UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 1 Re: Discovery Channel Specials From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:16:48 +0100 Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 09:19:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Specials > From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com > Date: 31 Oct 1997 16:52:58 UT > Subject: Discovery Channel Specials > To: updates@globalserve.net > My fears are realized. The Discovery channel special on the > Phoenix UFOs this Sunday night following a special on Area 51 is > going to downplay the mysterious lights of March 13th. > They have opted to go with the very lame "flare" theory saying, > "People don't like to find out there may be an answer that is not > all that interesting. It sort of spoils the fun". I have this > reply to producer Brockhoff, "People don't like being fed bogus > answers by their government or by the media either". Hello William, I don't suppose that you have an email address for Brockhoff. If you do, post it along with Discovery's email address. A few of us can write in and decry their sloppy tabloid type tactics and journalism skills. Even from afar, this flare explanation is at best, as you say a lame explanation. We can make light of their claim to be a channel that prides itself on scientific programming and insight. Regards, Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 1 Re: Project 1947: APRO and Blue Book Meeting - 1953 From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 20:47:05 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 01:05:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Project 1947: APRO and Blue Book Meeting - 1953 Greetings List Members (Attention: Mike Hall. This will be of interest you.) N. D. = National Director (i. e. Coral Lorenzen) APRO = Aerial Phenomena Research Organization APRO Bulletin, 15 July 1953, Volume II, No. 1, page 1 N. D. CONFERS WITH W. P. [Wright-Patterson] MEN The following will in essence be an account of the N. D.'s meeting with two representatives of the Wright-Patterson Air Intelligence Command on the evening of June 12 at Milwaukee, Wis. The prior weekend, a Miss Dorothy Madle [?] of Milwaukee Sentinel called the N. D.'s home in Sturgeon Bay and stated that Edward Halbach of the Milwaukee Astronomical Society had suggested that her paper do a feature story on APRO. We consented, arranged to go to Milwaukee for the interview and pictures and also for a little rest. Two days later Mr. Halbach called and said a Professor Hynek (J. Allen) of the Ohio State University (Astrophysicist) and a representative from Wright-Patterson were coming to town the following Wednesday, stated their desire to talk the Director, and after finding that she would be in Milwaukee that Friday, delayed their own trip to that part of the state so that their presence would coincide with hers. On Friday, June 12, the N. D. went to Milwaukee, talked with APRO special investigator from Rockford, Illinois, interviewed the reporter and retired to her room until 6 p.m. when she was to have dinner with the professor, Mr. Halbach and the officer from W-P. She was instructed druing the dinner that she was not to give names to the newspaper, and complied. The Professor's name is given here because he also autographed a pamphlet written about aerial phenomena, therefore could not have been so guarded about his identity getting out as the officer was. The Professor called the N. D.'s room at 5:50 and they arranged to meet in the lobby at 6 p. m., and then to dinner. The discussion of saucers and astronomy in general was held during dinner and later at Mr. Halbach's home. We can't go into detail because of lack of space, but the N. D. was encouraged to finish her book, and urged to include a good deal of scientific fact written simply so that it could be easily understood by the lay population. These conclusions were stated by the Air Force officer: That the 'Monster' of West Virginia was a meteor, that Booth [Conway, SC case] shot a blimp, and with a few well-placed remarks gave the impression that the Air Force does not consider the interplanetary theory a good one, but did not at any time deny that the theory is being considered. His personnel opinion was that the interplanetary theory is all wrong. The whole discussion was certainly encouraging to say the least and the N. D. will receive regulation blanks on which to record all the facts and figures of sightings in the Wisconsin area which she considers to be bona fide unidentified aerial phenomena. The Professor and the officer seemed to believe the N. D. qualified to discern between misconception[s] of conventional or slightly unconventional objects (such as meteors) and actual sightings of unidentified aerial objects which is, of course, an honor as she considered both men experts in their respective fields. The subject of crackposts and out-and-out hoaxers was discussed and several named. All members are familiar with the worst offenders in these field so it not be necessary to enlarge upon what was said. However, the officer stated that Wright-Patterson is glad that such organizations as our own exist, and that they encourage those groups which deal with facts and do not thrive on rumors which have no basis in fact. The time has come, in our opinion, for each and every member of the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization to take an extremely conservative view of the mystery and to make every attempt to break down all sightings and reports os as to catagorize them as meteors, birds, balloons, reflections, planes, Venus, etc. In this line of operation, all sighting which cannoth be incuded in one of the categories will be considered bona-fide unidentified aerial phenomena. APRO has at last succeeded in getting some sort of recognition by the Wright-Patterson hierarcy, and this may lead to a more active part int he eventual solution of the saucer enigma. Rationalization in regard to the many reports will merely tend to keep us in a dreamer's world. We all know that most organizations of our type hesitate to label as hoaxers those dreamers and egotists who pretend contact with the saucers and we have pioneered in the field of exposing. Now our project should be to narrow the field and with the use of every resource at hand, attempt to bring about a full explanation. There are some among our members who may think the Director has sold out, so to speak, to the enemy camp. This is not so. She merely recognizes a superior force, and remembers the old adage, "If You Can't Beat 'Em---Join "Em." We would like to advise all member who do not already take an interest in the fundamentals of astronomy, preperties of meteors, celestial phenomena and the like, do so in order to have a reliable soruce of information with which to work in disseminating reports of unidentified aerial phenomena. Many individuals unconsciously misconstrue the appearance of various conventional object in order to be able to say they have seen a 'saucer.' This in not done purposely in all cases, and those who do are not to be condemned as it is often the result of an overwhelming desire to actually observe a so-called 'flying saucer.' Incidentally, the astronomer and the W-P man both believe that Menzel's theory is not the whole answer although in some cases it might apply. In the future, we mgiht all cast a juandiced eye upon those who seem to desire to cause friction between saucer enthusiasts and any Intelligence group working on the mystery under the aupices of nay government. Those whod do are attempting, by underhaned methods, to create an air of animostiy and at the samw time elevate themselves as the 'high priests of saucerdom.' They have no proof of their evidence, as they call it. They only attempt to disqualify the one group which can give the 'official' verdict on the enigma. They are motivated by jealousy, frustratins and greed. We can and will cooperate with Air Technical Intelligence but at the same time retain our identity as an independent group. As the Director clearly stated to the Investigator and the Astronomer, we can and will cooperate to the best of our ability but must retain our right to our own ideas. ------- [End] In the September 15, 1956, APRO Bulletin, Mrs. Lorenzen was a little more forthcoming with information on this meeting. On page 7: In June 1953 1st Lt. Robert Olssen, Air Technical Intelligence Command, then working on the saucer project at Wright-Patterson (Ruppelt's outfit), in the presence of J. Allen Hynek, consulting astro-physicist to the Air Force on the same subject, told the Director of APRO in effect--"We are going to keep these reports (of saucers) out of the paprers. We believe most of them are due to mass hysteria and the power of suggestion. IF people are allowed to forget this matter they'll quit seeing them." The Director did not inquire as to how this was to be accomplished but Lt. Olssen's attitude suggests that the *arrangements had already been made.* We do not doubt the Lt.'s sincerity but believe that he was merely parroting the 'party line' that had been passed to him down the chain of command. We feel that he inadvertantly gave away the gimmick that was to be used to help insure the cooperation of all major news services.... --- [End] Comments we do not know how much cooperation APRO gave Project Blue Book. CSI-LA sent the Air Force their material. However, the CSI-LA material was apparently not incorporated into the Project Blue Book files. Nor are there any APRO reports. In 1955 Isabel Davis of CSI-NY made contact with Dr. Hynek. They corresponded and met, but Hynek wanted the contacts kept secret. Hynek would from time to time tip CSI-NY and Davis on cases or interesting information. Best regards, -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 1 Chiliasm Raises Hopes, fears From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 23:51:32 +1000 (GMT+1000) Fwd Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:20:06 -0500 Subject: Chiliasm Raises Hopes, fears > From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] > Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:45:53 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Millennium Raises Hopes, Fears >> WASHINGTON (AP) - Jesus Christ is about to return, and the 1,500 >> folks packed into the Sheraton Washington ballroom couldn't be >> happier...... >> Others, both in and out of the mainstream, are also blowing >> horns of warning. There are best-sellers such as Pat Robertson's >> ``The End of the Age.'' Scores of broadcasters, from Jack Van Impe >> to Hal Lindsey, are preaching of the end times. And the Internet >> offers more than 100 popular millennial sites, including Apocalypse >> Now, This Week in Bible Prophecy and The Jehovah's Witnesses' >> Homepage. And they all have not a clue. I wonder if any of them even got the name right! CHILIASM! That is the actual word. Chiliasm is the doctrine of millenialism, based on a belief in the end of the world, or apocalypse, or doomsday. Its when the antichrist comes. So lets use the correct word. > .... The time has always been "soon." When Christ left the > apostles, they thought his return was or would be soon. Some > years ago a historian documented all the then millennium/end of > the world girations that happened at the end of the first > millennium about 990 AD, i.e. everybody was in a frothing lather > that the end would happen at 1000 AD. Yes, and it is incumbent on all good citizens to ensure that the mere fear of Midnight Dec 31 1999 does not cause panic or economic prolapse. Hence the need to debunk the nonense and sell the truth, or better still, Give it Away. > In 1968, the end of the world/Armeggeddon WAS absolutly without > a doubt going to happen in 1975. Then 1980, Then 1985, then > 1989, then 1995 and so forth. I cannot tell you the year, save that if it happens at all, it will be between 1998 and 2012, and it will be early in January. > Now all the books/authors/experts are theorizing with various > dates from 1998, 99, 2000, and some of them are even going into > 2004. Maybe I should have put it in a book. Maybe someone else will, not the Truth <c> is out. > The nostrodaums "experts" have also fingered this or that date. > Not to mention I have over the years seen "experts" pick 2004, > 2007, 2014 as the year which the Mayan calender (hence the end > of the world in their mind) ends. December 23 2012 AD was their prediction. Ironically I am slated to die on or about June 23 2012, 6 months eariler. >> ``Verily I say unto you, `This generation shall not pass away, >> till all be fulfilled,''' Jesus says in Luke 21:32. In other words according to the clear and literal word of the bible, apocalypse was expected 1900 years ago. The Hebrews were amongst those forcibly settled in Alexandria, several hundreds of years earlier. There they apparently had access to ancient records now lost. Hence the account of encounters with cometary material described so vividly in Revelations. > Many people have fingered the 7 years of tribulation/rapture > to happen in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s....... Ah, the rapture. The described symptoms are those of CO poisoning. First the trumpets (comets), then the rapture (CO poison.) Hale Bopp was discharging a million tons of CO per day. Comets presage disasters as we all know so well. Well, we have seen the comet, so when does our seven years of exposure to CO start? This January maybe. Prepare to take a deep breath. Recently we had several ethane comets come past, the first ever seen. Their orbit was such that on the previous pass they would have been part of the destruction of Atlantis. In John 12 28-29 it is recorded that Jesus was speaking on behalf of his god when "...there came a voice out of heaven...." which some said carried words, but not all agreed, because "...The crowd of bystanders heard the sound and said that it had thundered...." At which Jesus said: "Now the judgement (crisis) of this world is coming on." This seems to be no mystery at all. There was the boom of a falling meteor, relatively common in those days, and Jesus quite reasonably believed that it would be not long before yet another huge mass of debris would hit the Earth. And he got it wrong. Yes, he was wrong. It just did not happen. And just because Hale Bopp just went past leaving an invisible plume of carbon monoxide does not mean we will run into it. It could miss us entirely instead. We are not on a safe world at all, you see. We are well into a major extinction event. A couple of thousand years of relative calm means nothing. For tens of thousands of years, the Earth has been peppered with meteoric iron. The topmost layers of the Earth are covered with fragments. They called it "pykos" once. A lump of slag iron looks like a pig, hence "pig iron". To some cultures it is sacred, as it was to the Egyptions. (Ben ben stones.) Even now, Muslims and Jews won't touch pig, for that reason. It is good to see they agree on *something*, albeit something so inane. Many people could not believe stones could fall from the sky. Hence the expression: "If pigs could fly". One way to read the cryptic mythology of early christianity is to say that the "Ante-christ" (before-the-crossing) has taken place. i.e. The "Anti-christ" is a mistranslation. The so-called "New Testament" was in fact orally transmitted, something like some forms of herpes. They did hold that it would come after 2 times and a time and a half. We are told a time is a year. I think it was 1000 years but have no basis for this except blind faith. (In logic). So: (2 times + a time + 0.5 ) x 1000 = 3500 years. Whether the gas will hit or not is moot. If it does then after the euphoria some will have damaged speech centres and that will be the Babel Effect. Some people might find it hard to accept that all the esoteric ideology of christianity can be attributed to astronomical phenomena. I find this curious, since the texts are very specific that its all about events in heaven above. When it comes as a big dark cloud, then you will have the grand- daddy of all eclipses, hence Apu-kalyps or apocalypse. "Armegaddon" is a bit harder to make sense of. It seems to me to mean "Hermes Gathering". Hermes is to me a UFO. So putting all that together, in the End Times expect to see a comet back after 3500 years ( e.g. Hale Bopp) before the Crossing of the Ways and then the God of Crossroads (Hermes) will be seen in plentitude. Maybe it is a salvage mission. The record is clear enough in the past, that the Nu (great fish) of U (heaven) will come in an akh (a bent line, like the symbol on the same key as the period symbol, viz: > like that seen about Phoenix and this "Noah's Ark" will collect genotypes of all kinds in order to re-seed the world after it gets creamed by the four different types of comet-magic (horus- mene) of the apocalypse. (Earth, air, fire, and water.) And so on. No idea about this rapture stuff. The path of the comet was 9 million miles beyond where our orbit will take us by early January. We might know then. Alternatively there is something else on the way, or maybe the Mayans even knew that the main debris field would be trailing 15 years behind Hale Bopp. So some of you will know by Dec 23 2012. But I guess it will be in sight 6 months earlier anyway, so I might see it. If my prediction is correct, please call it the Williams Cloud. That is all I ask. : ) If my bland prognostications distress you, dear readers, then just hit me. I'm quite cheerful about all this. Its a case of moderation in all things, and there is nothing wrong with striking a happy medium. Lawrie Williams_________
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Roswell 'Witness' - CNI News -- Vol. 3, No. 17 From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 00:01:00 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 00:01:00 -0500 Subject: Roswell 'Witness' - CNI News -- Vol. 3, No. 17 The following is posted with the permission of Michael Lindemann, Editor/Publisher of CNI News. ebk From: CNINews1@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:22:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: CNI News -- Vol. 3, No. 17, Part 1 -- November 1, 1997 ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== CNI News -- Vol. 3, No. 17, Part 1 -- November 1, 1997 Global News on Contact with Non-human Intelligence ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== CNI News is a twice-monthly electronic newsletter addressing UFO phenomena, claims of human-alien contact, space exploration and related issues, including the cultural and political impacts of contact with other intelligent life. CNI News is edited by Michael Lindemann and distributed by the 2020 Group. CNI News is a subscription newsletter. First-time recipients may receive two free issues before subscribing. For more information on how to subscribe, please see the notice at the end of this issue. Questions and comments may be addressed to: Editor, CNINews1@aol.com. The subject matter of CNI News is inherently controversial, and the views and opinions reported herein are not necessarily those of the editorial staff. ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== Welcome to CNI News. This edition is in three parts. If you don't receive all parts, email CNINews1@aol.com and request the missing part. Stories in this edition are: PART ONE o PROMISING ROSWELL EYEWITNESS GETS "INTERCEPTED" Roswell's UFO Museum Puzzles Over One That Got Away o TOP BRAZILIAN UFO WITNESS MYSTERIOUSLY DIES Colonel Had Testified on Military Tracking of UFOs PART TWO o SPACE TOURISM -- AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME? Huge Tourist Market Fuels Push for Cheap, Safe Rockets o GOOD IDEA! GIVE CNI NEWS THIS HOLIDAY SEASON Extend Your Own Subscription When You Share the News! o CNN CONSIDERS SENDING REPORTER TO MIR STATION o BEST BIGFOOT FILM A HOLLYWOOD HOAX, U.K. PAPER SAYS o ALLEGED "ALIEN" PHOTO TO HIT WEB ON HALLOWEEN PART THREE o WORKING THE BUGS OUT OF UFO VIDEOTAPES One Man's Experiment in Capturing the Elusive "Rods" o U.S. MILITARY FIRES SUPER-LASER AT SATELLITE Real Reasons For Test Are Obscure; Russians Protest o BRITISH SCIENTISTS MAKE HEADLESS FROG Research Could Lead to Headless Human Clones o MOTHER, DAUGHTER REPORT SAUCERS IN GEORGIA ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== PLEASE NOTE: Due to the editor's travel obligations, this edition of CNI News is being delivered two days ahead of normal schedule. The CNI News office will be closed from Oct 30 through Nov 5. If you notify us of a delivery problem, your message will be answered on Nov 6. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and thank you in advance for your patience. ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== PROMISING ROSWELL EYEWITNESS GETS "INTERCEPTED" Roswell's UFO Museum Puzzles Over One That Got Away by Michael Lindemann It is the kind of story that raises, then dashes, a UFO researcher's fondest hopes. It is the kind of story that stokes legend and breeds paranoia -- and leaves many burning questions unanswered. A credible-sounding witness to the Roswell UFO crash of 1947 is on his deathbed. His adult son, never privy to the father's dark secret until recently, calls the Roswell UFO Museum, hoping someone will hear him out and understand what he's saying. The old man has some important information -- and an artifact. Personnel at the museum are intrigued but cautious. They've heard this kind of thing before. But in a second phone call, the old man himself tells a story full of tantalizing details that seem to ring true. Arrangements are made for a meeting in Oklahoma. Everyone emphasizes the need for confidentiality and security. The son is particularly concerned for the welfare of his father and other family members. Precautions are taken to insure that identities and plans are protected. But the precautions are thwarted. The planned meeting does not take place. Instead, the museum representative, who has driven hundreds of miles, finds himself unable to locate the son or the father. He waits impatiently in his hotel room, waiting for a message that does not come. Instead, he receives a totally unexpected phone call. He is directed to a nearby restaurant, there to meet two people he has never heard of before. At the meeting, he is told that the two are government agents, but their real names and exact affiliations are not disclosed. They explain to the museum representative that they have intercepted the father and son, who are now cooperating with the government. The agents tell the museum representative that the Roswell incident is real. However, they say, it is not yet time to allow such things as a real alien artifact into the light of day. The museum representative goes home puzzled, scared -- and empty-handed. Further efforts to contact the father and son are unsuccessful. This, in brief, is a sequence of events that really happened earlier this year. At least, this is the story told by Dennis Balthaser, Operations Manager for the Roswell International UFO Museum and Research Center in Roswell, New Mexico. Balthaser himself was the museum representative who drove to a town in Oklahoma, intending to meet the father and son who might -- just might -- turn over a real piece of the Roswell UFO. Balthaser says that his planned meeting was "intercepted." Balthaser first told his full story in a public lecture at the Roswell UFO Museum on October 11. He has provided CNI News with a complete text of that lecture. Balthaser says that the man he refers to only as "the son" first called the museum in late May. The son said that his father had just told him an astonishing story. The son had never had any interest in UFOs and knew nothing about the Roswell incident of 1947, he said. After hearing his father's story, he first tried to contact the Roswell Army Air Field where his father had once been stationed -- not even realizing that that military facility was long gone. In due course, he was directed to the Roswell UFO Museum. During the initial phone contact, the son gave many details that he attributed to his father. Museum personnel took extensive notes during the phone call. Balthaser says the son told them the following: The father had been assigned to protect a live being that had arrived from another world. The father showed the son a strange metallic object which had been stored for years in an old footlocker. The father had kept the footlocker with him at the nursing home where he had lived since being diagnosed with terminal cancer. The son said the metal piece was the size of a half dollar and looked like chewing gum foil. He said that when it was crumpled up and then released, it unfolded itself, leaving no creases. The father described a heavily armed military unit that had accompanied an ambulance back from the site of an apparent crash in the desert. The site, he said, was 45 or 50 minutes' drive from the airbase. The father said he was assigned to help guard the back entrance to the base hospital. In that position, he watched as a being the size of a child, but deformed, walked under its own power into the hospital. The father said all regular hospital personnel were cleared out, and the guards stayed on duty for the next eight hours with orders to shoot anyone who tried to enter without authorization. After the episode, the father was told never to talk about it, on pain of death. He had not talked about it until now. After hearing these details, several key members of the museum staff, including Dennis Balthaser, deliberated on what to do. They decided to send some background information about the Roswell incident to the son and invited him to call the museum again after reviewing it. On Sunday, June 1, the son called again. Balthaser took the call and took five pages of notes during the conversation. This time, the father got on the phone and told his own story. To the previously mentioned details, the father added the following: He had been 23 years old and recently returned from two years' infantry duty in Europe when he was assigned to a military police detachment at Roswell Field. He was now 73 years old and was told he had six months to live. He said that on July 3, 1947, all leaves and passes at the base were cancelled. Early on the morning of July 4, he was part of a guard detachment that was driven to a location some 20 to 30 miles north of town. There, he said, he saw quite a few vehicles and high ranking officers, including some who had flown in from Washington. He believed he was guarding the site of a military air crash. He found the strange piece of metal while at the site, and put it in his pocket. He was told to escort an ambulance back to the base. Once there, he saw the strange being get out of the ambulance and enter the hospital. He said he was debriefed several times, including when he was discharged from the service later that year at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He was told to forget everything that had happened at Roswell. Dennis Balthaser asked if the old man would tell his story in front of a video camera. The man said yes, as long as his two sons were not involved. Balthaser then consulted with other museum staff. It was decided that he would drive to Oklahoma for a confidential meeting with the man. If all went as planned, Balthaser would videotape the man's statement and would acquire the metal artifact and other promised materials and information. The son provided a private phone number to call when Balthaser arrived. Plans were made for the meeting. Museum personnel created a long list of questions they hoped the old man could answer, especially regarding the appearance and behavior of the alien being. On June 13, Balthaser drove to the town in Oklahoma where he was to meet the man and his son. From his hotel, Balthaser called the private number given him by the son. A woman answered. She said the son was out of town on an emergency trip but would be back the next day. Balthaser said he would call again. Balthaser had the name of the son, who had said he was an attorney. But no one by that name was listed in the local phone book. Balthaser also had an address to which the museum had previously mailed Roswell information. That address turned out to be in a trailer park. Balthaser began to suspect trouble. The next morning, as agreed, he again called the private number. This time he got only a phone answering machine. He called again a few hours later, and then again still later -- each time getting a machine. Now he fully suspected a hoax. But he waited in his hotel room, still hoping the son would call. At 3:30 that afternoon, the phone in Balthaser's room rang. On the line was a woman who called herself Christi. She told Balthaser to meet her and her partner Ed at the nearby Denny's restaurant that evening. Balthaser agreed. The meeting at the restaurant lasted three and a half hours. It began, Balthaser says, with "Ed" and "Christi" telling him that he would not be meeting the people he had come to see. Ed told Balthaser that he and Christi worked for the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). They were based in Texas, Ed said, but they took their orders from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. They never showed identification of any kind. Balthaser believes that their names were not "Ed and Christi" (they said so). He does not know if they really worked for OSI. Ed told Balthaser that they had known he was coming. Ed said that Balthaser's home phone and the museum phones had been tapped. He also said that the son's wife had been the one who first contacted OSI about the father's information. Ed said that he had seen and handled the strange metal artifact the previous evening, and that it was now in safe hands. Ed demonstrated to Balthaser that he had a very thorough knowledge of the Roswell incident. Ed said the government knows UFOs are real and that Roswell really happened. He said Majestic 12 was real and is still in operation. He said four aliens had been recovered from the Roswell crash, and that one of them is still alive. Ed told Balthaser that the government wants to make UFO information public as soon as arrangements can be made to avoid panic and get the story accurately portrayed in the media. Ed said that someone in Roswell was keeping tabs on the museum and reporting back to Washington. He said that he and some other agents would be visiting Roswell at a later date and that they would contact Balthaser in an unusual way. Ed also hinted that there might be an inter-agency conflict regarding the proper handling of UFO information. He told Balthaser that his own boss had been gunned down two weeks earlier by agents of the CIA. He said he wanted the truth to be told but had to watch out for his own safety as well. The agents told Balthaser a great deal of additional tantalizing information, none of which could be verified. When the meeting ended, Balthaser knew he had no choice but to return to Roswell empty-handed. Before going to bed that night, however, he wrote down everything he could remember about the meeting. Back in Roswell a few days later, Balthaser tried calling the son. Surprisingly, after talking with an unidentified woman and waiting a long time, he heard the son's voice on the line. The son sounded very nervous and asked if they could talk later. Balthaser insisted on talking right then. The son said there were others present. Then another voice came on the line. Addressing Balthaser by name, this voice said that the son and his family were now cooperating with an agency of the federal government. The voice then said, "You can call me Charles," and continued by telling Balthaser that in due time the museum might benefit by what the son's father had disclosed, but that for the time being it was best to keep it out of public view. Government scientists were going to study the metal. Usually, Charles said, such things turn out to be hoaxes, although this metal did seem quite unusual. Balthaser says that Charles sounded reasonable and conciliatory. He concluded the conversation by saying, "We have your information and we'll be in touch. Our office doesn't do any strong-arm tactics. When we get wind of something unusual, we investigate it. That's what we're paid to do. We're making sure that American tax dollars are being well spent." Dennis Balthaser admits that for some days after this sequence of events, he felt paranoid. He is convinced his phone is tapped. He even wondered if his car would explode one day when he turned on the ignition. But as weeks went by without further incident, he calmed down. More than a month later, on July 23, Balthaser tried once again to contact the son. The woman who had answered before answered again. The son, she said, had just left on a trip. Could he return the call? Balthaser left his name and number. The son never called back. Again in early September, Balthaser tried to call the son. This time, a different male voice answered. Balthaser was told the son no longer lived there. The trail had gone cold. Summarizing his impressions of what happened, Dennis Balthaser says: "I had an experience with my government that I will carry for the rest of my life. I believe the United States government is still preventing people from obtaining information about the Roswell incident." Balthaser says he has considered whether the father and son could have intended from the beginning to perpetrate a hoax. He can't disprove that notion, but he doesn't believe it. He says that everything he could tell about the father and son during their several phone conversations seemed authentic. Dennis Balthaser says he is not scared, but he is deeply concerned. And, he says, if his concerns are as well-founded as he thinks, "then this country of ours has more perplexing problems than we can imagine." ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== Except as otherwise noted, the entire text of CNI News is copyright 1997 by the 2020 Group. As a condition of receiving CNI News, all recipients agree not to post CNI News on any Newsgroup, Web site, BBS or similar electronic location, nor redistribute CNI News by any electronic means, except for the express purpose of encouraging others to subscribe, or unless with prior permission of the editor. In general, electronic posting or redistribution of single articles or short excerpts from CNI News will be approved, provided credit is given to the author and CNI News in every instance. Hard copy (paper) reproduction and redistribution of CNI News, in whole or part, for educational purposes is permitted. ==+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++===+++== LIKE CNI News? If so, please tell others to request delivery of two free issues so they can find out how much they like it too. There's no obligation. Send all trial subscription requests to CNINews1@aol.com with the message "Try News." READY TO SUBSCRIBE? If you've received one or more trial issues of CNI News and are ready to subscribe, here's how. -- Choose six months (12 issues) for $12, or twelve months (24 issues) for $24. You can pay by check or money order, or by credit card (VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express). -- If paying by check or money order, make payable to CNI News and mail to: CNI News, 2100 W. Drake Rd. #277, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 USA. IMPORTANT: Please make sure to include your EMAIL address with your payment. -- To subscribe by credit card, you can call our toll-free 800 phone service: 1-800-898-0284; or email the following information to CNINews1@aol.com: Your full name, email address, postal address, type of credit card, card number, expiration date, and daytime phone number (in case of a problem with your order). Be SURE to tell us whether you're paying $12 (for six months) or $24 (full year). Thanks for your interest and support! SEEN OUR WEB SITE? If not, be sure to visit soon at http://www.cninews.com/ While there, check out our unique "Search CNI News" feature, the only keyword searchable UFO news archive in cyberspace.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 UFO Forum Chats with Attorney Peter Gersten From: "Yvonne Hedenland" <VONNI_H@classic.msn.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 97 14:43:37 UT Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:42:05 -0500 Subject: UFO Forum Chats with Attorney Peter Gersten Peter Gersten is well known within UFO circles for his legal work filing and obtaining FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) documents regarding UFOs from the government. Join us Tuesday, November 4th, 6pm, PT for a discussion on his latest filing requests regarding the NY Times bestseller "Day After Roswell"'s co author Col. Philip J. Corso (Ret.). This chat is available at http://forums.msn.com/UFO The Briefing Room chat can also be accessed by any IRC client. The chat server name is publicchat.msn.com and the room or channel name is #briefing.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Ted Phillips From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:58:55 +0100 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:44:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Ted Phillips Hello Errol and List, Has anyone on thi list got an email or any other address on Ted Phillips. His area of expertize is UFO landing traces. If anyone has information on him I'd appreciate a heads up. Thanks, Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ETH &c From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 97 12:48:51 +0900 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:52:04 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:27 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp> >>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 16:01:13 +0900 >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees >>If a hypothesis violates what science claims to understand, and >>it is said that this so-called understanding within science >>applies a negating pressure to this hypothesis, it can be said >>that an equal and opposite negating pressure is applied upon what >>science claims to understand. :) >Common sense & everyday observation tells us the Sun revolves >around the Earth. That is an hypothesis that "violates what >science claims to understand". Are you seriously suggesting >that it exerts any "negating" pressure on science? (I am not >suggesting the ETH is an hypothesis of this order, btw - I'm >just suggesting that Penrose's Law will make for hard cases >and may be in danger of rubbing shoulders with Williams's Four >Insupportable Axioms of Ufology.) Penrose's Law is much like Ockham's razor, in that it cannot be universally applied. Hence the smiley. >>Ockham's Razor is a bogus tool virally perpetuated by >>self-deceived sophists. >Nicely put :-). But it is a veritable mysterious coincidence then >that all the bona-fide paid-up scientists of my acquaintance, >among whom only chemists are under-represented these days, are >self-deceived sophists, for they do wag it under my nose along >with their fingers whenever we discuss the more outr=E9 aspects of >my interests. I do trust that you have declined any offers to be shaven by this obtuse blade should such waggings be the overtures of barbering. I am not the first to find fault in Ockham's Razor. I think though that you are arguing that it is among the best tools we have for filtering our descriptions of reality. This may be somewhat true, but Science has not kept Mr. Ockham's blade well-honed. Science is not a singularity in accord with our mutual concern for openness to possibility; Science is a balkan confederation. In addition to its necessarily conservative elements, there are indeed strong factions not only advocating but exercising wanton reductionism, and even factions coercing scientific description to adhere to a priori schematics of reality, which are induced by complex motivations that span the fields political, sociological, and religious. Mr. Ockham may (or may not) "go centrifugal in his grave" when his tool is guided by such degenerate agendas. I know that Science induces Charles Fort to do so in his; it has been said that Iraqii nuclear weapons engineers have been using his grave to enrich weapons grade plutonium. I agree with you that "the door is wide open", but Science has not been willing to explore the ETH in earnest. The door is only open to us, and not to the majority of the Balkan Confederation. I am not a literalist, I have not had any first hand, imagined or otherwise, experience that would resonate my belief in the ETH. But I do strongly believe that the ETH has not been scrutinized by the scientific community: it has been spurned as one would exile fetid underwear. The idea is too incongruous, here Mr. Ockham has hacked in dull and unfortunate strokes, to be considered worthy of investigation. Of course, we can implore those who advocate the ETH to "become scientists" and improve their discourse, but the Balkan Confederation of Science still slanders such activity. UFO/abduction researchers do not enjoy wide spread acceptance at Universities, and thus economic research support is lacking for such research. University support would give an obvious boost to the quality of the ETH related research as a needed bonus. > if you want to argue that UFOs are ET, it's up to you to prove it. > not for the doubters to disprove it. I don't subscribe to such a view, and I don't think the Pentagon does either, even if they are without evidence of ET themselves. SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) is an interesting case in point. Of all the possible explanations for the anomalous phenomenae in which we share a mutual interest, the ETH has the most extreme consequences (save perhaps for the similar Extradimensional beings hypothesis) for our world view, with profound global impact upon our assorted cultural institutions. If extraterrestials are indeed meddling with us, it behooves us to find out as much as we can and quickly. Instead The Balkan Republic of Science has turned its back upon and humiliated anyone who would find credence in the ETH, while simultaneously daring them to prove the hypothesis. A potentially global phenomenae requires a unilaterally global response. Christopher Penrose penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:06:57 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:54:25 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:39:31 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? [was: Solved abduction cases?] >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. >>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:13:27 -0500 >>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >>Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >The following is an expanded version of my treatment of the so- >called Belgian Triangles in "UFO: The Government Files" >(ISBN 0-7607-0218-7). >Case #32 >FALCONS HUNT TRIANGLES >Brussels--Tienen--Li=E8ge--Eupen Axis, Belgium >30-31 March, 1990 >The Belgian UFO flap opened on 29 November 1989, when hundreds of >people in and around Eupen, near the German border, saw a huge >triangular UFO, showing bright spotlights, pass over the town. >The prime witesses were two gendarmes. In the following months, >similar craft were reported from around the country. Many >skywatches were organized, and many photographs and some 30 >videotapes were taken of the UFOs. >By March 1990 the Belgian authorities had received over 2500 >reports of triangular UFOs, mostly around Eupen and Li=E8ge, since >November 1989. The Royal Belgian Air Force (RBAF) agreed that if >a Brussels-based UFO research group, SOBEPS, would co-ordinate >reports at ground level, the RBAF would handle tracking and >interception. >On the night of 30/31 March, police patrols and civilian >witnesses linked to SOBEPS reported from 11:00pm that a UFO - the >first report, from a gendarme at Ramillies, mentioned three, >showing red, green and yellow lights - appeared to be flying on a >consistent course across Belgium. RBAF radars at Glons and >Semmerzake confirmed the sightings and, at 00:05am, two F-16 >Fighting Falcons were scrambled to intercept. The UFO had been >flying slowly at 150kt/280kmh at 9000ft/2750m until the F-16s' >radar locked on to it, when it accelerated at an extraordinary >rate to 970kt/1800kmh and dived to below 5000ft/1500m. Next it >flashed up to 11,000ft/3350m and then suddenly dived, and in a >few seconds was lost to radar amid 'ground clutter'. The chase >continued, with several brief lock-ons, until 1:02am, when the >F-16s headed for their base, landing a few minutes later. Ground >observers reported that around 1:30am four UFOs 'lost their >luminosity' and 'seemed to disappear in four different >directions'. Video tapes of the airborne radar read-outs were >later released to the press. >The RBAF at first suspected that the USAF was testing the >effectiveness of their 'stealth' aircraft - the F117A fighter in >particular, which has an unusual triangular configuration. The >USAF denied the charge twice, in December 1989 and again in June >1990, saying the plane had 'never flown in the European theater'. >This may have been disingenuous: there were persistent rumors in >aviation circles in the late 1980s that the F117A was >occasionally operating at night from USAF bases in eastern >England, while the equally unorthodox-looking B-2 stealth bomber >openly visited the UK not long after its unveiling in November >1988. It also became known in 1992 that, despite previous >denials, US stealth aircraft had secretly photographed a French >uranium- enrichment plant at Pierrelatte. However, the F-16 can >fly twice as fast as either the B-2 or F-117A: so how would they >have outpaced the Belgian jets? >Belgian skeptic Wim van Utrecht demolished many of the claims >surrounding the events of 30/31 March 1990 (see text) but >conceded that 'some kind of unusual flying machine did manifest >itself over our country on two or three occasions' in November >and December 1989. The object 'may have been an experimental, >self-propelled balloon of triangular configuration. This would >explain not only the slow and almost silent overflight... but >also its reason to carry [lights] attuned to standard safety >regulations. ...