAlfred Lehmberg

Au contraire! Invaluable. In fact, your very eloquent, very kind words have made me stop giving up!

It's true. You get it. We're trying something new here, skiffing and surfing on the various web-hiccups as they happen live. It's not your gramma's radio show.

And yes, I will be reading your letter tonight on the air.

February 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterNancy Birnes

dear bill and nancy in the past year k eive built up alot of respect for bill ive been an amatuer ufologist sort a speak when i first started out i only listened to coast to coast and open minds and even suscribed to open minds i just recently stopped listening to coast because i started to realize that yes george is a nice guy but the show in the last year and a half started spiraling downwards the show seems to be scripted i even was told guests were told beforehand what to say and what they couldnt say i started listening to inception shows and especialy yours i have inginuity and can tell your good people and honest i limked your show on my favorites bar im gonna start doin a show on community tv here in ct in the future and would see if you would like in the future to come on my show keep up the good work and dont worry about people talking bad about you because alot of the phonies are starting to be exposed im intrigued with this bill wood kerry cassiddy story and would like your comment on the show thank you and god bless

February 25, 2012 | Unregistered Commentertommy

I love the back and forth between Bill and Nancy. It's funny, it's interesting, and they sound and behave just like two people who are intelligent and passionate about a topic , AND, who've been married for 30 something years, should and would sound.

February 26, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRegan Lee

First off, I'm still a listener to the show. So while I may not "get it" I'm sticking with it.

The good-natured back and forth is fun, but my point still stands that not being able to hear a sentence being finished (by either party) is frustrating sometimes. Makes the show seem disjointed.

Then again I'm a Brit. We like queueing and interrupting people is extremely poor form. Even if you know the person very well, interrupting in my opinion is basically telling someone that they are boring, and that what you have to say is so much more valuable.

As an Italian-American I can see why you might not get this. But you are gaining a global audience now, and being aware of pet peeves of a global audience might be helpful to the show's popularity.

Just food for thought. Keep up the good work.

June 5, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterWill79

To take will79's point one further, I find Nancy's interruptions not just annoying; I think they make the show completely unlistenable. Before anyone says "then why are you listening in the first place?"...trust me, I'm not. After my very first attempt at getting through this awful show, I kissed it goodbye and moved on. But, on occasion, it pops up in the stream during the inception radio lineups on the Shoutcast app.
I even tried listening recently before Nancy had a chance to interrupt Bill on a night where the topic seemed especially interesting. Before I could even get settled in to give a listen, Nancy chimed in with a 5 minute segue about The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz! Even SHE lost track of the point she was trying to make. Which brings us right to the heart of the problem. If Nancy can't keep even keep up with the plot, how on earth is the LISTENER supposed to?!? For anyone who suggests this merely a stylistic attempt at avoiding a scripted sounding podcast, I would suggest that MOST podcasts are fairly rough and unscripted already. Therein lies their charm. George Snoory's snoozefest, Coast to Coast, is a poor example. That is almost equally unlistenable as Future Theater.
Until Bill puts a mute button on Nancy's mic to avoid the constant rude and, more importantly, irrelevant conversational detours, Future Theater remains unlistenable.

February 16, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterAtomicCrunch

AtomicCrunch. If you don't like the show, don't listen. It's that simple. The first half hour of the show is supposed to be a conversation with lots of back and forth, cutting off, and finishing one another's sentences. The ensuing 90 minutes puts the guest's feet to the fire. If you listen to the traditional late-night paranormal shows what you tend to hear a lot is some pompous oaf droning on and on in front of a host asking pre-scriptd questions and not challenging or at least picking up on things that don't make sense. When you think about Long John Nebel and Art Bell, you'll remember that they thought nothing about cutting an interviewee off mid-sentence when he or she wandered off topic or simply stopped making sense. George Knapp also doesn't stand on ceremony when there's a point hanging in the air. When you're on his show--and, believe me, I know--you work hard. Why? Because he's a real reporter. Nancy is in that same tradition. She is the ultimate Nancy Drew or the newspaper reporter, which is what she was in her first job, who keeps her interviewee, including myself, honest. If you don't like it, just click on another url.

February 17, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterBill

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Textile formatting is allowed.