JASON COLAVITO
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Jimmy: The Secret Life of James Dean >
      • Jimmy Excerpt
      • Jimmy in the Media
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
      • James Dean, The Human Ashtray
      • James Dean and Marlon Brando
      • The Curse of James Dean's Porsche
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
        • Volume 23 Archive
        • Volume 24 Archive
        • Volume 25 Archive
        • Volume 26 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
      • Ancient Apocalypse
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Eridu Genesis
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Resurrection of Marduk
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Zoroastrian Fatal Winter
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Fragments of Artapanus
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Fragments of Bruttius
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Byzantine World Chronicle
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Chronicle to 724
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Pseudo-Diocles Fragmentum
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • Popol Vuh
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Atlantis as Biblical History
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Atlantis and Nimrod
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and Hanno's Periplus
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
          • Amazing New Light (Hoax)
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • History of Paleontology
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • Arabic Names of Egyptian Kings
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • America Known to the Ancients
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Remarkable Discoveries Within the Sphinx (Hoax)
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • The Shaver Mystery >
          • Lovecraft and the Deros
          • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • CIA Search for the Ark of the Covenant
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • The Fall of the Sky
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Poltergeist UFOs
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search

Nick Redfern, U.S. Government Documents, and Arabic Pyramid Myths

6/24/2015

137 Comments

 
At this point I know better than to take anything Nick Redfern writes at face value, but I was quite shocked at his apparent lack of reading comprehension, as well as his descent into David Childress-style recycling of his own earlier work. In a new article posted at Mysterious Universe, Redfern recapitulates, often point for point, portions of a 2013 chapter he published in Lost Cities and Forgotten Civilizations by Michael Pye and Kirsten Dalley (Rosen Publishing) in 2013. Anyway, I read the piece because it promised a wacky theory about the pyramids, but instead it merely revealed the sad case of an apparently paranoid man who imagined he unlocked the aliens’ master plan. The man in question was Bruce Cathie, who died in 2013, and who believed that “harmonic mathematics” proved the existence of a world energy grid that powered flying saucers (which he speculated came from the Venus of Theosophy) and allowed the construction of the pyramids.
To our purpose, Redfern makes a big deal out of a set of Department of Defense Intelligence Agency documents typed up in Cathie’s native New Zealand in 1968, when Cathie tried and failed to interest the U.S. government in his earth-shattering theory. If you look up the documents online, you’ll often find them labeled “recently declassified” (Redfern called them “formerly classified” in 2013), even though they are marked “unclassified” and form part of a large corpus of reports government officials routinely take from members of the public who think they’re being helpful by sharing their lunatic ravings. (I do not have have high resolution copies to see whether the classification marking was changed at some point.) Redfern mistakes the DIA’s obligation to file pro forma reports for government investigation of Cathie’s theories: “the fact is that they attracted a great deal of interest, including government and military interest – which is my specific reason for writing this article.” Or, in 2013, he claimed they were “deeply fascinated” with the world grid theory.

No, they really weren’t. The obviously uninterested author of the various DIA reports (online here) delivered polite but pro forma responses to Cathie’s claim to have New Zealand government authority to conduct his research into UFO energy grids: “Captain Cathie was advised to submit any additional information he might have. He did, under cover of his letter of 18 January 1968.” Entrusting mind-blowing cosmic secrets to the postal service?! How dastardly! The author, Col. Lewis H. Walker, adds that he found Cathie to be “intensely sincere in his efforts.” But his responses grow increasingly exasperated over time.

Redfern claims, wrongly, that Cathie “entered into extensive correspondence with American military (and NSA) officials,” as though this were a mutual relationship toward some productive end. Indeed, in 2013, he described the government as having a “keen interest” in Cathie. Instead, the DIA (not the NSA) recorded that in the three months following his letter of January 18, Cathie contacted the DIA “3 or 4 times by telephone” to update the DIA on his world grid theory, and the final time to request that they off U.S. Navy goons he had become convinced were watching him. Let me make it clearer: The DIA report wrote that “these conversations were ignored” each time Cathie called to delve “into considerable detail” about his latest ravings. Redfern can read that as well as I can, and he chose to omit that fact.

Is that not clear enough? Oh, well, let’s make it clearer and show what Redfern purposely left out. Col. Walker, the U.S. Defense Attaché (DATT) in Wellington, summarized the report as follows: “The DATT made no reply to the request. This man is obsessed with his theory, and no amount of argument can convince him that he has not stumbled on a highly complicated system which he says leads directly to the existence of UFO’s.” Is this the language of someone “deeply fascinated” by the world grid UFO theory?

Sadly, Cathie did not give up, and in July he sent still more correspondence, which forced Walker to forward the correspondence up the chain of command for evaluation—but not because of UFOs. This time Cathie started to claim that he had discovered a mathematical formula to predict atomic detonations, including a recent test by the French (naturally reported only after the fact), and protocol required that any information about atomic weapons had to be evaluated thoroughly. No one in the Wellington office had the math skills to follow Cathie’s claims.

Redfern says these documents state that the “authorities took an interest in what he had to say.” In fact, the opposite is true: They paint a picture of an exasperated defense attaché trying his best to get rid of a pesky obsessive who had become increasingly paranoid and unhappy that the U.S. wasn’t taking him seriously. One gets the impression that Redfern has never read deeply in the extensive archive of official responses to lunatic ideas received by every government office. I have, and generally they are quite boring. Even Erich von Däniken received a polite but dismissive hearing from a low-level flunky when he tried to give Gerald Ford a copy of one of his books in 1976.

Oh, well. So much for that. Cathie’s theory of the pyramids is mildly more interesting. It relies on the Arab pyramid myth (but of course) and takes literally medieval legends about magic spells. In 2015, Redfern quotes Cathie this way—though I will abridge a bit: “The Arabs have an interesting legend that when the Pyramid was built, the great stones were brought long distances from the quarries. They were laid on pieces of papyrus inscribed with suitable symbols. They were then struck by a rod, whereupon they would move through the air the distance of one bow shot…there is only one answer to the riddle of such construction methods: anti-gravity.” In 2013, Redfern identified this as deriving from the work of tenth century scholar Al-Mas‘udi, which he had never read and knew only secondhand. The claim occurs more than once in Arabic lore, but I’ll unpack this line in just a minute. Let’s first look at the two versions of the claim I know (from several more in Arabic literature). The first is from Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah, writing around 1200, and is quoted by Al-Maqrizi around 1400 (unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own):
The workers had with them sheets (papyri) covered with writing, and as soon as a stone was cut and trimmed, they placed one of the sheets on the stone and gave it a blow, and the blow was enough to make it travel a distance of 100 sahmes (200 spans of the arrow), and this continued until the stone arrived at the Pyramids’ plateau.
The second comes from the Book of Marvels, from somewhere between 950 and 1250, give or take:
It is said that the builders had palm wood sheets covered in writing, and after having extracted every stone and having it cut, they placed over each stone one of these sheets; they then gave a blow to the stone, and it traveled far beyond the reach of sight. They came back close to it and did the same again until they had led it to its assigned place.
I don’t know of any parallel passage in Al-Mas‘udi’s best-known extant work that (briefly) covers the pyramids, the Meadows of Gold. So how did Redfern and Cathie come to believe that he had written the above legend? The answer should be clear to regular readers of this blog: old, outdated texts! There are two possible sources for the attribution. First, some manuscripts of the Book of Marvels wrongly attribute it to Al-Mas‘udi, but this is unlikely to be the direct source since Cathie doesn’t seem to be quoting from the only published edition, which was in French. That leaves the second possible source.

When it comes to Arab pyramid myths, there is no more important source for fringe believers than the appendix to Col. Vyse’s Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 (1840), where a series of Arabic texts are given in summary-translation by Vyse, from notes prepared by Aloys Sprenger, future translator of the first volume of the Meadows of Gold. Sprenger, in turn, attributed the following lines to al-Mas‘udi:
In carrying on the work, leaves of papyrus, or paper, inscribed with certain characters, were placed under the stones prepared in the quarries; and upon being struck, the blocks were moved at each time the distance of a bowshot (about one hundred and fifty cubits), and so by degrees arrived at the Pyramids!
Sprenger’s text, though, wasn’t really by al-Mas‘udi. The mix up was due the fact that he was translating a document called the Akhbār al-zamān, which shares its name with a thirty-volume work that al-Mas‘udi did write, but which does not survive. Many scholars down to the nineteenth century thought the two books the same (a few today do as well), but most modern scholars do not and some even attribute the otherwise anonymous book to Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah, or whoever or whatever gave rise to that (perhaps) fictitious name.

The Akhbār al-zamān and the Book of Marvels are the same book, but Sprenger, who had only one damaged manuscript to work with, muddied the waters some by reconstructing chunks of his translation of the Akhbār al-zamān from Al-Maqrizi, which has left some passages different from how they appear in the later French translation of the Book of Marvels, constructed from comparison of several manuscripts. This was made worse by his choice to offer a summary-translation that does not clearly distinguish between exact quotation and paraphrase.

At any rate, Redfern specifically claims that the text he summarizes came from a “30-volume series of texts” by al-Mas‘udi (i.e. the lost Akhbār al-zamān of al-Mas‘udi), so he must have gotten his information from Vyse’s book, if only secondhand through Cathie. 