[B]limps and new generation airships are now >advertised in military circles as the best possible solution for >covert reconnaissance duties.' I hope I'll be excused for not answering this post entirely, because I have a life. I just want to relay that I began to chuckle here at the mere thought of a triangular balloon that carries three lights and decides to evade F16's by changing course rapidly and in doing so passes through the sound barrier. My God, some balloon! The chuckle continues almost half an hour after I read that literally ridiculous explanation for the first time. By now my face has turned red and my heartbeat has gone up significantly. I expect this condition to last all day. When I go into town in a minute to do some shopping people strolling over the market will be wondering whether I am laughing at them or about them. Thanks, Duke. >From time to time I am truly amazed about the lengths that people go to explain away something they can't understand. It reminds me of that anecdote about inhabitants of a Pacific island who think that aircraft are just big birds that make noise. Duke, I'll say one thing for you. You sure know where to find' em. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 BWW MA: EOR Tonight From: BufoCalvin@aol.com Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:10:40 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:55:17 -0500 Subject: BWW MA: EOR Tonight Bufo Calvin, P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 E-mail: BufoCalvin@aol.com Website: http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/ BufoCalvin/index.html">BufoCalvin's Home Page</A> ) TAP (The Address Project) Bufo's WEIRD WORLD e-zine Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.ht ml">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert provided that attribution is made to http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make sure it is clear that you are forwarding it). November 1, 1997 I've had very little time this week...taught my first spreadsheet (Excel) class, and that took some even more serious prep. For now, I'll just jump in with the guests for tonight's EDGE OF REALITY show, since Producer Lee Spiegel was nice enough to send it. I'll probably be doing catch as catch can like this for awhile... Saturday, November 1 SYNDICATED RADIO, RADIO: THE EDGE OF REALITY, 5:00 PM -8:00 PM Pacific. Also available on Satcom C5, Transponder 23, SEDAT Channel 24. The specific spots have to be considered tentative, and the station in your area may run it tape-delayed. I've found out recently that the one in my area even runs it out of order, running the third hour first! 5:00 PM, Sue Kovach, author of a book on police cases involving the paranormal ( <A HREF="http://www.amazo n.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0809231212/bufosweirdworldA/">Hidden Files : Law Enforc ement's True Case Stories of the Unexplained an</A>d Paranormal). With her will be a couple of cops who have worked on such cases; 6:00 PM, UFOS & SATAN, with syndicated radio evil-fighter, Bob Larson. I don't know if he knows that Billy Graham disagrees with him (that all UFO happenings are Satan related)...Larson is author of IN THE NAME OF SATAN ( <A HREF="http://www.amaz on.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0785278818/bufosweirdworldA /">In the Name of Satan</A > ); 7:00 PM, psychic healer Gene Egidio (with psychologist David Allen). Egidio is author of WHOSE HANDS ARE THESE? A GIFTED HEALER'S MIRACULOUS TRUE STORY ( <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0446520454/bufosweirdw orldA/">Whose Hands Are These? : A Gifted Healer's Miraculous True Story</A> ) This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!" ____________________________ You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's WEIRD WORLD (which covers theories and happenings) the same way. Also, please let me know if there is something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the week before. _____________________________ **OPUS is the Organization for Paranormal Understanding and Support. I am an Executive Boardmember, and Director of the OPUS Educational Institute. OPUS encourages its officers and Network Associates to express their own opinions: however, it is important to note that I do not speak for OPUS in this piece or others presented under my own name. The new OPUS phone number is (510) 689-4198 ______________________________ Bufo's WEIRD WORLD BOOKS ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.htm l">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) I'm very excited about this! Some of you know, I ran a bookstore for years, and it has always been a love of mine. I get asked often to recommend books (I do write reviews for several publications) on these topics, and now I can do it and actually give you a source for them at the same time! This is being done in association with Amazon.com, which has an outstanding reputation for the five "S"s of internet shopping: selection, searchability, service, savings, and security. If there is any specific book you want (or topic in which you are interested), let me know and I will do the research and e-mail you a link you can use to check it out more (and order it if you want). I will be linking to books within the Media Alert, to make it more efficient for you. If you click on the link, you will be sent to that title on Amazon. You do =not= have to buy it at that point! You may, but the option is yours.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Trace case in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 09:57:49 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:56:53 -0500 Subject: Trace case in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? Hello List! A university college professor, respecting my interest in the ufological, and coming out, so to speak, asked me if I had ever heard of this: When he was visiting a college in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in the 1966, 1968 time frame, and while not witnessing it himself, because he was indoors and unaware, 5 to 7 UFO's hovered over 15th street elsewhere in the city, knocked out the engines of the automobiles underneath them, and remained in the air overhead for a period of twenty to thirty minutes -- or at least long enough for TV crews to get out there, and get them on film! That footage _was_ witnessed by the professor that evening on the local news, and he read about the sighting in the local paper. The UFO's left the area by accelerating straight up. There were hundreds of witnesses. It occurred between ten and two in the middle of the day. The local TV News, and the paper referenced could have come out of Birmingham, Alabama. I had never heard of this one, and wondered if anyone could corroborate it for me. I already asked him to try to firm up the date. Thanks in advance. Lehmberg@snowhill.com -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:10:02 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:01:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:23:57 -0500 > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 > >To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >Bruce: > >Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on > >photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document > >scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for > >review. > >I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who > >will find your work...intruiging. > >How about it? > I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations > in a personal letter to you? No this is the original paper you sent to Walt Andrus. The one where you place the camera height ("perfectly")at 4.1', the "UFO" dimensions at 24x17 with the ring measurement at 14.86, at a distance of 370'. > I can, of course, upload the short papers I wrote back then > detailing the analysis of the hood reflection and the study of > the road reflection. No thanks. > And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you > have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, Dont go there. <snip> I think you're getting paranoid. I asked a question about photo 19. I thought it would be fun to toss the calculations out for all the people with math and science degrees to discuss. We have a tendency here to discuss things that are not as concrete. This would be something for the hard core science group to bat around. Of course if you feel uncomfortable with others reading your work I can totally understand. After all, what if someone without a stake in this case found your reasoning and math to be flawed...then what? Lets stick to 19. Everything is in writing. BB
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 07:09:50 +0000 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:02:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 06:00:42 -0500 > From: Graham William Birdsall <106151.1150@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Mexican UFO Video Tape > >Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:26:38 EST > Dear Tom, > Clearly it is impossible to state definitely whether the 6 August > 1997 Mexican video tape footage is genuine or not without having > access to the original footage - a point I emphasised at the > outset when making reference to the observations made by those of > us here who received one of those "poor copies" referred to by > Mexican UFO researcher Santiago Garza. Why not Graham ? You did exactlt this with the Santilli film. Regards, Philip.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footag From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:10:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footag [Jared - please, don't make me ask you, again, for attribution - Where did this come from? -ebk] Elders Update On Mexican UFO Video Analysis From Brit Elders FOR THE RECORD =A0 On August 6, 1997, a remarkable segment of video footage was taken over Mexico City. The video tape depicts an unidentified aircraft which is a classic flying saucer shape that appears to be rotating in a counter-clockwise manner. =A0 The initial shot is at a distance. The object is hovering next to a large apartment complex. The cameraman then begins to zoom up to the object. The unknown then begings to move; at first with a jolt and then smoothly until it passes behind the apartment building and emerges above the roof. The unknown continues to move across the skyline, over the building, until it again passes behind another section of the apartment complex. After that the unidentified aerial object is not seen again. It does not re-emerge nor is it seen in any other location visible on the tape. However, at this time we do not if this video is the entire tape that was shot on August 6th, or just a portion of it. =A0 The footage was brought to us by Jaime Maussan and, after the initial shock wore off, we were faced with two possible explanations: Industrial Light and Magic has moved to Mexico City or this is could be the 'smoking gun' everyone is hoping to find. Either way, it really deserves exceptionally close scrutiny. =A0 The plan was to quietly allow scientists, qualified professional people, working on sophisticated equipment, the opportunity to compile as much data as possible from their independent analysis. But the besy plans always find a monkey wrench. =A0 Unfortunately, the thrill of seeing something that should rock the world if it is real, spurred an overly enthusiastic reaction from an individual that was present during the initial viewing. Within hours, notification of the existence of this new footage was sailing across the net. Jaime, seeking more information, put the footage on his program, Tercer Milenio. =A0 Since then, the debate of "is it real or is it a hoax" has been the topic of conversation, e-mail, and net postings. Some people have gone so far as to record Jaime's television program, use a video capture process to capture stills from the footage, and post the stills on the net, with complete and utter disregard for the copyright logo. =A0 An investigation is only as good as all of the facts that come into it and the analysis of those details by qualified professionals are crutial to discovering the truth. The individuals that we have asked to analyze this material are among te best. They do not wish to release anything, including their names, until they have completed their analysis. Their reasoning is that initial postulations may or may not be correct and they are not seeking publicity and would like to do what they do without interuption. Their consensus is that theories and initial findings can taint and color the overall analysis. Therefore, in the interest of providing accurate information to the public we will not feed speculation until we have data. =A0 However, in an effort to appease those who want to know more and to put some issues in order, the following is what is known at this time. Please keep in mind that details and information are still coming into us. We, by no means, have all of the pieces to the puzzle yet. =A0 1) The footage we have lasts only 35 seconds. The date stamp on the video tape says Augusat 6, 1997. This may or may not be the entire segment. The excited voices of two men can be heard on the tape. The conversation is very real as is their verbal reaction to what they are seeing as they videotape the unidentified object. =A0 2) The footage depicts a wealthy, exclusive area outside downtown Mexico City. The apartment buildings in the foreground are visible from the road to Toluca. =A0 3) The footage was sent to Jaime Maussan anonymously. Accompanying the video tape was a letter from the man who says he took the footage. In the letter he stated that he was afraid of loosing his job and did not want to be identified. He did, however, direct Jaime to copyright the footage, which has been registered under international copyright laws. =A0 Anonymous material is always a concern of ours. But, we have a good idea who the "shooter" is and our team in Mexico is trying to convince the him to come forward. =A0 4) The building and the office from where the footage was taken has been located. =A0 5) We do have witnesses on the ground. One example is a teenage girl who described the object to a tee before ever seeing the video. =A0 One of the most impressive of the witness statements comes from a woman who was standing beneath the unknown. She reported developing a "sun burn" that lasted for more than a month after the experience. =A0 We asked H. David Froning, a retired senior staff scientist at McDonnell Douglas and propulsion specialist, his opinion of her statement. His feelings are that the "sun burn" could be the result of ionized radiation left in the wake of an electro-magnetic form of propulsion. The ionized air would would not block any ultra violet rays, thus creating a "sun burn" in short period of time. David comfortable releasing this information now as speculation is all we can do regarding the "sun burn" statement. =A0 Also of interest is that several witnesses reported a "haze" around the object. =A0 6) Preliminary estimations of size and distance have been triangulated by Village Labs in Tempe, Arizona. The object appears to be 36 to 50 feet in diameter. The distance from the camera to the unknown is estimated between 800 and 1200 yards. We are working on a program that should provide better estimates. =A0 7) Could the unknown be suspended from a helicopter? No. August 6th was one of the most polluted days in Mexico. The authorities declared it an emergency and grounded all but two choppers, neither of which were in that area. =A0 =A0 8) Could it be a blimp? No. There is a law in Mexico that forbids the flight of blimps. =A0 This leads us back to one of two possibilities: this is a spectacular segment of video footage OR a spectacular hoax. =A0 If this footage is hoaxed, then sophisticated computers and programs were employed. However, the suggestion that has been posted on this site that the material was first composited then filmed off of a monitor screen is inaccurate. Anyone who has attempted to film a monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and the monitor do not sync. This was verified, not only by first hand observance, but by one of our consultants, an engineer with several years experience at NBC. Taking that possibility one step further, we posed the question, "What if a composit were created then placed on a video tape through audio/video output?" His response, "Output to video tape would leave a telltale mark that could be found." =A0 If one only considers the possibility of a computer generated hoax, then that thought process is an injustice to the witnesses. How does one account for the witnesses who have nothing to gain and who do not know each other, yet, issued remarkably similar descriptions in their statements? =A0 Differing opinions are healthy; they make us all think. But they become unhealthy when opinions are formulated without facts. We know and understand that everyone is curious. We are, too. But we all need to be patient and to let the investigation run its course and the analysts do their job before we make out-of-turn statements and premature judgements. =A0 We will keep Jeff and Sighings updated and future releases on the progress of the investigation and the analysis will be available on our website at: http://www.genesis-3.com If anyone has any questions, we may be contacted directly via email at genesis@genesis-3.com. =A0 Brit Elders
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:09:05 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:06:43 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:13:27 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> James, I deleted the part about Aurora/Senior Citizen, because though this is interesting I think it is only indirectly relevant to UFOs. >>>The Belgium reference is a good example of the questionable data >>>which some government officials base their beliefs on. >>>... the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap was _officially_ >>>explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter and no pilot >>>ever witnessed an actual object. >>Hogwash again. I should simply say do some elementary research on >>this one, James. The people who were involved in this investigation >>would either have been insulted or would have rolled over the floor >>over this explanation. Ground clutter! The official explanation was >>'unknown craft'. >You appear to be unaware of any developments which succeeded the >initial conclusions. > >I've checked my elementary research and although it's almost >three years old now, it still notes that on the skunk-works list, >the learned Jean-Pierre Pharabod, who does know a thing or two >about the Belgian incidents, advised me: >[Defence Department report, Belgium: "On some occasions they >described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200 >feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +-100m >above the ground and making only a very light humming >noise...On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F-16's during the >evening hours...On the second occasion, pilots could identify a >laser-beam projector on the ground...A total of 9 interception >attempts have been made. On 6 occasions the pilots could >establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on >distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets >varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred >after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. >At 3 occasions both F16's registered simultaneous lock-ons with >the same parameters]. >"The above are excerpts from an old "SUMMARY REPORT ON >OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990", written by Col. (now General) De >Brouwer. Further studies have been made, and the conclusions are >different. The first "two occasions" were before the night 30-31 >March 1990, and the "laser-beam projector on ground" was used by >a night-club (this was well known, and was what De Brouwer meant >in his summary). During the night 30-31 March, the pilot of the >second F-16 video recorded his radar echoes. It appears now >(Gilmard & Lt. Col. Salmon's study) that the first lock-ons, >with speed and altitude varying very quickly, could be "ground >clutter", while the one which lasted for 60 seconds, with nearly >constant altitude and speed, was the first F-16. Now the Belgian >military say "though this is not excluded, there is no proof that >we got echoes from a real object with unusual abilities". >And later added: >"Now the Air Force has an explanation: ground clutter. I know of >only 4 radars involved (2 on ground, 2 airborne), not 5. There >were not hundreds of eye witnesses (this night), only a few >gendarmes. Now it is said that what they saw could be stars >through unusual atmospheric refraction phenomena. I am not aware of any official Belgian investigation into the 1989/1990 happenings after the investigation that was concluded in the spring (June?) of 1990. Last January I contacted the Belgian Air Force and they said nothing about a new investigation. If there is a new one, could you inform us when that was concluded and under whose authority? Could your friend the learned Pharabod or you perhaps explain to us, perhaps from the "new explanation" by the Belgian Air Force, how ground clutter could be responsible for the manoeuvers that were described? Could you also explain how the second pilot, flying directly behind the first, mistook his leader for a UFO for a full minute? And how this mistake was not recognized during the official investigation? Could you or your friend the learned Pharabod inform us how a group of gendarmes could mistake a few bright stars for the boarding lights of a UFO? Have the stars that were responsible been identified? This should be easy since the place and the time of their observation is known. Has somebody found out whether this atmospheric defraction phenomenon has indeed taken place above the piece of the Belgian sky above the gendarmes? Under what conditions does it normally take place and what is the likelihood that it took place? >Only one thing remains unexplained. The F-16's took off at 0h 05 >local time (= GMT + 2). At 0 h 28, the Semmerzake radar detected >an object 2500 ft over the western part of the Brussels >agglomeration, moving towards Liege (roughly speaking, towards >east) at 450 knots. At 0 h 29, the Glons radar detected it also. >>From 0 h 29 to 0 h 33, both radars followed the craft, which was >going in straight line towards Liege, increasing its speed and >its altitude. The Semmerzake radar spotted it again 6000 ft over >Liege at 0 h 35, speed 650 knots. The last point was some 12 >miles east of Liege, altitude 12000 ft, at 0 h 36. (This craft >was not one of the two F-16's, which were flying in complicated >loops, followed by the radars on ground). >The Semmerzake radar is an array type radar. It is used for >military air safety. Semmerzake is about 30 miles west of >Brussels. Glons CRC is a part of NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground >Environment). There are about 80 NADGE CRC in Europe (including >Turkey). Its missions are: 1. detect and follow every flight in >the Belgian air space, 2. identify friend or foe, 3. if foe, >intercept and/or destroy according to the alert status. The Glons >radar is a multipurpose impulsion type radar. Glons is about 6 >miles north of Liege. The distance Brussels-Liege is about 60 >miles. There is another radar at Bertem, for civilian traffic. >The craft passed 5 miles south of Bertem at 0 h 30. The Bertem >radar did not see anything (maybe because it looked only for >transponders ?). Could you explain to us why this information about the types of ground radar is relevant? >As far as I know, the craft has not yet been >identified. Maybe illegal flight of a private jet?" Could you or your friend the learned Pharabod explain how a commercial aircraft outruns an F16 against a clear night sky? >>You are partially right that the F16 pilots chasing the UFO did not >>witness the object, but then we are talking about visual contact. >>There was radar contact, however, and the position and manoeuvres >>recorded on radar tape matched the observations of multiple witnesses >>on the ground. >See above. >>The facts are that a few individuals have a reluctance to do even the >>most basic research, which is very apparent from the fact that they >>are not even aware of the most popular debunkers 'explanation' of >>this case. >Perhaps you will now reconsider your comments and understand the >points I highlighted. I retract my suggestion that you did not do any elementary research. Forgive me if the explanation 'ground clutter' misled me. >The "Belgian flap" remains an interesting series of events, but >maybe doesn't have the substance we thought it had. As you may expect I am not under the impression of this information as a possible explanation for the Belgian flap. The object that was recorded by F16 radar was indicated by ground radar controllers. How can ground clutter be detected by ground radars? Upon radar lock, it broke the lock diving to the ground out of the reach of the F16 radar. After that, on several occasions, it slowly flew back into the radar lock. This suggests intelligent manoeuvering, strongly weakening the possibility of atmospheric conditions and ground clutter. The aerial manoeuvering displayed, reaching accelerations of over 40 G's, excludes all fighters and even those that are on the drawing boards to enter service around 2020. And it excludes LoFlyte, momentarily a popular 'explanation' for this case, because the plane is not built for manoeuvering in the first place because it is not a fighter. Besides that LoFlyte did not fly at the time. The fact that the object made no sonic boom while going supersonic again eliminates all aircraft. On some occasions, two similar objects have been seen, one larger, one smaller, both described as triangular. This again eliminates ground clutter and severely weakens atmospheric diffraction. The fact that two similarly described objects have been seen above Nijmegen, The Netherlands, in the fall 1989/spring 1990 time frame excludes a "cultural explanation". This was reported to me by a crime investigator who described them as triangular, making impossible manoeuvers. He witnessed them with his wife and two kids and knows other witnesses. The total of visual observations numbers above 1,000 and 25 video films have been made by civilians. A photograph exists that clearly shows a triangular object. This excludes ground clutter/atmospheric diffraction again. The fact that the objects returned on several occasions during the fall 1989/fall 1991 time frame and that one of them sought to restore radar lock during the F16 chase excludes covert military activity. This again excludes LoFlyte. LoFlyte is an experimental plane operated by NASA. NASA has no authority to test its craft outside the USA or international air space. The episode of the F16 UFO chase shows similarity to: . a UK case of the 1950s (1954?) during which an RAF Venom chased a UFO, closed in and found the craft behind itself in an instant. Evasive manoeuvers had no effect. . The 1976 Iran case during which two Iranian F4's tried to shoot down a UFO and found their controls switched off and themselves being hunted by two UFOs that departed from a mothership. When trying to eject they found the ejection mechanism dysfunctional. Similarity in cat and mouse game. Of course, one can explain the Belgian case when we assume that thousands of civilians mistook the stars for UFOs and saw triangular craft that don't exist, both in Belgium and in The Netherlands. The 25 video films and the photograph are of course doctored. The F16 pilots must have locked on to ground clutter that seemed to be playing cat and mouse with its pursuers, while the ground radars tracked an illegal commercial flight that was at the same position as the ground clutter on the F16's radar screens. The subsequent official investigation that included RBAF researchers as well as scientists from the universities of Leuven and Brussels of course recognized nothing of all these prosaic explanations and mistakenly reported the phenomenon as an unknown craft. Surely they must have been watching too much Star Trek. For those who believe that I have a piece of land for sale on the back side of the moon. Please make inquiries through private email. Offer terminates November 10, 12.00 MET. On a more serious note, I think this case is so interesting not only because of the anomalous data, but also because it makes for an impressive line up of skeptical 'explanations': The first explanation I read about was the F117, never mind that this plane can't fly supersonic. Then came the B2, which does not even resemble a triangle. I believe next in line was the laser show. Then I heard about LoFlyte. Which is an 8 feet scale model that did not fly in 1989. The honorable Duke has reported to us the first triangular balloon that can fly supersonic. (I am beginning to turn red again, tears filling my eyes). Now it seems we have atmospheric diffraction and ground clutter. What's next? (Chuckles) Oh well, I await with expectation the first serious plans for a man made aircraft that can pull 40 G turns in the year 2015. I can already write the Sunday Times commentary for you. "US Air Force wants unmanned super fighter. triangular shape ...unprecedented manoeuverability...Covert version must have been responsible for sightings in Hudson Valley in 1980 and Belgium in 1990." Never mind that by then they still haven't figured out how to build a fighter that goes supersonic without making a supersonic boom. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ETH &c From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:56:40 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:14:30 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:18:44 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: ETH &c [was: Questions for Abductees] >Hard as it may be for you to believe, Duke, I have a life to >lead and, what's more, paying work to attend to. I am very sorry to hear that, Jerry. I often forget that others are less fortunate than myself, subsisting as I do on the meagre rations left over from what the servants steal from the container-load of gourmet-style provisions delivered weekly to Castle Despair by 18-wheeler from Fortnum & Mason; but otherwise enjoying a vast income, which some are pleased to call unearned, from the produce of my enormous estates, the sale of the corpses of "overworked" pe=F3ns to unscrupulous medical schools, and the interest on my father the late 32nd Duke's awesome investments in armaments, pesticides, factory farms, surveillance equipment, racehorses, and some of the most exclusive bordellos in the world's most vibrant & cosmopolitan cities. It was most thoughtless of me. >If you think I >am going to write journal- or even book-length responses to you, No, no, just a few examples of the application of what you call the traditional scientific method to a UFO sighting or encounter, and that perhaps even resulted in the scientific scales tipping in favor of the ETH, will do nicely. I am sure this will still enable us all to read about the (previously mentioned) repeated and independently verified experiments that have been conducted in this respect. Is that so hard? And I am sure one of your journalistic skill and capacity for lucid exposition of complex matters could manage a couple of paragraphs to answer the questions with which I started, viz: '"In fact". This enquiring mind would appreciate knowing of what such facts may consist. "Reasonable" in what form of logic? "Natural" in what sense?' <snip to set good example> >I think >you're just posturing -- and being unamusingly disingenuous. If you'd spent as much time and energy as you have on your hokey mind-reading act, you could have answered my questions by now. >Again, I refer interested >and open-minded readers to Mike Swords' writings, [etc] And what are the indifferent and closed-minded supposed to read, then? O Jerry, how you do sound prim sometimes. [more snips for Brownie points] >Please cite where you have said that the ETH, though you reject >it, is a reasonable hypothesis which a reasonable person, even >if ultimately mistaken, can hold. With pleasure. See "Exhibit A" below today's bemusing signature. True, I don't use your precise words, but I think it fits their spirit. And if you don't, I shall really start to worry. I'm already a little concerned by this: >I've always heard you treat it [Dook: i.e. the ETH], >with the Ameriphobia that always seems to permeate such >discourse, as some sort of American disease (e.g., your colorful >unConvention lecture in 1995; see also David Sivier's >interesting discussion of your views in the current Magonia). You sad old bag of bones! Now it comes hard to pain you with the cruelty of facts, Jerry, but in 55 minutes of colorful lecturing I managed to devote fully 12 words - which just took me 5 seconds to enunciate clearly - to a joke about the widespread American devotion to the ETH. You may have been so transfixed in your solemn supersensitivity to this self-generated and pathetic fiction of my "Ameriphobia" that you didn't hear the people around you laughing. I dunno - I didn't look in your direction. But you're really scraping up the ullage if you're trying to represent that paper as an exercise in anti-Americana. This does not become you. As for Sivier's piece - *nowhere* does he even remotely imply that I am anti-American. He'd be a fool if he did, and he manifestly is nothing of the kind. He takes me to task for misrepresenting the 'American Religion', although he seems not to understand what I (following Harold Bloom) mean by that, and for being anti-Christian. I think he's wrong, in the context, about that, too; but I'd certainly commend his article, even to the closed-minded. So. What Sivier is doing in your sentence above, except demonstrating your unnerving tendency to misrepresent (see below), I do not know. Do you? Your rhetorical trickery here is *really* getting old fast. And it's possibly tackier than the last time you dragged it out, suggesting that Stuart Appelle offered a "devastating critique" of the good Sasquatch's abortion-anxiety hypothesis; which Appelle does not, any more than he supports the ETH (but perhaps you didn't say he did). Anyway, you better watch it, coz I'm writing all this down in a big black book. >Moreover, if he really does believe the ETH not to be >outrageous and absurd, why is he even arguing with me? It's hardly necessary to go that far to argue with you, Jerry, but it's interesting - shall we say? - that you perceive even the prospect of disagreement in such extremist terms. Anyway, brace yourself. Here comes another fact... I haven't even *begun* to argue with you, you twit. I haven't had the chance. I've just asked you some questions, which you don't answer except to tell me to read Mike Swords (without detailed citations so I can't find the damn' papers) and Ashpole (sans ISBN), who together appear to amount to "the literature". [More snips, bucking for this week's class gold star] >>Which is not to say I won't read your book when it hits these >>shores (an ISBN would help with our enquiries, BTW) and will >>very likely enjoy it. >I enjoy your books, too, though I confess that sometimes it's >hard to believe they were written by the individual who signs >himself > Pratincole D. Mockingbird > Air Drummer. Yeah, weird, innit. I won't sign myself that again. I almost never do. How about the ISBN now, please? best wishes Poface D. Miserygut ;-) Poison Dwarf PS: Speaking of unanswered questions - now you've finished gauging the temperature of Paul Devereux's collar, and had a nice rant - how about addressing the substantive issues he raised about lucid dreaming and abductions? ----start Exhibit A----------------------------------- From: Peter Brookesmith "UFO: The Complete Sightings Catalogue" ISBN: 0-7137-2518-4 Extracts from: APPENDIX EIGHT WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? Many people automatically assume that the term 'UFO' means an extra-terrestrial craft. But the cases we have described in this book make it clear that the UFO phenomenon is not so simple or straightforward that it will bear a single interpretation. There are nine basic hypotheses to explain UFOs--and all of them may be true, even if not for all UFOs all the time. How do these interpretations of the UFO phenomenon stand up to analysis? THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS Scientists agree that the chances that we are being visited by extra-terrestrials are remote. However, there is no conclusive proof that we are not being observed by an alien culture, and some aspects of some UFO sightings are consistent with the 'extra-terrestrial hypothesis' (ETH). Good Earthly anthropologists, hoping to find out as much as possible about another people, will try to do so as unobtrusively as possible. They will first have learned the local language, then arrive unceremoniously, keep company with the most ordinary people and generally stay in the background as much as possible. They will try to affect the local life as little as they can, and make no objection even when their hosts' customs seem repellent or even totally depraved. They are there simply to gather information. They would be even more careful if they were examining a highly intelligent life form on another planet. They would certainly not make direct contact with the alien race until they were very familiar with the local manners and customs or until, in turn, a significant proportion of the local population had been psychologically and emotionally prepared for their arrival. That may be the significance of the UFO phenomenon today. If an alien race has been watching the Earth, it seems to have been doing so for some centuries at least; and it makes sense that it would wait until we ourselves saw space travel as at least a possibility before beginning the final phase of preparing us for an overt announcement of its presence. If that is so, it does not matter whether close encounters or abductions have really happened to the victims, only that they think these things have happened, and that others believe them. Both sets of people are thus ready to accept the presence of alien entities in space near us, and will not be shocked by their open arrival. All this, however possible, remains speculation. [...] ALIEN COHABITANTS Perhaps we share our terrestrial living quarters with an alien race (or races). As with extra-terrestrial visitors, these 'local' aliens may be trying to introduce themselves to us gently. It is equally possible that wherever they are from these creatures are not interested in us at all. As a society we, after all, have not shown any sustained or organized interest in them: why should we assume they care about us? The 'alien cohabitants hypothesis' has so far no more evidence to support it than any other proposed origin for UFOs and their attendant entities. At the same time there is no reason, either, not to suppose that some UFOs may be 'local' in origin while others may be extra-terrestrial. [..] It seems likely that cases in which multiple witnesses encounter UFOs there is something physically real at work. [...] Those, then, are the major speculative theories about UFOs. But of two things we should have no doubt. First, people do see strange things in the sky, and not all of them can be explained away as Earthly phenomena. And second, for every ufologist there is a theory about the origins of UFOs. A cool look at the evidence suggests that UFOs do not come from any one place, or represent any single phenomenon. -------Exhibit A ends-----------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Questions for Abductees From: SGBList2@aol.com [Stephen G. Bassett] Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:40:29 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 18:02:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees > Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:54:09 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees > >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:43:20 -0600 (CST) > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees > >If it takes a village to raise a planet, it may take a universe > >to raise a habitable planet on which intelligent life ultimately > >arises. > This is what happens when you're trying to be clever. Of course I > meant to say "If it takes a village to raise a _child_..." etc. > >But I really feel like I'm doing Davis a disservice by talking > >about his article when he deserves to be read in his own words. > See above. > Dennis Actually, Dennis, you were right the first time. Human are genetically disposed to function best in small groups, the upper limit of which is about the size of a village. At this level of organization, people are able to live in balance with their immediate environment, there is usually ample resources to prevent deprivation, the stress of crowded conditions is zero, friendships are lifelong, family relationships are multi-generational, there is a lack of arrogance and hubris, democracy is personal and direct, there is a clear perceived connection between action and result. If the attributes of the village could be extrapolated to a global level, our planet would have little to fear from its most sentient inhabitants. Steve Bassett
