The assertion attacked by Robert Hastings (James Carlson Gets It Wrong Again: Reuters Was NOT Paid to Publicize Robert Hastings’ Investigation of UFO Activity at F.E. Warren AFB in October 2010) in response to my work holds true. Robert Hastings paid to have his article distributed, just as we established in the forum at RU, days before he published his meaningless and incorrect assessment, here: http://www.realityuncovered.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37341#p37341

“Absolutely, yes — that’s exactly what he did; he didn’t pay Reuters outright, however, just as Steve and Ryan have indicated. The distribution that included Reuters Newswire as the primary release manager, was handled by PR Newswire, United Business Media, which has been established on Hastings’ article (see Steve’s commentary above: http://www.prnewswire.com/).”

So, how did I “get it wrong again”?

Answer: I didn’t – again!

(Thanks to Stephen Broadbent for the original comments in response to Hastings’ inability to assess meaning within the english language, a failure that applies as well to his interview with Col. Meiwald, in which Meiwald insists that he knows nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight — a denial that Hastings characterizes as a full confirmation of his and Salas’ depiction of that alleged incident; perhaps he should be more diligent in his gathering of information — he embarrases himself like this repeatedly by refusing to examine in full the evidence arrayed against him, a habit that indicates either his delusional outlook, his arrogant laziness, or his dishonest character — pick one; they all fit.)

Yay! You're paragraphing! Good effort!

Oh, you're still tedious, immaterial, irrelevant, contrived, presuming, biased, insulting, whiny, and without a shred of "there," there; moreover, you are hobbled by a presupposing hubris that things are as you--and a dwindling murder of like-minded crows--wished they were... when they are not. Unfortunate that your dissolving "reality" (to be kind) is manufactured out of whole cloth, but it is not RH who is the gravid psychopath. You only perceive your own spittle flecked reflection... Still... still... improvement, even glacial improvement is well... improvement, so full marks.

Otherwise, your intent is obvious, if failing, and that is the facile and unsupported discredit of a man superior to you in every way, intellectual and otherwise. Why, I'm betting he's even better looking, eh?

Embrace the paragraph... and beyond! You'll be more regular.

...and, I add, any money changing hands--far and away ripped from context by an impacted Mr. Carlson & his few fanboys as impacted as HE is--is only a demonstration that Robert Hastings is a man willing to put his money where his conscience is, and not to buy his way into an unearned publicity regarding something that is not real; I think the intelligent, progressive, and brave person knows that it, and more, is only too real.

Robert Hastings is on the cutting edge of that. A Mr. Carlson can only resent the person informing him that nothing is as a way that it appears to him. Mr. Carlson's resentment is all he has. How sad.

I don't know .. I've got my resentment, Col. Walt Figel's resentment, my father's resentment, and Col. Fred Meiwald's resentment, while you and Hastings and Salas have got ... oh, wait, you don't have any witnesses, do you? At least none who are willing to give you their name...

Ohhhh... I get it now! Mr. Carlson is one of those people who thinks something has to be true because he believes it to be true, not because it has inherent sense or sensibility or can be borne out by the facts, but because the actuality of unsettling antithesis upsets self-interested, parochial, and unbrave personal philosophy or myth. Waiter! Check!

He should disabuse himself of that cowardly notion. Oh, he won't of course. but, he might... or be late for the Bircher rally, eh?

How. Sad.

Ohhhh... I get it now! Mr. Carlson is one of those people who thinks something has to be true because he believes it to be true, not because it has inherent sense or sensibility or can be borne out by the facts, but because the actuality of unsettling antithesis upsets self-interested, parochial, and unbrave personal philosophy or myth. Waiter! Check!

He should disabuse himself of that cowardly notion. Oh, he won't of course. but, he might... or be late for the Bircher rally, eh?

How. Sad.

Maybe if you actually produced some witnesses willing to write out a clear statement, people might believe your claims. The fact that you've failed to even produce witnesses who are willing to give their name is a bit telling, isn't it? It means you could just make something up and call it a UFO, doesn't it? But you guys have already done that, haven't you? At least that's what Cols. Figel and Meiwald insist -- you just neglected to publish that part of the story. You've got quite a national con game going on, don't you? No witnesses, no case, no names, no flying saucers, but you're selling some books, and you keep begging the public for donations ... it's no wonder witnesses will no longer give you their names. You guys clearly can't be trusted! Good job -- that's how you develop readership when you don't actually have anything to say...