137 Comments
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 05:26:02 am

One of the reasons why I believe that Cathie attracted a great deal of official interest was the saga of being "accosted" at a particular hotel. There is far more to this story than is in the public domain. It's the subject of a forthcoming article (not from me, I should stress) that will reveal additional documents in relation to the hotel issue. Cathie did correspond with the NSA, something else that will surface in the article. In addition, Cathie certainly did enter into extensive correspondence and got extensive replies. There is far more than is in the FOIA material, hence my stance. One example of more than a few, being that officials spoke with Cathie about him possibly flying over to the US and speaking with staff at Wright-Patterson who were interested in "anti-gravity" research/theories.

Reply
David Bradbury
6/24/2015 08:51:50 am

"Cathie ... "accosted" at a particular hotel."

Accosted by Americans in April 1968, at the height of the Cold War, and at the height of his very communicative interest in nuclear testing. How strange.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 05:43:20 am

Cathie's research into the "grid" angle and the Pyramids is discussed in a March 1972 NSA document prepared by Lambros Callimahos. It continues that "attention to [Cathie's] continuing work is being encouraged by several sources for [deleted] at FTD [Foreign Technology Division]."

The mistake is in assuming that the online documents are the only ones available.

As an example, the FBI's website, The Vault, is an excellent resource for FOIA material. They have an entire section on Unexplained Phenomena. People might think this amounts to all the UP files the FBI has declassified. It does not.

For example, the FBI has declassified extensive files on the 1950s Contactees, such as George Adamski, George Van Tassel, and George Hunt Williamson. They aren't online at The Vault, however.

The new article (and August 2016 book - again not from me) will go into extensive details as to just how deeply certain agencies were intrigued by Cathie's theories.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 06:39:16 am

The documents are the only ones you quoted or cited, Nick. If you have more information, you ought to have shared it. The documents you did cite say the opposite of what you said they said.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 06:58:37 am

Yes, I did quote only from the documents you refer to. But, I feel they are an important part of the story, because I am absolutely correct in my stance in the article that significant interest was shown by certain agencies etc on a greater, largely unseen, scale. The online documents are certainly not earth-shattering, but they are a part of the development of the saga that led to further files, such as the NSA-Callimahos ones. Those documents are not online. No, I didn't cite that data. Some of it is recently declassified and will appear in that "why governments believe weird things"-type book I mentioned. It's not my book. The files were found by the author and declassified to her, and the full story is hers to tell - in August 2016 (or maybe earlier, knowing how publishers chop and change things now and again). I know enough of the story she has uncovered to say for sure that Cathie was of interest to several agencies/organizations. Again, though, the author places no real significance in the files, preferring to take the reasonable theory that just because Cathie's work caught the attention of people at the FTD, doesn't mean we should then take the leap that the Pyramid stones were levitated. She takes the view that the agencies were as flawed as Cathie was in looking into all this. But the important thing is they DID look. Hence the "why governments believe weird things" subject of the book. Could I have expanded the article into the whole NSA issue, the invite to Cathie to fly over to the US etc? Sure, but it's not my story. It's the author's. A snippet or several in a comment here is no issue. For me to extract 100s of words or more from someone's currently unpublished manuscript and publish it in an online article WOULD be an issue.

Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 07:04:49 am

Tell me the names and/or dates of the documents, and I will request them from the NSA. Public domain material belongs to no one and isn't the province of any one author. Otherwise, this is just hearsay not supported by the documents you actually cited.

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 07:15:41 am

Cool, I'll contact her, as she is sure to have all the info, file names etc for sending a FOIA. I know for sure that at least some of the files were released to her a few years ago, as I have been in touch with her since my "Final Events" came out in 2010 (hence why she interviewed me, on the Pentagon/demonic angle for her book), and she gave me a text snippet from the Cathie documents around 2011/early 2012 or thereabouts. Again, nothing mind-blowing, just someone with an interest in anti-gravity research taking note of Cathie's books. etc.

You say: "Public domain material belongs to no one and isn't the province of any one author." That's true. I assume (correctly, I think) she wants a scoop.
You say:

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 05:54:59 am

You say: "In a new article posted at Mysterious Universe, Redfern recapitulates, often point for point, portions of a 2013 chapter he published in Lost Cities and Forgotten Civilizations by Michael Pye and Kirsten Dalley (Rosen Publishing) in 2013."

So the fuck what? The contract permits me to use the article, and/or portions of it, 12 months after the original 2013 publication. There will likely be many people who read Mysterious Universe who will not have seen the book. So, sharing the data online in 2015 is a good thing. It gets the data out they might not have seen, had they not bought the book. It's simply a case of getting a story out to a wider audience.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 07:08:59 am

You have every legal right to recycle your own content (ask David Childress), but I found it weird that you didn't acknowledge your borrowing with even a cursory "As I first reported..." It's not like I've never repurposed material, but as much as I am able I always acknowledge when material has appeared elsewhere. This isn't always possible, and some publishers won't allow it. For example, Prometheus Books forbade me from including an acknowledgement that some chapters of my first book had started as articles on my original website, over my objections.

Reply
Scarecrow
6/24/2015 06:09:34 am

Hey, is Bruce Cathie worth discussing...

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 06:18:22 am

To most people, I'm sure he's not at all. For a small percentage of people who, like me, follow fringe topics, the answer is yes. It scarcely matters at the end of the day though. Same with any aspect of the paranormal: a minor issue until (or even if) its reality is proved.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 06:34:49 am

The book in question is actually a deeply skeptical look at paranormal phenomena. But with an interesting theme. It's basically a study of "why governments believe weird things." I was interviewed for it about the accounts of the Department of Defense allegedly researching demonic activity.

Reply
spookyparadigm
6/24/2015 09:45:40 am

Ok, now that does sound interesting.

Reply
Duke of URL
6/25/2015 02:04:23 am

I highly recommend this book along that line:
The Bureau of Substandards Annual Report
Chase, Sabrina
Worlds Away Press. Kindle Edition. Amazon.
The author regretfully assures the reader that actual research occurred in the writing of these stories, and that some of them are based on real events. The reader is invited to guess which ones. (Please keep in mind the US Government was involved most of the time.)

three dots
6/24/2015 08:50:30 am

Jason demands: Tell us everything you know in an online post. But when he is critized about his countless typos, mistakes of facts, and non supported opinions he replies "this is only a blog." Hypocrisy. The people here are as empty as Jason. Without Nick and the others of his ilk, you would all have no purpose whatsoever.

Reply
David Bradbury
6/24/2015 08:54:54 am

And without cockroaches, roach exterminators would have no purpose whatsoever.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 09:04:27 am

Bradbury, I'll remember that...

Duke of URL
6/25/2015 02:05:39 am

And David Bradbury earns the Interwebs Riposte of the Day Award!

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 09:02:35 am

Three Dots: Yep, you are correct. I am NOT at everyone's (or indeed anyone's) beck and call - ever. If I choose to write an article that tells part of what I know or all of what I know, it's my choice to take which approach I, and I alone, chose to take. And not the choice of anyone else. I'm quite balanced about how people respond to my articles/books etc. If they like them, that's cool. If they don't, fuck 'em.

Reply
Mark L
6/25/2015 06:53:17 am

Do you not care about making coherent arguments? If you have evidence to back your points up, but only use evidence that directly contradicts you, do you never think "this can be torn apart by anyone"?

It's your choice to take whatever approach you want, and ours to wonder why your arguments are so poor. Cool?

Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 09:18:17 am

I have never said this is only a blog as an excuse for leaving out material; it is sometimes the case that blog posts are rough drafts of undeveloped ideas. But that isn't what Redfern did. He made assertions of fact and did not explain what supported those facts (and indeed has admitted to seeing only selective snippets). Essentially, he asks us to trust him rather than trust the proof.

My typo rate runs less than 0.1%. It lonely looks like a lot because I write 300,000+ words a year.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 09:36:18 am

"Essentially, he asks us to trust him rather than trust the proof."

God knows, a lot of people disagree with my views on various aspects of Forteana (on such issues as the nature of Bigfoot, Nessie, etc etc). But, it's rare that people make comments about me in terms of trust.

Yes, I have seen only snippets and no I didn't explain the background to the book that is coming out next year etc. But so fucking what? I do what I choose to do on my terms and I write what I write on my terms. I'm not obligated to do anything, in any aspect of my life, ever. Fucking ever.

Did I feel it necessary to bring up all the ins and outs in the article? No, because it was just a small article. Had it been a lengthy paper, and had I got the permission of the author to see the additional files in their entirety, and got the permission to present them (unlikely, though, given the book release in summer 2016, and authors are understandably reluctant to get scooped), yes I might well have said something. Or I might not.

But addressing all that in an article, and to where I would be unable to properly expand on it all, would cause more confusion and any commentary would end up like little more than a dangling carrot.

I bring it up here, because questions have been asked etc. But, just because I know more than I published, doesn't mean I am obligated to publish what else I know - and particularly so when their are other factors involved, such as a forthcoming book from someone else.

Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 09:52:19 am

You asked us to accept your word that Cathie had extensive correspondence with the NSA and DIA when the only documents you cited state otherwise. Therefore, you asked us to trust your evaluation against the facts. You are misleading readers if you don't tell them where you got information that they can't see for themselves. Besides, you have a computer. You can damn well file a request with the NSA for the documents. You chose not to, and that's on you. If you wanted to keep your friend's work secret, then you shouldn't have mentioned it. The excuse that something is only "a little article" suggests a contempt for your readers, who get throwaway work you produce for profit rather than purpose, which is another reason your recycling of old material for new profit is problematic. Your concern in defending your methods is constantly with yourself and your rights rather than your impact and effect on your audience. Writers have a responsibility to the publics they serve. Do you suppose your readers know when you are purposely producing scattershot articles for cash and when you are producing quality work to change the world?

Mike
6/25/2015 03:17:50 am

"It lonely looks like a lot.." You have to admit that's pretty funny.

Shane Sullivan
6/24/2015 10:59:43 am

I've seen readers inform Jason that he's made typos quite a few times in the past, and I don't think I've ever seen him respond in any way other than to thank the person and correct the mistake. I also don't think I've ever known him to say "this is only a blog." I don't think I've seen anybody say it, except in answer to people saying Jason shouldn't criticize fringe shows because they're "only television".

So I guess I must have missed something.

Reply
Walt
6/24/2015 03:44:46 pm

He's used the phrase "just a blog" to me in the past, but only in response to critiques of his attitude and professionalism here, not about "mistakes of facts" or "non supported opinions".. Honestly, I don't think he's ever needed to defend himself against the accusation of slipshod work using that phrase or any other.

I could desribe him with quite a few bad adjectives, but he's very logical and thorough. He corrects factual mistakes quickly, and the subject of "non supported opinions" is usually raised by those whose opinions contradict the facts.

Walt
6/24/2015 03:55:43 pm

And for completeness, I should finish Jason's response to my critique of his attitude. Roughly, "this is a blog, if you want more polished, professional work, buy one of my books."

I haven't yet, but I will someday if he writes about a non-fringe topic. I'm still hoping he's heading towards writing the most complete, unbiased history of religion ever.

Only Me
6/24/2015 04:56:41 pm

Walt, have you considered the following books Jason has written:

Knowing Fear
A Hideous Bit of Morbidity
Jason and the Argonauts Through the Ages?

Walt
6/24/2015 05:18:26 pm

I have. Unfortunately, I'm just not interested in those topics. I wouldn't hesitate to buy them if I were. It's probably been over a decade since I watched a movie, or read fiction, which most here probably find shocking and sad.

I do like history so I'd probably enjoy the Argonauts book. I haven't ruled it out, but I just have the feeling he'll ultimately publish multiple books I'll want.

My favorite blogs of his usually end up getting the fewest comments though, so maybe not.

Shane Sullivan
6/24/2015 06:45:13 pm

Ack, I'm an idiot- I remember him saying that now. Something about how he doesn't insert biases into his books like he does with his personal blog. But as you noted, that's a far cry from using "only a blog" as an excuse for lazy scholarship.

Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 11:40:40 pm

Yes, I've said that blog posts are not as thoroughly proofread and elegantly rewritten, and my books tend to be more neutral in presentation than blog posts, which have more personality and opinion (though based on fact of course). None of this is the same as saying I don't thoroughly source and document my claims, or that there is anything factually amiss with blog posts. There's just the reality that I can't spend the same amount of time on the writing of a daily blog post than I can with a book written every 2-3 years.

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 10:17:46 am

You say:

"You can damn well file a request with the NSA for the documents."

No I fucking can't. And here's why: FOIA requests demand that the requester files for specific things.

As an example, the Bruce Cathie files that I cited in the article were NOT found because someone filed a FOIA request for files on Cathie. The request was made - back in the 1980s - for the Defense Intelligence Agency to release its UFO files. The DIA did so, and released around 150 pages. Contained in the package were the Cathie papers. Cathie didn't even know until he was told by colleagues in Ufology. The DIA released the Cathie files when he was alive and he knew nothing of it. They weren't contained in a "Bruce Cathie File." They were in a larger file on UFOs in general.

So, in other words, it was pure chance we got the Cathie files. In similar fashion, for all I know the NSA-Cathie files are contained in a larger file that deals with anti-gravity and are not listed in a file titled "Bruce Cathie." They may be filed in a document collection titled something like "FTD Gravity Research." Or, they might be in a file titled "UFO INvestigator, Bruce Cathie."

But, if they are contained in a file that mirrors the situation with the Defense Intelligence Agency, then it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Do you know how precise you have to be to file a FOIA request? Randomly asking for a name doesn't work, if the file is contained in a larger file with a different title.

I don't know if these other documents reprsent a file on Cathie, or if its part of some odd gravity-based file etc. Maybe its a file on intel reports coming out of 1960s/early 70s New Zealand. It would be a massive task to file, never mind the search-fees that the relevant agency would likely charge to initiate the search etc.

And asking for fee exemptions doesn't always work.

You also say: "You are misleading readers if you don't tell them where you got information that they can't see for themselves."

No I am not misleading them. I am revealing what I can reveal, under the circumstances.

You say: "If you wanted to keep your friend's work secret, then you shouldn't have mentioned it." I mentioned it here, at your blog, because it serves to demonstrate why I felt and feel the Cathie story is important straight.

You say: "The excuse that something is only "a little article" suggests a contempt for your readers..."

Absolute fucking bullshit, I would never ever have contempt for my readers (the bulk of the people who comment here aside, of course). And the "little article" issue is not an excuse. It WAS and still IS a little article!

Reply
Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 10:58:27 am

You didn't tell your readers that you were forbidden from discussing how you knew what you knew about Cathie, and that omission is a problem. You didn't say "as will be reported in a forthcoming book" or whatever; you just asked readers to trust you. Readers can't read your mind.

I'm a bit confused, though: Why wouldn't you be able to request documents that you supposedly saw at least part of? Surely, in having them shown or described to you this would include such basics as their department of origin, title, and date. Do you not know anything about the papers you based your argument upon? If not, why on earth would you decide you knew enough about them to conclude that the DIA documents' prima facie reading is the wrong one?

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 11:25:51 am

Okay, let me explain again, and give a perfect example.

Years ago I got (via FOIA, and as I noted earlier) the FBI's files on various Contactees, such as George Adamski and George Van Tassel.

Then there is the matter of another 1950s Contactee, Truman Bethurum. Some of his writing suggested he had run-is with the FBI, which suggested there was a file on him. I filed, but no luck.

Years later, the FBI declassified its file on another Contactee, George Hunt Williamson. The GHW file contains more than a few pages on Bethurum. The reason being that Bethurum and Williamson, at one point in the 50s, entered into an agreement to do lectures together.

And since the FBI was watching Williamson (for non-UFO reasons) they added the Bethurum material into the Williamson file - a kind of unified cross-referencing.

But, it was only when the GHW file was released we saw that, yes, there WERE FBI papers on Bethurum after all.

The FBI hadn't lied. They searched their file titles and couldn't find one titled "Truman Bethurum" (or similar). The reason being that decades before someone had put the Bethurum papers in the GHW file.

And that's the problem we have: purely as a result of bureaucracy and not conspiracy, very often material is filed under a heading that is not relevant (specifically and directly at least) to the subject you are looking for.

I made the point with the DIA UFO file that was declassified in 1986. It was a request for UFO files. That the DIA files contained documents on Bruce Cathie's pyramid theories resulted in the release of something wholly unanticipated and not directly connected to UFO incidents per se.

And what's important is that the Cathie-DIA files ONLY show up in that 150-page file. There is no separate file for Cathie himself. So, filing for a Cathie file with the DIA will likely not flag anything, even though papers on him are in another file collection.

No, I do not know the titles, nor do I have all the exact dates etc. You have to remember that the woman who is writing the book is...WRITING A BOOK.

She has the files, and she gave me some brief insight when we did the interview for the chapter on the "UFOs are demonic" portion of her book. I can't fault an author for being guarded about sharing info a year or two or three before their book is released.

No publisher will thank its author for spilling the beans a year or so before publication and have someone else jump on it and get their book/story out first. That's the world of publishing, whether books or newspapers, CNN etc etc.

So, yes I could file a request in literal terms. But, without clearly delineated specifics it would be beyond difficult to get anything. The Bethurum case is a perfect example. No-one could find papers on the man because they were in the George Hunt Williamson file.

Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 12:05:12 pm

So why did you base an article on claims from documents you haven't seen in full and can't speak to from firsthand experience, and without telling readers how you gained your secondhand information?

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 01:22:09 pm

"So why did you base an article on claims from documents you haven't seen in full and can't speak to from firsthand experience, and without telling readers how you gained your secondhand information?"

Why??? Because her book is a done deal! This is not a case of someone coming up to me at a conference and making an unsubstantiated claim. It gets published in approx a year from now, maybe earlier. It contains the documents. It's a well known publisher. Basing my conclusions on a done-deal, a to-be-published book etc is totally safe-ground. Which is why I have 100 percent confidence in citing them here at the blog.

Clint Knapp
6/24/2015 02:35:34 pm

So your article is really a promotional piece for a book that doesn't come out for a year. Got it.

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 02:44:17 pm

Knapp, no of course not. My article doesn't even mention the book.