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: LoFlyte hypothesis for Belgian cases From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:34:27 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:09:05 -0500 Subject: Re: LoFlyte hypothesis for Belgian cases Regarding... >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: LoFlyte hypothesis for Belgian cases >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:03:50 -0800 Mark wrote: >>This official explanation appears to have been superceded as of >>several months ago as the Belgian media reported that it had solved >>the 1990 OVNI mystery blaming the NASA Loflyte plane for initiating >>unauthorized testing in Belgian airspace. NASA categorically denied >>the allegation. >Actually, so did LoFlyte, who pointed out that they did not have >a prototype flying at the time, and even if they had, it bore no >resemblance to what was reported. Mark, By coincidence, I cover this topic in an article headed "LoFLYTE ALL STARS", which can be found in the current, November, edition of "Fortean Times". When a prototype of the LoFLYTE was unveiled on 2 August last year, Maurice Chittenden, resident skeptic with the Sunday Times, suggested that sightings of this triangular-shaped aircraft explained the Dec 89 - Mar 90 reports. Chittenden's claims were subsequently reported in the Belgian media. Not, from my experience, prone to checking facts, Mr Chittenden was blissfully unaware that, as you note, the only LoFLYTE to roll off the production lines was an 8ft 4" (2.5m), remotely piloted model. The conceptual model had its maiden flight on 16 December last year at Mojave Airfield, California. It crash-landed. LoFLYTE is a joint NASA and USAF project. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Ted Phillips From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 15:10:33 +0100 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:15:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Ted Phillips > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:58:55 +0100 > From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Ted Phillips > Hello Errol and List, > Has anyone on thi list got an email or any other address on Ted > Phillips. His area of expertize is UFO landing traces. > If anyone has information on him I'd appreciate a heads up. > Thanks, > Don Ledger I do have an address and phone number for Ted Phillips now, provided by Bob Soetebier [bikebob]. Thanks for the help. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:05:40 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:12:14 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? Regarding... >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:29:37 -0700 >From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >(Was - Re: Solved abduction cases?) Jared wrote: >>The Belgium reference is a good example of the questionable data >>which some government officials base their beliefs on. It could be >>pointed out that rather than an ET origin, the reports of triangular >>UFOs which proliferated from December 1989, might have a connection >>with the unidentified isosceles-triangle shaped aircraft which >>recognition expert Chris Gibson witnessed flying with a KC-135 >>Stratotanker and two F-111s only three months previous. >The open representation of the events that occurred in Belgium as >announced by the BAF were in response to a specific incident in >which 2 BAF F-16's tracked an unknown triangular object... Jared, I covered this in my reply to Henny. The only point I would add is that there was unquestionably no visible confirmation from the F-16 pilots. They didn't see nuthin'. >The BAF made absolutely no reference to an ET hypothesis but made >assertions that seem to substantiate UFO reality. There were a number of separate incidents, but, typically, nothing substantive. The Belgian Air Force were certainly open to the possibility of a true "unknown" in their airspace. >ROC member Chris Gibson's sighting of the black triangle under escort >was made from an oil tanker in the North Sea. There is no evidence >that I'm aware of to connect Gibson's sighting with the Belgian >activity other than that they occurred in successive years. None whatsoever, merely speculation. However, it wasn't successive years. Chris's sighting took place on 24th Aug 1989 and according to a report from the Belgian Air Force, they were first contacted about sightings of a "triangular shaped platform" in "early December 1989". Chris has just confirmed the full date of his sighting and tells me he also now has the exact co-ordinates for the location of the Galveston Key oil-rig platform at that time. He's hopeful this will help in identifying corresponding KC-135Q Stratotanker movements, particularly from a specific UK airbase, which I perhaps shouldn't name. The hunt for the Snark continues. >This official explanation appears to have been superceded as of >several months ago as the Belgian media reported that it had solved >the 1990 OVNI mystery blaming the NASA Loflyte plane for initiating >unauthorized testing in Belgian airspace. NASA categorically denied >the allegation. The suggested LoFLYTE explanation was an obvious impossibility and I trust this has now been clarified. >As far as I know no government has said anything about an ET >hypothesis for UFOs but the evidence that has surfaced over the years >quite strongly suggests that many governments harbor a great deal of >concern about some UFO's despite what they say officially. I would have to disagree. I can't think of any government which, as a representative body, has in recent times shown indications of concern over the ET hypothesis. What evidence suggests otherwise? James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Need list From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@generation.net> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 15:08:21 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:20:59 -0500 Subject: Need list Hello gang, Here's a list of phone numbers I'm looking for. Chris Styles (Nova Scotia) Derrel Sims Roger Lear Wendelle Stevens On Sims and Stevens, I have several numbers which aren't good anymore. Thanks... we now resume our normal =ABbroadcast=BB... Jacques Poulet, Directeur SOS OVNI Qu=E9bec Case Postale 143 St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Qc CANADA J3B 6Z1 http://ww.total.net/~flex01/index.htm (fran=E7ais) ICQ#:3959316 T=E9l:(514)536-0140 Fax:(514)536-0141
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 From: Masinaigan@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:52:38 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:19:40 -0500 Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 UFO ROUNDUP Volume 2, Number 42 November 2, 1997 Editor: Joseph Trainor UFO FLAP BREAKS OUT IN NEW ZEALAND On Saturday, October 25, at about 10:30 p.m., several residents of Dunedin, a city on the east coast of New Zealand's South Island, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) south of Christchurch spotted two bright white UFOs in the sky. According to newspaper reports, "A number of people reported sighting two very bright white illuminations crossing the sky, following each other, from west of Dunedin." The UFOs halted in mid-air "for some time and then moved off to the east, until out of sight." "Six people contacted him (i.e. Ross Dowe of Australia's National 24-Hour UFO Hotline--J.T.) about two bright white lights they had seen about 10:30 p.m. He had not received reports from elsewhere in Otago or New Zealand, but localized sightings were not unusual based on weather conditions and other factors." (See the Otago Times of Dunedin, N.Z. for October 28, 1997. Many thanks to Ross Dowe for this news story.) According to Dowe, after checking the NASA website, he was unable to "find any data indicating space programme activity over New Zealand at this time." Four nights later, on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 9:40 p.m., Paul R., who lives in the Glenfield section of Auckland, N.Z. spotted a UFO over the large North Island city. "I was sitting, just looking up at the stars as it was a clear night. At about 9:45 p.m., I was looking at a planet in the northwest area of the sky when my eye noticed a satellite passing by," Paul reported. "A second later, there was a bright flash of light, brighter than the planet and closer to Earth. Then it was gone. My first thought was that it was too bright for a plane or a helicopter." "About ten seconds later, out of the corner of my eye, I saw the flash again, only saw it was in the northern sky." "Again it was gone, or so I thought. It blinked again but did not move. It was in the same spot. I waited, and again it flashed, ten seconds later. I went inside and reluctantly told my wife. As expected, my wife told me I was mad, and because I had just watched a programme on UFOs...well, you know the story." "I went back outside and it was still there in the same spot. A light flash, nothing for ten seconds, then another." "It continued to flash every ten seconds, but grew fainter (it was still brighter than the stars) and smaller each time. It appeared to be moving away in a straight line from and climbing in altitude each time, heading north." Paul added that the UFO might have been seen by the residents of Albany, Dairy Flat and Coatesville, all northern suburbs of Auckland. (Email Interview) THIMBLE-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN CANNONVILLE, GEORGIA The unusual dark green thimble-shaped UFO, last seen in Valley, Alabama on September 16, 1996, popped up again last week in Cannonville, a small town on Interstate Highway 85 about 60 miles (100 kilometers) southwest of Atlanta, Georgia. The flap began on Saturday night, October 18, 1997 when a roof repairman and his wife spotted a "slow-moving strange blue flashing light hovering in the Cannonville area." According to the roofer, "the blue lights lit up a sizable portion of the sky for twenty minutes." On Tuesday, October 21, 1997, at around 11 p.m., a group of witnesses "saw a cone-shaped UFO over Murphy Road near Cannonville." One couple told Georgia MUFON that "'The UFO had a round bottom with a rotating flashing circle of red lights. On top of the cone was an intense and non-blinking white light.'" Another witness reported seeing "the cone-shaped UFO shoot off to the east over Hutchinson Hill Road at a speed 'greater than a commercial airliner.'" On Wednesday, October 22, 1997, one of the previous night's witnesses and her 18-year-old younger sister reported, "It was hovering over the Cannonville Road between the church and the (Interstate) I-85 overpass to the east. The UFO was seen hovering just above the treeline and moving up and down, slowly at times." The "Valley-type UFO" remained in the area "for over five minutes. The UFO was at its closest point at 3/4 of a mile (1.2 kilometers) away...At that distance, the UFO had the apparent size of a full-moon." (See Filer's Files #43 for October 30, 1997. Many thanks to George A. Filer and John Thompson of MUFON and independent ufologist Ken Aspinwall for this story.) MORE UFO ACTIVITY REPORTED AT OHIO'S EAST FORK LAKE On Tuesday, October 28, 1997, Chrissy D., age 17, and her boyfriend Mike were "in a parking lot at East Gate Mall at 8:15 p.m. and saw a row of four orangish- red lights which appeared 'one at a time' but" all four lights "'blacked out simultaneously.' She said it looked as if the lights were connected by a big string." The couple was looking east at the time. The mall is located near Williamsburg, Ohio (population 1,952), about 21 miles (33 kilometers) east of Cincinnati and just north of East Fork Lake, the site of several UFO visitations in recent weeks. The following night, Wednesday, October 29, 1997, Ronald D. was driving on Ashton Road south of Williamsburg and east of Owensville, Ohio (population 858) when he saw "an object described as an intense bright white light which drifted up and down in a 'floating motion' due west of his vantage point. 'The object seemed to stay in the same general area and was thought to be less than a mile from his location and hovering above Sharps Cutoff Road...the object assumed a low elevation, about twenty degrees in the air." (Many thanks to Kenneth Young, public relations director of the Tri-States Advocates for Scientific Knowledge, aka T.A.S.K., for this news story.) FAST FLYBY OVER INDIANA'S LAKE MICHIGAN SHORE On Sunday, October 26, 1997, Chicago TV station WFLD aired a segment on a UFO sighting in Porter, Indiana (population 2,488) a small town nine miles south of Lake Michigan and 27 miles (43 kilometers) east of Chicago. According to WFLD, Christy and Tom Venandor "were in their backyard in Porter when they recorded these (video) images of a light streaking across the sky. You can see it right above the treeline. They say the light lasted for only a few seconds and disappeared without a trace." The Venandors told the TV crew, "We saw a white dot being trailed by flames. We thought it was crackling but wasn't sure." T.A.S.K. obtained a video copy from station WXIX-TV and is now investigating this case. (Many thanks to Kenneth Young of T.A.S.K. for this story.) UFOs SEEN IN MANY TOWNS OF BRAZIL'S BAHIA STATE The focus of UFO action in Brazil has shifted from Sao Paulo state to the state of Bahia in the "Sertao" region of northeastern Brazil. From Friday, October 17, through Sunday night, October 19, 1997, UFOs were reported in the skies of western Bahia state, about 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of the state capital of Salvador. A UFO described as "an enormous flying apparition" was first seen in Dom Basilio. The object then flew west to Livramento do Brumado, where it "flew slowly over the city and was seen by several residents." "According to the witnesses, the object was round, covered with lights, and flew very low over the region," the newspaper O Jornal da Tarde reported. "In Riachao da Jacupe, residents sighted mysterious flying objects for 12 consecutive days. The Sociedade de Estudos Ufologicos de Lauro de Freitas (SEULF) is investigating the matter." "According to Emanuel Paranhos, the group has also received information about mysterious explosions in Dias Davra" that may be related to the UFO sightings. (See the Brazilian newspaper O Jornal da Tarde for October 23, 1997. Mutio obrigado a Pedro Cunha por eso caso.) PULSATING LIGHTS SEEN OVER IMMINGHAM, LINCOLNSHIRE Anomalous pulsating and flashing lights were seen in the night sky over Immingham on the river Humber, in northeastern Lincolnshire, UK. The city is 80 miles (128 kilometers) northeast of Sheffield, the site of last week's UFO incident. According to eyewitness Paul H., "At 12:05 a.m. (on Wednesday, October 22, 1997) I was alerted to two blinking lights in the western sky by my Mum, who had seen them earlier (9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 21). The two objects flew over our house from the east. We are on an incoming commercial flight path to Humberside Airport and are getting air traffic all the time, and it is audible. However, on this night, the lights were not audible at all, and anyway were too far away to be normal aeroplane lights. We opened the windows to try and hear them better but we could not. We were both convinced that these were not 'planes or choppers." "Both (lights) seemed to be pulsating about three times per second (an intense blue-white light) and were slightly brighter than a very bright star," Paul added. "In fact, the night was clear, and they both appeared against a background of real stars." "One object/light was flying in a higher but parallel corridor than the other, its light was slightly stronger than the object at lower altitude. This seemed to be the lead object." "When both objects were well into the western sky, the higher/brighter object emitted what resembled an electrical discharge to the lower object. This incident was brief, like a bolt of lightning. This was not an optical illusion." "Shortly after that , to the left of my field of view, a third (similar) object 'blinked' on from out of nowhere and joined the other two. Then all three of these silent lights 'danced' around each other in an aerial display, the like of which I have never seen before." "At about 12:10 (a.m.), the lead object broke formation and flew into the west, while the 'pair' flew away quickly to the east. In flight, I detected a slight bobbing motion." (Email Interview) NEARLY TWO DOZEN FOXES FOUND MUTILATED IN BARNSLEY On Friday, October 24, 1997, a strange news report aired on the BBC program "Look North" and also on BBC-1's "Calendar" program. According to the report, the bodies of 26 foxes were discovered mutilated in Barnsley, Lincs., about 50 miles (80 kilometers) southeast of Immingham. The culprits have not been found. (Many thanks to P.H. for this news story.) LUMINOUS UFO VISITS TWO CITIES IN ITALY On Tuesday, October 28, 1997, a little before 10 p.m., a woman in Marina de Montemarciano, Ancona province, saw a glowing green UFO surrounded by a halo of the same color. The UFO "moved slowly across the sky in a vertical fashion" and finished its flight near Api di Falconara, where it made a horizontal turn southward, stopped, turned again at an angle and finally disappeared. (See the Italian newspaper Il Resto del Carlino for October 30, 1997.) A little less than an hour later, at 10:30 p.m., "an object of a white color" was spotted in Budrio, near Bologna. The UFO "turned sky blue and finally green, proceeded toward the south" and was lost from sight. (See the newsletter Ufoitalia by Renzo Cabassi for October 29, 1997. Grazie a Edoardo Russo per questo rapporto.) VOICE OF RUSSIA DISCUSSES UFO SIGHTINGS OF THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY On Thursday, October 23, 1997, the shortwave radio show Voice of Russia aired an interview with scientist/ engineer Boris Belitsky. The interviewer was Miss Esther Winters. According to Belitsky, several UFO case files have been declassified. They were collected by the Ministry of the Interior of the Soviet Union, defunct since 1991. Several files include UFO incidents dating back over a hundred years, collected by the Third Department of the old Imperial Ministry of the Interior, which later became the Czarist secret police known as the Okhrana. "We have sightings dating back to the beginning of the last (Nineteenth) century," Belitsky said. On December 26, 1830, a "certain extraordinary light effect was observed in the sky by the inhabitants, police and military in the city of Orenburg," Belitsky reportedly said, calling it "a typical UFO sighting." Orenburg is at the southern end of the Ural Mountains, approximately 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) southeast of Moscow. On January 30, 1844, "a similar sighting was reported from the city of Ushtuge in central Russia. Still others were dated 1846 and 1847." (Many thanks to Ross Dowe of Australia's National 24-Hour UFO Hotline for forwarding this report.) (Editor's Note: Checking THE COMPLETE BOOKS OF CHARLES FORT, Dover Press, New York, NY 1974, I found two mysterious "sky falls" for the year 1846. Here they are--note the proximity to Russia. Page 59 - "That March 16, 1846 at about the time of a fall of edible substance in Asia Minor (now Turkey--J.T.) an olive-grey powder fell at Shanghai (China--J.T.) Under the microscope, it was seen to be an aggregation of hairs of all kinds. They were supposed to be animal fibers, but, when burned, 'they gave out the common ammoniacal smell and smoke of burnt hair or feathers.'" Page 47 - "That in Wilna (Vilna), Lithuania, April 4, 1846, in a rainstorm, fell nut-sized masses of a substance that is described as both resinous and gelatinous. It was odorless until burned, then it spread a very pronounced sweetish odor.") MEXICAN VIDEO HAS GLOBAL UFO COMMUNITY TALKING The August 6, 1997 video of a flying saucer over Mexico City has ufologists all over the world debating the validity of the footage. According to Michael Hesemann, "My friends working in the tower of Mexico City (Benito Juarez) International Airport" reportedly told him that the UFO "was NOT located on radar at the time in question." The location of the two high-rise buildings in the video have been identified. James Easton reported, "The sighting took place in the Lomas Chapultepec area of the Tecamalchaco district of Mexico City, six miles (10 kilometers) northwest of the city center, which is mostly nothing in a 20 million (population) town." Graphic artists and UFO investigator Liz Edwards has examined the video and called one frame into question. "On October 17, using my own formula and techniques, it became clear--to me, at least, that one of the four (frame) pictures appeared to be very different. This particular shot reacted to my experiments in a peculiar way," Ms. Edwards reported. "If you look at the enlargement, you see a 'star burst' of pixels. The enhanced 'star burst' picture shows pixilation that is questionable and raises doubts that it is authentic." Ms. Edwards then described a process in which a saucer image could be "immersed/inserted" into video footage of a daytime street scene. Steps would include (1) Taking the video footage of Lomas Chapultepec. (2) Placing the footage in a state-of-the-art graphics computer program. (3) Immerse/insert the UFO into the scene. (4) Code the graphics program to make the UFO move. (5) Copy the revised footage directly from the computer onto the videotape. (6) Play the tape on a VCR. (7) Catch the onscreen image with a videocamera. While many debate the authenticity of the video, ufologist Liz Elders pointed out that one of the witnesses, a teenage girl, described the UFO perfectly, and she has never seen the video. (Editor's Comment: Filming an onscreen image won't work. The result will show optical flaws. On the other hand, a hoaxer could rig two VCRs together, play the computer- altered tape on one, and record the image on a blank tape inserted into the second VCR.) PATHFINDER, SOJOURNER MAROONED ON MARS NASA will scrub the Mars Pathfinder mission on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, according to a report in the newspaper USA Today. "Communications with the (Pathfinder) lander and its rover, Sojourner, ended Sept. 27. NASA suspects the lander's battery might have failed and cannot be recharged by its solar panels because of Martian temperatures down to minus 50 degrees (on the Fahrenheit scale--J.T.)." (See USA Today for October 31, 1997, page A-3) "More than 170 million miles from home in the chill, dusty badlands of the Ares Valley on Mars, the Pathfinder lander sits idle, waiting for instructions from home. About 30 feet away, the pint-size rover Sojourner, like a lost child naievely confident of rescue, is probably circling the mothership slowly, clockwise, awaiting a signal that may never come." "The thrills of summer, when the space probes bounced triumphantly onto the surface of the Red Planet, have turned to autumnal silence, as hopes fade that communications with the intrepid robots can ever be restored." "The last contact was on the morning of October 7. Since then controllers on Earth have almost exhausted the potential solutions, according to mission manager Richard Cook of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena (California). 'The odds are dimming rapidly that we'll be able to get anything back.'" (See the Washington Post for October 29, 1997.) >From the UFO Files... 1955: HUGE CIGAR-SHAPED UFO SEEN OVER DEATH VALLEY On November 1, 1955, astronomer Frank Halstead, the director of Darling Observatory in Duluth, Minnesota, and his wife, Ann, were traveling to California aboard the Challenger, an express train of the Union Pacific Railroad. As the train sped across Death Valley in eastern California, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) west of Las Vegas, Nevada, the couple spied a UFO. Here's the story in Frank Halstead's own words: "My wife Ann was sitting next to the window and she called my attention to an object which she saw-- something moving just above the (Panamint) mountain range. Our train was running parallel to this range of mountains, and this thing was moving in the same direction as the train, just above the mountains." "At first I thought the thing was a blimp--you know, one of those cigar-shaped dirigibles...But as I watched it, I realized that it could not be a blimp--they are only about two hundred feet long--and this thing was gigantic. It was about eight hundred feet long. I could estimate that because it was so close to the mountain range, where trees and clumps of trees were visible for comparison." "While Ann and I were watching this cigar-shaped thing--for four or five minutes as it paced the train-- we noticed that another object had joined it. This second object appeared very suddenly in back of the first one--behind it, that is." "It was a disc-shaped thing. In fact. both objects were very shiny, we noticed. But this second one was definitely disc-shaped. If my estimate on the size of the first object was approximately corect, then this disc would have been one hundred feet in diameter-- flat on the bottom with a low dome on the top side." "My wife and I watched the pair of them for approximately two--maybe three--minutes. They were moving at about the speed of the train and they seemed very close to the top of the ridge--not more than five hundred feet above it, I should say. Then they began to rise, slowly at first, and a few seconds later, much faster. In a matter of seconds, fifteen or twenty, they had risen so high that we could no longer see them from our train window." (See FLYING SAUCERS--SERIOUS BUSINESS by Frank Edwards, Bantam Books, New York, NY 1966, pages 20 and 21) FUN UFO WEBSITES Fabrice Bonvin has a new French UFO website. Check out "Tau*Ceti" at http://www.geocities.com/ Area51/Lair/4344/ Patrick Bailey just launched his UFO site. You can find it at http://www.padrak.com/ufo/WINTERS.html Don't miss our parent site, UFOINFO. You can access the August 6 Mexican UFO video straight from there. Just go to http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/ For back issues of UFO ROUNDUP, try our page at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/roundup/ That's it for this week. We'll be back next weekend with more saucer news from "the paper that goes home-- UFO ROUNDUP." See you then! UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 1997 by Masinaigan Productions, all rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO ROUNDUP on their websites or in news groups provided that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in which the item first appeared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Ted Phillips From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 13:22:51 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:21:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Ted Phillips > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:58:55 +0100 > From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Ted Phillips > Hello Errol and List, > Has anyone on thi list got an email or any other address on Ted > Phillips. His area of expertize is UFO landing traces. > If anyone has information on him I'd appreciate a heads up. Don: There's a person with a nick > bookfndr < on the IRC chats who is a friend of Ted. In fact, he said this weekend that Ted has just done some analysis of some spooklights in the American midwest. Ted is getting active again, and may be in Missouri. "bookfndr" has his own web page which is related to his UFO book mail order business. I think his web site is: bookfinder.com, but I may be mistaken. -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca) University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ETH &c From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:57:25 PST Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:29:41 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c > Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:56:40 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Re: ETH &c > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. > >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:18:44 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: ETH &c [was: Questions for Abductees] > >If you think I > >am going to write journal- or even book-length responses to you, > No, no, just a few examples of the application of what you call > the traditional scientific method to a UFO sighting or encounter, > and that perhaps even resulted in the scientific scales tipping > in favor of the ETH, will do nicely. I am sure this will still > enable us all to read about the (previously mentioned) repeated > and independently verified experiments that have been conducted > in this respect. The scientific UFO literature, with which I gather you are largely unfamiliar, consists of studies of landing traces, photographs, the abduction phenomenon, statistics, radar/visuals, and the like. (Many are cited in the cumulative bibliography appended to High Strangeness, starting on page 593.) Except for traces, UFOs are not, of course, things one can take into the laboratory (unless of course there's some truth to crash/retrieval stories; even if so, of course, such information is unavailable to us and therefore irrelevant to the current discussion). The scientific evidence certainly leans in the pro-UFO direction -- even one of the largest scientific studies, the University of Colorado project, failed to explain 30% of the cases it took on; according to McDonald and others, its explanations for some others stretched the point. A major forthcoming study of a seminal UFO case will document, in a way that is going to be enormously difficult to refute, the operation of an extraordinary technology in the context of a complex instrument-recorded encounter. An enormous amount of sadly unpublished scientific work on specific UFO cases can be found, as I, Swords, Aldrich, and Gross can verify from our work at the University of Arizona this summer, in the files of the late James E. McDonald. McDonald took the ETH seriously as a reasonable reading of the UFO evidence. > Is that so hard? And I am sure one of your journalistic skill and > capacity for lucid exposition of complex matters could manage a > couple of paragraphs to answer the questions with which I > started, viz: '"In fact". This enquiring mind would appreciate > knowing of what such facts may consist. "Reasonable" in what form > of logic? "Natural" in what sense?' As the cliche goes, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. One way of saying that Duke seems intent on confining his reading to list chitchat. The rest of you, if you're interested, may turn to the literature I have cited for lucid discussions of the ETH in the context of current SETI/exobiological theory. Let me note here in passing, as one small example, John L. Casti's discussion (in Paradigms Lost [1989]) of the controversy about the existence of intelligent ET life; though a UFO skeptic, he writes, "Putting all these [evolutionary] considerations together, one comes up with an ETI whose physical form would be remarkably humanoid; in fact, remarkably like the kinds of forms reported by people who are abducted by the occupants of UFOs." An interesting observation when one thinks how often one hear that such reports can't involve ETs because ETs wouldn't look like that. Interesting, too, when one reads Duke's fanciful theories about why Americans report gray-skinned humanoids. They ain't flattering, folks. > If you'd spent as much time and energy as you have on your hokey > mind-reading act, you could have answered my questions by now. I have answered your questions repeatedly, Duke. Your huffing and puffing seem not a trifle hypocritical coming from one who, not all that long ago, was putting off Greg Sandow's probing questions on the grounds that you were dealing with these matters in print elsewhere. I didn't knock you for that, and I respected the plea you copped. Apparently, though, one set of rules applies to you, another to those who presume to disagree with you. I don't recall, for example, your protesting when your pal Paul Devereux launched into a mind-reading act directed at me. I think you're wrong, but I take your ideas at face value. In other words, I don't feel the need to make up mental, emotional, cultural, or intellectual to "explain" why you believe as you do. > >Please cite where you have said that the ETH, though you reject > >it, is a reasonable hypothesis which a reasonable person, even > >if ultimately mistaken, can hold. > With pleasure. See "Exhibit A" below today's bemusing signature. > True, I don't use your precise words, but I think it fits their > spirit. And if you don't, I shall really start to worry. I'm > already a little concerned by this: Excellent. Thanks, Duke. It reminds me, as I confess I have sometimes forgotten in the course of this fruitless exchange, how good your books are. > >I've always heard you treat it [Dook: i.e. the ETH], > >with the Ameriphobia that always seems to permeate such > >discourse, as some sort of American disease (e.g., your colorful > >unConvention lecture in 1995; see also David Sivier's > >interesting discussion of your views in the current Magonia). > You sad old bag of bones! Now it comes hard to pain you with the > cruelty of facts, Jerry, but in 55 minutes of colorful lecturing > I managed to devote fully 12 words - which just took me 5 seconds > to enunciate clearly - to a joke about the widespread American > devotion to the ETH. You may have been so transfixed in your > solemn supersensitivity to this self-generated and pathetic > fiction of my "Ameriphobia" that you didn't hear the people > around you laughing. I dunno - I didn't look in your direction. > But you're really scraping up the ullage if you're trying to > represent that paper as an exercise in anti-Americana. This does > not become you. I stand by what I said. Probably the effect was magnified by your habit of glaring at Loren Coleman and me while speaking the offending 12 words. (That's a joke, Duke.) > As for Sivier's piece - *nowhere* does he even remotely imply > that I am anti-American. He'd be a fool if he did, and he > manifestly is nothing of the kind. He takes me to task for > misrepresenting the 'American Religion', although he seems not to > understand what I (following Harold Bloom) mean by that, and for > being anti-Christian. I think he's wrong, in the context, about > that, too; but I'd certainly commend his article, even to the > closed-minded. So. What Sivier is doing in your sentence above, > except demonstrating your unnerving tendency to misrepresent (see > below), I do not know. Do you? Here, for once, you have a legitimate complaint. I plead sloppy writing on my part. Sivier's piece is worth reading as an interesting critique of your ideas generally, and that's how I meant it. He is addressing different issues from the ones you're trying to avoid here. > I haven't even *begun* to argue with you, you twit. I haven't had > the chance. I've just asked you some questions, which you don't > answer except to tell me to read Mike Swords (without detailed > citations so I can't find the damn' papers) and Ashpole (sans > ISBN), who together appear to amount to "the literature". It is beginning to occur to me, thick-headed as I must be, that you really HAVEN'T read this stuff. I thought you were simply being disingenuous again. Okay, here are some citations: Michael D. Swords: "Science and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis in Ufology." Journal of UFO Studies 1 (n.s., 1989): 67-102. "Modern Biology and the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis." MUFON 1991 International UFO Symposium Proceedings, 51-74. "Does the ETH Make Sense?" International UFO Reporter 17,5 (September/October 1992): 6-8,12. "Astronomers, the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, and the United States Air Force at the Beginning of the Modern UFO Phenomenon." JUFOS 4 (n.s., 1992): 79-129. "Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and Science," appearing in both High Strangeness: The UFO Encyclopedia #3 and The UFO Book. All but one (the IUR article) have bibliographies appended to them, citing relevant papers in the scientific literature. I have been working my way through them and reading additional SETI literature. So far (until Swords gets around to writing his own book) the only book-length treatment of these matters is Edward Ashpole's The UFO Phenomena (ISBN 0 7472 4745 5). Ashpole, previously author of a book on SETI, says explicitly that "most rational people who think UFOs are a lot of nonsense are unaware of the scientific rationale for SETI." Another way of putting it, perhaps, is that a good deal of what can be said against UFOs as somebody else's spacecraft can be said against SETI (and in fact has, here and there). Which reminds me of another relevant paper: Donderi, Don C. "The Effect of Conscious and Unconscious Attitudes about UFO Evidence on Scientific Acceptance of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis." JUFOS 1 (old series, 1979): 35-40. And with this I bow out of a discussion which has become ever more pointless and tedious and now, I note, degenerated into an exercise in name-calling. (I rapidly lose interest in somebody who has nothing better to do than call me a "twit." For the record, Duke, I don't think you're anything of the sort, and I think you don't think I am, either.) In defense of Duke let me say that he is capable of much better than the rant we've seen here. Go out and buy his books (UFO: The Complete Sightings and UFO: The Government Files, both published by Barnes & Noble). I don't agree with everything he says in them-- and why should I? -- but they're far more interesting and stimulating than their author has managed to be here. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:09:32 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:30:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments... >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:06:57 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >I began to chuckle here at the mere thought of >a triangular balloon that carries three lights and >decides to evade F16's by changing course rapidly >and in doing so passes through the sound barrier. >My God, some balloon! [snip] >By now my face has turned >red and my heartbeat has gone up significantly. I'm not entirely surprised it's red, as (unless you know something no one else does) the RBAF F-16s were chasing monnbeams, or whatever, on 30/31 March 90, whereas van Utrecht >>conceded that 'some kind of unusual flying machine did manifest >>itself over our country on two or three occasions' in November >>and December 1989. The object 'may have been an experimental, >>self-propelled balloon [...] No need to repeat the date again, is there? And the words 'may have been' are not quite the ones one would use in "explaining" something "away", are they? Note that only once (00.32hrs) while the F-16s were in the air did both the Glons and Semmerzake radars simultaneously have a contact with an "unknown" on the same heading (110 deg. 6NM from Beauchevin, alt 6000ft). However, the control center at Maastricht couldn't see this on radar. Likewise while the F-16s were aloft, the highest speed of the OVNIs mentioned in the RBAF report I have is 740kt, tho' some rapid accelerations (eg 100 - 600kt between 00.39 and 00.41hrs) were noted. And while the 't=E9moins au sol' kept seeing lights, the pilots never made visual contact, and the ground reports of the position of the lights seem not to match what was appearing on the radars. Someone has scribbled "brouillage" (confusion) in the margin of this copy - which seems to me the best summary of the case so far. Keep taking the pills, Henny. Or (te he) try eating dates. Yours &c Pharabodine D. Markemoff Calendar Girl