Unrequited / Pity Mr. Carlson / Lost in the short grass...

Cheap poetry might help you to sleep at night, but it's not going to convince anybody you're telling the truth...

OK... let's wade some prose:

Carlson: Maybe if you actually produced some witnesses willing to write out a clear statement, people might believe your claims.

Lehm: This is ludicrous where the reader discovers a multi-media panoply of same, in print, on film, broadcast, re-hashed, rife on the internet, discussed reasonable on dozens of boards... with more signing on all the time. Seriously, ludicrous to the point of certification, eh?

Carlson: The fact that you've failed to even produce witnesses who are willing to give their name is a bit telling, isn't it?

Lehm: ...And then doubling down with more of the same. Astonishing. There are some timid persons unwilling to shoulder the tedious burden of persons... well, not unlike a Mr. Carlson, to start... but family, employers, reporters, glib oaths of loyalty when one does something the individual feels he did not sign on for... did I mention Mr. Carlson?

Carlson: It means you could just make something up and call it a UFO, doesn't it?

Lehmberg: The only clear thing here is that that's what the writer would do... but then there's the tricky part of maintaining a duplicity for decades, very high profile... like RH, and fooling all of the people all of the time. The much simpler explanation is the irrational and wholly canted "hurt pouties" of Mr. Carlson.

Carlson: But you guys have already done that, haven't you?

Lehm: One is provoked to ask "why" only because it's suggested that that is what Mr. Carlson would do. Entirely baseless accusations are many times projections of self-involved behaviors. There's a little dime-store psych fer ya!

Carlson: At least that's what Cols. Figel and Meiwald insist -- you just neglected to publish that part of the story.

Lehm: Persons have been recorded saying what they were saying, the reader discovers, and a tad less convincingly with a change of heart or a change of mind as it happens. No apologies needs be made. The moving finger writes and tears won't wash a word of it.

Carlson: You've got quite a national con game going on, don't you? No witnesses, no case, no names, no flying saucers, but you're selling some books, and you keep begging the public for donations ...

Lehm: Right here I'm reminded why it can be so true why some opinions are more like anal pores than others...

Carlson ...it's no wonder witnesses will no longer give you their names.

Lehm: Wait... what? So, witnesses HAVE given their names! Which ones?

Carlson: You guys clearly can't be trusted!

Lehm: Now there's a Pot/Kettle moment that could be a fetching illustration in a textbook somewhere. ...And more projection!

Carlson: Good job -- that's how you develop readership when you don't actually have anything to say...

Lehm: Wow! Another pot/kettle moment even more ironic! [fist pump!] Still, passed the bad "air," what? Only deeper irrelevance. Mr. Carlson should be thanked for playing.

...and then sent on his way with a token for a small fries at a local burger joint.

What is this "multi-media panoply of same, in print, on film, broadcast, re-hashed, rife on the internet, discussed reasonable on dozens of boards... with more signing on all the time"? What exactly are you implying by "timid persons unwilling to shoulder the tedious burden" or "glib oaths of loyalty when one does something the individual feels he did not sign on for"? What do you care for "what the writer would do", or of "maintaining a duplicity for decades, very high profile"? Do you actually think I'm trying to disprove the existence of UFOs? Are you so ignorant of the arguments I've already established?

I don't give a damn about UFOs -- I'm only concerned with people. And all I've done is prove that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are a couple of liars who have invented a case for their own benefit. I did this by talking to their own witnesses, who immediately confirmed my doubts, insisting that both men have indeed been misleading their audience. Since that time, you morons act as if my great crime is to crap all over your sacred belief in flying saucers and nonsense, when I care nothing for your new religion!

For God's sake, man, the very least you can do is learn what it is that I've been talking about for the past three years! I don't hate UFOs, you ridiculous old fool! I hate liars! And I have proven without any doubts whatsoever that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are a couple of frauds! Believe whatever you like -- in your own words "It don't matter..." But if you believe that UFOs took out the missiles at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 in the face of the overwhelming evidence arrayed against it, you are a lunatic who lacks the ability most men of such mature age and consequential wisdom have learned from experience: how to tell when they've been conned!