DelayEcho
6/25/2015 07:00:08 am

Wait... So although you know this book is totally credible and solid (not something I'm disputing), and it is the source for the claims in your article seemingly not demonstrated in the already publicly available documents, you don't ever mention it? Not even in passing?
So it isn't a marketing piece for an upcoming book, you just feel like you can make wild claims without providing evidence because *you* know you are right? You just expect your readers to take your word for it, in the hopes that the a significant nonzero amount of the UFOlogical community is to willing to hoover anything up uncritically if you seem self-assured enough. You want to be taken seriously; but you cant or wont discuss your sources and give a laundry list of excuses as to why you shouldn't have to.

That is an attitude that reminds me somewhat of John Keel, whom I am a huge fan of, and his propensity to twist events and fashion mystery and intrigue out of whole cloth to make for an entertaining story.

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 10:34:03 am

Here's what I recommend Jason: get out of the house, knock back a significant and impressive amount of booze, have a good time, get laid, and stop utterly obsessing over my every single word.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
6/24/2015 10:54:22 am

You can join Scott Wolter, Jason Martell, Greg Little, and a host of others who have complained that I am somehow "obsessed" with them for applying basic levels of fact checking to their work. You publish ten times more articles than I bother to write about, and I mentioned this one only because it was about the Arabic pyramid legend, which if you read anything I write other than references to yourself you'd realize is one of my areas on interest. You might prefer to stop bitching at me and recognize that you got the facts about the Arab pyramid legend wrong, too, because you didn't know the primary sources there, either. You might want to try being a bit more obsessive about your own work.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 11:29:46 am

Bitching? No. Giving you what in England we call "a mouthful of verbal"? Yes.

nergal
6/25/2015 07:05:02 am

nick, you have been more active in this comments section than anyone, jason's regulars included
you are obviously rather salty about this criticism, which is why you have expended hundreds and hundreds of words (kinda impotently) trying to defend your admittedly half-assed article instead of, oh i dont know, "having a good time" or "getting laid"
practice what you preach, youve shown up in the comments of nearly every post jason has ever written about you to throw ad hom-esque jabs like this and yell and curse because god forbid someone disagree with you on the internet

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 07:25:08 am

Nergal, no need to worry about me. I am very good at balancing my time, so I have plenty of time to rant here, do some book writing there, get laid, go down the boozer, watch the soccer, and cook dinner. Multi-tasking is important for a busy Fortean!

Mark L
6/25/2015 06:56:41 am

I'm British too, Nick, and I've never heard anyone ever say "a mouthful of verbal". Can you not even get your own country's slang terms right?

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 07:20:16 am

So, you haven't heard it, so what? Maybe it's local to where I live. I can tell you for sure where it came from and me and my mates all used it for years. In December 1976, the Sex Pistols caused outrage on UK TV (the Bill Grundy affair) and Pistols guitarist Steve Jones exploded with the F word into Grundy's face. Afterwards, Jones said of Grundy, "He asked for it and he got it, a mouthful of verbal." I remember at school we all picked up on it and started using it. So it may have been a regional thing years ago. But so what?

David Bradbury
6/26/2015 01:14:13 am

So excessive extrapolation from limited evidence often leads one astray.

Clint Knapp
6/26/2015 11:59:54 am

Nick Redfern lives in Dallas, TX. He's been running the U.S. branch of the Center for Fortean Zoology since 2002. If it's local to where he lives, it's local to Texas.

Local to where he's from would be an entirely different statement.

Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 03:09:31 pm

Yep, my mistake, that should have read "local to where I lived" not "local to where I live." Although I no longer live in Dallas, Texas. I lived there until 2008.

Kal
6/24/2015 10:39:00 am

Wow, someone needs to take a cold shower. Crikey. Actually, a blogger does not equate journalist, so do not worry about facts. These are mostly opinions.

This old nun in Duluth once said to my Mom, who is now nearly 80, 'A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still'.

Cussing does absolutely nothing to prove a point.

The NSA will not care about any fringe alien hunters. Come on. They're much more concerned with what kind of internet cat videos and saucy sites we're into. Alien sex is another matter. They might get a chuckle out of that.

I am a blogger and not a serious journalist here.

"If you can't convince them, confuse them." Garfield.

Reply
Graham
6/24/2015 11:00:39 am

The only thing of interest to come from Cathies theories which were published in books, all of which to my knowledge had the word "Harmonic" followed by a three digit number was the 1985 film "The Quiet Earth" which has human scientists trying to tap into 'the grid' with catestrophic results.

Reply
FrankenNewYork
6/24/2015 12:23:42 pm

I particularly enjoy the floating megalithic rock segments from UFO/AA type programs when they show current "anti-gravity" technology that floats ping-pong balls on sound waves or whatever. True the technology could improve to the point that 100 ton blocks might be floated, but no one seems to discuss how much energy is needed to lift the ping pong ball. Is it a milliwatt? a gigawatt? Is it less than would be needed to just carry it? It can't be raised by producing less "work" (work done = force x distance) than any other device, so it seems questionable maybe pointless. The energy you put in to a system is the energy you get out. That energy needs to be generated by something it could be food for your work force or magic nonsense cosmic stuff and which of those, in the end, is more efficient to produce?

Reply
Duke of URL
6/25/2015 02:10:23 am

It was a really BIG stick...

Reply
gabriel link
6/24/2015 12:36:10 pm

A good writer ought to research his source material thoroughly. It should not matter how difficult it is to obtain. It's there, it's available, no excuse.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 01:26:30 pm

Gabriel, You know nothing of what you're saying. Doing research is one thing. Using the Freedom of Information Act, where you can be charged significant dollar amounts - just for search fees, never mind if they find anything or not - is another thing entirely. It's one thing to request the NSA look for files. They will tell you what the charge is, based on their assessments. Try it and see what I mean. The FOIA is a very good, useful system. But when we are talking about memos and documents, and then those same memos and documents contained in a larger folder of a different title etc, that's when it becomes more difficult and far more expensive. Try it and you'll see.

Reply
Clete
6/24/2015 01:21:46 pm

Mister Redfern, If you would get your head out your ass for longer than five seconds, you would have seen that Jason's whole complaint about you if your failure to cite or verify sources for the total, complete shit you write about.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 01:53:00 pm

Clete, I have explained why I have not cited the sources - they are all contained in a book manuscript that is to be published in the summer of 2016. They are not bogus, not hearsay, etc. It is FOIA material that definitely makes a case of substantial interest in Cathie's theories. The author is almost certainly concerned about how much info gets out in advance, which is understandable. The big irony, as I noted in one of my first comments in this thread, is that she thinks paranormal phenomena etc is all utter bullshit. Her book is about why, in her opinion, all the files, research etc on "the unknown" is a waste of government, military, intel time and taxpayers' money. Hence the phrase I used in an earlier comment, where I used the words, "why governments believe weird things." Based on a few things, I suspect that may very well be the planned title or, at the very least, the sub-title. So, yes she has the files, no I can't cite them until I and all of us see the book. PS: If you want to debate at least have the guts to do so with YOUR FUCKING NAME. What's the fucking issue with so many people here being shit-scared to say who they actually are? Debating people who are determined to have their say, but who won't back it up with a name is undeniably 100 percent, absolutely pathetic shit. Being frightened is not a good image to project.

Reply
Cathleen Anderson
6/24/2015 03:28:00 pm

I think you need to back away from your computer and chill for a bit Mr. Redfern. We have every right to be dubious about your unsupported claims. Personally I think you are making this up about this other author to try to give yourself credibility you are not entitled to because you don't have anything else to support your dubious claims.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 01:58:41 am

Cathleen, that's a pretty outrageous thing to say. The book IS published in August 2016. You and everyone else WILL be able to read it then. Do you really think I would say something like this, and specifically state certain things like when it's going to be published, what I suspect the title or sub-title will be ("why governments believe weird things"), when I met the author, what she interviewed me about, the specific documents she has, etc. People are entitled not to agree with me, or not like what I say or do, but I'm not a liar. Her book WILL be published next year. I was interviewed on the subject of alleged government interest in demonology. I know she interviewed several people who worked on the government remote-viewing program. Etc, etc. Back away from my computer and chill, why? You practically accuse me of being a liar and you expect me to chill and back away? No way.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 02:58:02 am

Cathleen, something else in relation to your "making this up" claim:

I mentioned in a previous comment that the author contacted me after my "Final Events" book was published in 2010.

I also mentioned how we had various exchanges in 2011 and early 2012, which was in person, by email and by phone.

She told me, back then, of some of the data she had uncovered from the NSA on Cathie via FOIA. How can I prove that? Very easily.

Because I published a brief snippet of what she told me (which would have been late 2011/early 2012) in my June 2012 book, "The Pyramids and the Pentagon"!!

In fact, her info and a small snippet from someone else (the latter on an unrelated matter) were added to the final PDF document of the book at pretty much the final moment before the book was due to go to print, which I think was around March 2012, and in time for the planned June 2012 release. So, I would probably have added the data around January/February of that year.

If I was suddenly "making this up" now, how on earth could I have made a brief reference to exactly the same subject (her NSA files on Cathie) in a book which was published no less than THREE YEARS AGO?

The story of the NSA files on Cathie goes back - for me - to 2012. I published a very small piece about it in my book. I'm not entirely sure when she got the files, but she was certainly already in the writing process of her book when she contacted me after the 2010 publication of my "Final Events."

In other words, this NSA-Cathie thing is not something that has just surfaced out of the blue on my part at Jason's blog in the last 2 days. I wrote about it, and her files, very briefly, back in 2012.