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Ted Phillips From: Raine & Crow <crow@crowman.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:47:51 GMT Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:28:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Ted Phillips On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:44:54 -0500, you wrote: >Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:58:55 +0100 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Ted Phillips >Hello Errol and List, >Has anyone on thi list got an email or any other address on Ted >Phillips. His area of expertize is UFO landing traces. >If anyone has information on him I'd appreciate a heads up. >Thanks, >Don Ledger Hi Don, A good friend of ours Chuck Preston knows him and we are sure he will be pleased to help you, his email address is: bookfndr@cmaster.com Incidently he sells a huge range of ufo books, you might like to check out his website at: http://bookfinder.simplenet.com/ All the best Raine & Crow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ETH &c From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:41:51 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:32:44 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments. >From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp> >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 97 12:48:51 +0900 >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: ETH &c [was: Questions for Abductees] Can't find much to disagree with there, tho' I think you're less kind to "science" than most scientists deserve - if kinder than the apoplectic faction in the Pandemonian State of Ufology generally is. (Compared to which even the Balkan Federation of Science is an utopian paradise.) And I do think the Franciscan Barber more useful than you *seem* to, but we needn't spend any more space agreeing we disagree about that. I'm not putting my own finely damascened blades away in their velvet-lined weskit pockets just yet, to be sure. I'd've thought himself should be called Brother Occam, at least, though - or possibly General Occam, if that's how the other friars addressed him. But of course I would be picky about titles. best wishes Plainsong D. Matins Sweeney Toddist
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Alfred's Odd Ode #195 From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 09:22:52 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 17:34:29 -0500 Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #195 Apology to MW #195 (For November 2, 1997) Now this sets the watchers back on their cans! =85And from a country of some progression! Where we're thinking (all wrong) that we're acting so right. Where we practice our stupid obsessions. She's going to bring them ALL to term!?! And heaven sings its praises? She turns her back on best advice? I think her thinking's pretty lazy. She's working _real_ hard to do it. "Keep them all alive"!, she pipes. "They are a Christian's children." "Help them live to know God's stripe." So let's assume she makes it, And all the children learn to breath. What clothes will they be wearing? What _will_ they find to eat? She contributes to the disrespect With each new whelp she makes. There's just so much to go around, Great ZOT! Good Christ, and SAKES! And consider how she drags us too? We are not consulted. We, who would inhabit her polluted, crowded world! We who _pay the freight_ are then the damaged, sore insulted! And how much money did she spend? =85Treating birth like a hamster production. Fifteen, twenty, twenty-five thousand? What IS this awful child birth, and what _is_ its strange seduction? Thirty thousand daily die, what's pampered in her belly. Thirty thousand starve to death in misery and fear. Thirty thousand children are the price of her insouciance ! Thirty thousand other kids can take it in the rear!! Where is it written that _her_ seed is blessed? Where is it stated her flesh is worth more? From where comes her gladness, this purpose obsessed, Shooting babies like confetti =85 from somewhere near her anal pore. The watchers perceive that the Earth holds too many, And considers the woman insane. Her politics are stunted, and her world view too short, And her mocking wish demented, way too selfish, and deranged. The alien view will condemn in detachment The right of one woman to inflict on the rest The care of her off spring when disabled or damaged -- When their birth is a disaster, and a tragic, sordid mess. Lehmberg@snowhill.com Along with our alien witnesses I am revolted that one person could so selfishly expend precious resources in an attempt to subvert common sense and bring to term a LITTER of human beings, the one commodity that this Earth has seen quite enough of, already. Her babies must be of a certain wondrous speciality. The chances are better than hands down that, even carried to term, they will contribute to an already sizable disabled population -- but what the hell, she can always spend _my_ tax dollars to tend for them. And I'm sure that she has been told that the human body is not engineered to gestate seven fetuses, and hasn't been since we lost all the extra nipples!!! They are gestating in oxygen starvation, and that is a sure path to cerebral palsy. I could not countenance a God that made THAT his will. Moreover, on at least one level that woman should be arrested for child abuse -- for the same reason that she would argue a pregnant drug addict should be arrested for child abuse. What she does to seven fetuses is just as damaging as what the drug addict does to one, but she wraps herself in a cloak of divine respectability! The watchers shake their heads in baffled disbelief. -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:48:55 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:43:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage Regarding... >From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 >Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:10:42 -0500 >Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage It was noted: >August 6th was one of the most polluted days in Mexico. The >authorities declared it an emergency... Would this be consistent with the conditions apparent in the footage, where the visibility looks almost perfect and even distant buildings can be clearly seen? James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:49:06 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:09:32 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments... >>Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:06:57 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>I began to chuckle here at the mere thought of >>a triangular balloon that carries three lights and >>decides to evade F16's by changing course rapidly >>and in doing so passes through the sound barrier. >>My God, some balloon! [snip] >>By now my face has turned >>red and my heartbeat has gone up significantly. >I'm not entirely surprised it's red, as (unless you know >something no one else does) the RBAF F-16s were chasing >monnbeams, or whatever, on 30/31 March 90, whereas van Utrecht >>>conceded that 'some kind of unusual flying machine did manifest >>>itself over our country on two or three occasions' in November >>>and December 1989. The object 'may have been an experimental, >>>self-propelled balloon [...] >No need to repeat the date again, is there? >And the words 'may have been' are not quite the ones one would >use in "explaining" something "away", are they? >Note that only once (00.32hrs) while the F-16s were in the air >did both the Glons and Semmerzake radars simultaneously have a >contact with an "unknown" on the same heading (110 deg. 6NM >from Beauchevin, alt 6000ft). However, the control center at >Maastricht couldn't see this on radar. Likewise while the F-16s >were aloft, the highest speed of the OVNIs mentioned in the >RBAF report I have is 740kt, tho' some rapid accelerations >(eg 100 - 600kt between 00.39 and 00.41hrs) were noted. >And while the 't=E9moins au sol' kept seeing lights, the pilots >never made visual contact, and the ground reports of the >position of the lights seem not to match what was appearing >on the radars. >Someone has scribbled "brouillage" (confusion) in the margin of >this copy - which seems to me the best summary of the case so far. >Keep taking the pills, Henny. Or (te he) try eating dates. Duke, You can babble on as long as you like. I'll start eating pills against turning red and running out of breath by the mere thought of supersonic balloons (I'll be forever in your debt for that one). However, I urge you to take some black coffee for boosting your accuracy, as you seem to have missed that the highest recorded speed was 1010 knots. (For those outside the English language area, this is around 1900 km/hr). When we keep missing such signifant details, we could indeed get a little confused, he, Peregrine Prozac? __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Scientific American: Transistors From: werd@interlog.com Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:17:13 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:38:38 -0500 Subject: Scientific American: Transistors List, Scientific American has just published a special issue devoted to transistors and other inventions that have subsequently been developed, ie. computer chips. This issue ("Solid State Century") contains the original article written by Frank H Rockett (no kidding!) which was published in the Sept. issue of Scientific American in 1948. There are also many other articles addressing the developments since the invention of the transistor, including some history on the transistor effect, and personal history on the inventors. It also includes some recent developments into plastic transistors. I highly recommend this issue for those studying Corso's claims about alien seeding of our technology. Drew Williamson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Ted Phillips From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 02:15:06 +0100 Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 23:39:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Ted Phillips > From: Raine & Crow <crow@crowman.demon.co.uk> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Ted Phillips > Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 19:47:51 GMT > On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 10:44:54 -0500, you wrote: > >Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 12:58:55 +0100 > >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Ted Phillips > >Hello Errol and List, > >Has anyone on thi list got an email or any other address on Ted > >Phillips. His area of expertize is UFO landing traces. > >Don Ledger > Hi Don, > A good friend of ours Chuck Preston knows him and we are sure he will > be pleased to help you, his email address is: > bookfndr@cmaster.com > Incidently he sells a huge range of ufo books, you might like to check > out his website at: > http://bookfinder.simplenet.com/ > All the best > Raine & Crow To Raine and Crow, Thanks for the help. The email relay should help making things a bit easier. Regards, Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 2 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:39:32 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 23:52:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:48:55 -0500 > From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net> > Regarding... > >From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > >Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 > >Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:10:42 -0500 > >Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > It was noted: > >August 6th was one of the most polluted days in Mexico. The > >authorities declared it an emergency... > Would this be consistent with the conditions apparent in the footage, > where the visibility looks almost perfect and even distant buildings can > be clearly seen? It could be, James. The furthest buildings away that can be seen in the stills I downloaded look to be only a mile or two away. If so, that's pretty polluted. However, pollution emergency alerts could be due to excessive levels of CO and/or ozone, which are transparent, and not just particulates, so you'd need more information there. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 01:50:04 -0700 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:04:41 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET) > Fwd Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:49:06 -0500 > Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:09:32 -0500 > >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments... > >I'm not entirely surprised it's red, as (unless you know > >something no one else does) the RBAF F-16s were chasing > >monnbeams, or whatever, on 30/31 March 90, whereas van Utrecht > >No need to repeat the date again, is there? > >And the words 'may have been' are not quite the ones one would > >use in "explaining" something "away", are they? > >Note that only once (00.32hrs) while the F-16s were in the air > >did both the Glons and Semmerzake radars simultaneously have a > >contact with an "unknown" on the same heading (110 deg. 6NM > >from Beauchevin, alt 6000ft). However, the control center at > >Maastricht couldn't see this on radar. Likewise while the F-16s > >were aloft, the highest speed of the OVNIs mentioned in the > >RBAF report I have is 740kt, tho' some rapid accelerations > >(eg 100 - 600kt between 00.39 and 00.41hrs) were noted. > >And while the 't=E9moins au sol' kept seeing lights, the pilots > >never made visual contact, and the ground reports of the > >position of the lights seem not to match what was appearing > >on the radars. > >Someone has scribbled "brouillage" (confusion) in the margin of > >this copy - which seems to me the best summary of the case so far. > >Keep taking the pills, Henny. Or (te he) try eating dates. > Duke, > You can babble on as long as you like. I'll start eating pills > against turning red and running out of breath by the mere > thought of supersonic balloons (I'll be forever in your debt > for that one). I went to review the original report from Col W. De Brouwer after James Easton posted his relevant excerpts from it in his previous post. I thought I 'd post the report in it's entirety here starting with the conclusions: Source: http://members.tripod.com/~butwww/BelgUFOReport2.htm Conclusions 12. The BELGIAN Airforce was unable to identify neither the nature nor the origin of the phenomena. However, it had sufficient elements to exclude following assumptions: a. Balloons. Impossible due to the highly variable speeds (confirmed visually and by radar). b. ULM. Same as for balloons. c. RPV. Impossible due to the hovering characteristics. d. Aircraft (including Stealth). Same as for RPV. No noise. e. Laser projections or Mirages. Unlikely due to lack of projection surface (no clouds). Light spots have been observed from different locations. Light spots moved over distance of more than 15 NM. Form of inlighted part of spots has been observed with spectacles. Laser projections or mirages can not be detected by radar. SUMMARY REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS Official report of Col W. De Brouwer - 30,31 March 1990 Background 1. Starting early Dec 89 the BAF has been contacted on several occasions by eyewitnesses who observed strange phenomena in the Belgian airspace. On some occassions they described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200 feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +- 100 m above the ground and making only a very light humming noise. Some witnesses saw the object departing at very high speed after a very fast acceleration. All observations were made in the evening or during the night. 2. The radarstations which had been alerted by eyewitnesses could not definitely determine a correlation between the visual observations and their detections on radar. On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F16 during the evening hours. a.On the first occasion the F16 arrived +- 1 hour after the visual detection. Nothing was observed. b. On the second occassion, pilots could identify a laser-beam projector on the ground. After investigation it appeared however that the description of the observations totally differed from previously described phenomena. 3. Consequently the Belgian Airforce, anxious to identify the origin of the phenomena, authorised F16 scrambles if following conditions were met: a. Visual observations on the ground confirmed by the local police. b. Detection on radar. Events 4. On 30 Mar 1990 at 23.00 Hr the Master Controller (MC) of the Air Defence radar station of Glons received a phone call from a person who declared to observe three independant blinking lights in the sky, changing colours, with a much higher intensity than the lights of the stars and forming a triangle. Meteo conditions were clear sky, no clouds, light wind and a minor temperature inversion at 3000 Ft. 5. The MC in turn notified the police of WAVRE which confirmed the sighting at +- 23 30 Hr. Meanwhile the MC had identified a radar contact at about 8 NM North of the ground observation. The contact moved slowely to the West at a speed of =- 25kts and an altitude of 10.000 Ft. 6. The ground observers reported 3 additional light spots which moved gradually, with irregular speeds, towards the first set of lights and forming a second triangle. 7. At 23.50 a second radar station, situated at +- 100 NM >from the first, confirmed an identical contact at the same place of the radar contact of Glons. 8. At 00.05 Hr 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varried between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occured after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both F16 registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact could be established by either of the F16 pilots. 9. The F16 flew 3 times through the observation field of the ground observers. At the third passage the ground observers notified a change in the behaviour of the light spots. The most luminous started to blink very intensively while the other disappeared. Consequently, the most luminous spot started to dim gradually. 10. Meanwhile the head of the police of WAVRE had alerted 4 other police stations in the area. All four, seperated +- 10 NM from each other, confirmed the visual observations. 11. The aircraft landed at 01.10 Hrs. The last visual observation was recorded at +- 01.30 Hrs.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Scientific American: Transistors From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 05:17:40 -0600 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:08:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Scientific American: Transistors At 10:38 PM 11/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >From: werd@interlog.com >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:17:13 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Scientific American: Transistors >List, >Scientific American has just published a special issue devoted to >transistors and other inventions that have subsequently been >developed, ie. computer chips. >This issue ("Solid State Century") contains the original article >written by Frank H Rockett (no kidding!) which was published in >the Sept. issue of Scientific American in 1948. There are also >many other articles addressing the developments since the >invention of the transistor, including some history on the >transistor effect, and personal history on the inventors. It also >includes some recent developments into plastic transistors. >I highly recommend this issue for those studying Corso's claims >about alien seeding of our technology. >Drew Williamson Hi Drew. I take it, you are highly dubeous of Corso's claims. Am I correct? Not having read the article yet, I still ask this question. Do you think Frank H. Rockett <g> <good name, huh?> would have admitted that the technology was developed as a result of receiving it from the crash of an alien craft? I personally doubt it. Humans are so egotistical that they want all the recognition of their "genus" they can get. There are very few who would be humble <stupid???!!!> enough to admit that they developed the technology as a result of a chance happening, i.e., the crash of an alien device. Take care Drew. REgards, Mike
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 [Pathfinder] From: Jakes Louw <louwje@telkom.co.za> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 14:39:44 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:11:20 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 [Pathfinder] >From: Masinaigan@aol.com >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:52:38 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Fwd: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 >NASA will scrub the Mars Pathfinder mission on >Tuesday, November 4, 1997, according to a report in the >newspaper USA Today. I think that this failure has stretched the concept of coincidence to the limit. What's this, the 5th failed Mars mission? (Including the 2 Russian probes). And now the planned hi-res mapping of the Mars surface, including the Cydonia region, is also under review due to the problems with atmospheric braking for the orbiter. There are three issues to consider here: 1) R&D of the probe and the orbiter were insufficient and failed to predict accurately the operating conditions and parameters of the mission 2) There is no problem with either: "the truth is being kept from us". 3) Outside forces. Be as paranoid as you want here. Jakes E. Louw louwje@telkom.co.za +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:46:31 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:46:31 -0500 Subject: UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto Author Timothy Good was in Toronto last Tuesday night, speaking at RCMI (The Royal Canadian Military Institute) a club for current and retired officers from all branches of the armed services. The organising Captain, whose guests we were, was assured by other board members that "no one was interested in listening to _that_ stuff". The $39.00 a head dinner & talk tickets sold out in three weeks. Sue and I took our seats, tightly packed, with 138 other blazers and suits in a handsomely panelled dining room at the club, ate our silver-service dinner and awaited Good's talk. He nailed his audience. In the first moments he hooked them with slides of mostly military documents obtained under various international 'Freedom of Information Acts', many heavily blanked-out, reports by military and civil pilots, anecdotes of his conversations with many high-ranking officers working with governments worldwide and a dry, wry sense of humour. Good knows his stuff. He delivered information succinctly - classic 'sound-bite' style. His audience was intensely focused and deeply interested. The half-hour talk had the room buzzing at its conclusion. A too brief question period elicited intelligent questions, with only one 'little green men' yuk. Later, in the bar, having skirted around one another for over an hour, we finally met. And talked about Oechsler and Carp (both of which Good had heavily covered in his writings) and which I, along with other members of MUFON Ontario, had spent many months investigating. It transpired that I had been pointed out to him before dinner and virtually his first words were "You know I was one of the recipients of 'The Guardian Documents and Video?". I asked him what he thought of the 'craft' on the tape. He admitted that he wasn't sure about what it depicted. "And the documents?", I asked. He snorted. "So, how can the documents be bogus and the accompanying video be 'real'?" At that point we were distracted by a couple joining us. When we picked up again, Good was curious about the two other 'witnesses' to the 'landing' - a doctor (who wasn't available during our investigation, and the, to use Oechsler's words, "Canadian Government official" Susan ('Sarah Janille') Gill. I pointed out that Gill had said a) that it had been raining the night of the landing (it was actually raining the night before) and that she could have seen nothing from her property because of the extremely tall spruce trees blocking her view. See 'Carp' at the UFO Mind site at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/place/ca/on/carp/ Good feels that he was used by Oechsler. We agreed that Oechsler was a champion BS-artist, out to line his pockets who conned many. He also feels, that both Bobby Rae Inman and Thomas Stafford were truthful. Inman, Good said, knew that he and Oechsler were refering to UFOs during a taped conversation which Good described in Chapter 10 - Cosmic Journey of 'Alien Liason'. ebk "No matter what or how good the story is, 50% of the people will believe you, 50% won't. All you have to care about is the 50% that will".-- Bob Oechsler, Carp, Ontario, May 10, 1992.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Skywatch: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:11:57 -0700 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 08:54:06 -0500 Subject: Skywatch: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 00:33:11 -0600 (CST) From: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) Subject: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:54:47 -0500 (EST) >From: Timelyjah@aol.com >To: edwards@amigo.net >Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL >Tim, >I just received the Bill Hamilton comment on The DISCOVERY CHANNEL show. >I have also seen the production copy of the show. In their attempt to >show all sides of the issue withing a limited time frame, they have >done the best they can. As a witness I am not complaining. The most >important thing here, is not people's professional reputations or their >"view" on this March 13th sighting, but rather communicating to all who >"have ears to listen" the fact that a massive, unexplainable sighting >occured on March 13, 1997 all over Arizona. This communication is >occuring with the DISCOVERY CHANNEL special tonight at 11:00 pm Arizona >time. The issue of the videotape of the "lights" over Phoenix and >whether or not they are flares is only a small part of the whole >picture. The testimony of reliable witnesses establishes beyond a >doubt that other-worldly craft passed through Arizona. How many craft >and of what description will only be known when as many witnesses as >possible to the event can be rounded up and interviewed and their >testmonies correlated into a cohesive view of what happened. When that >is done, the videotapes of the "lights" will fit in properly. >I would like to comment, that the first time my wife and I saw the >Mike K's videotape it was during the filming of the 2nd STRANGE >UNIVERSE town-hall meeting with some of the witnesses. When we first >saw the lights we both immediately recognized them as the same type and >spacing as what we had seen. In our sighting, we watched the craft for >about 12 or 13 minutes before it passed overhead. During that period >of time we saw it from many different distances and at one distance the >pattern/brightness/texture etc. of the lights was IDENTICAL to what we >saw on the videotape. From our viewpoint, it is so far-fetched to >think that the lights on the videotape are flares dropped from >airplanes, that we actually laugh at it with ridicule. Of course, we >have the advantage of knowing with certainty of the reality of these ET >visitors. >And finally, my whole family and I have known Jim Dilettoso as a >friend for almost ten years. He is a totally responsible scientist in >his techniques and has a wonderfully intelligent mind to boot. He is >capable of thinking logcially to the nth degree, unlike most of the >supposed "experts" surrounding him on all sides. Anyone that gets >close to Jim is ultimately awestruck by the depth of his understanding >of the nature of things. In his creativity he is like Michaelangelo >and in his ability like Einstein. Some individuals are irked by such >an intellect, and set themselves at odds with him. >I was at Village Labs with another witness, Mike Fortsen (I'm not >sure of the spelling) the evening that Councilwoman Barwood was there >doing a limited probe on the event. There were TV people there also. >Mike and I were sitting in the main computer room ready to go into the >conference room and testify when 2 investigators showed up with their >reports. One was Bill Hamilton who seemed very open and pleasant. He >was the new national director of SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL. The other was >the local MUFON guy with one of his assistants. The MUFON guy was >uptight to say the least, because he thought he should go in and >present his report first, before Bill Hamilton of SKYWATCH. >Mike Fortsen and I were talking to Bill Hamilton about our experiences >when the MUFON guy showed up and listened in on what we were saying. And >what we were saying was that the lights we saw were part of some huge >craft of unknown origin. We didn't realize that the MUFON guy had his >preliminary report under his arm and that the report said the lights >videotaped over Phoenix were flares. If we had known he was going to >say that, we would have laughed him out of there. Obviously he wasn't >going to say anything to us and he was definitely in a snit about Bill >Hamilton being there and was vocally complaining after Bill Hamilton >left the computer area and went into the conference room. He was >getting himself pissed-off at not only Bill Hamilton, but also Jim >Dilettoso. He definitely was not a happy man. Since that evening this >MUFON guy has turned this hateful attitude he has towards Jim Dilettoso >and Village Labs, and seems on a vendetta to attempt to discredit Jim >and his work. My only explanation for this, is that this MUFON guy has >been "mentally abducted" by invisible evil beings and is in fact part >of the effort to keep the world in confusion and darkness. I feel >sorry for him and can only pray for his release. >In conclusion, I recommend everyone to watch the DISCOVERY CHANNEL >SPECIAL tonight, and take everything negative with a grain of salt. >Sincerely, >Tim >Ley Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:09:07 -0600 (CST) To: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) From: Jim Arnold <justdrum@ionet.net> Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL Well, I watched the Discovery Channel Sun. night about the Phoenix lights and it was better than I expected. It does not bother me that some credence was given to the possibility of the "flares" since there were so many other things that were not explained at all. I would not be surprised if flares were dropped just to confuse people. Perhaps at least now more people will be saying "Yeah but...." Thank you for bringing the program to my attention. Jim Arnold Midwest City, OK The show was much better than I expected too. It raised alot more questions than answers and didn't do too bad a job on presenting just how incredible the events were and only downplayed one of them. Good eyewitness testimony and video too. Tim Search for other documents from or mentioning: skywatch | edwards |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 3 Nov 1997 15:34:06 UT Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:44:03 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 00:33:11 -0600 (CST) >From: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) >Subject: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >>Return-Path: <Timelyjah@aol.com> >>Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:54:47 -0500 (EST) >>From: Timelyjah@aol.com >>To: edwards@amigo.net >>Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL >Tim, >I just received the Bill Hamilton comment on The DISCOVERY >CHANNEL show. >I have also seen the production copy of the show. In their attempt >to show all sides of the issue withing a limited time frame, they >have done the best they can. As a witness I am not complaining. >The most important thing here, is not people's professional >reputations or their "view" on this March 13th sighting, but >rather communicating to all who "have ears to listen" the fact >that a massive, unexplainable sighting occured on March 13, 1997 >all over Arizona. This communication is occuring with the >DISCOVERY CHANNEL special tonight at 11:00 pm Arizona >time. The issue of the videotape of the "lights" over Phoenix and >whether or not they are flares is only a small part of the whole >picture. The testimony of reliable witnesses establishes beyond a >doubt that other-worldly craft passed through Arizona. How many >craft and of what description will only be known when as many >witnesses as possible to the event can be rounded up and >interviewed and their testmonies correlated into a cohesive view >of what happened. When that is done, the videotapes of the >"lights" will fit in properly. The DISCOVERY CHANNEL show was a good presentation. There are certain niggling facts that are not apparent to the average viewer. What we have described as Event#1 is the large chevron craft witnessed by Time Ley and family. The "V" videotaped by Terry of Cave Creek is not the same nor does it match the description given by Tim Ley --- we have listed this as a separate event. Please note that Terry described the lights on the V as "amber", the same color as the lights in the Mike Kryzston, Churck Rairden, and Tom King videos. Event#2 was ignored. We have listed Event#2 as a very large Black Triangle seen by numerous witnesses on the west side of the valley also travelling south. The triangle passed over between 8:30 and 9:00 according to these various witnesses. Event#3 is the one we have designated for the "amber" lights in the video footage. The statements by the Maryland Air National Guard is that they jettisoned magnesium flares (decoy flares not "illumination" flares as Discovery misreports) at a part of the test range which further away than the 30 miles indicated in their showing. The magnesium flares burn bright white, not orange or yellow, but this has never been addressed by the skeptics. The analysis done by Cogitech Labs showing the lights going out above the Estrella Mts is bogus. They never show the lower lights going out in this demo. Four of us did the analysis on this formation videotaped by Mike Kryzston and we have verified the eyewitnesses' statment. These lights were in front of the Estrella Mtns and did not have any descending motion that would cause them to extinguish by falling behind those mountains --- and of course that is not the direction the Maryland ANG reputedly dropped flares. If they had descended behind the mountains, the lower lights in the curve would have gone out first and the rest of the formation would have descended a visible distance in the interval. By careful measurement with several fixed points we could not find any vertical descending movement in any of these lights. If you looked closely at the comparison between the lights and the illumination flares shot by Channel 12, you would see they are not the same. You can see the tails on the flares and you can see them "flicker". Also, notice the column of smoke that comes out of that one flare -- that smoke would have been visible through our telescope, but it was not. We have daylight footage, not shown in this show, which shows two of the same lights and one jumps straight up several hundred feet. There are no chutes or smoke visible in that segment of video either. We still do not have a statement from the Maryland ANG as to when they dropped the flares especially since the PIO at Davis-Monthan AFB stated for the record that their planes were back on the ground at 8:30 PM --- a full 85 minutes before we started shooting our video. With TV magic and the ignoring of details, the DISCOVERY CHANNEL has only shown part of the story and has omitted a great deal of highly intriquing witness testimony. However, on the plus side, the portraying of witness testimony and re-enactment was fairly good and will give the general public some idea of the scope of the events of March 13th. BTW, Village Labs was not brought into the picture as portrayed after Frances Barwood's involvement on May 6th, but were involved shortly after the sightings started in March. Jim Dilettoso and Mike Tanner have done an excellent job especially in the face of the opposition they received from one bitter MUFON investigator who is trying to explain the big V as a military operation in holography! Sincerely, Bill Hamilton Exec Director Skywatch International Search for other documents from or mentioning: william.hamilton |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:16:34 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:39:13 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto > Author Timothy Good was in Toronto last Tuesday night, speaking > at RCMI (The Royal Canadian Military Institute) a club for > current and retired officers from all branches of the armed > services. > Later, in the bar, having skirted around one another for over an > hour, we finally met. And talked about Oechsler and Carp (both of > which Good had heavily covered in his writings) and which I, > along with other members of MUFON Ontario, had spent many months > investigating. It transpired that I had been pointed out to him > before dinner and virtually his first words were "You know I was > one of the recipients of 'The Guardian Documents and Video?". > > I asked him what he thought of the 'craft' on the tape. He > admitted that he wasn't sure about what it depicted. "And the > documents?", I asked. He snorted. "So, how can the documents > be bogus and the accompanying video be 'real'?" At that point > we were distracted by a couple joining us. LOL! Good show, Errol! Another "expert" who knows all, eh? > When we picked up again, Good was curious about the two other > 'witnesses' to the 'landing' - a doctor (who wasn't available > during our investigation, and the, to use Oechsler's words, > "Canadian Government official" Susan ('Sarah Janille') Gill. You mean Good didn't know about this? Good grief! > Good feels that he was used by Oechsler. We agreed that Oechsler The obvious question is, then, how accurate are all the other case accounts which he supports, if he is so easily swayed? But the BIG question is .... "How was the dinner?" -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca) University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada Search for other documents from or mentioning: rutkows |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:59:02 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:47:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 10/31/97 8:58 PM: > From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp> > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 21:52:29 +0900 > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Mexican UFO Video Tape > We also need a little more than a simple adjective > ("sophisticated") describing the software. There is a big > difference between discovering a single 386 PC with a copy of > Corel Draw, or instead discovering 8 Silicon Graphics Onyx > reality engines with Amazon rendering software. I'd also like to point out that, if you look carefully at the panorama which I produced from four frames of the video http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufomex.htm you will see that while the object moves in a smooth arc upward from the landscape, the video camera is not so steadily held. Therefore, if faked using graphics software to simulate the object, the software involved (or the hoaxer) would have to have determined the position of the faked object not according to the bounds of the frame, but according to reference marks (i.e. objects) in a set of frames where field of view is constantly varying. Prior to realizing this, I had believed that the fake was fairly simple. It is still not impossible, but fakery is made much more complex by this realization. In fact, it requires either that the object be placed by hand in each frame, with some fairly complex calculations as to where the object would be in the frame, or that a set of frames, with each frame larger than the dimension of a video field, be created and animated, and then an artificial "camera shake" be superimposed on the resulting animation. This is much more difficult and time consuming than simply putting an animated brush into a prevideoed scene, with a few blocked out regions where the brush is not allowed to show. It is also possible that an artificial camera shake might be found out through an analysis of the camera motions. At any rate, if the path of the object were a straight line when the panorama frames were set with their bases or tops aligned, it would be much more likely that we are looking at a fake. But this is not the case. If the frames are positioned this way, the object follows an undulatory path which "just happens" to be a rising arc when the camera positions are aligned by reference objects in the picture. That "just happens" is what makes this video hard to fake. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Trace case in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:15:54 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 11:50:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Trace case in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 09:57:49 -0600 > From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Trace case in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? > When he was visiting a college in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in the > 1966, 1968 time frame, and while not witnessing it himself, > because he was indoors and unaware, 5 to 7 UFO's hovered over > 15th street elsewhere in the city, knocked out the engines of the > automobiles underneath them, and remained in the air overhead for > a period of twenty to thirty minutes I checked the Project 1947 EM Effects catalog and could not find this case. There is a poorly documented case... 8/8/96 3:45 p.m Medford, OR Three oblong silvery UFOs, each one approximately 190 feet (57.5 meters) long, flew over Table Rock on Highway 62 just east of Medford, Oregon at 3:45 p.m. on Thursday, August 8, 1996, stalling the cars of several motorists. According to Mrs. Manora F., her daughter visited a local gas station (the son-in-law's place of business) and spoke to a handful of motorists whose vehicles had been affected by a strong electromagnetic effect. "A man walked in and said that all the cars on Interstate (Highway) 5 had been affected," Mrs. F. reported. "Then another woman came into the station and said her car had stalled in town, and she was afraid to drive out there to pick it up until it was checked by her husband. (Later) the mechanic could not find anything wrong with her car." (Unsolicited Email) ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Millennium Raises Hopes, Fears From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:14:36 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:03:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Raises Hopes, Fears >Dear Bob, >First of all, re: the fundamentalist Christians - I think you're >right, they scare me personally and I do not feel brotherly love >from them. >Second, as an abductee I know that not only myself but other >experiencers have either been shown - or as a result of their >experiences - have been left with a deep overwhelming sense that >great suffering may well befall humanity within our lifetimes. >Dealing with issues like this are very difficult for abductee's. >It can be a rather strong and profound part of the experience, >and not one that anybody would like to bring up at the dinner >table. >Considering this recurring pattern of messages to abductee's, at >a time in history (the end of millenium) where apocolyptic fever >would naturally affect a segment of the population, would it be >useful for us to look at the possibility of such things from a >different perspective than a wholly >Christian/Moslem/Buddhist/Taoist/(include religion of your >choice) one? >It is a scientific possibility that any of the above could >occur. >Regards, >Paul Whitewolf. >"If you can't laugh at yourself, you might be missing the joke of the >century." >...Dame Edna, 1997. Paul, I just came back from New York City. While I was there I spent an evening with Budd Hopkins and Greg Sandow. While we each have our own different perspective on the abduction phenomenon, one thing we did agree on is that the abductors have their own agenda, that this agenda is in their interests and not ours, and that they can not be trusted. Prophets (most would be called abductees or experiencers today) have been shown apocalyptic visions for thousands of years. Each one is usually convinced that this is going to happen in his/her lifetime. They have all been wrong. I am not an eschatologist. I do not think that armageddon is coming, nor an apocalypse. I think good old mother earth will continue around the sun, just as she has for many millennia, the seasons will come and go, men will be born and die, and nothing much will change.Hopefully we will all become a bit more enlightened as time passes. I regard end of the world preaching as useless, and perhaps dangerous, nonsense. I think that Jacques Vallee was on target when he called our "visitors" Messengers of Deception. That's precisely what they are. They are uninvited interlopers who have no respect for us, and certainly do not regard us as creatures with basic, inviolable rights. They treat us as property. I think it is time for us to open our eyes and fight back. Bob P.S. Love the Dame Edna quote!!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 15:14:43 +0100 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 16:59:03 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 15:09:32 -0500 > >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments... > >>Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 11:06:57 +0100 (MET) > >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > >>I began to chuckle here at the mere thought of > >>a triangular balloon that carries three lights and > >>decides to evade F16's by changing course rapidly > >>and in doing so passes through the sound barrier. > >>My God, some balloon! [snip] > >>By now my face has turned > >>red and my heartbeat has gone up significantly. > >I'm not entirely surprised it's red, as (unless you know > >something no one else does) the RBAF F-16s were chasing > >monnbeams, or whatever, on 30/31 March 90, whereas van Utrecht > >>>conceded that 'some kind of unusual flying machine did manifest > >>>itself over our country on two or three occasions' in November > >>>and December 1989. The object 'may have been an experimental, > >>>self-propelled balloon [...] > >No need to repeat the date again, is there? > >And the words 'may have been' are not quite the ones one would > >use in "explaining" something "away", are they? > >Note that only once (00.32hrs) while the F-16s were in the air > >did both the Glons and Semmerzake radars simultaneously have a > >contact with an "unknown" on the same heading (110 deg. 6NM > >from Beauchevin, alt 6000ft). However, the control center at > >Maastricht couldn't see this on radar. Likewise while the F-16s > >were aloft, the highest speed of the OVNIs mentioned in the > >RBAF report I have is 740kt, tho' some rapid accelerations > >(eg 100 - 600kt between 00.39 and 00.41hrs) were noted. > >And while the 't=E9moins au sol' kept seeing lights, the pilots > >never made visual contact, and the ground reports of the > >position of the lights seem not to match what was appearing > >on the radars. > >Someone has scribbled "brouillage" (confusion) in the margin of > >this copy - which seems to me the best summary of the case so far. > >Keep taking the pills, Henny. Or (te he) try eating dates. > Duke, > You can babble on as long as you like. I'll start eating pills > against turning red and running out of breath by the mere > thought of supersonic balloons (I'll be forever in your debt > for that one). > However, I urge you to take some black coffee for boosting > your accuracy, as you seem to have missed that the > highest recorded speed was 1010 knots. (For those outside > the English language area, this is around 1900 km/hr). > When we keep missing such signifant details, we > could indeed get a little confused, he, Peregrine Prozac? I couldn't resist interjecting here. 740 kt balloons or 850 mph! That's supersonic at 6,000 feet. Anybody pushing that theory is doing it meerly to pull somebody's chain. An forget radar tracings. they are of no value anymore as proof. If we can evade radar, they sure as hell can. Fiberglass yachts and homebuilt aircraft regularly elude radar unless they take steps to make themselves visible to it. Yachts with reflectors and homebuilts with tinfoil. You have every right to be busting a gut with laughter Henny. Don Ledger Search for other documents from or mentioning: dledger | hvdp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:17:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:05:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:23:57 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] >>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 >>To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >>Bruce: >>Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on >>photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document >>scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for >>review. >>I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who >>will find your work...intruiging. >>How about it? >I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations >in a personal letter to you? >I can, of course, upload the short papers I wrote back then >detailing the analysis of the hood reflection and the study of >the road reflection. One of these was published by MUFON. >And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you >have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, or on photo >11 (blue beam photo). Excuse me, but does it seem odd to anyone other than me for BB to ask Bruce to upload one of his papers, while refusing to upload hers? Bob Search for other documents from or mentioning: 76750.2717 | brumac |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 UFO Lobbyist Stephen Bassett on Art Bell Tonight - From: "Diana Botsford-Hopkins" <watchfire_fm@classic.msn.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 97 19:18:12 UT Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:10:00 -0500 Subject: UFO Lobbyist Stephen Bassett on Art Bell Tonight - Political consultant and UFO lobbyist Stephen Bassett will appear on the Art Bell show Monday evening, 11/3, at 2am, Diana Botsford UFO Forum Project: watchfire http://forums.msn.com/UFO
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:56:32 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:12:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/2/97 11:10= AM: > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 > From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > To: Updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > One of the most impressive of the witness statements comes from a > woman who was standing beneath the unknown. She reported developing a > "sun burn" that lasted for more than a month after the experience. > We asked H. David Froning, a retired senior staff scientist at > McDonnell Douglas and propulsion specialist, his opinion of her > statement. His feelings are that the "sun burn" could be the result of > ionized radiation left in the wake of an electro-magnetic form of > propulsion. The ionized air would would not block any ultra violet > rays, thus creating a "sun burn" in short period of time. David > comfortable releasing this information now as speculation is all we > can do regarding the "sun burn" statement. =E1 Nothing up to this point really bothered me, but this does. I have spent some time studying eye and skin irritation in relation to UFO sightings. What qualifies a "propulsion specialist" to comment on a medical condition? What medical documentation of the witness condition exists? If the witness was sunburned, how was it distinguished from a conventional sunburn? The explanation sounds ridiculous also. UV filtering occurs at a very high level of the earth's atmosphere, and a local ionization will not affect that filtering. In fact, I have seen no information that would lead me to believe that ionization even at the level of the ozone layer would affect UV filtering - in fact, ionization is one of the contibutors to the formation of the UV filtering molecule ozone at that level. > Also of interest is that several witnesses reported a "haze" around > the object. In a hazy and polluted sky? This is surprising? > 6) Preliminary estimations of size and distance have been triangulated > by Village Labs in Tempe, Arizona. The object appears to be 36 to 50 > feet in diameter. The distance from the camera to the unknown is > estimated between 800 and 1200 yards. We are working on a program that > should provide better estimates. Can some photo expert on the list inform me as to how the distance could be triangulated using diverging sight lines such as seem to be the only sight lines available from the video? > If this footage is hoaxed, then sophisticated computers and programs > were employed. However, the suggestion that has been posted on this > site that the material was first composited then filmed off of a > monitor screen is inaccurate. Anyone who has attempted to film a > monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and > the monitor do not sync. This was verified, not only by first hand > observance, but by one of our consultants, an engineer with several > years experience at NBC. Taking that possibility one step further, we > posed the question, "What if a composit were created then placed on a > video tape through audio/video output?" His response, "Output to video > tape would leave a telltale mark that could be found." It is true that video from a video monitor is not a good explanation. The image quality is too good for even genlocked recording (no visible pincushion or moire patterns, for instance). What would this telltale mark be? Would it be present if the feed were from a computer video source (such as a Flyer) into a camcorder? --- In short, this released information is somewhat disquieting. I hope the video will be quickly released to the research community so that some clear answers can be developed by open process. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:21:03 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:30:11 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/3/97 8:04 AM: > Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 01:50:04 -0700 > From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > To: Updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > 8. At 00.05 Hr 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and > guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception > attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a > lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varried > between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and > altitude very quickly and break-locks occured after 10 to 60 > seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both > F16 registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 > F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact could be > established by either of the F16 pilots. Please note that at 7 statute miles, the angular size of an object 200 feet in diameter is 0.3 degrees. I am not surprised that visual contact was not attained by the fighters. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:45:13 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:33:56 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com > Date: 3 Nov 1997 15:34:06 UT > Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > To: updates@globalserve.net Regarding the hypothesis that some of the bright lights seen in the sky to the west of Phoenix on March 13 were flares, Bill Hamilton writes: > The magnesium flares burn bright white, not orange or yellow, > but this has never been addressed by the skeptics. Could white flares seen at a great distance look orange because of Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere? (This is the effect which causes the setting sun to look orange.) -George Fergus Search for other documents from or mentioning: fergus |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:22:30 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:32:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Re: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/3/97 8:11 AM: > Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 14:39:44 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <louwje@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 [Pathfinder] > >From: Masinaigan@aol.com > >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:52:38 -0500 (EST) > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: Fwd: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 42 > >NASA will scrub the Mars Pathfinder mission on > >Tuesday, November 4, 1997, according to a report in the > >newspaper USA Today. > I think that this failure has stretched the concept of > coincidence to the limit. Pathfinder more than met its mission objectives and functioned long past its nominal mission duration. No conspiracy, but perhaps NASA wants to use the resources for something else. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto From: nick@emailme.at.address.below (Nick Humphries) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 19:57:19 GMT Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:15:51 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: UFO Author Timothy Good Speaks in Toronto >To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto) >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:16:34 -0600 (CST) >> Good feels that he was used by Oechsler. We agreed that Oechsler >The obvious question is, then, how accurate are all the other case >accounts which he supports, if he is so easily swayed? I'm particularly interested in Tim's current position regarding Lazar, Area 51, et al. Gene Huff (Lazar's spokesman and business partner) has been shouting out loud all over the place that Tim's a huge backer of Lazar, as seen in Alien Liasons/Contact, yet I have a 1995 WAV file of an interview question with him in which he errs greatly on Lazar but doesn't completely disown him. (Take a look at http://www.the-den.clara.net/ufo.htm). Anyone know Tim's current view? I wasn't really a fan of Alien Liasons after reading the excellent Above (and Beyond) Top Secret - once Tim's disowned Lazar, what's left in that book which is credible? >But the BIG question is .... > "How was the dinner?" Better than my current salad no doubt... (bloody diets...) ------------------------------------------------------- Nick Humphries, nick@the-den.clara.net, at your service If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here? ------------------------------------------------------- The Your Sinclair Rock'n'Roll Years http://www.the-den.clara.net/ys/cover.htm -------------------------------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:18:03 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 19:58:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footag >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:56:32 -0800 >> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/2/97 11:10 AM: >> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 >> From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >> To: Updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >> 6) Preliminary estimations of size and distance have been triangulated >> by Village Labs in Tempe, Arizona. The object appears to be 36 to 50 >> feet in diameter. The distance from the camera to the unknown is >> estimated between 800 and 1200 yards. We are working on a program that >> should provide better estimates. >Can some photo expert on the list inform me as to how the >distance could be triangulated using diverging sight lines such >as seem to be the only sight lines available from the video? This is, of course, gibberish. There is nothing in these images which would allow accurate estimation of size. We can not even estimate the size of the buildings, which may be only inches tall. >> If this footage is hoaxed, then sophisticated computers and programs >> were employed. However, the suggestion that has been posted on this >> site that the material was first composited then filmed off of a >> monitor screen is inaccurate. Anyone who has attempted to film a >> monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and >> the monitor do not sync. This was verified, not only by first hand >> observance, but by one of our consultants, an engineer with several >> years experience at NBC. Taking that possibility one step further, we >> posed the question, "What if a composit were created then placed on a >> video tape through audio/video output?" His response, "Output to video >> tape would leave a telltale mark that could be found." >It is true that video from a video monitor is not a good >explanation. The image quality is too good for even genlocked >recording (no visible pincushion or moire patterns, for >instance). >What would this telltale mark be? Would it be present if the feed >were from a computer video source (such as a Flyer) into a >camcorder? I, too, want to know about this "mark". Is this like the mark of Zorro? Or parhaps one of the "Marks Brothers"? Groucho, where are you when we need you? Or did he intend to say telltale heart, not mark? Nevermore, I say. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Scientific American: Transistors From: werd@interlog.com Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:03:15 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 20:03:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Scientific American: Transistors >Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 05:17:40 -0600 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Scientific American: Transistors >At 10:38 PM 11/2/97 -0500, you wrote: >>From: werd@interlog.com >>Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 22:17:13 -0500 (EST) >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Scientific American: Transistors >>List, >>Scientific American has just published a special issue devoted to >>transistors and other inventions that have subsequently been >>developed, ie. computer chips. >>This issue ("Solid State Century") contains the original article >>written by Frank H Rockett (no kidding!) which was published in >>the Sept. issue of Scientific American in 1948. There are also >>many other articles addressing the developments since the >>invention of the transistor, including some history on the >>transistor effect, and personal history on the inventors. It also >>includes some recent developments into plastic transistors. >>I highly recommend this issue for those studying Corso's claims >>about alien seeding of our technology. >>Drew Williamson >Hi Drew. >I take it, you are highly dubeous of Corso's claims. Am I >correct? >Not having read the article yet, I still ask this question. Do >you think Frank H. Rockett <g> <good name, huh?> would have >admitted that the technology was developed as a result of >receiving it from the crash of an alien craft? [snip] >Mike Christol Hi Mike, IF, he knew of such an extraordinary claim, which I doubt. Like I said I strongly recommend this issue as it shows the logical progression towards development of the transistor. The transistor effect was well known and the idea of miniaturization was being worked on LONG before Roswell. Drew Williamson.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: DevereuxP <DevereuxP@aol.com> [Paul Devereux] Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:55:04 EST Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 20:57:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:22:53 PDT >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved abduction cases? >> From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:15:28 -0400 (EDT) >> To: updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Solved abduction cases? <mega-snip in the interests of sanity> >> Well, Jerry, I'm positively amazed that my gentle and brief >> comments should provoke such a screed from you! Forgive me >> for thinking that you are being a little over-defensive. But, >> well, if that's the way you want it .... >Paul, I am "positively amazed" at your positive amazement. Why >wouldn't someone be "a little over-defensive" if somebody else >were to speculate in his presence, as you did in mine >(cyberspacially speaking), about his inability to think for >himself owing to a deep need to follow fashion? I never,ever, said that. My point was much more subtle. And accurate. >I can imagine you going ballistic under the circumstances, and >I wouldn't blame you. Who the hell needs that? Try to be a tad >more sensitive in the future, please. And there was I thinking I was treating you so gently. You are truly a sensitive soul, Jerry. Indeed, it becomes increasingly noticeable that you take any challenge to the ETH quite personally (hardly the action of an agnostic), and prefer to deal with inter-personal minutiae rather than substantive matters. Also, your double standards: if you challenge someone it is scholarship, but if your views are questioned, or if a simple fact such as your general adherence to the ET motif governing mainstream ufology is pointed out, it is "bullying". >> PD: I don't need to be a mind-reader, just a reader, to see >>you getting narky. And I know you well enough to have seen you >>in one of your little paddies, so I know enough as far as this >> particular matter is concerned. >You're pretty hot-tempered yourself, Paul, and have a reputation >for same. It's just part of your charm. So is mine. I wouldn't for moment deny that I do not suffer fools, foolishness or intellectual dishonesty lightly, but that isn't the issue right here and now, is it? You claimed I had to be a mind-reader to see your snottiness, and I was just pointing out why that wasn't so. >> PD: It's getting very "old", Jerry, the way you always wheel >>old Eddie out. Eddie's OK, but he isn't God, and he hasn't >>refuted anything worth mentioning... <snip> >It's a tad strange for you to charge somebody else with using >an "old" argument (why the scare quotes, by the way?)... It's a term used here in NY (at least) meaning boringly repetitious >...since you've been beating the same drum for years and years, >in book after book, lecture after lecture. And why the hell not? >You think you've found something important, and you want >to be heard, and ultimately to prevail, in the debate. >Personally,I think you're interesting, dead wrong, and (dare I >say it?) a trifle arrogant from time to time. So you're human. >And keep speaking up. >Bullard's work is, in my judgment, the most important yet done >on the abduction phenomenon, and it is fundamental to any >understanding and discussion of same. I know it pains you to >hear that. Sorry. For the rest of you who haven't already done >so, go out and read Bullard and find out why he so pains the >abduction/abductionist-bashers. Reason one: he is an >empiricist,not content with making broad, sweeping >pronouncements but formulating and testing hypotheses -- few of >which validate critics' favorite beliefs. At the end of it, >Bullard ends up an agnostic, and so do I. We will have to agree to disagree about the quality of your judgement in this matter, Jerry. It is not because he's good that Bullard pains me. He can be seriously, indeed fatally, faulted on methodological and logic grounds, and I'm sure someone will do so before too long. If they don't, I will when I reach retirement age and have perhaps a little more time on my hands than I do now. And please give up on this claim to be agnostic. You may be deluding yourself, but not others. It is getting a thinner claim all the time. >> We aren't talking Hansel and Gretel here, y'know. Folklore is >>a dynamic that is always being generated. The whole of ufology >>can genuinely be considered as folklore, and that goes double >>for the abduction scene. >The "whole of ufology"? Such wild hyperbole will get you >nowhere, my friend, though I'm sure it will make you feel >better. If you want to be taken seriously, or even listened to, >can that sort of rhetorical excess. Nonsense. Ufology is a human phenomenon. It is full of beliefs, assumptions, gossip,and *storytellers*. What fragments of objective information do circulate are contextualised according to prevailing assumptions. The very stuff of folklore. Ufology is not extra-terrestrial. It is the all-too-human finger pointing at the moon. >> You seem to think the good Duke and I are somehow >> saying the UFO experience in general, and the UFO abduction >> experience in particular, is untrue, absurd, etc etc. This is >>not the case. I'll speak for myself: what I am saying is that >>the response to and treatment of such experiences is folklore. >>It's not the experients, its the goddam investigators and the >>milieu they operate in, Jerry. You've got what we are saying >>ass backwards. I DO think there is hoax, lying and crass >>self-delusion in ufology and abduction accounts, but I think >>there are also people who have experienced something unusual >>that demands explanation. My concern is that experients are all >>too often TOLD what it is they have experienced, and/or that >>the folkloric milieu they are introduced to will inculcate that >> explanation in them. >Let's see the evidence. Bullard, in The Sympathetic Ear (1995) >and his paper on hypnosis and abduction reports (JUFOS 1, 1989), >found that whatever the investigator's predisposition, abduction >reports end up sounding pretty much the same. If you have >empirical evidence to the contrary, let's see it. Use your brains and your eyes, man. You have just proved my point about you being so immersed in the prevailing ufological milieu that you can't see what's happening from an objective viewpoint. Stop repeating Bullard, Bullard, Bull....It is getting you nowhere. It is not that I have anything personally against Eddie Bullard, but your constant holding him up as some sort of St Michael of factual objectivity is a dangerous game for you to be playing. >> PD: You aren't thinking clearly, Jerry. I am not North America >> bashing at all. (And how dare you lump Canada in with the USA? >> The fact that Chris RutKowski lives in Canada shouldn't malign >> a whole nation.).... >Say what? Are you joking, Paul? <snip> Yes, Jerry. <sigh> >> I am being highly critical of the dominant, ET-literalist >>paradigm that infects nearly all of US ufology. >Absolutely false. By this time I do not mean there is anything >wrong with the ETH, a perfectly sensible reading (whether >ultimately validated or not) of the most evidential UFO cases. >In reality, however, American ufology exists in a pluralistic >universe in which all sorts of views are held and debated, from >the neoskeptical to the paranormalist; there has even been >something of a revival of secret-weaponism in recent years. >There is a demonologist school. There are New Agers and other >dimensionalists. Stop arguing in caricature. The ETH lost its >dominance in American ufology in the late 1960s, with the >appearance of Keel and Vallee. I think what you object to is >that it continues to exist at all. You've got a lot of balls to try to maintain that the ETH is not the dominant ruling paradigm of mainstream ufology. Of course there are 1001 other beliefs that wax and wane within ufology (it is folkore, after all), who is arguing otherwise? And there are a few major American ufologists who do not subscribe automatically to the ETH. It is the dominance of the ETH in American ufological thinking that I refer to. Let's look a bit more carefully at what I'm trying to draw attention to. First, there is no ETH at all - no single hypothesis, I mean. It has changed with the fads and fashions of the decades, as you well know. I would prefer to call it the ET Motif (ETM), or ET literalism. In that guise, it *does* rule most thinking within mainstream ufology. That's not an opinion, but an observable fact. And it is insidious. Even those ufologists who do not openly promote the ETM, and perhaps genuinely think themselves free of it, unconsciously (to a greater or lesser extent) use it as the yardstick by which they judge all other approaches. Indeed, the other approaches are unconsciously viewed as "alternative" approaches. Alternative to what? To the ETM because that is considered the "logical" or "most likely" explanation - you have effectively said that yourself. It is as if other approaches somehow have to measure up to the ETM as though it was a fact, when, in truth, it is a shadowy mirage that has never been pinned down. This has serious knock-on effects. It skews the contextualisation of objective information to which I referred above. So any physical effects- injury to witnesses or damage to vegetation, for examples - are considered in the light of whether or not they can fit in with the presence of a physcial ET craft. No matter how objective the study of that physical evidence may be, it is already compromised by the conceptual context it has automatically been placed in. Another, and far more dangerous, example is the way UFO abductees are investigated. Because there is an assumption, tacit or otherwise, that there has been a literal, physical ET encounter, vital information is not gathered. By this I mean there are certain factors about a reported abductee's physical nature that needs determining in any abduction enquiry. Its collection might well yield a body of information leading to conclusions startlingly different to an ET answer. But it isn't done. (What this information is, I will be prepared to go into with serious investigators within private discussion in due course.) The shifting of prioritisation caused by the unconscious (-ish) effect of the ETM on the conceptual approach to the alien abduction scenario was shown up in the example of Mark Rodeghier's Santa Fe lecture I mentioned in my last posting. Very important information was left out simply because, from an ETM point of view, it was more or less inconsequential. It simply didn't register. These are serious matters, Jerry. As far as objective skyborne phenomena go, I think the ETM should stay on the table, but it should not be accorded any greater weight than any other approach. As far as "alien abductions" go, as they are a different matter entirely I make no bones in saying it should be thrown out forthwith. I say that because the nature of the "alien abduction" experience can readily be determined by anyone who bothers to study both within AND OUTSIDE of the "alien abduction" literature. It then becomes a matter of scholarly observation and knowledge, not opinion. It is because I have done this that I can, in effect, "abduct the aliens". An ET literalist approach, on the contrary, forces us to be passive, awaiting the actions of the ETs. The ET literalist approach reverses the true situation, and fills many people with fear. Let me put it this way: no ET will ever abduct me. The skew the unconscious wielding of the ETM yardstick causes is also evident in your total failure, Jerry, to respond to my comments on the significance of lucid dream research in my previous posting. I think you think I'm kidding, or off the wall or whatever. Not so. I am talking about serious scientific research. The hovering, virtually all-pervading presence of the ETM *does* seriously compromise the objectivity of ufological research. Fact. >In all due respect, Paul, I simply know a hell of a lot more >about the intellectual history of American ufology than you do. I know enough to study it sensibly. In your case, I think you have looked at so many trees you have become lost in the wood. >> And yes, indeed, I spend at least half my time here in the >>States - we have a home on both sides of the Atlantic. You make >>my point for me. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY I AM IN A UNIQUE >>POSITION TO OFFER MY CRITICISMS. It is a fact, plain and simple >>yet again, that in British ufology, and I'm sure in the ufology >>of many other West European countries, the literalist view is >>balanced more effectively by alternative approaches than it is >>in the US. It is a healthier research climate in British >>ufology, notwithstanding that at the tabloid pop end of the >>business (and business it is) it is still literalism based on >>imported Americana. >Healthier, of course, because more people there agree with you. >I find the same: the healthier the person, the more he or she is >likely to agree with me. Strange how that works. No, healthier because there is more interchange of opinion, and a better balancing of an overbearing paradigm. >> You simply cannot take the cultural influence out of this >>thing, Jerry. I stick absolutely to my claim that you have >>been affected by the cultural milieu in which you live, move, >>think and have your being. >And you haven't? Get off the high horse, Paul. This sort of >argument doesn't get any of us anywhere. Of course I have been so affected. But I have taken steps to minimise it. You haven't. Spending three years in the UK and its intellectual climate in these matters might do you good. This is not an irrelevant argument. People trapped in cultural bubbles do experience a narrowing of viewpoint, and this is reflected in their opinions and this in turn affects how they perceive information and evidence. And they do experience peer pressure in many ways, obvious and subtle. To deny that is to deceive yourself. >> You can't see it, because you are in it. I can see >> it. You may play fancier footwork than most, but you are still >>in the ET-literalist ballpark of US ufology. Let me mix >>metaphors: the dominance of the ET-literalist paradigm within >>'mainstream' ufology turns it into a conceptual ghetto. Mixing >>on, I'd say that the ET-literalist approach is a sort of rest >>home for the intellectually lazy. You may be the librarian at >>the rest home, Jerry, and look out of the windows more often >>than most, but you are still an inmate. >Thanks, Paul. I am not being insulting. Your own words and attitudes have made this situation apparent. It is your refusal to even entertain the problem that shows the problem. >> Mainstream ufology as we know it is rooted in 1940s and 1950s >> Americana. It is American folklore. And you are coloured by >>it, and would find it exceptionally difficult to break free >>from it -- even though it is long past its shelf life. Ufology >>needs reinventing because there is, indeed, something to be >>understood within it, at the level of some experiences had by >>some people. If we are to understand it, we will have to break >>out of the ghetto, the ballpark, the rest home, the tatty >>conceptual museum of Americana. The fact that you and others >>get so defensive on the handful of occasions anyone suggests >>another approach, tells me that you haven't escaped yet. >Coming from one of the most emotional critics of the ETH I have >ever encountered, I find these remarks ... well ... remarkable. >And a lazy excuse not to deal with substantive issues. That you apparently cannot see the strands I point out within modern ufology tells me that perhaps you are not so well up on the intellectual history of the subject as you like to think. And for you to complain about anyone else beign emotional and not dealing with substantive issues is a bit rich, to put it mildly. Anyway, fear not, in UFOs and ufology, I am forensic, not emotional. But you won't like that, either. >> Nor have many ufologists on your side of the Atlantic (there >>are notable exceptions). You demand evidence for this or that. >>just demand that you think a bit harder. The ET-literalist >>approach is treated as if it were somehow a proven fact. It is >>not. >>Yet when Dennis Stacy published my "Meeting with the >>Alien" in the MUFON journal, I understand he was told that he >>shouldn't be publishing such material. >There's no accounting for idiots. The inclination to squelch >what one does not want to hear, however, is not a uniquely >American phenomenon. I quite agree. But nevertheless, more "alternative" ufological discussion is enabled in other cultural bubbles. >Dennis stood up to the morons, and God bless him. Hear, hear. >All viewpoints, including yours, should be heard and debated >everywhere in the world. This sentiment justifies my kind words re IUR in UFOs and ufology. >>Shouldn't! There you have it. Alternative views cannot even >>be discussed rationally in US ufology. Anyone who promotes them >>is to be treated like a dolt, an imbecile, a criminal, a con-man,or >>whatever. Should be attacked or ignored. >Stop acting the martyr, Paul. Just trying to point out the problems that exist in the field over here in the States, Jerry. That's all. >> If I may invoke a bit more of Dylan - for pity's sake, will >>you please lay down your weary tune, if just for a while. See >>what else you might think off if you were not always leaning on >>your ET-literalist crutch. (I direct that at ETH US ufolologists >>in general.) >As a player of weary tunes yourself, you really ought not to >pointing and shouting at other musicians. Of course what you're >really saying is: shut up. Ironic indeed after the complaints >you expressed just above. No, I am *not* saying "shut up". I am calling for greater balance, that's all. You really can't admit that there is a problem, can you? >> I do agree with you, however, in being cautious about both >> extremes. I have also had my differences with the over-zealous >> "new ufologists". You cannot treat all of us a monolithic >>whole. The extreme at the *other* end, however, the ET- >>literalist end, now reaches to the centre - nay, the core - of >>American ufology. That is the point of my criticism. >Paul, I have no doubt you're a good guy. You just need to >refine your debating style -- and maybe, though I know it's >asking much of anybody, consider, if even for a second, that you >could be wrong. I freely acknowledge my capacity to be wrong. To be honest, that last point is not much in evidence. I do note that you use the word "wrong" quite a bit with regard to others though. You have repeatedly directed it at both Mendoza and myself in your recent replies, and, indeed, in this one. That brings up a point in itself: if people like Mendoza and I are "wrong", "dead wrong", etc., as you claim, where does that leave your supposed agnosticism? As for debating style, I have been perfectly straightforward and non-abusive. Of course, I am trying to make a point - one that I think deserves more attention than it is being given, and I defend myself against your personal attacks. Moreover, I only engaged with you on this List because you were saying Mendoza was wrong, and I disagreed with you. Unfortunately, you take everything at a personal level. What is it you think you are defending, Jerry? >That's what keeps me intellectually cautious. You might try >a little humility from time to time. I've earned mine the hard >way: honestly. Now you are being pompous. I do not arrive at my working conclusions in any less a way. And if you were truly being intellectually cautious why are you so casually dismissive of the the important issues I keep trying to bring to your attention? What you claim and what you do seem very different things. >> PD: Well of course I read it, Jerry.