FAQ ATTAQ!!

Because of a lot of unfounded and totally rotten attacks have been hurled at us lately, I've decided to write a FAQ that will explain our side of things. I have posted it here:

http://www.ufomag.com/front/faq.html

I think ours is a magazine worth defending, and so that's what I'm doing. Big babies hiding behind avatars and big bullies trying to get attention are on the attack, and I think it's time to fight back.

It won't heal the haters, but it might help clear things up for the more moderate folks who are wondering what in the heck is going on ...

I love it! Especially the part about fat, lazy white men with too much time on their hands and mics.

Good points on censorship too. It always amazes me that some people actually believe that people that don't believe as they do should be censored, sneered at and spit upon.

Also, we now have a place to defend against new lies that will pop up in the future and you know they will.

Ah, yes. The urge to pull a Fey remains strong. Very strong. Must fight urge.

Yeah, fat, lazy white men with mics ought to be...oh...wait a second.

Don't let the psychos, the blowhards, and the EQ-deficient getcha down. They hate themselves when they go to sleep at night because they just lived a lie all day. I dunno if that means you win in the end, but they certainly lose.

Plus, anyone who types an exclamation mark to punctuate that he has decided to grace a forum with his post--clearly expecting applause to follow--buried the fact that so very few people care what he has to say, long, long ago. Possibly, he has some conspiracy theories as to why his phone ain't ringing like it used to. Probably, he's lost all ability to cry.

They not only hate themselves when they go to sleep at night, but all day too. People like that have very low self esteem and have to build up their ego by telling lies and saying mean things about others. Normally that is all they do, it is always hard to find any positive comments from them on anything. Really it is irritating more than anything, Mr. Exclamation Point only attracts the same old group of like 6 people that enjoy building their egos in the same way.

Just read your FAQ Attaq............all I can say is fantastic and dont quit. Obviously, the show and it's popularity has ruffled some feathers.

With regard to your question as to whether or not the beloved Government is lying............absolutly, and I know it for a fact. Nothing pained me more, giving my background, than to admit that everything that I stood for, and believed in, was a total lie.

Go get em guys, I'll be more than happy to help and defend where and when I can. This is an imperfect science on less than the facts, we can never be right 100% of the time.

I have an answer to people who do not like the magazine, do not read it!

I find the show UFO Hunters to be entertaining. There have been some bad episodes (like all TV shows) and the Phoenix show comes to mind. Most of the shows have had some quite interesting information come out of them. I can understand critique on why a show was not as good as others, but to put the whole series down is not fair. Again, the haters can turn the channel and watch Law & Order instead.

I like to be challenged, but I also like to be entertained. The show does both for the most part. I also like to hear Bill's wild theories, and watch the reactions from those around him when he states them. I also like it that the show has improved on itself since it began. I do not like bickering and other reality TV staples, so I do like how the people get along in the show. I can understand disagreements, and the show now knows the difference. (There are a few early episodes that show arguing for the sake of "drama".)

BTW, the one reason I did not like the Phoenix show was the confusion created by the flares that were recorded on video at @ 10PM. Too many people have been confused (and I think that is why the AF dropped the flares) and are dismissive of the more important boomerang object seen at @ 8PM.

The shows I really liked were the following:

1. The glider made of the "flying fish". I also thought it was interesting that the glider landed with its nose in the air. I also laugh at the "experts" calling the gold artifacts flying fish.

2. The Starchild skull. I have been quite interested in this, and ordered Lloyd Pye's latest book on the subject. The sculpted image at the end of the program looked amazingly like the aliens that Travis Walton encountered. I read his second book, and he described the one set of aliens as human looking with large heads, five fingers, and around five feet tall. (He also had an encounter with what are known as Nordics.) The image of the Starchild's head was just like some of the illustrations made by the artist for the book.

3. The X shown in the underwater show. While it is possible for it to be natural, how many straight lines do cross each other like that in the wild? I do hope they get to investigate that one, and we can find out what it is.

4. All the witnesses who have the courage to come forward with their encounters. They are the glue that holds the show together. I think they do need to be commended for coming forward in public for the most cases.

I should add that I do get discouraged when I see people like Lear or Lazar on the show, but I do think the have a right to tell their stories. I have a right to not believe a word that comes out of their mouths. Ditto for the Ed Walters photographs. With all the other witnesses out there, they had to pick him?

Still, not every show is perfect, but I know how I spend my hours on Wednesday nights. Monster Quest, and UFO Hunters!

It's just sour grapes Nancy. I've encountered it time after time in this subject. Envy may also play a big part as well. In my opinion the best way to deal with this is just to carry on doing what you've been doing and continue to make UFO MAGAZINE the success that it is.