Every single man who was at Echo Flight has repeatedly insisted that there was no UFO. They have repeatedly insisted that Oscar Flight never went down. As for the rest of your UFO myths and fancies, I don't give a damn enough to even learn something about them, and I have no reason to try and convince you that they are not real. There might be UFOs all over Antarctica and Memphis, Tennessee and I wouldn't know anything about it. I wouldn't even be interested that much unless they were landing in my backyard. I don't believe in them, but I don't care a whit that others do. It simply isn't that important to me, which I suspect is the actual reason for your aggression -- you're angry because I find your sacred beliefs so easy to dismiss, whereas you have no will to examine them at all, merely accepting every tale you hear from whatever source as a true account.

I don't know much about UFOs. But I know a lot about people. And I know for a fact that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are frauds and liars -- I have proven this many times over; I even have emails from Hastings in which he has repeatedly lied -- written claims that are made up of conscious, easily provable lies. If you're not bright enough to figure that out, than I pity you for lacking the will to examine the real fruits of your faith.

Here's something you might consider: if Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have all these "witnesses" who can allegedly confirm what happened in March 1967, then they should get those witnesses to write out a clear statement saying so. That would not be very difficult for an honest man to produce, I would think. That is, in fact, exactly what I've done in reverse. The only two witnesses who were at Echo Flight have both insisted that there were no UFOs present. They have both added (and theyt weren't even asked this part!) that Salas and Hastings are lying about it. There's a lot more evidence to support this fact, but you wouldn't know anything about that, because you don't care for evidence; you don't give a damn that this myth of missiles and saucers was invented from the pathetic dreams of old men who want to be the center of attention for a crowd of men and women who lack the reason to determine fact from fiction on their own. Are you actually so arrogant as to believe you know more about an incident than those men who were there to witness it?

The facts are easy to determine if you have the will to study them. I don't care about UFOs and I don't give a damn about you. You're just a follower without the wits to determine when you're being lied to, and you don't have any real desire to confirm or otherwise examine your beliefs. All you do is slow people down, and prevent them from learning anything, but that's pretty normal for people who have nothing but their faith to rely on. You believe what you want -- don't bother to even attempt to confirm it. but don't expect everybody else to fall in line behind you. You guys have been trying to establish your beliefs as something reasonable for 60-odd years and you've done little more than fail and collect scraps of paper along the way. As a result of this, you no longer have the desire to prove ANYTHING; you just accept whatever you're told, the lame remnants of those who once had some desire to prove a case using withnesses, documents, and purposeful endeavor, but are now reduced to believing anybody with a happy tale to tell.

Well, I don't have the time or the will to waste on people like you. Go play with your saucers and moonbeams, boy. Some people still want to know what your witnesses have to say for themselves, not what a couple of frauds and liars want them to think happened 45-years ago. If you ever feel like talking to the men who were actually at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, feel free to ask them. They're easy enough to find, and they don't mind talking to those who have no desire to turn their lives into the fictional toys and playthings of frauds like Hastings and Salas.

As for the rest of your little UFO games, I'm not interested. I might caution you, however, to believe only what you can confirm if you expect to earn more from others than contempt. Of course, if the only thing you really expect to get for your faith are a few converts, actual facts being worth so little to you, do as you like. Your myth-building is merely a distraction, since you're just another follower with more concern for the fable than the fact.

Nice paragraphery! I didn't read it too closely; I mean how much tortured dross and self-flagellation can one be expected to endure (I mean, consider you have to live with yourself). I suspect, though, that it was a long peon to your personal tediousness, intellectual cowardice, and lack of constructive imagination, but that will have to come from another reader, one with a penchant for 2D literary moopery and an especially flaccid wit. Enjoy your fries. There's a good boy.

Seriously, I'm reminded of a naughty dog who's been into the garbage and his disgusted owner has to dig used dental floss out of his butt. Pack a sock-roll into it, can't you? Rhetorical question...