(Reprise.) May I ask you >>to read outside the UFO literature much more than you do? >I read outside the UFO literature all the time, Paul... But not in the areas that count as far as this debate goes, quite obviously. >..possibly even more than you do, How the hell would you know that? >... and I have many other intellectual interests, as anybody >who knows me knows well. I am sure you do, and that is not in question. >I'll show you my library sometime. I'd enjoy that, and I reciprocate the invitation. >In some circles in which I move, people know little or nothing >of my interest in the UFO phenomenon. My closest friends, who >share many of my intellectual passions, are not ufologists. I'm sure that's true, and I would not for one moment put it in question. Same here, too. >One of my interests, as Duke will tell you, is a very serious >one in folklore and folk music -- actually more profound than >my interest in UFOs. What's annoying about your remark, though, >is its bombastic presumption that only an ignoramus, or a cowed >conformist, or an inmate in an insane asylum, could possibly >hold views different from yours. A kind of staggering arrogance >lurks behind your words. You seem not to understand why -- or >even that -- you're offending people by condescending to them in >this rude and blatant manner. No, I was talking about reading outside the literature with regard to the matter in question (alien abduction experience), which you clearly have not done. I did not accuse you of these other things at all. That's just your paranoia. . >> JC: "...hallucinations generated by immersion in obscure >>folklore texts." >That was a JOKE. See what I told Duke about it in my recent >posting responding to him. Yes, I read that. There is nothing about the phrasing or context that remotely suggests a joke. I am beginning to wonder if you have been labouring under false assumptions about what we have been saying, and how deep such incomprehension goes. >>As to this little "obscure texts" chestnut you roll out >>frequently: the sources people like Hilary Evans and others >>point to are not all *that* obscure, but in any case even if a >>text is obscure, it only takes one person to make it less so. >>You never know where you pick up information. But I don't >>consider mass-media sources, even if old, all that obscure,to >>be honest. >Read my critique of the psychosocial hypothesis in my just- >published (shameless plug here) The UFO Book, pp. 492-504. >Hilary Evans, whom I like very much and always enjoy reading, is >discussed in detail. I mean to say, of course, that his work >is. Hilary and I disagree fundamentally but have never had an >uncordial moment. Another shameless plug: read my analysis of the debate between the psychosocial and literalist viewpoints in UFOs and UFOLOGY, when it comes out from Facts on File in, I think, January in the US. >>> JC: "...I feel perfectly comfortable as an agnostic here...No >>> effort to bully -- or caricature -- me, or any of the rest of >>> us who remain open-minded about this most difficult and >>>contentious of subjects,into submission is going to do the >>>job." >I have the feeling that any disagreement with you, Paul, is seen >by you as "knee-jerk," when it is not driven by comformity, >ignorance, or madness. You would do well to understand that >where UFOs (and, for that matter, a whole lot of other things) >are concerned, reasonable people can reasonably disagree. I >have seldom if ever seen that simple reality acknowledged by >you. If I'm wrong, please correct me. There's certainly >no evidence of it in this posting. There is certainly no acknowldgement from you on this list that what I an trying to draw attention to is important enough for you to take notice of, instead of this perpetual, tedious bellyaching about how badly and rudely you think you are being treated, and the endless personalisation of issues. The day it becomes possible to discuss anything directly with you will be red letter stuff. You perhaps do not perceive how you talk down to people, as you have been doing to me throughout this "debate". You are too busy projecting your own mannerisms onto others, and in this case, onto me, to even notice that, I suppose. Bear in mind that the quotes of mine you are using are in themselves responses to your input. >> PD: Oh come on now, Jerry! That's your "reasonable face" you >>like to think you wear all the time. Your knee-jerk reaction >>to Mendoza, and your notable - shall we say - reticence regarding >> other views outside the ET-literalist paradigm, give the lie >>to your self-delusion. >As I've said, you need a more productive rhetorical style. And >I'm supposed to be the hot-tempered one? Has it ever occurred >to you that I simply find your views unconvincing? Or am I just >another self-deluded dissenter from the Higher Wisdom of Paul >Devereux? Your belligerent side is showing, Jerry. >> I'm not trying to bully anyone - just trying to get heard. >> And then listened to. That's the difficult bit. You didn't even >> refer to my statement that we are researching lucid dreaming, >> for instance. Did you think it didn't matter? Because I really >> do care what the UFO abduction thing is about, I'll add the >> following outline of what we are doing. <snip> >> I would like to publish a book preparing people for this area, >> but so far US publishers have declined, apparently fearing >> that it might adversely affect their literalist UFO titles (ie. >> it might interfere with the prevailing folklore, which is proving >> commercially gratifying.) But I will eventually get >> some introductory material out on all this. >I look forward to reading the results of your work. I'm sure >you'll find a publisher. UFO books, pro or con, are moving >slowly these days, I'm told. I've had a slow year, too. My books are all pro UFO. They are just not pro ETM. >Anyway, you acknowledge that when you wrote the above, you >were tired. Like you, I can be tired and cranky. So let's >end on a positive note and agree to disagree... On what, exactly? You disagree with me that there are problems in alien abduction investigation, that there are other approaches to the alien abduction question than the ETM, that there is no element of folklore in ufology, that the ETM is not a driving paradigm in mainstream ufology? Really? You really believe that these are non-issues? >...while maintaining respect and mutual good feeling. >Meanwhile, I promise not to speculate about the psychosocial >reasons you reject the ETH if you'll promise to refrain from >comparable guesswork about me and my views. I am only going on what you have written. If that is guesswork, then state clearly and exactly what you do believe in. And don't insult me with "agnosticism".... please. >Let us assume each other's intelligence... If only you would. >... sanity, sincerity, and integrity and go from there. Okay? >Cheers, >Jerry Clark Fine. Now, will you please address the points I have made in my previous posting and in this one. Best wishes, Paul
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 DISPATCH # 73 -- the weekly newsletter of ParaScope From: ParaScope@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:12:38 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:49:16 -0500 Subject: DISPATCH # 73 -- the weekly newsletter of ParaScope DISPATCH # 73 -- the weekly newsletter of ParaScope S O M E T H I N G S T R A N G E I S H A P P E N I N G 11/3/97 Quotes of the Week "We think the best solution to this is Mrs. Allen gets to a hospital and gets the treatment we need...er, that she needs." --Illinois State Police Director Terrance Gainer on his plans...er, the best thing for Shirley Allen. "The motives of some protesters may go beyond anti-government beliefs - a few of them, at least, appear to exhibit some of the signs of paranoia and delusions that prompted Shirley Allen's relative to seek psychiatric screening for her." --An Illinois newspaper article explaining the thoughtcrime of "anti-government extremists" who had gathered in support of beseiged "paranoid" Shirley Allen. Source: State Journal-Register, Sunday, Oct. 19, 1997, "'Roby Ridge' no longer small-town news," by Jefferson Robbins. Rant of the Week: "Coincidence?" Every week we pick the wackiest, scariest, nastiest or funniest rant from the hundreds of letters received by us here at ParaScope headquarters, and present it to you as our Rant of the Week. This week, "Levi" asks the "gentlemen" here at ParaScope about the "coincidences" surrounding John Denver's mysterious death. Enjoy. "Gentlemen, a deep concern -- the death of John Denver: 1. He was born in Roswell, New Mexico about 1944, his father alledgedly a pilot in the USAF. 2. He died flying an experimental airplane ... body could be identified by finger prints only ???? !!!!! 3. His first big record hit -- "I'm Leaving on a Jet Plane" Coincidence ????." [Reprinted with spelling and grammar goofs unchanged. Names changed to protect the ranters.] -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ CIA InTERRORgation Manual Available in Print "Resistant sources" can be broken with carefully chosen, concentrated psychological forces, according to the CIA's 1963 guidebook on interrogation. The "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, declassified in January 1997 after the Baltimore Sun threatened to launch a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, offers an inside view of the agency's hostile interrogation strategies -- methods for inducing mental and physical agony. Throughout the manual, the CIA cites its covertly funded mind control research to explain the optimal means of making people talk. ParaScope was the first news service to make this important document available on the Internet, and now ParaScope is the first publisher to make the KUBARK manual available in print to the general public. Serious students and critics of the CIA will want a hard copy of this document for their libraries, and ParaScope's meticulously-proofed verbatim transcript is a bargain at $5.95. To order send $5.95 to: ParaScope Kubark Offer P.O. Box 6 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Coming Up Next Week! Catch all these stories next week on a daily basis on America Online, or all at once next Friday on the web site! The Paper Trail: November Issue The Paper Trail, Dossier's new review of all matters recently declassified, makes its second appearance next week. In this issue: eavesdrop on the inner workings of two historic presidencies, those of JFK and LBJ. We'll also peek over George Bush's shoulder to see what his diary says about Dan Quayle, and check out the CIA's new openess about the spy budget. If there's a new release you need to know about, you'll find it on the Paper Trail. ---------------- Apocalypse Not Now, Vatican Says A series of massive earthquakes has rocked Italy in recent weeks, in what many believe is a fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies of Nostradamus. The ancient astrologer predicted that earthquakes "on three Fridays in a row" would herald the end of the world. Adding to the millennium fever, this October 13 marked the 80th anniversary of the "Fatima Miracle," when an alleged apparition of the Virgin Mary is said to have delivered the mysterious third prophecy of Fatima -- a tightly kept secret rumored to foretell a hideous final fate for humanity. To quell the rising fears of doom, Vatican officials have taken the unprecendented step of assuring the masses that Armageddon is not right around the corner, and disclosed that the third Fatima prophecy is really not that bad -- even though they're still not telling what it says. Enigma editor D. Trull testifies with all the cataclysmic revelations. ---------------- "Roby Ridge" Update: Illinois Standoff Ends The Illinois State Police finally nabbed Shirley Allen on the porch of her home, ending a five-week standoff that drew the world's attention to the sticky issues inherent with involuntary psychiatric evaluations. Get the details on the seige's end, and find out how the lone Shirley managed to hold off a professional team of police tactical specialists for more than a month. ---------------- UFO Roundup Get the latest UFO news and sighting reports, courtesy of Ed Trainor's UFO Roundup! Mars Pathfinder plagued with problems, saucer crash allegations disputed, new Mexican UFO video shows alleged saucer buzzing skyscrapers, mystery meteor causes a stir in El Paso and more. ---------------- Conspiracy Newsline Conspiring minds want to know, dammit! California police torture protesters by dabbing their eyes with pepper spray; terminally-ill James Earl Ray hospitalized; MTV pager network to give marketers direct access to teens; FBI faxes confidential memo about alleged "radicals" to a shop in Spokane and more conspiracy news. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Jane, Stop This Crazy Thing! Thought you were tough enough to handle the Dispatch and now you realize you're not? Starting to think you've made a wrong turn off the info highway? Well, we're only going to go over this once, so listen up! To unsubscribe yourself from Dispatch: 1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com 2) In the body of your mail, type: unsubscribe dispatch That's all there is to it! Likewise, to unsubscribe: 1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com 2) In the body of your mail, type: subscribe dispatch ---------------------------------------- ParaScope 11288 Ventura Blvd., #904 Studio City, CA 91604 America Online -- keyword: parascope parascope@aol.com World-Wide Web -- http://www.parascope.com info@parascope.com Search for other documents from or mentioning: parascope | listserv |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 UFO Abduction documentary From: DevereuxP <DevereuxP@aol.com> [Paul Devereux] Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:21:27 EST Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:58:17 -0500 Subject: UFO Abduction documentary Dear List, This is just to mention that I have been informed that a documentary on the UFO abduction experience is due to be shown on Discovery, I am told, towards the end of this month -- the 29th, I think. Watch out for it. It will doubtless be viewed by some as debunking, but it is, in fact, genuinely and specifically about the experience that is ascribed (only in ufological circles) to UFO abduction. Paul Devereux
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:17:38 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:56:11 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments. >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >You can babble on as long as you like. My pleasure. >However, [..] you seem to have missed that the >highest recorded speed was 1010 knots. (For those outside >the English language area, this is around 1900 km/hr). I think you're missing the significant detail "while the F-16s were aloft", just as you seem to miss one in appearing to think that Wim van Utrecht's purely hypothetical balloon was flying around in March 1990 and not November/December 1989. Still, that's your problem. Out of the kindness of my heart, however, I offer a solution to it below. Anyway, I double-checked the RBAF report I have, and find I was actually wrong, even if you aren't right. The highest speed the UFO attained *while the F-16s were airborne* occurred at 00.13, 8 minutes after take-off: "La vitesse de l'objectif change en un minimum de temps de 150 =E0 970 neouds et de 9000 =E0 5000 pieds, ensuite retour =E0 11.000 pieds, pour, par la suite et soudainement au niveau du sol; d'o=F9 il r=E9sulte un 'break lock' en quelques secondes et les pilotes perdent le contact radar. Le CRC GLONS informe, au moment du 'break lock' que les chasseurs survolent la position de l'objectif." Crudely translated: (The speed of the target changes in the smallest amount of time from 150 to 970 knots [172.5mph/278km/h to 1115mph/1796km/h] and from 9000 to 5000ft, next returning to 11,000ft, nonetheless following that [maneuver by diving] suddenly to ground level; from which resulted a "break lock" in a few seconds and the pilots lost radar contact. The CRC Glons [radar] lets it be known that at the moment of the "break lock" the hunters [i.e. the fighters] overshot the position of the target.) Presumably these speeds were measured by calibrating the radar tapes in some way. The highest speed otherwise recorded was, as previously noted, 690kt [794mph/1278km/h] at 00.32 hrs. Don Ledger remarks that radar traces are meaningless. They sure can be. I mentioned these speeds in the first place because they're not that far from the top "dash" airspeed of the F-16 even fitted with earlier P&W F100 engines (I don't know what powered the RBAF Falcons in 1990). The japes of the target suggest spurious radar echoes. What this report doesn't say is whether the Falcons were above, below or level with the target when they locked on (and bear in mind the radar "lock" is on the signal, not the physical target). If the pilots were able to follow basic air combat tactics and get above the targets, then ground clutter becomes a possibility. Any junk could have appeared on the F-16s' screens if the radar wasn't working properly (it happens). As Royal Navy Harrier pilots found in the Falklands, combat radars need very careful tuning *and* skilled reading. One Navy carrier's group consistently performed (killed) better than the other's (and the RAF) because they had better tech support and more expertise with the kit. So one would want to know something about that RBAF kit, its support and maintenance, and the level of training of the pilots before pronouncing on the infallibility of the radar "information". It would also be useful to know if the F-16s were using downward-looking radar, which can do weird things over land. If you don't weigh factors like these (and, if possible, the facts about them) in the balance against the more exotic leaps to conclusions such as Meessen's and SOBEPS', you're not doing the ufological job properly, not doing much-maligned ufology a service, and being a bit dishonest to claim that the events of 30-31 March 90 over French-speaking Belgium constitute anything like proof of an extra-terrestrial visit. As I remarked before, in effect, "confusion" (or "self-contradiction" if you prefer that translation) is the hallmark of this case, even after Gilmard & Salmon's study. Thus babbled Peregrine. Now, Henny has fixed a balloon on the wrong date and made it supersonic. I suggest we can most satsfactorily dispose of this problem if we took the "data" (no pun intended) at face value. Surely what we have here is a balloon traveling *through time* from some date in November or December 1989 to 30 March 1990. Deceleration from the superluminal speed required for this feat had unfortunately not been completed when the balloon burst into the correct space-time correlates on 30 March and so it whizzed spectacularly & supersonically about the sky to the amazement of all, not least its pilots, who had discovered in the worst way possible that time travel is possible for macro-scale material objects: for their brains had arrived safely but their minds, thoughts and memories had remained several weeks behind. One of the pilots was, of course, none other than Wim van Utrecht. This explains why he will not countenance the idea of a supersonic balloon sashaying around the sky on 30/31 March 1990 over Belgium. This solution conforms to the standard requirements of ufological theory in being non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, and cramming as many "entities" into it as you can get anchovy slices into an old red British phone box that hasn't had its windows broken by vandals. It *may* also show that I don't need the Prozac just yet. Yours &c Prolixicon D. Motormouth Village Idiot
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 3 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:19:27 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 22:43:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footag > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:56:32 -0800 > > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/2/97 11:10 AM: > > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 > > From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > > To: Updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > > One of the most impressive of the witness statements comes from a > > woman who was standing beneath the unknown. She reported developing a > > "sun burn" that lasted for more than a month after the experience. > > We asked H. David Froning, a retired senior staff scientist at > > McDonnell Douglas and propulsion specialist, his opinion of her > > statement. His feelings are that the "sun burn" could be the result of > > ionized radiation left in the wake of an electro-magnetic form of > > propulsion. The ionized air would would not block any ultra violet > > rays, thus creating a "sun burn" in short period of time. David > > comfortable releasing this information now as speculation is all we > > can do regarding the "sun burn" statement. > Nothing up to this point really bothered me, but this does. I > have spent some time studying eye and skin irritation in relation > to UFO sightings. > What qualifies a "propulsion specialist" to comment on a medical > condition? What medical documentation of the witness condition > exists? If the witness was sunburned, how was it distinguished > from a conventional sunburn? Froning's explanation might hold for an ordinary source of ultraviolet radiation, IF a pathlength of non-absorbent air, such as the ionized channel he postulates, existed from the craft down to the observer. But it's very speculative to postulate such conditions when we don't know beans about the radiation that advanced technology might give off. He's probably not qualified to speak as a skin specialist either. But let's not let such an observation sidetrack us from the fact that the "sunburn" was reported to have occurred. That's one of the items to keep in mind, since we (and you) know of many other similar occurrences connected with close encounters with UFOs. It's a piece of supportive information that the event actually occurred, to be added cumulatively to all the other pieces. > > Also of interest is that several witnesses reported a "haze" around > > the object. > In a hazy and polluted sky? This is surprising? Evidently, the observation refers to a haze in the immediate vicinity of the UFO, above and beyond the general haze of the smog, which, as Easton commented, wasn't so pronounced as to have seriously obstructed vision from close range, or less than 1/4 mile away, say. The point should be that a haze has similarly been reported immediately enveloping a certain fraction of other UFOs, as all of us here should know. So it wouldn't be surprising, and is indeed of interest, though the general man-on-the-street UFO witness might not know about it. > > 6) Preliminary estimations of size and distance have been triangulated > > by Village Labs in Tempe, Arizona. The object appears to be 36 to 50 > > feet in diameter. The distance from the camera to the unknown is > > estimated between 800 and 1200 yards. We are working on a program that > > should provide better estimates. > Can some photo expert on the list inform me as to how the > distance could be triangulated using diverging sight lines such > as seem to be the only sight lines available from the video? This non-photo expert would merely remark here that it's likely one or more of the witnesses who were closer to being directly underneath the craft provided their estimate of how high up in the sky it was when they were standing at such-and-such a spot. The triangulation would then use that info plus the video tape. Jim Deardorff Search for other documents from or mentioning: deardorj | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 4 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:23:59 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 12:04:45 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments. >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:21:03 -0800 >Please note that at 7 statute miles, the angular size of >an object 200 feet in diameter is 0.3 degrees. I am not >surprised that visual contact was not attained by the fighters. A reasonable point. It's also presumably because the pilots made no such visual contact that the lights on the putative "craft" are described as pointing downward. However, a scene of mild farce occurred at 00.30hrs: "Les t=E9moins au sol voient 3 fois les F-16 passer. Durant le troisi=E8me passage, ils voient les avions tourner en cercle au centre de la premi=E8re observation: grande formation en triangle." (The witnesses on the ground see the F-16s pass three times. During the third passage, they see the aircraft turn in a circle in the center of the first observation: a big triangular formation.) In other words this whacking great thing is sitting over the fighters while they fly round in a circle. Whatever the turning circle of an F-16 is, even at near-stalling speed it's going to be measured in hundreds if not thousands of metres. And, when they get a contact at all, the pilots have not-very-big dots on radar... Draw your own conclusions, while I wait for the results of my eyesight test on Henny, and for someone to say we've no idea what the aliens are capable of... best wishes Pondweed D. Mitochondria Floating Point
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 13:10:55 UT Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:50:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >> Anyone who has attempted to film a >> monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and >> the monitor do not sync. As anyone who has worked in Hollywood will tell you, this is untrue. There are tons of tv playback done on television shows without seeing any lines. There is a simple device that syncs the tape to film or vice versa. The tape needs to be transferred at a certain speed in order to avoid the lines. Not a big deal. Diana Botsford Forum Manager UFO Forum Project: watchfire http://forums.msn.com/UFO
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 4 Nov 1997 15:18:51 UT Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:53:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:18:03 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >>Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footag >>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:56:32 -0800 >> Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 13:37:31 -0700 >> From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >> To: Updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >>> 6) Preliminary estimations of size and distance have been triangulated >>> by Village Labs in Tempe, Arizona. The object appears to be 36 to 50 >>> feet in diameter. The distance from the camera to the unknown is >>> estimated between 800 and 1200 yards. We are working on a program >>> that should provide better estimates. >>Can some photo expert on the list inform me as to how the >>distance could be triangulated using diverging sight lines such >>as seem to be the only sight lines available from the video? >This is, of course, gibberish. There is nothing in these images >which would allow accurate estimation of size. We can not even >estimate the size of the buildings, which may be only inches >tall. This is, of course, not gibberish. Jaime took footage on his own later clearly showing the buildings from many angles including from their backside and estimated the distance to these buildings from the apparent location of the cameraman and this estimate was used by Village Labs to give a rough estimate of the apparent size of the object. Believe me, these buildings are not inches tall. Bill Hamilton Search for other documents from or mentioning: william.hamilton |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 G. Harry Stine From: Ktperehwon <Ktperehwon@aol.com> [Karl T. Pflock] Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 10:14:58 EST Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:55:23 -0500 Subject: G. Harry Stine FRIENDS & COLLEAGUES -- I've just received a message from my literary agent that G. Harry Stine, another of her clients and an old friend of both of us, died yesterday. I have no details as yet, but Harry had been suffering from heart problems for some time. As most of you know, Harry wrote science fiction under his own name and as Lee Correy. He also penned nonfiction, mostly popular science fact and futurist volumes and articles, strongly and very effectively advocating the manned exploration and colonization of space and other planets, which was his great passion. Both his fiction and nonfiction regularly graced the pages of ANALOG SCIENCE FICTION magazine. Harry was a founder of the American Model Rocketry Association, and many of his pioneering rockets are on exhibit in the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum. Harry, you will be missed. Safe journey ad astra! -- KARL
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Witness Anonymity From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:19:06 +0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:15:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity >From: "Clark Hathaway" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:42:15 -0700 Hi Clarke >> >Another point I would like to make is that I have been successful >> >at stopping an abduction event during it's beginning. It has >> >occurred on a number of occasions. >> Would you care to enlighten us as to how? >> >Clarke Hathaway > >Here is my squeak as it were. <chuckle> >There are a number of ingredients to this ... more than a few >that would seem to the uninformed to be absolutely New Age. New Age is an expression bandied about for when there is no label for the "new" research/tools/experiments etc etc > None >of us embody the exact same experiences No two finger prints are exactly the same either. >so I believe that I would >be engaging in guess work as to the actual components. >Extremely important to these endeavors are heightened intuition >with a bit of practical trust in it and an expanded sight or >sense of awareness. Of paramount importance is the inner knowing >that we each individually, create our own realities and thus are >ultimately responsible for what happens to us. Thats a pretty big statement, would it perhaps have been easier to say We are who we chose to make ourselves? >An understanding >that collectively, it is all of us by general consensus, that >create the overall general appearance of what surrounds us at any >given time. Hmm don't you mean the masses provide the mean average? >Another part would be at least the beginning of >ability to recognize when a belief system no longer serves ie? > and >some control in changing it. Scientology? A created religion? >A study of alternative history is >also helpful. There exist many old metaphysical works that at >least (if not point) hint at who and what these denizens (grays) >are. They make for fascinating reading. What tomes are these you refer too? >It is my considered opinion based upon my own considerable >personal experience, how do you judge "considerable"? >that the majority of these visitations are >psychic in nature. That is, the are occurring on a level of >reality other than experiential third dimensional reality. So you believe that it is really the mind that is abducted? Not the whole body? >Further, I believe the majority of abduction experiencers to be >people who may be a bit more expanded in awareness than can be >counted as the norm. Does expansion by drugs count as well? <G> >Since 1993 I have attended quite a few abduction experiencer >support group meetings and have been afforded the opportunity of >interviewing informally many more as I have made no secret >publicly as to my experiences. Nearly each of these have shown a >person that recognizes to varying degrees, an enhanced component >of intuition within. It is my experience that almost all women have a "intuition" and that certainly has nothing what so ever to do with abductions. >Further, each one has developed a level of >trust in this component. Almost to the person, they each have the >inner knowing that they are alive for some reason that has not >come to full blown realization yet, but is yet important. Sadly, >these components lend the subject all too often into an over >emphasized aura of self importance and ego. I'll have to ask John V if he has a bigger sense of ego. >Thus, they become >addicted to the attention that they receive from some quarters >and are easily manipulated. Thats your personal opinion I take it. >On a more practical level, I would serve to remind that in the >approaching forty (known and documented) years since this >phenomena first came to light, there has not been a single >incidence of one of these events being recorded by any media >other than via hypnosis and after the fact. Yeah its a damn shame aint it. >I feel that the same >sort of equipment monitored/operated by a small dedicated crew >from a remote location would yield some enlightening results. >Those to man this endeavor would of course be parapsychologists >using various equipment at their disposal already proven in cases >of Ghosts and Poltergeists. Ah so instead of Ghost hunters you suggest "greys out for abducting" hunters? >I would challenge the Budd Hopkins, John Macks and others who are >claimed to be such paragons of research ... to set up the >conditions whereby these events could be recorded while they are >unfolding. I would hasten to add that anything less from them is >unacceptable. Again in your opinion. >Many may consider my opinions of these pseudo >researchers to be far too harsh. I know one or two who would for certain. > I stand my ground though when I >state that it is my >considered When you say considered, how do you mean considered? Do you mean considering the abduction phenomenom from your point of view or something else entirely? >opinion that each of these appear >to me to be more interested in their own notoriety, pumped up >sense of self importance as well as any monetary gain that can be >derived than they are in the overall welfare of their subjects. Again this is very much your own opinion. >They are fools and they are dangerous. Ditto above. >None of them realize the >potential harm that could and does come to these folks. Actually I am pretty sure they have more of an idea than some I could mention. >Each of >these pseudo researchers Please define researcher by your standards then. > serve to perpetuate the experiencer's >role as that of a victim. >Frankly, I find this sickening and deplorable. >Kindest Regards, >Clarke At the end of all this message you still did'nt actually say how you stopped an abduction from taking place. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | earthwrk |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: solved abduction cases From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:18:38 PST Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:19:22 -0500 Subject: Re: solved abduction cases Dear list, For reasons unknown I can't get into Paul Devereux's recent posting, so I'm having to respond in an independent posting. I guess the good news is that there is so little of substance in it, beyond Paul's by now well-worn ax-grinding act, that little comment is warranted. Suffice it to say I stand by everything I've said. To Paul I'd simply say that your emotional -- even fanatical -- commitment to a particular reading of the UFO question has apparently led you to chronic incivility, as not a few others, even individuals more sympathetic to your beliefs than I am, have noted. In other words, guy: chill out. Not all, or even most, dissents from your treasured beliefs are personal attacks. By now we've all figured out that you are VERY excited with and defensive about your beliefs, that angry bees are always circling in your bonnet. You don't have to keep demonstrating it to the rest of us. As for me, I tried to be as pleasant as I could under the circumstances, to no avail, evidently. So you can go stew elsewhere, Paul. An excellent essay on "Earthlights and Tectonic Stress Theory," by Chris Rutkowski, appears in the forthcoming second edition of my UFO Encyclopedia. I encourage all who are interested in what Paul's about, beyond all the self-righteous bluster, to read it. Cordially, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:25:52 -0600 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:23:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:17:24 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:23:57 -0500 > >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > >>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 > >>To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net> > >>Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >>Bruce: > >>Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on > >>photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document > >>scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for > >>review. > >>I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who > >>will find your work...intruiging. > >>How about it? > >I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations > >in a personal letter to you? > >I can, of course, upload the short papers I wrote back then > >detailing the analysis of the hood reflection and the study of > >the road reflection. One of these was published by MUFON. > >And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you > >have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, or on photo > >11 (blue beam photo). > Excuse me, but does it seem odd to anyone other than me for > BB to ask Bruce to upload one of his papers, while refusing to > upload hers? > Bob Exactly what did I refuse to upload? Are you referring to the copyrighted paper I wrote in 1990? Is THAT the one you are talking about? No one ASKED me to upload it. I wasnt given a choice. No one asked my permission to use it or reproduce it. At least I've asked Maccabee's permission. If your pal Maccabee doesnt want anyone else to see how he arrived at his conclusions at least he has a choice and has been allowed some dignity. And for everyone's information... Bruce Maccabee has had a copy of that paper for at LEAST five years. I SENT IT TO HIM.(And Walters) He had plenty of time to write a rebuttal. I don't write anything to or about ANYONE that I don't stand behind completely. I always send copies to the parties involved because I think they have the right to know what is being said. This was just a way of diverting attention from the copyright issue...and it has worked. Why dont you all ask Bruce Maccabee why he doesnt contact Ed Walters and ask him about the Bill and Jane copyright? Are you afraid Im right? BB Search for other documents from or mentioning: c549597 | 76750.2717 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:41:52 +0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:27:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >From: DevereuxP <DevereuxP@aol.com> [Paul Devereux] >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:55:04 EST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >1001 other beliefs that wax and wane within ufology (it >is folkore, after all), who is arguing otherwise? I am for one. I get pretty bloody annoyed when you keep refering to Ufology as Folklore Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus 1991 folklore (n) 1, the unwritten literature of a people as expressed in folk tales, songs etc. 2, study of such materials. Collins Dictionary 1994 folklore (n) traditional beliefs etc. of a community; study of these As you can see neither of these dictionaries of the English language agree with your version of what folklore is. For one there is plenty of written material about ufology and ufological issuses, you have written some yourself. And since when is ufology a tradition? I could argue with loads of things in this post of yours but I do not wish to waste my time typing to you when it is blatantly obvious that you do not listen to what is said. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | devereuxp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 10:47:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 > >To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >Bruce: > >Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on > >photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document > >scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for > >review. > >I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who > >will find your work...intruiging. > >How about it? ........................................... >> I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations >> in a personal letter to you? ............. >No this is the original paper you sent to Walt Andrus. The > one where you place the camera height ("perfectly")at 4.1', the > "UFO" dimensions >at 24x17 with the ring measurement at 14.86, > at a distance of 370'. ....................... Are you saying you want to scan the handwritten notes I sent? Complete with diagrams and calculations? Be my guest. If you do post these notes with the sketches then I can post my paper "Reanalysis of Photo 19 Supports Walters' Story." Of course it will be necessary to note that the specific numbers were modified many months later when I discovered that the magnification of the blowup photo I had used to make measurements was actually 4.5% less than I had initially estimated. In other words it must be noted that all measurements on the blowup sketch of the UFO must be multiplied by 1.045 (e.g., 4 mm becomes 4.2 mm, 3 mm becomes 3.14 mm, etc.) This changed the distances calculated in the handwritten notes you have somewhat. Also, in order to carry out those calculations I used a range of heights for the camera, as estimated from photographic measurements and a crude road survey. I settled on 4.1ft as a "best fit"to the available. Many months later an actual road survey was done which basically confirmed the crude survey. Furthermore, months later I was able to get actual measurements from a Ford 150 truck such as Ed had in January 1988 (date of Photo 19) and from these measurements I determined that the camera height was probably closer to 4.5 ft (but not as high as 5 ft or more, as had been suggested by someone else). As you are well aware, but others aren't, this all came about because Rex Salisberry studied the road reflection under the image of the UFO and discovered for himself what was already known to the investigators, namely that the somewhat diamond shaped reflection image was too "long" in the vertical direction to be simply the reflection of light emanating from a 7.5 ft diametercircular area on the road. Rex made the mistake of assuming that the light from the (assumed) circular bottom of the UFO could ONLY go STRAIGHT DOWNWARD and hence the light coming down from the UFO could ONLY make a circle on the road with about the the same diameter as the bottom of the UFO (estimated at 7.5 ft if it were 185 ft away and proportionally larger or smaller if the distance were larger or smaller). [Note: the distance was estimated based on the ASSUMPTION that the UFO was exactly over the reflection. It was this tacit assumption, which everyone had made(including me in the spring of 1988), that I questioned in my "Reanalysis" paper where I pointed out that there was no way of being certain that the UFO was over the reflection and, in particular, it could have been farther away.] As you are, or should be, aware, using the highly restrictive assumption (that light from the bottom of the UFO could only travel straight downward from the UFO) Rex calculated that the IMAGE of the reflected light on the road should be a thin line, that is, the mage of a circular reflection seen from such a flat angle as to appear to be a very thin ellipse.. This was no surprise to anyone who had studied the photo in th spring of 1988, 2 1/2 years before Rex began his analysis. But at that time no one made this restrictive assumption the "key" to analysis of the image of th road reflection photo. Rex pointed out that fact that the the image had a much greater vertical extension than it should have was CONCLUSIVE evidence that the photo was a double exposure hoax (in which the background scene of the road, trees, sky was the SECOND exposure after the first exposure had been made of a model with a "reflection" underneath). Rex got an independent analysis from a man who was told that the reflection was based on light coming only downward from the UFO. That man got the same result as Rex. Rex "went public" with the results of his analysis in October, 1990. When I talked to the independent analyst he told me what Rex had told him and when he learned that Rex had gone public with it he became very angry. Furthermore, he agreed with me that the downward hypothesis was too restrictive. Rex also tried to get "approval" for his analysis from Bob Nathan at JPL. However, Nathan immediately realized that the assumption that light could only radiate downward was too restrictive because the light could also radiate outwards. After all, the light from "power ring" also appears in the photo immediately at the bottom of the UFO image, and the image of this "ring" light is more overexposed than th image of the reflection. This is proof that light could radiate sideways as well as downward. Nathan told me he refused to endorse Salisberry's analysis because of the restrictive assumption (even though Nathan favored the hoax hypothesis..but at least Nathan was honest enough to admit that he couldn't prove it). Instead of basing my analysis on Rex's restrictive hypothesis I have assumed light could radiate sideways as well as straight down. Furthermore, I have suggested three possible explanations for the unexpectedly large vertical extension of the road reflection image. The first of these was published in "A History of the Gulf Breeze Sightings" (1988 MUFON Symp paper) in which I commented that the diamond shape of the reflection indicated that the light sources within the bottom of the UFO were not uniformly distributed and radiated light out sideways with different intensities in different directions. (At least one of Ed's photos shows the bottom of the UFO and there is a highly non-uniform distribution of light radiating sources.) The suggested that light was radiating sideways is supported by the work of Jeff Sainio who has used the original photo and computer-aided analysis to determine whether or not the image of the road surface shows any evidence of illumination by the UFO. He reported in a MUFON Symposium paper (1993) that he had detected the illumination effect. There was an increased brightness on the road in the vicinity of the UFO outside the major reflection. This increased illuminated is consistent with a real event and not consistent with a double exposure hoax.) My second suggested explanation for the vertical extension of the imageof the reflection was that this was vapor or fog beneath the UFO which was strongly lit by light coming downward. A strongly lit vapor of two or so feet in vertical extension could explain the vertical extension of the image. The third suggested explanation is the one in the "Reanalysis paper mentioned above. It occurred to me that the assumption that the UFO was over the illuminated area on the road was also restrictive because there was no independent way of measuring the distance to the UFO. (The distance to the illumination on the road was determined from landmarks and sighting lines.) However, if the UFO was not over the refllection it had to be either closer to the truck or farther away than the reflection (so it would appear to be over the reflection). If it were farther away the calculated size would be larger. I knew from the stereo camera photos of May 1 that the diameter of the power ring in that sighting calculatedto be about 15 ft. If I assumed the UFO in photo 19 were the same size as the UFO in the May 1 stereo photos, then that would mean it was about 370 ft away. But then the question was, how did it illuminate the road? The answer to this question would be a white beam pointed downward from some point near the bottom of the UFO and headed in the direction of the truck, but not hitting the truck. Since Ed reported that he had already been hit twice by the white beam (that caused a sensation of paralysis where it hit his body), which was what made him stop the truck, it seemed reasonable to suggest that they what appeared in the photo was the reflection of this white beam off the road at such a glancing angle that the reflection was very strong. Strong forward reflection from rough (non-specular) surfaces is a well known phenomenon called "normal gloss" although I used the term "forward gloss" in my paper (to differentiate it from "back gloss" which is the phenomenon of enhanced reflection back toward the light source). At any rate, this third suggested explanation and the discussion leading up to it is well explained in the Reanalysis paper (which was published by MUFON),. so if you want to scan and upload the handwritten notes, go ahead. >> And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you >> have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, >Dont go there. Why not? Perhaps it doesn't obey your Too Damn Perfect (TDP) principle because part of the image is obscured by the tree? How about photo 11? It's quite good, although I must admit it's not "perfect." Afraid to tread there too? How about stereo photos? And so much more? <snip> >I think you're getting paranoid. I asked a question about photo >19. I thought it would be fun to toss the calculations out for >all the people with math and science degrees to discuss. We have >a tendency here to discuss things that are not as concrete. This >would be something for the hard core science group to bat around. >Of course if you feel uncomfortable with others reading your work I> can totally understand. You can totally understand? Barbara, that has been your problem since 1991: uou don't "totally understand." Judging from the letters we exchanged back in 1991 I concluded that you never did understand. As for me being paranoid, I think I gave a quite good summary of the argument over the road reflection in my discussion above. What you have offered (or threatened?) to upload will provide mathematical support for my discussion. But speaking of paranoid, are you now abandoning what you put forward as the "conclusive" legal argument and are now appealing to physical analysis (which "could be wrong") to prove that Ed's photos are TDP? >After all, what if someone without a stake in this case found >your reasoning and math to be flawed...then what? I would hope the readers here would have a better understanding of what was going on in all those calculations than you did. >Lets stick to 19. Everything is in writing. Is that the only reason to stick to photo 19... because there is materal in writing? There is, of course the book UFOS ARE REAL ... And there are numerous other publications for discussion about Ed's original 1987-1988 photos (I can upload a paper on photo 11, for example). And then there are the more recent photos.... why do you stay away from them? Some of them are even more "perfect." SO, yes, go ahead and upload what you have on photo 19. I'm sure the people here will find the discussion suitably illuminating.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:51:14 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:22:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/3/97 10:43 PM: > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:19:27 -0800 (PST) > From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > Froning's explanation might hold for an ordinary source of > ultraviolet radiation, IF a pathlength of non-absorbent air, such > as the ionized channel he postulates, existed from the craft down > to the observer. But it's very speculative to postulate such > conditions when we don't know beans about the radiation that > advanced technology might give off. He's probably not qualified > to speak as a skin specialist either. Yes, but even if there were such a path, and even if it were more permeable to UV (which remains to be proven), and, yes, I agree UFOs emit UV, if the UFO in question were emitting sufficient UV to generate a sunburn, I would expect many witnesses to have experienced the effect. We're told of one. All I want to know is whether there is a reason to expect this to be a UFO UV burn and not a conventional sunburn. And believe me, I want to know, even if the explanation advanced sounds like a crock. If the witness exists, and was medically examined, it would be interesting. Note also that UV and other forms of radiation effect leave traces in blood which can be measured. We don't know whether any tests have been performed. > But let's not let such an observation sidetrack us from the fact > that the "sunburn" was reported to have occurred. That's one of > the items to keep in mind, since we (and you) know of many other > similar occurrences connected with close encounters with UFOs. > It's a piece of supportive information that the event actually > occurred, to be added cumulatively to all the other pieces. It would be, if we actually knew a reason to consider that this is not a conventional sunburn. That's what I am waiting to hear about. > > > Also of interest is that several witnesses reported a "haze" around > > > the object. > > In a hazy and polluted sky? This is surprising? > Evidently, the observation refers to a haze in the immediate > vicinity of the UFO, above and beyond the general haze of the > smog, which, as Easton commented, wasn't so pronounced as to have > seriously obstructed vision from close range, or less than 1/4 > mile away, say. The point should be that a haze has similarly > been reported immediately enveloping a certain fraction of other > UFOs, as all of us here should know. So it wouldn't be > surprising, and is indeed of interest, though the general > man-on-the-street UFO witness might not know about it. The problem is trying to understand how it would be perceived. There's no question from a simple look at the frames that there is extensive atmospheric perspective operating. It is difficult to assess how much it is affecting the object, because we don't know the actual color of the object. For instance, if the rim stripe is black, the haze effect is high. But if it is pale grey but darker than the reflective surface, it is low. The value of the sky is very bright in the video frames. In fact, it seems very close to being as bright as the brightest object in the scene (one of the slightly more distant buildings). If the haze existed, it would not have a very high contrast with the sky (or it would be visible in the images). In addition, unless the haze effect were very large by comparison with the disk, its angular extent would not be very large either. I'm not saying it couldn't be seen, but it doesn't seem to be something I expect people to have seen. Now, if the information comes forth that those who saw this haze were, say, wearing polaroid sunglasses, while those with non-polaroid or no sunglasses saw nothing, then that might make it more interesting and plausible. > > > 6) Preliminary estimations of size and distance have been triangulated > > > by Village Labs in Tempe, Arizona. The object appears to be 36 to 50 > > > feet in diameter. The distance from the camera to the unknown is > > > estimated between 800 and 1200 yards. We are working on a program that > > > should provide better estimates. > > Can some photo expert on the list inform me as to how the > > distance could be triangulated using diverging sight lines such > > as seem to be the only sight lines available from the video? > This non-photo expert would merely remark here that it's likely > one or more of the witnesses who were closer to being directly > underneath the craft provided their estimate of how high up in > the sky it was when they were standing at such-and-such a spot. > The triangulation would then use that info plus the video tape. The implication is that the work was done at Village Labs, which I presume to be the home of the video analysis. Perhaps I am incorrect in my assumption but the information provided is very fragmentary. Perhaps the Elders would do well to release their information here on Updates so that our various experts can add value to the investigation rather than the whole thing being treated like the Manhattan Project? Thanks for your comments, though, Jim. I wish we all had more hard info to chew on. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------ ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and more - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:18 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:19:16 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:45:13 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Regarding the hypothesis that some of the bright lights seen in >the sky to the west of Phoenix on March 13 were flares, Bill >Hamilton writes: >> The magnesium flares burn bright white, not orange or yellow, >> but this has never been addressed by the skeptics. >Could white flares seen at a great distance look orange because of >Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere? (This is the effect which >causes the setting sun to look orange.) >-George Fergus Interesting suggestion, but the reddening of the sun is a result of light traveling through several hundred miles of atmosphere just after sunrise or just before sunset. I doubt that light travwling through 30 or so miles of clear atmosphere would be noticeably reddened. If the atmosphere were very hazy over this distance it might be possible.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 4 Nov 1997 17:02:36 UT Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:29:29 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:45:13 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >> From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com >> Date: 3 Nov 1997 15:34:06 UT >> Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >> To: updates@globalserve.net >Regarding the hypothesis that some of the bright lights seen in >the sky to the west of Phoenix on March 13 were flares, Bill >Hamilton writes: >> The magnesium flares burn bright white, not orange or yellow, >> but this has never been addressed by the skeptics. >Could white flares seen at a great distance look orange because of >Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere? (This is the effect which >causes the setting sun to look orange.) George, I will let others answer this. My opinion is that they would not as the distance is not that great. The flare drop was at a location on the North TAC range which has a bearing to the west of our sighting. Other eyewitnesses saw amber light formations on that same night at closer range and in horizontal motion. We also have a video of two of these lights taken near the Buckeye Hills where these lights are often seen. This video is taken in the afternoon in daylight (flares in daylight?) and shows these objects near the crestline of some hills (no chutes or smoke is visible) when one of the objects fades and rises rapidly, hovers, and jumps. We have had other eyewitness report this type of behavior, but now we have video showing it. Others are welcome to give their opinions. I am just trying to apprise the public of further facts that we have become aware of from our continuing investigations. Sincerely, Bill Hamilton Search for other documents from or mentioning: william.hamilton |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 'UFO's: The Best Evidence Caught on Tape' From: "David Butterfield" <BUTTERDA@mail.cit.ac.nz> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:53:13 +1300 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:36:14 -0500 Subject: 'UFO's: The Best Evidence Caught on Tape' Dear List, Just incase anyone is interested, we had a programme on TV here in New Zealand about the March sightings in Arizona (great speech, Mr Hamilton) but it seemed to debunk rather than offer explanations. You guys in the US have probably seen it already, it was called UFO's: The best evidence caught on tape. Interesting, but I was disappointed there wasn't the Mexican video. Oh well, ma ybe next time. David Butterfield.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 FOIA Air Force reply From: UFOLAWYER1@aol.com [Peter A. Gersten] Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:21:15 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:39:19 -0500 Subject: FOIA Air Force reply The following letter is the Air Force's response to the Army's referral of my FOIA request concerning the 'Day After Roswell'. It should be remembered that it was the Army, not I, who referred my request to the Air Force. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 11th WING October 16, 1997 11 CS/SCSR (FOIA) 1000 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1000 Peter A. Gersten, Esq. Attorney at Law 7349 Via paseo Del Sur #515-194 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Dear Mr. Gersten This is in response to your September 10, 1997 Freedom of Information request. This office is not a repository for UFO information. Copies of the Roswell Reports are sold by the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington DC 20402-9328. Please reference The Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert, ISBN 0-16-048023-X and The Roswell Report: Case Closed ISBN 0-16-049018-9. Michael Parker is our action officer on (703) 696-7266. Sincerely, RHONDA JENKINS Acting Freedom of Information Manager
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: ETH &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:17:41 +0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:42:41 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:27 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> My good greetings to the Duke of the Prosaic >The general >rule, irritatingly conservative as it is, remains in place: if >you want to argue that UFOs are ET, it's up to you to prove it, >not for the doubters to disprove it. The door is wide open here. Well this is too easy to be true, but then the easiest answers are not always the ones that easiest accepted. Just ask Phil Klass about that. However whilst debating the theoligical disputes of who has to prove what to whom. Is it easier to prove innocence or guilt? Over here in the UK we have the Axiom Innocent until proven guilty whilst over your side of the pond its Guilty until proven innocent. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | 101653.2205 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:30:56 +0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:40:50 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? For the record, I would like to refer to the document found on page 225-230 of the book "Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique". If I believe the authors, it is "La version int=E9grale du rapport de synth=E8se de la force a=E9rienne" titled "Rapport concernant l'observation d'OVNI durant la nuit du 30 au 31 mars 1990". It can be translated: ... The integral version of the... "Report concerning UFOs observed during the night of march 30-31 1990" [by Major Lambrechts] You can also find this french report at: http://www.finart.be/UfocomHq/lambrechts.html The text of the report on this site varies slightly from the one in the book (go figure why), but the meaning is the same. You will also find at www.finart.be/UfocomHQ more information regarding this particular sighting. I include here a palatable (?) translation of the conclusions of the Lambrechts Report, with the original text in annex. Who knows, French citations may become as fashionable as the British accent :) Serge Salvaille ________________________________________________________ "Report concerning UFOs observed during the night of march 30-31 1990" "[Major Lambrechts] "(...) "*** Conclusions *** a. Contrary to other UFO sightings reported, for the first time a radar contact was made with different sensors of the Air Force (CRC, TOC, RAPCON, EBBE and F-16 radar), and in the same zone as that of the visual sightings. This can be explained by the fact that the March 30-31 UFOs were observed at altitudes around 10 000 feet, while other cases always implied very low altitude visual contacts. b. Testimonies on which this report is based originated in part from policemen in service. There is no doubt on their objectivity [integrity]. c. The UFOs, when visualized on the F-16 radar in "Target Attack"mode, changed their parameters drastically. The measured speeds and changes in altitude exclude the possibility of aircraft. The slow speeds during other phases also differ from that of aircrafts. d. The pilots never made visual contact with the UFOs. This can be explained by changes in light intensity and even disappearing of the UFOs as the F-16 arrived in the zones where they were observed on the ground. e. The radar observations and the geometrical positions of the UFOs (relatively to one another) rule out the following explanations: optical illusion, confusion with planets and any other meteorological phenomena. f. When first observed, the UFOs were slowly moving in the same direction and at the same speed as the wind. Then the direction changed from 30 degrees from the wind. The weather balloon hypothesis is here totally improbable. The UFOs stayed at 10 000 feet while weather balloons continue to rise to 100 000 feet where they blow up. The bright lights and changes of color are hardly consistent with weather balloons. Balloons do not stay at the same altitude during one hour while keeping the same position relatively to one another. In Belgium, during the radar observations, there was no meteorological inversion. The hypothesis that it could be some other kind of balloon cannot stand. g. Even if speeds greater than the speed of sound were often observed, no shock waves have been detected. We cannot explain this. h. Different ground witnesses have observed a total of 8 lights [dots] in the sky but the radars have registered only one contact at the same time. The distance between the lights [dots] would have allowed a differentiation by the radars. We have no plausible explanation for this. i. The laser hologram hypothesis must also be rejected: the pilots would normally have detected them. Furthermore, holograms cannot be detected by radar and projections need a screen (clouds for example). At the time of the sighting the weather was clear and there were no significant temperature inversion. ________________________________________________________ "Rapport concernant l'observation d'OVNI durant la nuit du 30 au 31 mars 1990"[rapport du Major Lambrechts] (...) "*** Constatations *** a. La premi=E8re observation du d=E9placement lent des OVNI s'est faite =E0 peu pr=E8s dans la m=EAme direction et la m=EAme vitesse que le vent. La direction diff=E8re de 30 degr=E9s de celle du vent (260 au lieu de 230). L'hypoth=E8se qu'il s'agit ici de ballons-sondes est tout =E0 fait improbable. L'altitude des OVNI reste dans cette phase =E0 10 000 pieds, alors que les ballons-sondes continuent de s'=E9lever jusqu'=E0 l'=E9clatement vers 100 000 pieds. Les lumi=E8res brillantes et leur changement de couleur peuvent =EAtre difficilement expliqu=E9s par de tels ballons. Il est tout =E0 fait improbable que des ballons restent =E0 la m =EAme altitude pendant plus d'une heure, tout en conservant la m=EAme position entre eux. En Belgique, au moment des observations radars, il n'y avait aucune inversion m=E9t=E9orologique en cours. L'hypoth=E8se qu'il pourrait s'agir d'autres ballons est =E0 =E9carter absolument. b. Bien qu'on ait plusieurs fois mesur=E9 des vitesses sup=E9rieures =E0 celle du son, aucune onde de choc n'a =E9t=E9 signal=E9e. Ici aussi, aucune explication ne peut =EAtre donn=E9e. c. Bien que les diff=E9rent t=E9moins au sol aient finalement signal=E9 huit points dans le ciel, les radars ont enregistr=E9 un seul contact au m=EAme moment. Les points ont =E9t=E9 vus =E0 distance suffisante les uns des autres pour que les radars puissent les diff=E9rencier aussi. Aucune explication plausible ne peut =EAtre avanc=E9e. d. L'hypoth=E8se de ph=E9nom=E8ne a=E9riens r=E9sultant de projections d'hologrammes est =E0 exclure =E9galement : les projecteurs lasers auraient d=FB =EAtre normalement observ=E9s par les pilotes en vol. De plus, les hologrammes ne peuvent pas =EAtre d=E9tect=E9s par radar et une projection laser ne peut se voir que s'il existe un =E9cran comme des nuages par exemple. Or ici, le ciel =E9tait d=E9gag=E9 et il n'y avait aucune inversion de temp=E9rature significative. e. En contradiction avec d'autres observations signal=E9es d'OVNI, pour la premi=E8re fois a =E9t=E9 observ=E9 positivement un contact radar en corr=E9lation avec diff=E9rents senseurs de la force a=E9rienne (CRC, TOC, RAPCON, EBBE et radar F-16) et cela dans la m=EAme zone que les observations visuelles. Ceci est =E0 expliquer par le fait que les OVNI du 30/31 mars ont =E9t=E9 not=E9s =E0 une altitude de +/- 10000 pieds, alors que dans les cas pr=E9c=E9dents il =E9tait toujours question de contacts visuels =E0 tr=E8s basse altitude. f. Les t=E9moignages =E0 vue, sur lesquelles ce rapport se base partiellement, ont =E9t=E9 faits par des gendarmes en service et leur objectivit=E9 ne pourrait =EAtre mise en doute. g. Les OVNI, aussit=F4t visualis=E9s par le radar F-16 dans le mode "Target Attack" (apr=E8s interception), ont chang=E9 drastiquement leurs param=E8tres. Les vitesses mesur=E9es =E0 ce moment-l=E0 et les changements d'altitude excluent l'hypoth=E8se que les OVNI observ=E9s pourraient =EAtre confondus avec des avions. Les mouvements lents pendant les autres phases diff=E8rent =E9galement de ceux des avions. h. Les pilotes des avions de chasse n'ont jamais eu de contact visuel avec les OVNI. Ceci peut =EAtre expliqu=E9 par les changements de l'intensit=E9 lumineuse et m=EAme de la disparition des OVNI au moment o=F9 les F-16 arrivaient dans les environs o=F9 ils =E9taient observ=E9s au sol. i. L'hypoth=E8se selon laquelle il s'agirait d'une illusion d'optique, d'une confusion avec des plan=E8tes ou tout autre ph=E9nom=E8ne m=E9t=E9orologique est contradictoire avec les observations sur radar, notamment l'altitude aux environs de 10 000 pieds et les positions g=E9om=E9triques des OVNI entre eux. La formation g=E9om=E9trique tend =E0 prouver un plan-programme.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:31:29 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:57:34 -0500 Subject: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Is it just me, or have we been reading some real nonsense about the ETH? Forgive me for using something so unscientific as common sense, but in essence the ETH works something like this. People say they've seen unusual flying craft. Disc-shaped craft, maybe, that hover soundlessly (sometimes so close that metallic details are visible), or maybe hover than instantly disappearing, or maybe fly at amazing speeds and make uncanny turns...we all know the drill. These people, and others who believe their reports, naturally wonder where the craft are coming from. Clearly they're not the usual airborne traffic. Nor do more elaborate earthly explanations seem reasonable. The Cambodian Air Force, we can confidently conclude, is not testing experimental planes 10 feet off the ground in North American airspace. Given all that, many reasonable folks find themselves saying: "Well, maybe these UFOs come from space!" And, you know, if they don't come from earth, and they do things our own aircraft can't, that's not an unreasonable thought. But of course that doesn't mean it's right. So then comes the debate. Maybe people are lying, maybe they're hallucinating, maybe they're mistaken, maybe they saw a helicopter in the fog and somehow didn't hear the noise...we all know THAT drill, too. From the left, so to speak, come other ideas. Maybe the craft aren't from space; maybe they're from another dimension, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. From the hard-core right come more formalistic arguments: "These reports can't be of alien craft, because aliens won't/can't visit us," says Professor A. Priori Mendoza, of the College of Hilarity. Let's concede that these debates aren't settled. But is the ETH ridiculous, on its face? Suppose it's become some kind of orthodoxy in ufological circles. Excuse me -- every field has its orthodoxies, some fairly indefensible (like the scientific orthodoxy that study of UFOs has no scientific merit), some no doubt dead-on accurate (like the belief that cholesterol can encourage heart attacks). But even if we suspect that some orthodoxy makes no sense, should we deride people who hold the majority view? Just before I wrote this, I voted in New York's mayoral election. My candidate, according to every poll, is going to get smashed so badly that tomorrow no one will even remember her name. Does this mean I think everybody who votes for her opponent is stupid? Hardly. I understand the city well enough to can see why they'd make that choice. In my professional work, I've been tilting for years against orthodoxies in music. But it never occurred to me to denounce my opponents as idiots, thoughtless, or unscientific. (Wrong though they may be!) The ETH, while it obviously strikes some as naive, is not exactly a surprising belief. If any of us saw, right before our eyes, the things that Jerry Cohen or John Velez or Bob Shell say they've seen, wouldn't we -- yes, even Professors Mendoza and Devereux -- find ourselves wondering: "Wow...could that be from another planet?" Right or wrong (and I don't think Bob automatically supports the ETH), it's a perfectly understandable thing to think. Professor Groaning Sighs-in-dismay (Greg Sandow)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:24:49 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 12:26:57 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:17:38 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments. >>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>However, [..] you seem to have missed that the >>highest recorded speed was 1010 knots. (For those outside >>the English language area, this is around 1900 km/hr). >I think you're missing the significant detail "while the F-16s >were aloft", No Duke, it's still you who is missing significant details. I hope you won't be hurt by the cruelty of the facts, but you can find the full transcript a few paragraphs below. Some of your less diligent servants apparently couldn't find it. >just as you seem to miss one in appearing to think >that Wim van Utrecht's purely hypothetical balloon was flying >around in March 1990 and not November/December 1989. I had noted that Van Utrecht (yes, we spell 'Van' and not 'van' when using the surname only) commented on the events in November/ December 1989. However, you were apparently aware of the supersonic capabilities of Van Utrecht's balloon, Duke, as you were quoting from the official investigation of this case that was conducted after March, when the balloon demonstrated its ability to break the sound barrier. I had noted that Van Utrecht (yes, we spell 'Van' and not 'van' when using the surname only) commented on the events in November/ December 1989. However, you were apparently aware of the supersonic capabilities of Van Utrecht's balloon, Duke, as you were quoting from the official investigation of this case that was conducted after March, when the balloon demonstrated its ability to break the sound barrier. One of these days, Duke, I am going to write a book about UFOs. Though I have a life and have never even spoken to a book publisher, events like these surely tempt me. In this book not so much the cases themselves will be highlighted, but rather the impressive amount of hopefully well intended, but sadly ridiculous explanations that the UFO debunkers have been putting out since the end of the 1940s. The Belgian/Dutch flap will surely be a prominent case and I was planning to include the F117, B2, Aurora/Senior Citizen, the laser show, LoFlyte, atmospheric diffraction, ground clutter and the inevitable new bogus explanations that will be coming forward in this book just for the fun of it. Because, you see Duke, when I write something I get kicks out of amusing my readers now and then and the flap we are discussing has provided us with a wealth of material. For this undertaking I was planning to use the supersonic balloon explanation as the last bogus explanation for dramatic effect. And, actually, I have been toying with the idea of giving you the credit for bringing it to my attention. Knowing your sense of humor and your kind heart, you would surely give me your permission, won't you Duke? >Still, that's your problem. Out of the kindness of my heart, >however, I offer a solution to it below. >Anyway, I double-checked the RBAF report I have, and find I was >actually wrong, even if you aren't right. The highest speed the >UFO attained *while the F-16s were airborne* occurred at 00.13, >8 minutes after take-off: >"La vitesse de l'objectif change en un minimum de temps de >150 =E0 970 neouds et de 9000 =E0 5000 pieds, ensuite retour =E0 >11.000 pieds, pour, par la suite et soudainement au niveau du >sol; d'o=F9 il r=E9sulte un 'break lock' en quelques secondes et >les pilotes perdent le contact radar. Le CRC GLONS informe, >au moment du 'break lock' que les chasseurs survolent la >position de l'objectif." >Crudely translated: >(The speed of the target changes in the smallest amount of time >from 150 to 970 knots [172.5mph/278km/h to 1115mph/1796km/h] and >from 9000 to 5000ft, next returning to 11,000ft, nonetheless >following that [maneuver by diving] suddenly to ground level; >from which resulted a "break lock" in a few seconds and the >pilots lost radar contact. The CRC Glons [radar] lets it be >known that at the moment of the "break lock" the hunters [i.e. >the fighters] overshot the position of the target.) Duke, the text you quote from is a summary of this contact. It accurately says that the speed of the object is 970 knts at break lock. However, your loyal servants, probably knowing you don't want to be bothered with all the facts, provided you with an 'executive summary' and neglected to present the entire sequence of measurements that clearly shows a max of 1010. Here is the full transcript of this contact: Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)=B7 00 200 150 7000=B7 01 200 150 7000=B7 02 200 150 7000=B7 03 200 150 7000=B7 04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000=B7 05 turn 270 =3D 22 g 560 6000=B7 06 270 560 6000=B7 07 270 570 6000=B7 08 270 560 7000=B7 09 270 550 7000=B7 10 210 560 9000=B7 11 210 570 10000=B7 12 210 560 11000=B7 13 210 570 10000=B7 14 270 770 7000=B7 15 270 770 6000=B7 16 270 780 6000=B7 17 270 790 5000=B7 18 290 1010 4000=B7 19 290 1000 3000=B7 20 290 990 2000=B7 21 290 990 1000=B7 22 300 990 0000=B7 22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock=B7 So, Duke, it is not me who is wrong, but again, you. Its max was not 740, as you first said and not 970 as you claimed in your last post, but 1010 knots. Three strikes and you're out. >Presumably these speeds were measured by calibrating the radar >tapes in some way. The highest speed otherwise recorded was, as >previously noted, 690kt [794mph/1278km/h] at 00.32 hrs. Don >Ledger remarks that radar traces are meaningless. They sure can >be. Yes, Duke, that is the whole problem with these data. Radar traces become meaningless precisely when they are conflicting with our belief systems. Because, surely, we can't rule out that the pilot who wanted to record this object, and who went up in the air to do just that, in fact decided to recalibrate his radar in full flight and later totally forgot about it. And, by golly, the RBAF and the scientists from two universities mistakenly concluded - by consensus - that he had recorded a UFO. This only added fuel to the mass hallucination that had been plagueing the country for half a year by then and even more people started seeing flying triangles, an oddity that even spread to the Netherlands. The reality is of course that he had recorded a UFO. In fact, radar data were recorded several times and the second pilot had made radar contact as well, as shows this excerpt: <begin> 'The radar contacts of one F-16 with the so-called "UFOs" have been=B7 registered on a video record. One lasted for 46 seconds. Two F-16s were involved. One of the F-16 had 13 registered contacts; the other one had also contacts, but they were not registered because the pilot did not push the right switch. The contacts can be divided into 5 groups, separated by periods without contact. contact lasting beginning=B7 number (seconds) at=B7 1 2.3 00 h 13 March 31,1990 (March 30 22 h 13 GMT)=B7 2 3.4=B7 3 19.9 00 h 15=B7 =B7 4 27.5 00 h 29=B7 5 8.0=B7 6 11.4=B7 7 9.3=B7 8 < 0.1=B7 =B7 9 45.9 00 h 39=B7 10 16.2=B7 11 11.4=B7 12 9.5=B7 =B7 13 11.2 00 h 46' <end> >I mentioned these speeds in the first place because they're not >that far from the top "dash" airspeed of the F-16 even fitted >with earlier P&W F100 engines (I don't know what powered the RBAF >Falcons in 1990). The japes of the target suggest spurious radar >echoes. Firstly, F16s are Fighting Falcons. The Falcon is a business jet made by Dassault. But the Duke isn't just inaccurate in the insignifant details. The japes of the target suggest nothing but a flying object. Here is only one of several excerpts that show simultaneous contact by ground control and the F16's. This excerpt also shows that there is no confusion about the object being a civilian aircraft. P=3DPilot C=3DController Numbers like 300 and 120 are headings, measured in degrees. ***** P Roger SB 100=B7 C Civilian traffic 300, 5 miles=B7 P " " " " "=B7 Steady 120 C Continue 100 P 100=B7 C Even 060 now 060, 5 ***** F16 pilot has received orders to change his course to 60 degrees. P Steady 060=B7 C 060, 3. You have contact?