Regards,

Philip Mantle.

Thanks for the kind words! I have had second and third thoughts about going public with my anger, but the only alternative was to just sit back and take the insults without comment. That seemed too weak, even for me.

It's also been an education for me in just how dumb some of the haters really are. I thought I'd seen it all -- I've been online since 1994, after all -- but there are people on the History Channel forum who think I am a member of the Corso family.

Why? Because my last item in the FAQ says: Corso. etc. etc. It's a placeholder until I can get the time to write some stuff down, but folks think that someone else has written the questions and is addressing me as Corso. Amazing. True.

I am one to not agree with everything that is on the program, and all one needs to do is read my posts. I do think that if someone does not like the show or its content, they should be civilized about it and debate it nicely. Calling people or theories crazy does not make a good discussion.

When I saw the episode of the golden artifact made into a glider, I was also amazed that it landed with the nose up in the air. Most people who did not agree with the show called the experiment useless and other names. They never did mention the way the model flew, or dismissed it altogether. They also call the golden artifact a flying fish, and that is fine with me. It looks quite unusual for any type of fish I have seen, but I digress.

I love a good debate, but I also do not like people who get mean or just plain snarky (I don't know what other word to use!).

This is a wonderful site for some of us who have handicaps and cannot get out very much. Thank you for keeping us occupied.

Lloyd

How sad that people will attack others, and bring about the point where good people are forced to defend themselves, taking time and energy to do such a write up like you've had to do. I was reading through wondering about my fellow human, and why some believe that some topics are even their business ~ my word, when I saw you even having to defend your husband wearing sunglasses, I had to literally shake my head as I continued reading. I am so sorry that you have to deal with things like this, I truly am. If the lives of some people are so empty that they have to latch on to things such as glasses and blinking to tear down that's just a sad, sad commentary on humanity.

I think the show and magazine are very interesting, and I appreciate being able to be presented with the different theories and views shown within them ~ please don't let the haters get you down, or let them silence you. There are many of us who enjoy and respect the magazine and program, as well as the staff that bring them about.

Hopefully the haters will grow up and open their minds a bit, and you won't have to continue defending yourself/family/staff/work. But if the haters continue, please remember that for each of them, there are far more who support your endeavors.

I plan on ordering the magazine, as it has an interview with Major Kevin Randle. He is well respected and is not afraid to speak his opinion of the state of ufology today. The ufology community does need to clean its own house, just like any other field going through growth pangs.

Too many ufologists also engage in the same name calling tactics as the debunkers. We should never shrink to their level, as that makes us just as bad as those who call us names.

On the other hand, researchers should not be afraid to ask the tough questions and get evidence to back up the claims out there. Too many theories and claims are out there with the flimsiest of evidence, while many do not have any evidence to back them up whatsoever.

This field is heavily based on eyewitness testimony. While I do not want to lament anyone who has the courage to come forward with their encounters, I am one to also like other evidence to help back up the claims. Lights in the sky are always reported, and there is nothing new to add to that. I have always liked the Close Encounter types of reports, as the witnesses get a very good look at an actual craft that may be out of this world.

This is the end of my little tirade, and I hope I did not offend anyone.

kidflash2008 wrote:

I plan on ordering the magazine, as it has an interview with Major Kevin Randle. He is well respected and is not afraid to speak his opinion of the state of ufology today. The ufology community does need to clean its own house, just like any other field going through growth pangs.

Too many ufologists also engage in the same name calling tactics as the debunkers. We should never shrink to their level, as that makes us just as bad as those who call us names.

On the other hand, researchers should not be afraid to ask the tough questions and get evidence to back up the claims out there. Too many theories and claims are out there with the flimsiest of evidence, while many do not have any evidence to back them up whatsoever.

This field is heavily based on eyewitness testimony. While I do not want to lament anyone who has the courage to come forward with their encounters, I am one to also like other evidence to help back up the claims. Lights in the sky are always reported, and there is nothing new to add to that. I have always liked the Close Encounter types of reports, as the witnesses get a very good look at an actual craft that may be out of this world.

This is the end of my little tirade, and I hope I did not offend anyone.

OK, I will use this post to post about my pet peeve. The thing that irritates me is the way Ufologist engage in name calling with other people within Ufology. Yes, I realize there are some nuts in Ufology, but 99% of people are not going to believe their claims with no evidence to back them. The few that do -- they want to believe that way and are using such people to help prop up their own world view. So arguing is senseless, those people still believe as they wish to.

