tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post3285494589570105976..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Jerry Wills: UFO contactee turned psychic healerLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-48986168251826053352009-11-30T17:05:29.089-07:002009-11-30T17:05:29.089-07:00Hi Jim - just trying to keep you updated so you do...Hi Jim - just trying to keep you updated so you don't get so pissed off again. Still have not published the Jerry Wills book but my agent is still trying. We are still hoping for a deal sometime early next year, but the publishing market is very tight right now. If you'd like to know more, please e-mail me at rhaberer99@yahoo.com. Thanks, RodRod Habererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15374931248260766187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-2319735344289682722009-02-11T10:30:00.000-07:002009-02-11T10:30:00.000-07:00Hi Jim - Sorry to play tit-for-tat with you - and ...Hi Jim - Sorry to play tit-for-tat with you - and I actually enjoy your blog very much.<BR/><BR/>But a couple of more points I would like to make. <BR/><BR/>The "Not making one penny" comment actually referred to the book on Jerry Wills - not my work at FOX for which I am paid, of course. Sorry for the confusion.<BR/><BR/>And I wish the New Times and you would take a look at the full body of work we have done on the Phoenix lights, not the one story we produced concerning the Flare sightings later that night.<BR/><BR/>We have several times pointed out the "two" events - pointing to the second event as a likely flare drop by US Air Force A-10's staging out of Davis-Monthan AFB. We even did a story with the Air Force as they dropped flares in the same area to demonstrate what flares look like from a distance. My problem with the New Times story was its one-sided tone toward our reporting, and its inaccurate portrayal of our story. I have no qualms with the credentials of New Times staff, in fact I believe they do some of the finest investigative reporting in the state. It was just that I spent about two minutes on the phone with their reporter, and his mind seemed made up before even asking me a question. I felt that our efforts to cover this story, which have been much more comprehensive than any TV station in Phoenix, was unfairly portrayed in that one piece...mostly because our story did not include a computer analysis similar to what the one cable channel did - at the time, we just did not have the equipment for that kind of analysis. We simply did the best we could with the equipment we had - but that did not seem to satisfy anyone. <BR/><BR/>(And if you'd like to compare our lists of awards and Journalism credentials, I can provide that anytime,)<BR/><BR/>As far as the book about Jerry, I freely admit that I may have been premature posting the book about Jerry Wills on my website before publication - and I freely admit it has been a hard sell. I approached the project with an open mind and the realization that it may never be published - and it may never be. But I remain hopeful. And by the way - I don't consider it a Biography as much as a piece on healing - using Jerry's personal story as a news "peg" to explore the history and science behind this growing phenomenon... including fraud and scientific studies on the subject<BR/><BR/>As far as your comment about Jerry, I was only admitting that I remain very unsure about his origins or intentions - As I said, the book I've produced so far focuses on his efforts as a healer. There is much more to this man, be it fact or fiction, that I have not yet explored. I only believed that going into other aspects of his life beyond healing may be too much to include in one book. I may be wrong about that too, but only time will tell.<BR/><BR/>Your point about two sides to every story is well taken - there are often multiple angles and mysteries that can't always be rationally explained. Although your Holocaust comparison is a bit of a low blow. I hope you believe I would never take the concept to those kinds of extremes. But when it comes to the Phoenix Lights, there is a lot of passion and "truth" as both sides see it - and any stand we take to one side or the other is sure to stir passions that we must take into account. We're just trying to be fair. <BR/><BR/>Thank you again for this exchange, and for allowing me to clarify a few things - I would be happy to talk with you about it some more, because we obviously share a passion for this and other subjects not normally part of mainstream news. <BR/><BR/>And I never intentionally ignored your request for information - in fact it was so long ago, I don't even remember it. My focus for the last several months has been on trying to refine and publish the book. And at FOX-10 News, I have had a lot on my plate. <BR/><BR/>Please call and we can discuss this or anything else - This blogging thing is still new to me - I'm still admittedly "old school" but I'm trying.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>Rodmoral vengeancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01002252826832948333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-74168657555116423932009-02-08T17:37:00.000-07:002009-02-08T17:37:00.000-07:00Rod:I was unable to determine from your complete l...Rod:<BR/><BR/>I was unable to determine from your complete lack of response for nearly two years that this meant that you don't have a publication date yet for the book that has been advertised on your website for that entire time. Perhaps replying that you don't have a publication date yet might have clued me in.