That's about what I expect of people who refuse to examine their own beliefs -- they refuse to examine the arguments of those they imagine are taking those beliefs apart, even though they're quite willing to slander them and their families in a public forum in the process. You're a buffoon, Lehmberg -- Robert Hastings' pet; you don't care to look at facts and arguments and reason, because you react only when Hastings reacts. You don't even feel the need to address those arguments, or learn something about them before you attack, and your responses above make that characteristic of your aggression transparent. If you ever care to climb off of your little cross and talk to people as an adult, you know where to go. Some advice if you decide to do that: leave your thesaurus at home; your use of language is a clear defense mechanism used to hide your ignorance of the subject of discussion, one that insists, "I don't know what we're discussing, but I'm not stupid." Unfortunately, all you've done is show the world that you don't understand the difference between stupidity and ignorance, something we already know from you unwillingness to learn anything at all about the cases you discuss.

Ahhh... Mr. Carlson, epic proof that as individuals we really are "the alone in flight to the alone." You see, apart from a few dense and unimaginative fan-boys like yourself? You. Are. Alone. Alone with no one to appreciate your "better sense." Alone with with a tired consortium of fading personal beliefs. Alone with a brittle reserve of unsupported personal conjecture. Alone in anger. Alone in outrage. Alone in facile futility. Alone. Alone. Alone.

...must suck to be you, eh? You can have the last word.

Well, since you don't bother to read or otherwise examine anything contrary to your beliefs, who gives a damn what you think?

Thanks for that slight bit of consideration, though... It's much more than Robert Hastings was able to provide: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/01/fe-warren-new-echo-flightnot-hardly.html

"Well, since you don't bother to read or otherwise examine anything contrary to your beliefs, who gives a damn what you think?"

Well, Sir. in evaluation of the turbid girth and graceless hoist of your porcine commentary above? You do.

You get one last word. You don't get two last words. We'll let stand the entirely and satisfyingly dipterous (sic) content of the link above, though without concern, consideration, or contempt, just an incredulity that such gravid ignorance can be so arrogantly uninformed, and then be so gleeful in it. Just rolling around in the santorum of it...eh? Pretty nasty.

Ok -- you can have the last word...again...but just one remember. There's a good lad.

Gene Steinberg and Chris O'Brien tried to characterize Mr. Carlson as a stalker, reasoning that he was just another Emma Woods. "Bob" Salas is asked to meet David Jacobs "after class" at Jacobs's recent MUFON presentation. In the audience is an abduction hypnotist recently interviewed by Bill and Nancy Birnes.

Jacobs no doubt gave Salas disinformation pointers on dealing with "stalkers." That's what the UFO Community calls people who report disconfirming findings.

Apparently, Mr. Lehmberg's and the Birneses' support of Woods was a hoax. UFO Magazine, abducting the career of Benjamin Simon, has double-downed on hypnosis, as has Stanton Friedman, using the same tactic. It is a classic example of honeypotting dissent, sweet-talking it into a corner to regain control of the narrative.

The paranormal botnet has evidently colonized Mr. Lehmberg whose cheap shot psychological warfare doesn't even attempt to disguise his janus-facedness. Ideas have consequences, Mr. Lehmberg. There's no difference between a global threat enunciated by ex-military and a global threat enunciated by a hypno-charlatan. They both end in global war. Which is I guess the goal. I don't know what we're supposed to do with aliens scoping our nukes. It ain't apparently a Billy Meier worship session.

What do you guess we're supposed to do? Kiss them?

If you're going to do psi ops with Jacobs and these half-assed, psi ops peices of trash, at least put some stinking effort into it. Don't let your people get caught on film.

The alien being is a psychological weapon. You double-clicked on the exec file, Lehmberg. Now your computer is infected. You are going to pump out the same psychological warfare trash the UFO Community has vomited for fifty years.

But at least you're original.

Maybe cosmic watergate isn't a cover-up of the existence of alien beings but a cover-up of the nonexistence of alien beings. Since you're trying to spook us all into a galactic war, maybe you should shiver on that one a while. And maybe contemplate your own role in it.

As to the Botnet, I recommend installing some anti-spyware software.