I think it harms ufology (not terribly, but ya know) when people within it are all going after each other. After all, in the end, we all believe something strange is going on and it isn't that hard to simply disagree with someone's theory and not become totally nasty and hateful about it. The way those within Ufology look like a bunch of hateful bickering children bothers me more than the few "nuts" and liars.

Well Said, Ms. Lesley. "Hateful" trumps "kook," always, regarding lack of efficacy. I know the sonsabiotches bring out the worst in me... but still, they have to trifle to "put one o' mine in the hospital before I put one of theirs in the morgue."

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

Alfred Lehmberg wrote:

Well Said, Ms. Lesley. "Hateful" trumps "kook," always, regarding lack of efficacy. I know the sonsabiotches bring out the worst in me... but still, they have to trifle to "put one o' mine in the hospital before I put one of theirs in the morgue."

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

Well, hell yeah! I mean, if someone attacks you first, what choice do you have?

Let's say, ya know, hypothetically, that someone whom you think things have cooled down with, suddenly used a totally different topic (that was completely unrelated) to attack you and mention how they couldn't understand your form of clearly understandable English because it had nothing useful to say -- that person has thrown the first stone and he is deserving of anything he receives. Let's say, he most especially deserves it because you have tried to ignore him for months and have made no vile comments in his direction. He is exactly the kind of hatefulness that keeps the childish bickering going on. Meanwhile, let's also say that this deluded piece of crap has made comments about how others are merely commentators and totally unknowing when it comes to ufology (irregardless their personal experiences), while he spews his commentary endlessly and gives very little, really none, so far as enlightenment on Ufology. Indeed has made comments of how he was attacked and how wrong that was, meanwhile attacking others. Hypocrite is the word.

Wow, Lesley! Some pretty inspired "commentary," I must say. Mouth-breathing nose-bubblers drowning in self-appreciation and inflated sense of self need not reply. Expecting others to validate their world-views they bring knives to gun-fights. LOL!

My best of course to Squidward and Patrick Star; Sponge-bob's left the building replaced by an old Sham-wow.

Hypocrite is the word, a word made flesh all too often in our little community, eh? Arrogant and canted hypocrite is the bull-goosed worst... guys sure they know where the answers must lie, and deluded to insentience by the self-imposed barriers they won't see past, they'd make the rest of us pay for their own inability to find those badly considered answers. They are blind to the idea that it is not answers, at all, but questions with which one makes a progression. Defining them is their willingness to risk losing a foot when they step on a face to make their own, so-called, progression, eh? Use it to lose it.

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

It really irritates the crap out of me because I try to be an adult and move on from past disagreements and then people continue to attack my friends and/or myself and make it impossible to move on. Obviously I expect too much from people to think they will act like adults and move on. Probably I should just ignore it, but like anyone I have a hard time ignoring unprovoked attacks.

Well -- wouldn't want you mad at me, I'll tell you that! [g].

The ufology community is its own worst enemy. It would be nice to get someone of the caliber of a Stephen Hawking to start talking on the possibility of aliens visiting us.

I agree there are many theories out there, but my main beef is they need to be focused with proving the phenomena is real and needs to be studied. The thing is the science community treats the phenomena like it is Santa Claus, and won't even consider taking a serious look at the subject.

When you have John Lear state that the moon has a breathable atmosphere (one of his sites still has that statement) and is still embraced by the UFO community, there is a big reason for mainstream science to treat us like a laughing stock. There needs to be a spokesperson who states: "These people do not speak for all of us".

While I do not have any problem with fringe people and their ideas, I wish there was a more mainstream effort to get to the core issues of proving the existence of flying saucers.

There is nobody respected within Ufology that would take such a statement seriously without any proof. That said, nobody should be excluded from the Ufology community because they have a weird theory. There are a few others that think the same thing as Lear because of the flag waving in what seems to be a breeze on the moon and I am sure other reasons. To me, that is one of the problems within Ufology -- certain ufologists think they are responsible to debunk things when in reality the true debunkers can handle that without their help. It is the job of debunkers, not Ufologists. Except in the rare cases where something has to be debunked to prove a different theory, but there is no reason to attack or try to blackball someone because of a weird theory. Most people only do that because they think it makes them look so much better and smarter, like others are too stupid to figure it out for themselves. I really despise that, the way they try to make it look like they are attacking someone in order to protect Ufology, as if they are the only ones smart enough to figure out what is proven and what isn't.

Too, many presuppose that the sneer-quoted "mainstream authority" is ignorant of the foundations to the UFO question, and so the authorities treat UFOs like "Santa Clause" because they do not remotely accept the premise of UFOs... based largely on that tired and inaccurate canard regarding "lack of scientific evidence."