<BR/><BR/>Tony Ortega's piece in the New Times, contrary to your statement, was actually the best piece of journalism on the subject, that actually bothered trying to find a genuine explanation for what was actually two distinct events at two different times on March 13, 1997, planes from 8:15-8:45 p.m., and military flares at 10 p.m.. The "10 Files" piece you produced, by contrast, ignored significant evidence (like <A HREF="http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1997-06-26/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up/" REL="nofollow">the testimony of Mitch Stanley</A>) and credulously promoted the accounts of credential-free bullshit artists, while purporting to give "both sides" of the story. It would be nice if your story were made available online, so that readers of this blog could compare Ortega's work to yours for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Ortega's story specifically critiques the details of the "10 Files" test, and your response here offers no rebuttal. Your test didn't bother to match the scale of the shots, while Ortega got a Ph.D. astronomer to review your test and repeat it more accurately--and he found a match on the ridge visible in both shots, meaning that the lights really did disappear behind the ridge of the mountain, as would be expected if they were the dropped flares.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should read <A HREF="http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1998-03-05/news/the-hack-and-the-quack/" REL="nofollow">Ortega's story</A> again, if you want to offer a genuine critique.<BR/><BR/>(BTW, Tony Ortega was a winner of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year award, the Los Angeles Press Club award for best news story, the 2002 Unity award, and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column, and is currently editor-in-chief at the Village Voice.)<BR/><BR/>Any real journalist knows that the "two sides" myth is responsible for some of the worst faux journalism ever purveyed, of the sort that was standard fare on the segment you produced. Science and pseudoscience are not "two sides" of a story that deserve equal treatment. You wouldn't produce a story on the Holocaust ending with "Did it happen or not? You decide!", yet you regularly did that with stories where the "other side" you were sensationalizing had as much evidential merit.<BR/><BR/>The "two sides" myth is not only responsible for poor journalism on matters of science by elevating crackpottery to equal status with scientific evidence, it's also responsible for poor journalism on public policy and other matters where there are *more* than two positions, producing a false polarization between two views that may both be incorrect.<BR/><BR/>The fact that you've spent years on a book on Jerry Wills and still today state that you "don't pretend to know where he came from, or who he really is" suggests to me that you are as poor a biographer as you are a journalist.<BR/><BR/>I'm surprised to learn that Fox News doesn't pay its producers, and that you've "not profited one penny by [your] endeavors."Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-20716330055857868662009-02-07T16:19:00.000-07:002009-02-07T16:19:00.000-07:00Hi Jim - Rod Haberer responding to your comments. ...Hi Jim - Rod Haberer responding to your comments. Thanks for the hack job - I haven't responded to you about the date of publication because I don't have one yet. I am currently working with an agent on some refinements before publication.<BR/><BR/>The quote from the New Times was a particularly low blow which I appreciate. The New Times did a hatchet job on anyone associated with the Phoenix Lights - and was completely uninterested in exploring the truth about anything. The fact is, you don't need a computer program to overlay two photos - any idiot who has ever worked in film or photography knows that. We used AVID computer editing system to compare video taken on the night the Phoenix Lights were sighted with video we shot from the exact same location. It was a perfectly valid comparison of video that the New Times chose to ignore to support their own theories. <BR/><BR/>As opposed to your writing, and that of the New Times, I've been trained as a journalist to keep an open mind about all things. And that includes what I've seen with my own eyes, and what people have told me about their interactions with Jerry Wills. <BR/><BR/>I don't pretend to know where he came from, or who he really is. I only know from dozens of interviews and my own observations that this person has a unique gift. The book will lay out what I've seen and what others have experienced - and allow the reader to decide for himself. Unlike you, I don't allow prejudices to interfere with my job as a journalist. <BR/><BR/>If you want to play the role of super-skeptic to get your own self-serving publicity that's fine with me. I'm happy to work on something I find rather fascinating - and for the record have not profited one penny by my endeavors. <BR/><BR/>Jim - there are two sides to every story. Every real journalist knows that - a concept bloggers like you never seem to grasp.<BR/>If you want to discuss what I have done - with an open mind - I am free to discuss it with you anytime. <BR/><BR/>Rod Haberermoral vengeancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01002252826832948333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-6923212023796189252007-04-02T05:58:00.000-07:002007-04-02T05:58:00.000-07:00Maybe the aliens came back and wiped his brain? O...Maybe the aliens came back and wiped his brain? Or maybe his accountant just told him he should try a more profitable line of work.AlisonMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02064625392200296210noreply@blogger.com