Regardless of what you may think of me, I am NOT making this shit up.

Mike b
6/24/2015 02:20:19 pm

Have to give you much credit Mr. Redfern, tho I disagree with what you write about, and a failure to mention primary sources ( which you explained a sound reason for, I think ) you have the courage to defend what you believe in post for post with Jason or anyone else here. The vast majority of people who Jason puts to task never do that. Tip of the hat sir

Reply
Only Me
6/24/2015 02:22:31 pm

"PS: If you want to debate at least have the guts to do so with YOUR FUCKING NAME. What's the fucking issue with so many people here being shit-scared to say who they actually are? Debating people who are determined to have their say, but who won't back it up with a name is undeniably 100 percent, absolutely pathetic shit. Being frightened is not a good image to project."

I'm sorry, Nick, but I disagree with this assessment. Whether or not someone chooses to identify themselves by their real name, it does not validate or invalidate either their participation in a debate or their opinion. It also doesn't signify fear.

Scotty Roberts had a similar complaint when he came to this blog a short while ago. Despite my use of a nom de guerre, we had many pleasant conversations, and he even thanked me more than once for my civility. I understand not everyone using pseudonyms will be polite, but I can assure you, I'm not "shit scared" and yes, I will speak my mind.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 02:35:16 pm

Mike, People may disagree with what I write, what I say, how I approach things, how I reach my conclusions, what I say vs what I don't say, etc etc. But I don't walk away, or hide in a corner, or remain polite if people piss me off. I will say what I think, openly and fully and under my own name. If I offend people, fuck them. If they want to talk shit about me and they won't do it under a real name, it's a very, very pathetic situation. I admit I have significant anger issues. I blow up. That's how it goes. I don't apologize for that. Jason once called me one of the most aggressively unpleasant people he had ever dealt with (or words to that effect - it was pretty close). That's fine with me. I almost took that as a compliment. No, that wasn't sarcasm. If people talk shit about me, how does he or anyone expect me to reply? Sit in a corner, cry and say sorry? I don't think so.

Reply
Will Best
6/24/2015 02:38:49 pm

Nick,

You state that the assertions you made in your article will be backed up in an upcoming book by another author.

Then, you said that no publisher would want an author to spill the beans a year before her book would be published.

If both of those assertions reflect what your true thoughts, didn't you kind of "spill the beans" on your friend?

I mean it would seem to me that you wrote an article about the thesis of a chapter of her book without giving her credit, on advanced knowledge of a book she will be getting published in a year or so.

Not that I am trying to attack here, but it seems like you blew up her spot by writing an article about her original work/ideas in your name, a year before she gets to tell her story through the release of her book.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 02:52:04 pm

Will:

Correct, no publisher would want that. When and where did I say a friend??? A fellow writer I have met twice, the most recent time in 2012. Have I spilled some beans? Sure. But I wasn't asked to sign a non-disclosure. And I have been very careful about what I have said and how much. The Cathie material is one chapter of about (I think) 20 to 25 chapters. It has hardly been compromised.

You say: "...it seems like you blew up her spot by writing an article about her original work/ideas in your name, a year before she gets to tell her story through the release of her book."

No that's totally wrong. As even Jason will confirm, my article was based solely on the FOIA documents and quotes from Cahtie's books. I don't quote anything in the article from her or her research. My opinion that the Cathie data was of interest to agencies and her having extra FOIA data is what led me to state agencies were interested. I deliberately left her out of the article. I only brought it up in the comments to this blog post and nowhere else.

Reply
Will Best
6/24/2015 03:14:41 pm

Look Nick, I really am not trying to give you a hard time about this.

That was just what I took away from your article and comments here right or wrong.

I think that this exchange is a good example of what Jason was talking about regarding taking into account your responsibility to your audience.

Basically, it doesn't matter if what is in your head is right if the audience cannot understand it through your writing. In this case, somehow I managed to understand your involvement in this article and the other author's book as the theft of ideas.

Is that what you wanted a reader to think? I would guess not. I see that it looks like you are trying to set the record straight, but does that matter to casual reader who just moved on without further interaction?

It's not fair to write in passive language and then debate after the fact by quote mining and debating semantics.

The audience should understand what you meant the first time for most things.

Good luck in your endeavors!

David Bradbury
6/24/2015 08:23:50 pm

The upshot of all this is that we're effectively in a "Roswell Slides" circa 2014 situation.

And we all know how that turned out in 2015.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 02:22:08 am

David

You say: "The upshot of all this is that we're effectively in a "Roswell Slides" circa 2014 situation. And we all know how that turned out in 2015."

Wrong, it's very different. The people who promoted the slides promised (but failed to deliver) something positive. As I have pointed out this "why governments believe weird things" book is a highly skeptical look at UFOs etc. HIGHLY skeptical. It promises nothing positive for paranormal research. As I noted in a couple of comments above, the author is a major skeptic. When we agreed to do the interview, she was very open about her skeptical nature and I know for sure that the major theme of the book is that government, military, and intelligence agencies investigating UFOs, ESP, etc etc is a waste of time. She takes the view that just because agencies investigate fringe things doesn't mean they should and doesn't mean that those investigations, by default, legitimize the fringe subjects. To a degree, I agree with that. But not totally across the board, no. So, yes, we WILL get to see in the book newly surfaced files and new insights. But I guarantee that the field of Forteana will not like her conclusions. So, this is ZERO like the slides issue, which was trumpeted as a major turning point in Ufology and world history. This book is saying its basically all a bunch of bullshit, but I agreed to be interviewed, as I strongly feel otherwise and to be given the chance to say why I think this or that, is important to me, even in a book in which I'm sure I wont be presented in a good light.

Reply
Will Best
6/25/2015 02:46:40 am

Your reply above to David is exactly what I was trying to point out of you about writing for your audience.

Instead of putting the evidence out for your assertions in the first place so that the reader can clearly understand your position/thought-process you respond as if we should know what you have in your head.

You have spent nearly more words explaining the parts you left out of your article in these comments than the article itself.

How can you get mad that people do not understand your point of view if you left that much out?

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 03:01:48 am

"How can you get mad that people do not understand your point of view if you left that much out?"

Will, I get mad if the prick in the car in front of me at the traffic lights doesn't pull away at the second the lights go green. I get mad at the slightest things possible, so of course I'm going to get mad here.

Will Best
6/25/2015 03:19:34 am

Nick,

It's OK if you just like being angry, it takes all kinds of people to make the world go around.

I guess I just missed your point once again. I thought you were trying get your research out to your audience.

Have Fun!

David Bradbury
6/25/2015 06:33:07 am

Thanks Nick,
It still could turn out to be a Roswell Slides situation if the evidence doesn't say what she claims it does, but I'll keep my fingers crossed for next summer.

Nick Redfern
6/24/2015 02:42:50 pm

Only Me:

You say: "I'm sorry, Nick, but I disagree with this assessment. Whether or not someone chooses to identify themselves by their real name, it does not validate or invalidate either their participation in a debate or their opinion. It also doesn't signify fear."

But why even use a pseudonym in the first place?

I am genuinely interested to know how and why people decide they are going to debate someone, but, in the process, they are going to deliberately hide their identity from the very person they are addressing.

I just don't get the mindset that makes a person decide to do that. To me it's a puzzle.

But, you can say it as you see it, but the fact is when someone makes personal attacks on me, and when they do it under a pseudonym it just doesn't smack of having a backbone. Whether that's how it actually is or not is in some ways irrelevant, but that IS the way it looks.

Reply
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (Jerky)
6/24/2015 03:00:52 pm

It wouldn't matter if Only Me used his/her real name or not as you have no way of proving that the name provided is even there real name of the person making the post. You cannot prove my real name isn't Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus any more then I can prove you are the real Nick Redfern. In short, you are making a big deal out of something that has been basic internet practice since I was a young child back in the mid to late 90's. It doesn't mark one as having no "backbone" for using a screen name on the web.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 02:02:28 am

OF COURSE it shows a lack of backbone! And trying to justify it because it "...has been basic internet practice since I was a young child..." is a fucking joke.

Clint Knapp
6/25/2015 07:01:25 am

No, Nick, it denotes a lack of egotistical need to be acknowledged for one's ideas and knowledge. Faulty as either may be.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 07:10:20 am

No Clint, you are wrong. People use aliases as a result of fear. It creates a sense of security for them. A curtain to hide behind. Fear of confrontation and an insecurity issue when it comes to debate. I don't know why though. After all, it's just raised voices and a bunch of expletives here and nothing else. What's the big deal about hiding from that?

Clint Knapp
6/25/2015 07:21:58 am

As a regular reader and commenter here for nearly three years, I can assure you that the only time it becomes a matter of raised voices and expletives is when someone like you takes offense to being exposed for shoddy research, poor journalistic ethics, and ignoring conventional scholarship in favor of half-spun tales, fantasies, and hearsay.

Only Me
6/24/2015 03:10:10 pm

Speaking only for myself, I use a pseudonym simply because it is an option.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 02:24:57 am

Being upfront and using your real name is an option too

V
6/24/2015 04:27:07 pm

Dear Mr. Redfern: no, of course you don't "have to" do anything. And we, your readers and critics, don't "have to" accept your work as anything but rank fiction when you decide that you aren't going to bother with basic scholarship that you were taught in high school. And when you sit here pitching a fit over the most basic "Cite your sources," your credibility as a scholar and as a writer dips right into the sewers. You have put so much effort into insisting on your "rights" that I frankly don't believe this "fellow writer" AND these "other papers" are complete lies. I don't "have to" believe you, either, and you can't force me to.