@ CoF -- Convenient, I know... but honestly, abundantly abstruse, this went way over my head. I don't have a clue what you may be on about here, but an upcoming issue of UFOM might clue you to what I'm on about. I've an article in there that closely follows its essay map, eh? I'll at least be original, as you said, and, just one man, original will have to be enough. You appear to offer no discernible alternative.

That said, David Jacobs (in my opinion), pretty clearly not even believing the substance of his own narrative, is a sugar-sweet psychopath who threw a sincere and trusting woman in his charge (EW) under a psychological bus when he informed her, authoritatively, that she had a serious mental disorder requiring hard drugs and years of therapy when he knew that that was untrue. I'd say "physician, heal thyself," but David Jacobs is no physician.

Carlson, on the the other hand, seems to be a dime-store reactionary denialist without imagination or aspect who doesn't like the facts as they are presented and would deny those facts with mendacity, malevolence, and an annealed intellectual myopia, only. He would seem to be the one vomiting in a manner of your last "fifty years," rather like the late Philip Klass... but without Klass' charm. Now, that's funny.

For my part, I'll just plug along as I have, thank you, and take your commentary with the biggest salt-lick I can find, OK? Glibness does not equal correctness, and thin insult proffered first is no bridge to understanding; it's a tottering pier in sad need of urgent repair. Too, I'll continue to stand with Friedman, Dolan, Feschino and a very circumspect Robert Hastings perceiving that I am well served, adequately provisioned, and provided with a firm foundation as regards "the greatest story never told." What else can a reasonably intelligent man, aspiring to bravery, do?

When you pony up the alien you'll be entitled to your pomposity. That demonstrates just how lazy you are. You don't have to provide proof just evidence. But more is required. So, since you won't provide what is needed, I suggest you hoax it as you've hoaxed your advocacy of hypnosis victims. You're a pretty good artist. Go ahead. Do it.

And when you pump that fake out like you've pumped out your fake moral rectitude I will tear it limb from limb.

Let me repeat what the operative words were since you were obviously too consumed by UFO nutcasedness to hear it. I understand. You have books to sell, interviews to do, people to see. This is your career, selling this bullshit. I get it.

The MUFON LA video of David Jacobs's recent presentation featured the following words uttered by the devil himself:

"Bob Salas, meet me after class." So Mr. Salas evidently was at the MUFON Conference some of your cohorts were advocating boycotting. He apparently did not share your feelings of disgust about Jacobs. What does it say to your conscience that these American heroes have no qualms about a hackjob repackaging the revictimization of sexual abuse victims as carnival alien abduction scenarios perpetrated by "alien" sexual predators?

I'll tell you what it says to me. The UFO Community is Penn State University in a cracked mirror.

Now is it that reasonable minds can disagree or are you soft on terror? I think it's the latter. I think you're a cream puff. I think you want to sell UFO books and go on lecture tour. You won't be able to battle Jacobs being a UFO salesman, brother. Eventually, you have to do the conference with him or you're not sticking with the narrative.

Maybe you need to meet Mr. Jacobs after class as well. He's got the business plan. Although you do a damn fine job of it yourself, he can school you on the proper way to humiliate dissenters. It'll be a study hall full of all the people you say you don't like, Gene Steinberg being the hall monitor and all.

The game's not rigged? Bullshit. Jacobs has Salas' butt covered. With the above rant, you bend over backwards to kiss both backsides. Congratulations Junior. You follow the saucer around enough you ultimately find out you've been led by the nose. That's you.

I don't care who your heroes are. They don't show the alien. They don't show the saucer. They sell them. They're like rip-off artists selling speaker systems at the seven-eleven. The boxes are empty. They don't bother even hoaxing the damn alien. They know how stupid people are.

You're playing for the crowd. Nothing to worry, they're all in. But why did Jacobs get away with what he did? Because he didn't have to show the alien.

You assert you don't have to either. You win the cigar! It's a 2012 baby rip-off. But once you get outside the containment field, the little UFO Honeypot that is UFO MAGAZINE, it's you who people wonder what the fuck about.

If you don't know what a honeypot is, or what a botnet is, you're in trouble brother. Because the people you've been battling do know. No wonder they took down your internet.

You have no idea what the stink you're doing, do you?

Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to fight you. I'm going to fight your beloved heroes. I'm going to pull the little alien out of the ship. I'm gonna gut it and I'm going to show who's inside the suit.