...Tell a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as truth...

I submit that the "authorities" are only too aware of the premise and provide it with an abundance of "acceptance," acceptance significant enough to provoke a stonewalled cover-up of new information threatening a status quo lucrative for the few. Ironically, even the complete "Condon Report" makes this indication. Condon's errant, obfusive, and negatively canted conclusion for same was a red herring too readily followed by the "mainstream" press.

The authorities know many things, then pretend they don't. They knew AIDS was transmitted in blood products. They knew PCBs are being released into the environment. They knew the economy was teetering. They "know" about UFOs. It's in their own released documents...

They "know."

So says Dolan, Friedman, Maccabee, Sturrock, McDonald, Hastings, Haines, Hynek, Feschino, Clark, Hall,... >>> ...This list could march down the page.

They know. Believing they don't is a just a devise an individual can use to put UFOs at arm's length so as to buffer ones own —too easily threatened— sensibilities, I suspect.

I respectfully disagree with you Leslie on your statement that debunkers are the only ones who should debunk others in ufology. We must ask the tough questions to get to the answers of what is going on. Mr Lear's theory that the moon has a breathable atmosphere is not stoked in any reality. An atmosphere that thick would have made it difficult for the moon to get all its craters as the meteors would of broken up in the atmosphere.

People should have fact checked Bob Lazar's story before printing it as the truth. Look at his pay stub. It states he was paid by the government, when he claims he was working for a contractor. His pay stub would of been printed by his contractor as they would of paid his salary. I noticed that one, and I was in a military post that had civilian contractors. No one made a mention of this rather obvious mistake. That is one of the many problems with Bob Lazar, and the ufology community still embraces him as someone important. (You can tell I am not a fan of Bob Lazar.)

There are others out there who are in the same boat as Mr Lazar. Since there is no real vetting process, people can make all the outrageous claims they want to. If anyone dares question what they have to say, they are immediately labeled a disinformation agent or debunker.

This is an important field, and there are some very solid cases of UFO contact out there. The others who make claims that are never substantiated are wasting the time that could be used to investigate the strong cases.

I am not saying all the fringe theories need to be thrown into the dumpster. There needs to be a group of ufologists who would ask questions and get evidence or other data to verify the claims made by some. If no data or evidence is available, the claim would be filed away in a public forum. If someone does find any new information, then the claim would move into a research area. That is how science is done, and there needs to be a little more scientific method brought into ufology. UFO Hunters does help in this area by offering experiments and testing artifacts.

I don't mind that you disagree. I am sure many would.

I still don't see the necessity of debunking someone like Lear. Most people know that those are wild claims, they don't need to be told that by someone else. Those that do believe, as I said earlier, they want to believe and will continue to do so no matter what anyone says. Often times, debunking (which normally turns into name calling) actually makes people more eager to stick up for crazy theories because they feel that someone they like is being attacked.

There are many problems with Lazar. However, he did say he knew when those things would be flying, he took people out there and they were flying when and where he said they would be. So somehow he knew something.

However, the biggest problem I find with this is that everyone has someone different that they feel is lying or wrong. I have noticed that people can find "holes" in any theory or story that is put out by someone they don't like for personal reasons. Most of all, many of the people that go after others -- it is all they do. So really they are debunkers. You will find that many of these people do very little real Ufology, instead they just talk about how others are doing it the wrong way or are crazy. They use controversy to attract people to their websites and forums because controversy and name calling always attracts more people than sensible discussion. Such debunking does normally degrade into name calling and personal attacks on people who often did nothing more than believe differently than another person. Oh sure, some of those beliefs and theories are crazy, but that doesn't mean they are not sincere and every once in a while some crazy theory may turn out to be right -- it has happened throughout history.

Lesley wrote:

Most of all, many of the people that go after others -- it is all they do. So really they are debunkers. You will find that many of these people do very little real Ufology, instead they just talk about how others are doing it the wrong way or are crazy."

Thank you for saying what many experience as the price for trying.
Words more true have never been spoken.

Fix'

Last night's episode of UFO Hunters is a good example of what the ufology community needs to do. The physical trace and other evidence is tested to see if it really is extraterrestrial. Bob White is one of the best cases out there, as he has a piece of what could be some type of craft or material from the craft. The test results left many more questions than answers, and that is what we need as it cannot be explained away as one of ours.

I agree with what you are trying to state with Mr Lear and his wild theories. I will leave him and Bob Lazar alone and let others judge for themselves. A person like Bob White at least has something very tangible, along with a credible sighting to go with it.

The scientists who came forward should be commended for their courage, and the cast and crew should also be thanked for one of the best episodes of the series yet.