As for the use of a pseudonym, I'm a woman. Basic Internet safety: do not give potentially obsessive fuckers information they could potentially use to find your physical location. That includes my real name. Whether you're that kind of insane asswipe or whether it might be some other obsessive fan of yours or even of Jason's, I'm not putting my life and safety on the line just to argue with someone who needs to go back to 9th-grade English.

You just aren't worth it.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 02:10:02 am

V: putting your life and safety on the line??? Really? Do you actually think anyone here is going to try and find your physical location? Who cares? Someone says shit about me, I respond with an expletive rant, because that's what I do, and that's it. I'm not trying to force you, or anyone, to do anything or say anything. I'm replying to people and pointing out why I disagree etc. Why on earth would I try and "force" you or anyone to do anything???

Cathleen
6/25/2015 03:09:20 am

Nicky my boy, have you ever heard of Gamergate? Yes she has every right to be concerned.
The only 'evidence' you have provided is this mysterious book that will supposedly be published in 2016. What publisher is going to wait for a whole year after a book is ready to publish it? What publisher is going to be upset about letting details out as a form of pre-publicity, particularly if they get a chance to pre-approve it.

No I don't believe you. Your story does not make sense.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 03:22:26 am

Kathleen, take a look at my just-posted comment (in response to your earlier comment), where I talk about how I wrote about her files in my 2012 book, The Pyramids and the Pentagon. If I was making this up now to deflect from Jason's criticisms, how on earth could i have briefly mentioned her files in a three year old book???

No I haven't heard of Gamergate.

You say: "What publisher is going to wait for a whole year after a book is ready to publish it? What publisher is going to be upset about letting details out as a form of pre-publicity, particularly if they get a chance to pre-approve it."

Huh??? I have a book called "Chupacabra Road Trip" which will be published in September. I handed the manuscript over to the publisher late last year. That's almost a year from hand over to publication date. There is often a large delay between submission of a manuscript and publication. For all I know she is still writing it, as an August 2016 release would probably not require her to submit her Word document until January or thereabouts, to let all the work be done on it at the publisher's end.

What publisher would be upset? You're joking, right? We're not talking about pre-publicity. We're talking about the concerns of someone scooping her book by getting the same files and publishing them before her. That, I suspect, is her concern.

Clint Knapp
6/25/2015 07:16:09 am

Google is your friend, Nick.

Straight from Wikipedia; which cares more about source transparency than you do:
"The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture. It garnered significant public attention after August 2014, when several women within the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks. The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, death threats and the threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event."

Have a nice day.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 07:47:17 am

Clint:

You quote the following:

"The Gamergate controversy concerns sexism in video game culture. It garnered significant public attention after August 2014, when several women within the video game industry, including game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks. The campaign was coordinated in the online forums of Reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in an anonymous and amorphous movement that ultimately came to be represented by the Twitter hashtag #gamergate. The harassment included doxing, threats of rape, death threats and the threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event."

Yes, that is terrible, unacceptable behavior, and the people should have their balls nailed to the floor, and I hope they did. What does it have to do with what is mentioned in the Comments section at Jason's blog? I may throw expletives here and there when people piss me off, but so what? That's not reason enough for people to hide behind an alias. You've never had an argument with someone that got heated? In fact, I haven't seen anyone make a comment at any of Jason's posts - ever - where the person sounds like they might be some gun-toting, women-hating nut. Debating "the unexplained" and having heated conversations as a result, is no big deal. Threats of rape and murder should be dealt with swiftly and to the full extent of the law. And of course I can see why someone would want to use an alias if they found themselves faced with that. But doing so just to debate levitating pyramids? Come on.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 03:28:37 am

Cathleen, you say:

"The only 'evidence' you have provided is this mysterious book that will supposedly be published in 2016."

Yes, and why on earth would I make something like that up? Why would I make a specific statement, with a specific date etc? August 2016 is not that far away. Do you honestly think I would spin some elaborate bunch of shit only to have it all come crashing down on me in no more than just about a year from now? Not that I would do it anyway, but to do exactly that would be complete lunacy.

Reply
Cathleen
6/25/2015 02:16:25 pm

You would make it up because you can. As I said. I do not believe you. I'll believe it if I see the book published.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 03:45:02 pm

Cathleen, I have pointed out the specifics of the book and when it is being published. I have also pointed out that this is not some sudden out of the blue claim about the woman having the NSA-Cathie files. I wrote about her files in my Pyramids and the Pentagon book in 2012! What do you think I did, made up the story in 2012 so i could use it to bolster an article that gets picked up at Jason's blog 3 years later? Please!

Don't you think I would look beyond foolish to say all that, and for the book NOT to come out? We're talking only a year away. If you think I would shoot myself in the foot by doing and saying so reckless a thing, you are very wrong.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 03:51:43 pm

Cathleen

And in case you didn't see it, here's my other comment (below), which shows clearly how I published the story of her Cathie/NSA files way back in 2012. This is not some 2-day-old lie to deflect from Jason's criticisms, as you seem to think. It's on page 100 of my 3 year old book, The Pyramids and the Pentagon.

Here's that earlier comment, that spells out the entire timeline:

Cathleen, something else in relation to your "making this up" claim:

I mentioned in a previous comment that the author contacted me after my "Final Events" book was published in 2010.

I also mentioned how we had various exchanges in 2011 and early 2012, which was in person, by email and by phone.

She told me, back then, of some of the data she had uncovered from the NSA on Cathie via FOIA. How can I prove that? Very easily.

Because I published a brief snippet of what she told me (which would have been late 2011/early 2012) in my June 2012 book, "The Pyramids and the Pentagon"!!

In fact, her info and a small snippet from someone else (the latter on an unrelated matter) were added to the final PDF document of the book at pretty much the final moment before the book was due to go to print, which I think was around March 2012, and in time for the planned June 2012 release. So, I would probably have added the data around January/February of that year.

If I was suddenly "making this up" now, how on earth could I have made a brief reference to exactly the same subject (her NSA files on Cathie) in a book which was published no less than THREE YEARS AGO?

The story of the NSA files on Cathie goes back - for me - to 2012. I published a very small piece about it in my book. I'm not entirely sure when she got the files, but she was certainly already in the writing process of her book when she contacted me after the 2010 publication of my "Final Events."

In other words, this NSA-Cathie thing is not something that has just surfaced out of the blue on my part at Jason's blog in the last 2 days. I wrote about it, and her files, very briefly, back in 2012.

Regardless of what you may think of me, I am NOT making this shit up.

Cathleen
6/25/2015 03:59:12 pm

It all boils down to things you have said that are only supported by statements you have made. You still haven't shown any credible evidence.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 04:08:21 pm

Cathleen, I have told the story here of her book, I have noted I have been telling the story of her files since 2012, publicly in one of my books for all to see!

I am due to receive 2 free copies of the book on publication; that was the deal. I will send you one of those free copies, and that is a promise.

You will have all the credible evidence you need.

In the meantime, I can prove the NSA-Cathie thing is not a lie to deflect from Jason. It's in my 2012 book - the reference to Cathie, the NSA files, the interest on the part of the Foreign Technology Division. What I have talked about here at this thread is exactly what I talked about no less than 3 years ago, and therefore it's NOT some 48-hour-old concoction. You, and anyone, can see it all.

Cathleen
6/26/2015 03:44:23 am

Thank you for the offer. I think it would make more sense to offer that second book to Jason.

If it turns out I'm wrong I will acknowledge that and apologize.

The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 05:24:04 am

Fuck you Nick Redfern. You narcissist. Your work is shit just like you. You waste of human life.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 06:11:36 am

Ah yes, another rant from someone frightened to use their real name. Interesting that your alias includes the word "troll." I rest my case.
PS: Fuck off.

Reply
The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 12:00:41 pm

If I were to give my real name along with my place of residence would that make you feel better, you bitch?

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 12:14:16 pm

The only thing I ask is that people not hide behind an alias out of fear. That's all.

Here's how I look at it from my perspective: You wanna call me "Bitch," "waste of human life," "fuck you," etc. But, you can't bring yourself to do it under your own name.

Two words of advice: Man up.

Reply
The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 01:46:54 pm

You see Nick Redfern, I'm a reptilian overlord of Earth. My children are the reptilian hybrids that govern the common masses. They are literally my children because it is my blood that was used in the genetic engineering of them. We used these silly rhesus monkeys and a few other mammal DNA stock for the human cattle. As a side note I'm going to visit you tonight Nick Redfern and probe your anus. Then I'm going send some ghosts of your ancestors to haunt your penis. I'm also thinking about sending a squad of Sasquatch to your house for tea and crumpets just for shits and giggles. And one more thing, Scott Wolter fantasizes about you and him fucking in Knights Templar robes. I know this because I gave him that fantasy via my personal mind control device that was developed by the Greys. Well, ta ta for now.

The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 01:50:48 pm

I forgot to mention that you ignored mentioning that I called you a narcissist too in addition of bitch and waste of life. I guess you can't handle the truth.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 01:57:30 pm

Troll, whatever floats your boat is your business, but please, spare me the shit that goes on in your mind. I'm sure we can all do without that.