And if it's you, then we'll all get a good kick out of it. But it's not. You're just so wracked with source confusion you've got vertigo. There's no other explanation for your offensive hypocrisy.

"Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to fight you. I'm going to fight your
beloved heroes. I'm going to pull the little alien out of the ship. I'm gonna
gut it and I'm going to show who's inside the suit."

That's a lot of big talk, "Concatenation boy"--which is a study in irony, actually, because you "line-up" exactly bupkis, yourself... no, like all others of your touchy and inordinately reductionist aspect, you would try to prove a zero-sum negative where even men like M. Kaku to Edgar Mitchell reason that "they" must be out there. That's pretty stupid right on the face of it, eh?

Yeah -- I'll fight you. I'll be your huckleberry! Here's what you have to do. Man, or woman, up! Identify yourself! Identify yourself so if I crater you as I fully intend to do? Everyone will know it was you begging for me to urinate on your tiny, unbrave, and irrelevant little fire--or whimpering while you run away, tail tucked over your inadequate little penis squealing like Ned Beatty.

See, any slop-dodged and malicious garden-troll miscreant can sling crap from a COWARDLY defilade, but it takes real courage to say what you have to say toe to toe and eye to eye; so, at least have the courage of James Carlson--who seems to be only an intellectual coward--sign your name! Then, I'll clear my calender for you, and do everything I can to clean your CLOCK! That's the deal, or you can just piss off with all deliberate speed.

"Meet me after class," my shiny metal ass. Meet ME in the street! I don't make time for loud-mouthed puppets. Posted.

Too, as I re-wade your fulsome and mendacious mewl above, and spinning up on HPs and Botnets, I feel provoked to affirm that anyone can feel free, at any time, to take any steps they may feel are necessary or effective to discredit, dishonor, or humiliate me. Bring. It. On. I am confident that it will be turned around to do the exact opposite. See, I've already had the worst, eh? Ask the perpetrator of that initiative how it worked out for him. Limb from limb? I feel remarkably whole!

Who are you! Name, address, and E-mail! You have mine! Your bot-net told you, eh?

Well? Let's see what's fake about me, sock-puppet boy.

Line for line:

SPB: When you pony up the alien you'll be entitled to your pomposity. That demonstrates just how lazy you are. You don't have to provide proof just evidence. But more is required. So, since you won't provide what is needed, I suggest you hoax it as you've hoaxed your advocacy of hypnosis victims. You're a pretty good artist. Go ahead. Do it.

LEHM: You would have me produce the "alien." Check your oxygen. Forgetting that's as ludicrous as any of Carlson's conjectures... say I did. Wouldn't you just move the goalposts and accuse fabrication or genetic monsters or hoax? Sure you would. Why? Because everything in your timid little world-view has to fit. Hoaxed advocacy? Well get to that in a minute. Proof, is evidence one accepts as proof, birdbrain, in a sufficiency to indicate same. ...And stuff your complement on my artistry.

SPB: And when you pump that fake out like you've pumped out your fake moral rectitude I will tear it limb from limb.

Lehm: Tell you what. You blow a soccer ball out of one of your more enlarged pores and I'll see what I can do about producing an alien. Nothin' fake about my moral rectitude, little buddy. And "limb from limb" is facile hyperbole you will neither achieve or even approach as you discover.

SPB: Let me repeat what the operative words were since you were obviously too consumed by UFO nutcasedness to hear it. I understand. You have books to sell, interviews to do, people to see. This is your career, selling this bullshit. I get it.

LEHM: You are so deliciously uninformed it's effortless to turn your blaring little horn into a rusty funnel. No "books," cousin! "Interviews" are free, few and far between. People to see, sure... but then there YOU are. Whiny, cack-witted, obstreperous, and congenitally "wrong." My "career" of flying helicopters in combat and washing piss-wits like you out of the Army's only Warrant Officer Candicate School, is over. It remains only to punch my way out of your confining little box for a different consciousness more intelligent, progressive, and brave than you indicate. You, on the other hand, provide no service at all. You are the fraud, eh? What stupefying irony!

SPB: The MUFON LA video of David Jacobs's recent presentation featured the following words uttered by the devil himself:

SPB: "Bob Salas, meet me after class." So Mr. Salas evidently was at the MUFON Conference some of your cohorts were advocating boycotting. He apparently did not share your feelings of disgust about Jacobs. What does it say to your conscience that these American heroes have no qualms about a hackjob repackaging the revictimization of sexual abuse victims as carnival alien abduction scenarios perpetrated by "alien" sexual predators?

LEHM: No, I suspect Mr. Salas, an exhaustively vetted Atomic Missileer, Air Force officer, retired big-project state civil engineer, and retired high-school math teacher--husband father—forgetting he's five times the man you appear to be—does not share my disgust and disappointment with David Jacobs. You imply a scorched Earth policy I must of needs employ or be a hypocrite! That is the soul of irrationality and a tactic I submit that only you seem willing to employ. I spent about a decade in the camp of Jacobs myself and can report that he is, in my opinion, a very effective and convincing psychopath. I fought his battles. I bought his books. I can understand the attraction once under its spell myself. I would be in his camp still... ...but I was quick to make short work of Emma Woods myself and studied the evidence of his infidelity... ...she had him on un-redacted tape! Truth is truth even if you have to rethink your meme plot. Mr. Salas has yet to make the wade I made. I shall not fault him for loyalty to one he might believe to be his friend. I reject your assessment of me for his assessment of the situation, out of hand. I resent it, moreover. Salas remains a fine man, a hero, and a brave person to be admired—a man telling what he intelligently believes to be the truth. Your antithesis, in all candor, can kiss my ass.

SPB: I'll tell you what it says to me. The UFO Community is Penn State University in a cracked mirror.

LEHM: Forgetting you make that leap pretty quickly, I remind you that it is also a convenient leap intimating an either/or fallacy likely as inaccurate as it usually turns out to be, eh? Moreover, your "community" is as quick as it is legendary to make division in an aggregate community, but only to excuse a cowardice as wide as it is deep. That's being fair.

SPB: Now is it that reasonable minds can disagree or are you soft on terror? I think it's the latter. I think you're a cream puff. I think you want to sell UFO books and go on lecture tour. You won't be able to battle Jacobs being a UFO salesman, brother. Eventually, you have to do the conference with him or you're not sticking with the narrative.

LEHM: Wow! You've got your contrived little straw-man all cobbled together, don't you! UFO salemen? Soft on "terror." Book selling. Lecture tours. Co-conferencing. Only... ...try to substantiate any of that and discover a badly drafted candle in windy rain. Seriously, your straw-man catches fire with the nonexistence of your characterization of me as a salesman. I'm just writing my conscience, I don't know what you do... justify your lack of constructive imagination? There are no books. No lecture tours. I can rule out co-conferencing with Jacobs. If I'm a cream-puff, snuggy-bear, you're the empty hole in a cheap do-nut.

SPB: Maybe you need to meet Mr. Jacobs after class as well. He's got the business plan. Although you do a damn fine job of it yourself, he can school you on the proper way to humiliate dissenters. It'll be a study hall full of all the people you say you don't like, Gene Steinberg being the hall monitor and all.

LEHM: All at once or one at a time, pal. Just like with you, eh? They all go down pretty easy. You do, too.

SPB: The game's not rigged? Bullshit. Jacobs has Salas' butt covered. With the above rant, you bend over backwards to kiss both backsides. Congratulations Junior. You follow the saucer around enough you ultimately find out you've been led by the nose. That's you.

LEHM: While you're the facile cack-wit only slinging shit undercover and out of sight? Myself, I don't know from "rigged games." I just know that I'm not rigged. That's all that is required for my part. You on the other hand, are in the employ of caustic reductionistas who don't want to re-think their failing prerequisites. It's pretty obvious which protuberance you're led by and all they need is tweezers... and a microscope, Ace, if the water's cold.

SPB: I don't care who your heroes are. They don't show the alien. They don't show the saucer. They sell them. They're like rip-off artists selling speaker systems at the seven-eleven. The boxes are empty. They don't bother even hoaxing the damn alien. They know how stupid people are.