The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 02:01:59 pm

"whatever floats your boat is your business, but please, spare me the shit that goes on in your mind. I'm sure we can all do without that." Ha, speak for yourself Nick Redfern.

Uncle Ron
6/25/2015 01:43:03 pm

Wow! 88 posts to date. That's a lot more than usual and, as with other high-post-count topics, they mostly revolve around people criticizing someone who continues to attempt to defend him- (or her-) self even when it's obvious that the bulk of the posters are against him (or her). And, the discussion gets far astray from Jason's original comments. I can't help wondering why Mr. Redfern continues to visit this location. If every time I went into a pub someone punched me in the nose I would simply not frequent that pub. None of this, however, excuses vulgar language or name-calling - by either party; that's just juvenile.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 01:54:55 pm

Uncle Ron: why do I visit? Simple: I punch back. I even do it under my very own name! And I grew up in England, where pub fights are a friday night tradition.

Reply
The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 01:58:22 pm

Get off your high horse, Uncle Ron. If people like Redfern won't back down after they have been called out as a shoddy scholar and arguments offered to back up that assertion, and they continue to blab on about how they are right and what not, the only thing left to do is to troll them. It is a duty to troll them.

Reply
Only Me
6/25/2015 02:21:49 pm

Which, of course, serves to validate Nick's opinion about pseudonyms. This makes it harder for others, like myself, to be taken seriously because I choose to post under a pseudonym.

I take comfort in knowing, despite this, I'm not twisted enough to threaten to probe someone's anus, haunt their penis, or brag about planting Templar sex fantasies in another person's mind. I prefer to stick to the relevant topic being discussed.

The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 03:04:09 pm

It only validates his opinion if that is what he believes regardless if it is fact or not. You apparently would be proof that opinions are just that, opinions, since you suggest that you are not "afraid" to use your real name even though you don't. I'm tolling. I even use it in my pseudonym. Besides, Jason Colavito admits that he doesn't take anything Nick Redfern presents at face value, despite Nick using his real name, in the opening sentence of this article. Besides what would me presenting my real identity serve anyway? How would you even know if it was my actual identity? You can't, he can't. But if it makes you and him feel better, my name is Evan Wade Richard and I live in Ohio. There, does that make my replies and comments worth being taken seriously? No, its the content of the replies. And I made clear in my first reply to Uncle Ron the basis of why I typed what I typed replying to Nick Redfern (like if it wasn't already). So as long as your content is sound you should have no problem with people not taking you seriously, unless you're intending to troll, which then it doesn't matter.

Only Me
6/25/2015 03:47:07 pm

>>You apparently would be proof that opinions are just that, opinions<<

Yes. Unless I am stating something that is proven fact, most of what I say is an opinion.

>>since you suggest that you are not "afraid" to use your real name even though you don't<<

I'm not. I've already explained I use a pseudonym because I have that option. There isn't a requirement to use my real name. Besides, my emotional state can't be determined whether I use my real name or not.

>>But if it makes you and him feel better<<

I have no emotional attachment to what you choose to say.

Now, while I agree with the gist of your response, my point is this:

Nick is free to believe what he wants to believe, but, trolling or not, is it really necessary to lower yourself?

The troll Krampas
6/25/2015 04:12:44 pm

Lower myself to what?

Only Me
6/25/2015 04:45:12 pm

To the level of many fringe proponents or supporters who resort to ad hominem attacks, due to a lack of skill and grounds to offer a credible argument. With your imagination, I get the impression you could dismantle a fringe theory quite easily.

The troll Krampas
6/26/2015 02:57:43 am

I could ignore them or use logic,scientific reasoning and facts on the contrary to prove them fallacious but since they like to continue to defend their stuff even after all that, I just troll them. Because they annoy the fuck out of me. Jason Colavtio did a good job at throwing water on Nick Redfern but alas he continued on. If water fails use fire. So in short, it depends.

nergal
6/26/2015 03:52:52 am

"if water fails use fire"
you will never destroy nick's pillars of wisdom like that.
jason pours water on him and he can throw expletives and rant about his right not to reveal his sources and why shouldnt his readers just accept what he is saying (after all it isnt science or scholarship or anything other than pulp entertainment forteana its just a little article stop holding me to reasonable standards stop it stop it say that to my face not online see what happens); throw fire on him and he is the poor unfairly maligned scholar who is simply trying to spread his important interesting theories and only being greeted by nasty sweary trolls a lone sombre violin plays in the distance.
truly, his self-assuredness are strong and sturdy enough to make trismegistus himself proud

The troll Krampas
6/26/2015 07:32:15 am

You make no sense, nergal.

Nick Redfern
6/25/2015 03:38:14 pm

Troll, yes using your name is an improvement and I will say why (again). For me, a lack of a real name implies a lack of self-assurance and a demonstration of a lack of confidence.

Some people will obviously disagree with me and they will say they have legitimate reasons for not using a real name.

I get that. But I can only say it as I see it - and that IS from the perspective of it makes me think the person is frightened or lacking in confidence, that's how it comes ovetr to me.

Reply
Uncle Ron
6/25/2015 04:51:41 pm

Nick (may I call you Nick?),
I understand your position on pseudonyms but I do disagree. I think that how a person conducts themselves in their anonymity is a better way to judge them than whether or not their reveal their true identify (if, in fact, they actually do). I don't post frequently. When I do (and I always use the same name as I have from my first post) I am respectful even to people with whom I disagree; I try to politely point out specifically why I disagree with them. Of course if I think they are complete lunatics I don't bother to respond to them at all, even when I am trolled. I'm a bit more volatile in real life but I hold myself to a higher standard here out of respect to Jason and what I consider to be the necessary and undervalued work he does.

My initial post tonight was mostly due to my observation that when someone Jason has criticized responds here many others tend to pile on and the conversation quickly degenerates into name calling and obscenities. I'm surprised that you keep coming back for more. Were I in your shoes I would probably just tell my critics to sod off. Obviously, you are more combative than I am.

Cheers.

PS. My real name is Ron and I am an Uncle. :)

Reply
David Bradbury
6/25/2015 08:31:10 pm

There are occasional exceptions to that "quickly degenerates" principle, of course:
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/watch-the-trailer-for-a-weird-new-documentary-on-the-vinland-map

Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 03:55:59 am

Hey Ron,

Yep, I'm sure there are a lot of varying thoughts and opinions on the merits, or as I see it the lack of merits, of remaining anonymous.

In fact, it would probably be a good subject for an article. Looking at both sides, to what extent being anonymous affects (or doesn't affect) a persons credibility etc. I may write such an article one day.

Again, I can only say it as I personally see it. To me it DOES look like a fear of being identified and a lack of self-confidence.

Now, that may NOT actually be how the person honestly feels. I totally get that. But it DOES strike that lack of confidence chord to me. And that was my only point.

Yep, it invariably does descend into the sorts of things you see here, and I freely admit I initiate it a lot of the time. And not just here. I don't do it for the sake of it, though. I do it because I have a hair-trigger character. I admit it. I blow up at the slightest things.

Like I said in an earlier comment, and not that it's a big deal, but if I'm at the traffic lights, and the lights go green and the person in front isn't away immediately, I blast my horn at them for 2 or 3 seconds. They might give me the finger in the mirror, I give it back and blast the horn again, etc etc. A typical day. No big deal.

I can apply that situation to numerous aspects of my life, every single day. I'm not a person to be pushed to the brink. I have zero patience.

Many would say those are character flaws. Maybe they are. But no-one's perfect. I don't lose sleep over it.

Could I tone down? Sure I could. But that's not my way and it would take a lot of effort not to verbally blow up at people.So yes, I will always be verbally combative here and aim to have the last word.

I can keep this thread going to 1,000 comments; I don't care. It's no big deal for me to keep checking in at Jason's blog every couple of hours, checking out the latest comments, and blasting people who piss me off. And, of course, it's right to blast people who piss me off. Plus, I would fully expect the very same back in return from the people I pissed off.

terry the censor
6/26/2015 10:49:01 am

> a lack of a real name implies a lack of self-assurance and a demonstration of a lack of confidence

Nick, I do not feel slighted by this statement, but Isaac Koi might!

Reply
The troll Krampas
6/26/2015 07:47:46 am

You see that. That long ass reply all about yourself, Nick Redfern, is why I called you a narcissist in an earlier comment. Oh but you don't care do you. You don't care that you're British turd who constantly sucks his own penis. Ha.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 07:51:22 am

"Oh but you don't care do you."

Correct, I don't!

"you're British turd who constantly sucks his own penis."

Nope, my girlfriends and groupies do that.

Reply
The troll Krampas
6/26/2015 08:03:24 am

By girlfriends and groupies you mean your mom and sisters don't you. Typical Brit family.

Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:05:38 am

No, I mean my girlfriends and groupies.

No sisters, mother dead from Alzheimer's.

Reply
Kal
6/26/2015 08:07:31 am

I've also heard of 'gamer gate' and was present at a lecture about it last May.

If this NR is legitimately the same man who wrote (and self published) various fringe books, he is damaging his own creds by coming here to complain and curse at other skeptics and fringe people who do not agree with him. His supposed co author and editor would probably love to see these comments, as would his legit publisher. The Illuminati are already taking care of that.