LEHM: As I pointed out above... I offer that it would do no good to produce alien, saucer, or ray-gun. Your lot just raises the net or moves the posts, eh? No... the real rip-off artist is yourself, boyo. You're the one so furiously and busily working so honest persons won't feel compelled to "look."

SPB: You're playing for the crowd. Nothing to worry, they're all in. But why did Jacobs get away with what he did? Because he didn't have to show the alien.

Lehm: Uh... I'm playing for myself. Anyone who likes the tune can listen in... Jacobs gets away because he is clever, convincing, and glib. Aliens have nothing to do with it.

SPB: You assert you don't have to either. You win the cigar! It's a 2012 baby rip-off. But once you get outside the containment field, the little UFO Honeypot that is UFO MAGAZINE, it's you who people wonder what the fuck about.

LEHM: No, warm-stubble, I assert that I can't possibly produce an alien, and what strange mechanics those would be, eh, if I could? Oh, and Winnie the pooh has all the honey-pots.

SPB: If you don't know what a honeypot is, or what a botnet is, you're in trouble brother. Because the people you've been battling do know. No wonder they took down your internet.

LEHM: I spun up and the answer's above. If it's a threat? Bring it on, like I said.

SPB: You have no idea what the stink you're doing, do you?

LEHM: Perhaps not, but Summa college graduate, combat aviator, service school Commandant, and career Army officer argues effectively against it. It trumps you, anyway.

SPB: Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to fight you. I'm going to fight your beloved heroes. I'm going to pull the little alien out of the ship. I'm gonna gut it and I'm going to show who's inside the suit.

LEHM: Uh-huh... answered above... but good luck with that.

SPB: And if it's you, then we'll all get a good kick out of it. But it's not. You're just so wracked with source confusion you've got vertigo. There's no other explanation for your offensive hypocrisy.

LEHM: Well just tout this last as something else easily sucked from underneath a dirty hang-nail; for zero points, objectives not met, goals not achieved, and as far from "torn limb from limb" as it is possible to get. I remain decidedly whole... Hey! Maybe you can talk Carlson out of that token for a small bag of chips. You're dismissed. I'm not going to slap you around any more until you reveal yourself, but this will bring us up to date.

Now. Who. Are. You. Step up or step off!

God, I have just realized why Dr. Jacobs made the comment asking Mr. Salas to meet him after class. I was a bit late on the uptake. He has no shame.

"Apparently, Mr. Lehmberg's and the Birneses' support of Woods was a hoax. UFO Magazine, abducting the career of Benjamin Simon, has double-downed on hypnosis, as has Stanton Friedman, using the same tactic. It is a classic example of honeypotting dissent, sweet-talking it into a corner to regain control of the narrative."

I am not entirely sure if I understand correctly what you said. However, am I right in thinking that you mean that UFO Magazine supports the use of hypnosis, and that therefore their publishing Jeremy Vaeni's article about my case was hypocritical and a hoax, as the article is against the use of hypnosis?

If that is what you meant, I think that it brings up two different issues.

I think that what happened in my case highlighted on one hand the, in my opinion, misuse of hypnosis in abduction research as a memory retrieval tool. This is an opinion that Jeremy Vaeni and Jeff Ritzmann of the Paratopia show both share. However, my understanding is that Alfred Lehmberg, and possibly Bill and Nancy Birnes, may not share that opinion, although I could be wrong. I respect their right to have a different view on it, even though I personally think that hypnosis has no place in this research.

What happened in my case also highlighted the issue of the lack of protection that experiencers have as human research subjects, and consequently how Dr. Jacobs was able to get away with, in my opinion, egregious psychological abuse. This is a separate issue to the use of hypnosis as a research tool.

Alfred Lehmberg recognizes the serious abuses that Dr. Jacobs perpetrated, and it is my understanding that Bill and Nancy Birnes wanted to bring the issue out into the open to be examined. This is separate to the issue of the use of hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool, or the acceptance of the standard abduction narrative as real.

Personally I do not see Bill and Nancy Birnes' running of Jeremy Vaeni's article, or Alfred Lehmberg's support of me, as honeypotting dissent. I think that they genuinely see the issues at stake regarding the protection of human research subjects, even though they may have a different opinion) on the use of hypnosis, and that they are acting in accordance with their own genuinely held views. I am grateful to them for that.