If he is not Redfern and is pretending to be him, they will find this blog also.

The original argument that the records could not be found on this earlier person is wrong. They were not all that hard to find, and also several self-promoted pages and blogs on this NR were easy to find.

The blogs are not so caustic and curse laden, which is interesting, as it appears there is a disparity.

The old adage from Fight Club applies, 'You never talk about Fight Club', and the poster here does, a lot.

If they are the same person, it shows a general lack of respect for others opinions and a lack of basic rules of the net.

Don't blame anyone for not posting their real name, especially after all the trolling creepy stalker stuff this poster has been slinging for days. Gamer gate very much applies. He is just two posts away from actually screaming the kind of vitriol they did on those boards.

Also as the conspiracy fringe people never get, if you're in the actual secret service you do not discuss it, not ever. It looks like much of this is wish fulfillment fantasy and the trolls are getting a rise out of posting.

JC could have banned this person days ago, but his posts are making an amusing and sad topic out of it.

Ironically now the NSA is probably interested in his next move.

I like that one of the responses mentioned the anal probe. Good idea. The Grays will be landing tonight to probe the trolls.

Someone else mentioned getting them back on their meds.

Seriously, go do something else today, NR, having nothing dto do with this obsession over this blog.

I'd advise calmly and with no possible conspiracy or threat, not pretending to be in connection with a government agency when you clearly are not.

The MIB might be coming for you later. Watch out for the black vans.







Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:19:47 am

You say:
"I'd advise calmly and with no possible conspiracy or threat, not pretending to be in connection with a government agency when you clearly are not."

Er...what???? I have NEVER pretended to "be in connection with a government agency."

Reply
Kal
6/26/2015 08:20:24 am

While I was ranting about the rant it appears our new troll has posted the old gamer troll man child comment that 'he has girlfriends and groupies (in reply to someone mentioning oral sex)'. I find this in serious question. Clearly he did not understand the rather crass joke (which is indirectly flattering as it implies he has enough length to perform it by himself), but he cannot know this.

When someone tells you off using such obvious comments, it is sad when one replies with an equally inane comment.

I would come back with a witty joke about lonely guy in a basement but that would be too mean seeing as how the troll has such a base and barely reasoning mentality concerning internet blog speak.

Next he will be screaming that he is going to come after us via mind control and explode our brains.

Again, this ins't serious journalism so get over yourself, troll dude.

Go get an ice cream or something. Go jogging. Go watch some sports or walk your dog. The Internet is not your friend. You have been called out by others. Give it a rest while you're behind.





Reply
The troll Krampas
6/26/2015 08:38:16 am

This long reply of yours is confusing because you've misread and added information regarding this thread. You should probably reread it before you further make yourself out to be an idiot.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:14:46 am

Kal

You say: "If this NR is legitimately the same man who wrote (and self published) various fringe books, he is damaging his own creds by coming here to complain and curse at other skeptics and fringe people who do not agree with him. His supposed co author and editor would probably love to see these comments, as would his legit publisher."

Yes, this is Nick Redfern. But, no I haven't self-published any books. Of course my publisher and editors see this. I sent the link to Jason's article to a bunch of people - as I always do when Jason does a post on me.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:16:41 am

"Damaging my own creds"????

People can like me or not, I don't care! I don't worry about damaging anything when I comment. I just comment as I want to.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:23:57 am

You say:

"The blogs are not so caustic and curse laden, which is interesting, as it appears there is a disparity."

Correct. If people don't get personal at me, but just rationally debate, then there's no need for me to rant. But here's the thing: a LOT of people at this blog DO get personal, so I rant. No big mystery.

Reply
Kal
6/26/2015 08:39:07 am

self publisher
http://www.anomalistbooks.com/aboutus.cfm

self pubmisher
http://www.newpagebooks.com/?section=about

legitimate publisher
http://imprints.simonandschuster.biz/gallery-books/about

self publisher
http://www.rosenpublishing.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=20

self publisher
http://cfzpress.blogspot.com/2011/06/fortean-words.html

According to the easily searchable Amazon books accounts of this person, he used at least four vanity or self publishing services, to publish (not that it's a bad thing) and one legitimate publisher, but an arm of their vanity press division.

'I never self published'?

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:46:59 am

What???

You are talking about when someone pays a company to publish their books. I have never done that.

New Page, CFZ Press, and Anomalist Books have approached ME with book ideas!

New Page pays its authors monetary advances to write the books for them!! Their books are for sale on the shelves in Barnes & Noble. I don't have to pay any of the companies to publish my books - nor have I, ever.

CFZ Press and Anomalist Books are Print on Demand Books.

I have had 8 or 9 books published under POD terms.

But that's very different to going to a vanity press, which typically demands the author pays them for the service of publishing their book.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 08:55:25 am

I've written around 27-30 books, I can't be bothered to count right now. Of those 7 were published by Simon & Schuster, 11 by New Page Books, and 3 from Visible Ink Press. All 3 companies have their books for sale in stores and online. None of them charge the author vanity-style. Of the remaining 8 or 9 (or thereabouts) they are POD from Anomalist Books and CFZ Press. POD and Vanity are very different scenarios.

Reply
The troll Krampas
6/26/2015 08:59:29 am

This Kal fellow is clearly an idiot.

Reply
Nick Redfern
6/26/2015 09:50:27 am

Kal

And something I overlooked until just now: you refer to "His supposed co author."

Huh????

If I have a co-author, it's news to me.

Yes, I have co-written books in the past. Do I have a co-author ("supposed" or otherwise) now? No, I do not.

And I don't have any plans for any future co-authored books.

Reply
Kal
6/26/2015 11:24:46 am

I should read more clearly from this long winded rant. It was your publisher you referred to, who now officially publishes your books. (Simon and Schuster). Nothing wrong with that, except you claimed you did not self publish when some of those guys do. It would be confusing to anyone checking you out.

Now it seems it is off topic and we have gone to other trolling insults from others for no reason. If you're going to come up with a snappy comeback 'Kal is an idiot' is a little childish. At least come up with something more snappy. This is especially funny to me as the name is made up.

Clearly my implied sarcasm involving anal probes and men in black went over your heads, not to mention cribbing lines from MiB movies and X files episodes.

I enjoy talking about fringe topics and I have found some of the books this Redfern guy wrote interesting. The bigfoot one and the monster one, for instance. I have never reviewed them online so do not be concerned.

As for the cracks about fight club and the government, they were meant to confuse you all. How come when some of the other people made the same cracks you guys got it? Yeah, I suppose the other cracks were better. Mine were kind of lame.

I don't think there are any truly idiotic questions on a blog. Now, onto something else. This is getting boring.






Reply
The troll Krampas
6/27/2015 03:07:02 am

You got info wrong regarding this tread. You thought Nick Redfern claimed to be in with some Govt. agency, he didn't. You confused this Cathie fellow Nick Redfern and others were typing about with Nick Redfern. I don't recall anyone mention "meds" either. Then you further mad yourself out to be an idiot with the whole book thing. All that merits a trolling from others. And your sarcasm didn't go over my head, at least, it just fell way short since you fucked up not knowing what the hell in going on in this thread.

Reply
InquisitorX
6/27/2015 10:01:42 am

Would that be Scotty Roberts under the nick "troll" coming here just to help Redfern by seeming to validate his comment on screen names?

Seems just too convenient that this guy shows up when he does.

Reply
Kal
6/28/2015 09:19:18 am

Serious man crush action going on here...oh my, but it's 2015, so it's okay.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

    I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    Newsletters

    Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.

    Categories

    All
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative History
    Alternative History
    America Unearthed
    Ancient Aliens
    Ancient Astronauts
    Ancient History
    Ancient Texts
    Ancient Texts
    Archaeology
    Atlantis
    Conspiracies
    Giants
    Habsburgs
    Horror
    King Arthur
    Knights Templar
    Lovecraft
    Mythology
    Occult
    Popular Culture
    Popular Culture
    Projects
    Pyramids
    Racism
    Science
    Skepticism
    Ufos
    Weird Old Art
    Weird Things
    White Nationalism

    Terms & Conditions

    Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2025 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Jimmy: The Secret Life of James Dean >
      • Jimmy Excerpt
      • Jimmy in the Media
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
      • James Dean, The Human Ashtray
      • James Dean and Marlon Brando
      • The Curse of James Dean's Porsche
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
        • Volume 23 Archive
        • Volume 24 Archive
        • Volume 25 Archive
        • Volume 26 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
      • Ancient Apocalypse
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Eridu Genesis
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Resurrection of Marduk
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Zoroastrian Fatal Winter
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Fragments of Artapanus
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Fragments of Bruttius
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Byzantine World Chronicle
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Chronicle to 724
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Pseudo-Diocles Fragmentum
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • Popol Vuh
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Atlantis as Biblical History
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Atlantis and Nimrod
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and Hanno's Periplus
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
          • Amazing New Light (Hoax)
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • History of Paleontology
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • Arabic Names of Egyptian Kings
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • America Known to the Ancients
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Remarkable Discoveries Within the Sphinx (Hoax)
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • The Shaver Mystery >
          • Lovecraft and the Deros
          • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • CIA Search for the Ark of the Covenant
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • The Fall of the Sky
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Poltergeist UFOs
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search