=B7 P One contact but speed is changing from 100 to 600 ***** Duke, the facts are cruel, aren't they? C I have the same contact=B7 P Slightly to right 4 miles=B7 C Affirmative. High moving=B7 P Steady east now=B7 C Roger=B7 P Lost contact=B7 ***** This sequence took place within 2 minutes. >What this report doesn't say is whether the Falcons were >above, below or level with the target when they locked on (and >bear in mind the radar "lock" is on the signal, not the physical >target). If the pilots were able to follow basic air combat >tactics and get above the targets, then ground clutter becomes a >possibility. Duke, this was not the fog of war and nobody was dogfighting. Belgium is a friendly country. It didn't consider shooting down enemy extraterrestrials to protect their national security. Also, it didn't perceive this phenomenon as anything else but an unknown craft, because Belgium does not suffer from the trauma of lost empire, transforming this trauma into jealousy toward its successor and calling the ET Hypothesis "Americana" (listening, Paul?). No, the only thing they wanted was go up and record some facts. About ground clutter. The excerpts clearly show that the second pilot as well as ground radar had tracked the same object, sometimes simultaneously with the first pilot. Ground clutter, right? In fact, the F16 seemed to have been registering the altitude of the ground clutter. At one point the ground clutter reached an altitude of 11,000 ft. That's fairly high for ground clutter, not? In fact, to enlighten you further, Duke, the F16's air-to-air radar has a limitation on the low end of its range. One of the reasons for including this feature is to avoid confusion with ground clutter. It was exactly this limitation that the UFO used to break the lock. So, explain to me how ground clutter that could not have been recorded in the first place, suddenly manifested itself on ground radar, then on F16 radar, subsequently developed a mind of its own and decide to break a radar lock. And how after that it decided to let the F16's close in again, only to break the lock again. And again. Not surprisingly, I am now getting visions of supersonic balloons. >Any junk could have appeared on the F-16s' screens >if the radar wasn't working properly (it happens). As Royal Navy >Harrier pilots found in the Falklands, combat radars need very >careful tuning *and* skilled reading. One Navy carrier's group >consistently performed (killed) better than the other's (and the >RAF) because they had better tech support and more expertise with >the kit. So one would want to know something about that RBAF kit, >its support and maintenance, and the level of training of the >pilots before pronouncing on the infallibility of the radar >"information". See above for multiple radar contact. But, of course, the radars of both F16s and those of the two ground radars could all be miscalibrated, not? Not only that, they could have been miscalibrated in such a way that the object was detected on two of these four radars at the same time several times in a row. Never mind that the ground and air radars will surely have been calibrated by two different groups of maintenance personnel. But wait, a conspiracy could have existed, just to confuse us. That could explain it. In any case, all this miscalibration was done in such a way that all the radars 'knew' where the bogus object should have been to produce a correlating effect, involving a total of six radars. Yes, Duke you have a point, we should look at this. The problem is that by now it's nearly impossible to check anything, because the logs that say who calibrated what radar will certainly have been trashed. And we can't just trust testimony, can we? So we simply can't say anyting with certainty about the quality of the radars and the validity of the recorded data. How sad. But even when we dare to overlook this problem, we could still not be sure. Because, of course, we would also want to know exactly how reliable the people were that feature in this case and who presented us with their conclusions. Like Gen. De Brouwer, Col. Bartels and the scientists. They could have doctored all the communication sequences, all the radar tapes and presented their conclusion only to mislead us all. Therefore, it would be imperative for us to know exactly how happily married they were, for starters. And had the pilots been drinking behind the controls or something? And how many Close Encounters videos had the scientists seen? Otherwise, we couldn't be sure of anything, could we, Duke? And we would not want to do Ufology a huge disservice by not knowing these facts, would we, Duke? The problem is, that the records of the video stores that could have carried Close Encounters or Star Wars or any other science fiction movie are probably gone by now. And Gen. De Brouwer and his men may well be prone to lie about their love life, or their childhood for that matter, not? So, you see, we will never know. >It would also be useful to know if the F-16s were >using downward-looking radar, which can do weird things over >land. See above. The radar had a limit on the low side of its range. >If you don't weigh factors like these (and, if possible, the >facts about them) in the balance against the more exotic leaps >to conclusions such as Meessen's and SOBEPS', you're not doing >the ufological job properly, not doing much-maligned ufology a >service, and being a bit dishonest to claim that the events of >30-31 March 90 over French-speaking Belgium constitute anything >like proof of an extra-terrestrial visit. Duke, I have forgiven you that you couldn't find Snowflake, Utah, on the map. But it now seems you have to order your servants to buy a new one. Eupen, the town of the first sightings, is in the German speaking part of Belgium, not the French. Having done some additional research, it turned out that the object had also been tracked by radars at Zaventem airfield and Bertem. Zaventem in any case lies well above the language border. My map doesn't show Bertem and Semmerzake, but judging from the names, I dare to bet they lie in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Furthermore, these same objects have been seen in the Netherlands in the same time frame, as I said earlier. In fact, a whole UFO research group, Stufon, was founded after repeated sightings of these triangles in our beloved province of Limburg. Its president, who witnessed these craft in the early 1990s, has stacked up a pile of video cameras in his house in the hope that someday they return. So, I hope we won't see this cultural bogus explanation returning on this list for some time. (Never expect to exterminate weed entirely). I only hope that this example highlights the almost unbelievable sloppyness of debunkers' research and their unmatched ability to keep spreading nonsense. >As I remarked before, >in effect, "confusion" (or "self-contradiction" if you prefer >that translation) is the hallmark of this case, even after >Gilmard & Salmon's study. Thus babbled Peregrine. Duke, confusion can only arise in this case when we don't accept the facts that indicate that an "unknown craft" was operating. But, being the sloppy researcher that you are, you keep digging up as many rumors and inaccuracies that you need to come to the conclusion that there is no proof for an extraterrestrial visit. Thus protecting your belief system. Of course, there is no problem with that at all. UFO skeptics can be very nice people. I know a few. And frankly, I don't even want to convince them that they are wrong. The problem is that you keep posting all these falsehoods on lists such as these and perhaps even in your books. Thereby denying the interested part of the public the right to make up its mind on the basis of validated facts. >Now, Henny has fixed a balloon on the wrong date and made it >supersonic. I suggest we can most satsfactorily dispose of this >problem if we took the "data" (no pun intended) at face value. >Surely what we have here is a balloon traveling *through time* >from some date in November or December 1989 to 30 March 1990. >Deceleration from the superluminal speed required for this feat >had unfortunately not been completed when the balloon burst into >the correct space-time correlates on 30 March and so it whizzed >spectacularly & supersonically about the sky to the amazement of >all, not least its pilots, who had discovered in the worst way >possible that time travel is possible for macro-scale material >objects: for their brains had arrived safely but their minds, >thoughts and memories had remained several weeks behind. One of >the pilots was, of course, none other than Wim van Utrecht. This >explains why he will not countenance the idea of a supersonic >balloon sashaying around the sky on 30/31 March 1990 over >Belgium. This solution conforms to the standard requirements of >ufological theory in being non-verifiable, non-falsifiable, and >cramming as many "entities" into it as you can get anchovy slices >into an old red British phone box that hasn't had its windows >broken by vandals. >It *may* also show that I don't need the Prozac just yet. I would try some more black coffee. But, then again, maybe that wouldn't help either. Anyway, Duke, if you still think that the Belgian/Dutch flap was ground clutter, atmospheric diffraction or the stars dancing to the rythm of laser beams, I still have those parcels of land for sale on the back side of the moon. The offer expires November 10, 12.00 am, MET. Tell you what, if you mention that you saw the offer on this list, I'll give you a discount. But wait, let's go one further. If you would simply admit that in this case you are wrong, dead wrong and in fact don't have a clue what you are talking about, I'll give you the whole lot for free. How's that, Duke? __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Millennium Raises Hopes, Fears From: Whitewolf <witewolf@neptune.on.ca> [Paul Whitewolf] Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 21:28:36 -0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 12:30:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Raises Hopes, Fears Se-ko (Hello) Errol and list; >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:14:36 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Millennium Raises Hopes, Fears I wrote: >>Dear Bob, <snip> >>Considering this recurring pattern of messages to abductee's, at >>a time in history (the end of millenium) where apocolyptic fever >>would naturally affect a segment of the population, would it be >>useful for us to look at the possibility of such things from a >>different perspective than a wholly >>Christian/Moslem/Buddhist/Taoist/(include religion of your >>choice) one? <snip> Bob wrote: >Paul, <snip> >I think that Jacques Vallee was on target when he called our >"visitors" Messengers of Deception. That's precisely what they >are. They are uninvited interlopers who have no respect for us, >and certainly do not regard us as creatures with basic, >inviolable rights. They treat us as property. >I think it is time for us to open our eyes and fight back. >Bob >P.S. Love the Dame Edna quote!! Dear Bob, Dame Edna made the comment to a British Member of Parliament after which there there was dead silence, soon followed by a group <ROFLOL> (rolling on floor laughing out loud). More importantly, regarding your comment about how you and others believe "they" have no respect for us. I fully understand how a researcher could come to this conclusion based on the available data. I feel it's important to let researchers know that for some of us, we _are_ treated with respect. Certainly with myself in the initial stages of my realization I was frightened, terrified and overwhelmed. As time grew and I attempted to open dialgue with 'them' during the experiences (no small feat). I began to understand that I was experiencing partial recall of many experiences, leaving some of my memories out of context. Sort of like remembering a man standing in front of you holding a knife, meanwhile you forget all about how he just saved you by cutting the rope that was attempting to hang you. My apologies for deviating from the thread subject, however I felt that in the context of abductee's being told about future disasters, a history of "disaster predictors" who may well have been abductee's, and an association of a species with an agenda giving us these images, that it was important to consider that they may not be _as_ selfish as we might interpret from the data collected. (Dear God I think that's the longest run-on (sic.) sentence I've ever written. You'd think I'd been reading Schopenhauer (sic.). Please don't let the Duke see that paragaph <G>). I do not mean to suggest the are agendaless by any means. There is other data out there that suggests they may not be as dis-respectful of us as we suspect. I better bugger off before I deviate too much. Always a pleasure reading your posts Bob. Best regards, Paul Whitewolf. "If you can't laugh at yourself, you might be missing the joke of the century." ...Dame Edna, 1997.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 20:48:55 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:33:20 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:45:13 -0600 (CST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > > From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com > > Date: 3 Nov 1997 15:34:06 UT > > Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > > To: updates@globalserve.net > Regarding the hypothesis that some of the bright lights seen in > the sky to the west of Phoenix on March 13 were flares, Bill > Hamilton writes: > > The magnesium flares burn bright white, not orange or yellow, > > but this has never been addressed by the skeptics. > Could white flares seen at a great distance look orange because of > Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere? (This is the effect which > causes the setting sun to look orange.) > -George Fergus Hmmm.... Multiple witnesses, multiple videos... Come on folks, lets all say it together. Triangulation... It doesn't take any wizz-bang high falutin computer video graphics wizardry to go to the sight of a few videos, identify landmarks and draw lines on a detailed map. The program was playing a little coy with the story. The map graphics showed the views of the witnesses converging just southwest of Phoenix east of the military range. Yet they use only a single video to conclude that the lights were far west of the location indicated on the map. Bill and Tom really let me down. If the program is correct, the two see something in the sky and neither one of them think to immediately jump in a car and drive a mile or so to another high spot so that they could triangulate the sighting. Triangulation, the most powerful and accessible tool to measure most any phenomenon and yet so seldom planned for and used. Three or four widely placed people in high locations can cover a whole city. Each only needs a handy camcorder on a tripod and a telephone. Decades of unexplained aerial phenomena watching and triangulation remains only a footnote or afterthought. Am I just being dense here? Where could the depths of paranoia take me? March 14, 1997, triangulation quickly tells the many ufo experts that the lights appeared over the military range. Huddling in a dark Italian bar, in whispered conversations, they swear an oath of allegiance to never mention triangulation... After all aren't we constantly reminded here on this mail list how easily ufologist come together for their own self interest. (Ow, I am killing myself. Somebody stop me...) So, anyway, where are those triangulation maps from all those March 13 videos??? Triangulation... Bye... Ted.. Search for other documents from or mentioning: drtedv | fergus |
The UFO UpDates Archive Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:56:47 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:27:06 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:21:03 -0800 > > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/3/97 8:04 AM: > > Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 01:50:04 -0700 > > From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > > To: Updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > > 8. At 00.05 Hr 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and > > guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception > > attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a > > lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varried > > between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and > > altitude very quickly and break-locks occured after 10 to 60 > > seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both > > F16 registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 > > F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact could be > > established by either of the F16 pilots. > Please note that at 7 statute miles, the angular size of an object 200 feet > in diameter is 0.3 degrees. I am not surprised that visual contact was not > attained by the fighters. As supportive as I want to be with much of your work Mark, let's be fair about these angular perceptions. There are many reason's why a pilot would not see a 200 foot object at 7 miles of your favorite flavor, this angular argument is not one of them. Many of us have seen a twenty story building at seven miles. Unless it was covered by trees, obscurred by billboards, or surrounded by 50 story buildings. Visual clutter and contrast, our acuity and training really determine what we will see. Everyone, lean back from your monitors an even meter. <<<LOOK, see that period at the end of the last sentence? It is about one to two tenths of a millimeter. Or about one one hundreths of a degree. A black dot on white and we easily see it. At one meter, each degree is some 17.5 mm long. Imagine a garden pea one meter from you. This is about 0.3 degrees. We can easily tell that it is a garden pea. We can even tell how tasty it might be.
The UFO UpDates Archive Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Skywatch: Chile-UFO News - Breaking News Today!!! From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 23:24:40 -0700 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:59:52 -0500 Subject: Skywatch: Chile-UFO News - Breaking News Today!!! ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 02:01:08 -0400 From: "Luis C. Sanchez Perry" <lsanchez@chilesat.net> To: "Skywatch International, Inc." <skywatch@wic.net> Subject: Chile-UFO News - Breaking News Today!!! Source: http://www.isur.com./public_board/messages/7628.html Subject: Chile-UFO News - Breaking News Today!!! Hi all, may I say that here in Chile we are living an historical moment in UFO history. Yesterday (Monday Nov. 3, 1997) the FACH (Fuerza Aerea Chilena - Chilean Airforce) created the "Comite de Investigaciones de Fenomenos Anomalos del Espacio" (CIFAE) under the direct order of the Commanding General of the FACH. The CIFAE will be formed by FACH personnel and AION (Chilean UFO group). It is so serious that personnel from "Direccion de Aeronautica" will be sent to France and maybe other countries to get training on UFO issues. Also AION will have complete access to all the military files, reports, images and films taken by military personel. There will be "NO CENSORE"!!! Today morning a fax was sent to all the military branches ordering them to send all the material related to UFOs to this new commitee CIFAE, and all future reports should be sent directly to them also. Next year a Chilean satelite called BETA will be in orbit and one of its primary objectives is to monitor UFO activity over Chilean soil. All this information came directly from the FACH. They don't want to hide anything, they want it to go public. This is why I'm writing this e-mail. (some kind of internet spokesman for CIFAE I guess) Saludos, Luis Sanchez Chilean Director
The UFO UpDates Archive Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 21:54:06 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:31:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:17:24 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:23:57 -0500 > >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > >>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 > >>To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net> > >>Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > >>Bruce: > >>Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on > >>photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document > >>scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for > >>review. > >>I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who > >>will find your work...intruiging. > >>How about it? > >I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations > >in a personal letter to you? > >I can, of course, upload the short papers I wrote back then > >detailing the analysis of the hood reflection and the study of > >the road reflection. One of these was published by MUFON. > >And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you > >have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, or on photo > >11 (blue beam photo). > Excuse me, but does it seem odd to anyone other than me for > BB to ask Bruce to upload one of his papers, while refusing to > upload hers? > Bob Everything about BB strikes me as odd... Let me begin by praising Bruce Maccabee. He has responded forthrightly and honestly in light of the dishonest and immature attack against his part in the Gulf Breeze investigation by BB. He has taken much of his time to respond to the points presented by BB only to have his work dismissed out of hand because they violate her childlike beliefs. We all have been mistreated by BB. Her first messages here were claims that she was being censored by the list. Yet we discovered that it was her own misgivings preventing her from simply submitting her work. As her work begins to generate discussion here, she howls about copyright infringement. When the core premises of her arguments are shown to be erroneous or unsupported she responds derisively. When arguments weigh against her, she defaults to declarations of belief. She infers opposing investigations without producing them. I am developing the strange tastes of dealing with a conniving junior high school student. We deserve better. We deserve fair and honest dialogue. Bruce deserves more for his effort than "Nyah, nyah, I am right, you're wrong no matter what you tell me." Maybe it is not even a question of deserve. Maybe it should be a matter of our expectations. When someone charges in here with a personal crusade and begins to drag us in circles, I expect more of us to stand up and say this is taking us nowhere and ask for it to stop. I haven't the foggiest clue as to what motivates BB. I have learned a lot more about Bruce Maccabee and his work on GB from this exchange and I certainly thank BB for that. But now it becomes apparent that as this dialogue continues, BB's postings only mimic her initial positions. The archives would give me as much... So, Bruce, if you have presented your salient points on this issue; if you are beginning to feel like an unwilling whipping boy in someone elses holy war; I would certainly understand your moving on to other issues...
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:08:20 +0100 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:31:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 13:10:55 UT > From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> > To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > >> Anyone who has attempted to film a > >> monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and > >> the monitor do not sync. > As anyone who has worked in Hollywood will tell you, this is > untrue. There are tons of tv playback done on television shows > without seeing any lines. There is a simple device that syncs > the tape to film or vice versa. The tape needs to be transferred > at a certain speed in order to avoid the lines. > Not a big deal. > Diana Botsford > Forum Manager > UFO Forum > Project: watchfire > http://forums.msn.com/UFO Hello Errol and List, A couple of weeks ago, Bob Shell identified the equipment, which nullifies the difference in roll rates. Studios use it all the time. It is called a sync generator. Its a basic piece of equipment in any televison studio.It electroniclly matches the the line read rate on the monitors or TV screens. Sync generators have been around as long as TV cameras so it is not some new video magic. It makes it easy to video tape another screen without the annoying roll on the screen. It has to be done at first generation though ie at time of signal to tape or you lose the advantage. Anyone with a modest studio of their own can do this. Let's set this argument aside, its a done deal. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Belgian Radar-Visual [was: ET Hypothesis: From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:07:02 +0100 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:38:05 -0500 Subject: Belgian Radar-Visual [was: ET Hypothesis: Hello All! >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:23:59 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >>Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:21:03 -0800 I've been following this thread only recently, but I wonder whether you all discussing on the above are aware of the analyses published by SOBEPS (the Belgian UFO society), PHENOMENA (French UFO magazine), SCIENCE ET VIE (skeptical viewpoint). I've long been aware the radar targets were not correlated with the ground observation of astronomical objects, but I may have been deluded by my memory. The complete text of the dialogue between pilots and ground control (which I did translate for our own journal, years ago) seems indeed highly suggestive of not-so-rare propagation "ghosts" (Italian Air Force radar men call'em "zombies"), as finally admitted in SOBEPS second volume about the Belgian wave by that same (pro-ET) scientist and SOBEPS consultant (August Meessen) who had claimed them to be unidentified in the chapter he wrote in the first volume. I dared to ask, since much too often English-speaking ufologists are (or seem) unaware of what published locally in other (too-numerous) national languages. Regards Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici CISU, Casella postale 82, 10100 Torino - tel 011-3290279 - fax 011-545033 http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo e-mail: edoardo.russo@torino.alpcom.it
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:38:56 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:33:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 13:10:55 UT > From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> > To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage Diana Botsford writes: > >> Anyone who has attempted to film a > >> monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder > >> and the monitor do not sync. > As anyone who has worked in Hollywood will tell you, this is > untrue. There are tons of tv playback done on television shows > without seeing any lines. There is a simple device that syncs > the tape to film or vice versa. The tape needs to be transferred > at a certain speed in order to avoid the lines. It seems a minor point, but the original poster was talking about two different video defects. One, a horizontal black bar moving through the picture, is caused by the slight different in frame rate between the video camera and the TV monitor. As Diana says, this defect is easily eliminated with the professional equipment in a TV studio, although such equipment is expensive and seldom found outside a video production facility. A computer game company, for example, would have no need for it. The other defect is the interference pattern caused by the difference in scan lines. A TV picture is not continuous, but is made up of hundreds of individual horizontal lines. The difference in spacing and orientation of these lines when you are trying to fill the frame of a video camera with the picture from a TV monitor make it virtually impossible to line these up exactly, and you get a fairly obvious wavy colored interference pattern. Since such an interference pattern is not present in the Mexico City video, it could not have been recorded off a TV screen as suggested by Elders. -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 20 Mule Team From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:24:26 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:37:36 -0500 Subject: 20 Mule Team UFO's are often spotted near borax mines. Indeed, I believe the area near LaGrange, GA, where John Thompson has investigated numerous sightings recently, is rich in borax. We have often wondered what aliens could possibly want with borax short of making "20 Mule Team Boraxo" (sorry, Mr. Reagan <G>). Well, a poster on the Vortex-L listserver has provided an answer while discussing a table-top fusion device. Borax, and other boron compounds, can act as a neutron absorber/moderator. This could be a critical ingredient in any reactor which liberates neutrons. (Vortex-L is a listserver which deals with the topic of cold fusion, zero point energy, overunity motors, etc. See: http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb) Terry
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Witness Anonymity From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:35:59 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:43:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity Sean, Clark, and all- >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:19:06 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >>From: "Clark Hathaway" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:42:15 -0700 >>There are a number of ingredients to this ... more than a few >>that would seem to the uninformed to be absolutely New Age. >New Age is an expression bandied about for when there is no label for >the "new" research/tools/experiments etc etc However, the label "New Age" is not limited to "new" research/tools/experiments,etc., etc. . . . One of the problems with "New Age" is that the concept that is communicated when that particular term is use depends heavily on the definition that each individual has developed. More often than not, the term is used to describe beliefs and theories that are very old, rather than "new". Terms that are not clearly defined merely leave additional room for dissention and disagreement. As you note, "New Age" has been bandied about by a number of people to provide a label for that which is not yet defined. Unfortunately, this has the effect of blurring the meaning of "New Age", which in turn makes meaningful communication more difficult. [snip] >>Extremely important to these endeavors are heightened intuition >>with a bit of practical trust in it and an expanded sight or >>sense of awareness. Of paramount importance is the inner knowing >>that we each individually, create our own realities and thus are >>ultimately responsible for what happens to us. >Thats a pretty big statement, would it perhaps have been easier to say >We are who we chose to make ourselves? I think that more accurately the statement should be "We believe that which we chose to believe" or "Our view of the reality around us is what we have defined it to be." >>An understanding >>that collectively, it is all of us by general consensus, that >>create the overall general appearance of what surrounds us at any >>given time. >Hmm don't you mean the masses provide the mean average? I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing. But, then again, perhaps I just have a hard time accepting "reality" as a "mean average". It's really not mathmatics, but the concept is similar. >>Another part would be at least the beginning of >>ability to recognize when a belief system no longer serves >ie? Some tribal cultures (to this day) would have to go through a form of a paradigm shift to accept the reality of man landing on the moon. (IMHO) The strength of the belief structure would in turn help to define the level of evidence needed to for that "shift" to begin. In some cases, I would imagine that one might have to actually take the tribal leaders to the moon to overcome their "belief" that it just couldn't occur. (Again, IMHO) This is somehow similar to the response the bulk of the scientific community gives when provided with data that doesn't seem to fit their current view of the norm. Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve | tedric |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:52:22 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:44:22 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Greg & List: My problem with the ETH isn't that it isn't a viable UFO hypothesis, but that it simply doesn't know when to stop. Hence underground bases, vats of floating body parts, missing fetuses, governments in league with ET, California hot tubs, the creation of the transistor and integrated circuits, hybrid babies, crashed saucers all over the place, the abduction of the Secretary General of the United Nations, dead fish on a beach at night, environmental catastrophe(s), social collapse, the coming Apocalypse, Hale-Bopp, remote viewing, crop circles, animal mutilations, ancient astronauts, black helicopters, Men in Black...hell, where do I stop? That ain't a *theory,* that's a way of life. And it's one reason why mainstream science, which ufology always insists it's courting, finds something better to do with its time when we come calling. Who could blame it? SETI is an ET hypothesis, too, if you want to look at it that way. The main difference is that it has some expensive instrumentation behind it (and in case you haven't been paying attention, still hasn't turned up anything) and isn't hauling around the sort of lugubrious luggage that the UFO ETH is -- namely, claims, and claims upon claims, that would have Cotton Mather spinning in his grave. Until ufology cleans up its ETH by pruning all the excess baggage, it isn't going to get anywhere with mainstream science, and the sooner it realizes that the better. It ain't the Rodney Dangerfield of 20th century science for no good reason, you know? Put another way: your view of the ETH may be perfectly reasonable. That doesn't mean that everyone else's is. Spoor Spotter San Antonio's Harry Manimal
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:05:09 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:04:13 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments, and will try to be brief. >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 02:24:49 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >I had noted that Van Utrecht (yes, we spell 'Van' and not 'van' >when using the surname only) commented on the events in November/ >December 1989. However, you were apparently aware of the >supersonic capabilities of Van Utrecht's balloon, Duke, as you >were quoting from the official investigation of this case that >was conducted after March, when the balloon demonstrated its >ability to break the sound barrier. One last time. Van Utrecht DOES NOT suggest ANYWHERE that a balloon was responsible for the events of 30-31 March 90. Nor do I. You do. At least you have the advantage of originality. >Knowing your sense of humor and your >kind heart, you would surely give me your permission, >won't you Duke? You have permission to credit me with inspiring you to a bizarre fantasy which has given us both more than its fair share of laughs, but beyond that, proceed at your own peril. Remember I have spies everywhere. I look forward to the publication of your grand opus. Laughter refreshes the soul. Not that I have one, of course. >However, your loyal servants, probably knowing >you don't want to be bothered with all the facts, provided >you with an 'executive summary' and neglected to >present the entire sequence of measurements that >clearly shows a max of 1010. Thankyou! Now I see how my error arose. You may be assured that the servant concerned will be dealt with appropriately. However it is one deals with the writers of RBAF summaries. >The japes of the target suggest nothing but a flying object. Here >is only one of several excerpts that show simultaneous contact by >ground control and the F16's. This excerpt also shows that there >is no confusion about the object being a civilian aircraft. A simultaneous apparent contact does not rule out a spurious echo - especially when it behaves like this. And even if an aerial "object" is involved (let's get up your other nostril and tickle it, and suggest a traditional culprit such as a temperature inversion, strictly by way of example) it's long leap from said object - call it a UFO, why not - to the ET craft. In effect you're saying radar is a perfectly reliable instrument, and I'm saying it's not, which is hardly news among those who use it. >Duke, this was not the fog of war and nobody was dogfighting. >Belgium is a friendly country. It didn't consider shooting down >enemy extraterrestrials to protect their national security. Initial procedure is still the same, where achievable. The RAF doesn't shoot down Russian (previously, Soviet) aircraft that like to come and nibble at our airspace, either. They approach from above and behind, and then come close alongside the intruder's forward bubble, then show their bellies. This is global aeronautical sign language for "Turn round and piss off quick". There is neither intention nor need to shoot at this stage. >[Belgium] didn't perceive this phenomenon as anything else but an >unknown craft, because Belgium does not suffer from the trauma of >lost empire, transforming this trauma into jealousy toward its >successor and calling the ET Hypothesis "Americana" (listening, >Paul?). No, the only thing they wanted was go up and record some >facts. This could be even better than your time-traveling supersonic balloon. Are you sure you're not a neglected genius? Thankyou for clarifying the matter of the F-16s' radar. The position of the ground radars =E0 propos the language spoken in their immediate environs is obviously irrelevant, since Van Utrecht was referring to visual sightings - *most*, not all, of which came from French speaking Belgians, so WvU is hardly out of order in pointing to this as a factor. Even Meessen found no correlation between visual and radar reports. SOBEPS reports all kinds of configurations besides the famous triangle. Who is making sloppy claims here? Me, by reporting what even the proponents of the case say (which illustrate, not to say embody, confusion), or you, by selecting just the bits you like? Me, who says there is not much of a conclusion to come to about anything here (which, natch, makes me a debunker and ergo a limb of Satan), or you, who have solved the case with grandiose claims of ET visitation? Forget the con trick with the estates on the Moon, by the way. That land has been in my family for generations. Shame the character who sold it to you didn't tell you that. Suckered again! That's all from me on this one. Yours &c Profedigaeth D. Mabolgampau Celtic Rune PS: You don't pass the sight test and win the rubber cigar, either, Henny. You missed my deliberate mistake. Must try harder.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 5 Re: Witness Anonymity From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:35:59 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 19:19:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity Sean, Clark, and all- >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:19:06 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >>From: "Clark Hathaway" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> >>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity >>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:42:15 -0700 >>There are a number of ingredients to this ... more than a few >>that would seem to the uninformed to be absolutely New Age. >New Age is an expression bandied about for when there is no label for >the "new" research/tools/experiments etc etc However, the label "New Age" is not limited to "new" research/tools/experiments,etc., etc. . . . One of the problems with "New Age" is that the concept that is communicated when that particular term is use depends heavily on the definition that each individual has developed. More often than not, the term is used to describe beliefs and theories that are very old, rather than "new". Terms that are not clearly defined merely leave additional room for dissention and disagreement. As you note, "New Age" has been bandied about by a number of people to provide a label for that which is not yet defined. Unfortunately, this has the effect of blurring the meaning of "New Age", which in turn makes meaningful communication more difficult. [snip] >>Extremely important to these endeavors are heightened intuition >>with a bit of practical trust in it and an expanded sight or >>sense of awareness. Of paramount importance is the inner knowing >>that we each individually, create our own realities and thus are >>ultimately responsible for what happens to us. >Thats a pretty big statement, would it perhaps have been easier to say >We are who we chose to make ourselves? I think that more accurately the statement should be "We believe that which we chose to believe" or "Our view of the reality around us is what we have defined it to be." >>An understanding >>that collectively, it is all of us by general consensus, that >>create the overall general appearance of what surrounds us at any >>given time. >Hmm don't you mean the masses provide the mean average? I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing. But, then again, perhaps I just have a hard time accepting "reality" as a "mean average". It's really not mathmatics, but the concept is similar. >>Another part would be at least the beginning of >>ability to recognize when a belief system no longer serves > >ie? Some tribal cultures (to this day) would have to go through a form of a paradigm shift to accept the reality of man landing on the moon. (IMHO) The strength of the belief structure would in turn help to define the level of evidence needed to for that "shift" to begin. In some cases, I would imagine that one might have to actually take the tribal leaders to the moon to overcome their "belief" that it just couldn't occur. (Again, IMHO) This is somehow similar to the response the bulk of the scientific community gives when provided with data that doesn't seem to fit their current view of the norm. Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve | tedric |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Alfred's Odd Ode #196 From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:18:27 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:38:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Alfred's Odd Ode #196 Apology to MW #196 (For November 5, 1997) I would live forever. I would live to seed some stars. I would live to see the glad demise Of oil burning cars. I would live to float in silent space In the cities that we built. I would sip a comets water, And I would farm that comet's silt. The Earth would be a garden When her language we could speak. We could manage human numbers=85 "Less is more" would be less bleak. When my kidneys went the way of flesh, For all my kindness and respect, I'd pop in two brand new ones; I'd grown a clone to resurrect. I needed brand new kidneys, And my fellows used the rest. As flesh is more respected, then, Than present time -- you should confess! I'd live to see the asteroid belt Converted to new living space. We'd build it and not take it, =85T'would not add to our disgrace. We'd treat each other decently. We'd live for one another. The Earth itself a living thing. We would treat her like a mother. We would take her lesson to the stars. We are creatures with some art! We could act like we had common sense; We could act like we had simple smarts. Once we had our change of heart. The skies would open wide And we'd find it filled with new folk, We could ask for gentle chide. Lehmberg@snowhill.com So, they grew a frog without a head=85 Yes! I want it. Please continue the research. But at your peril -- create nothing with a consciousness! I want to grow my own replacement flesh -- I want to live forever. I will answer the ethical questions as I go along at some point in the next few thousand years -- and that quest will be driven by asking who has to pay so _I_ can play. I can cop to overpopulation, most can't or won't. The only real way to insure a quality human being is to bring the total down -- an individual thing. Living forever doesn't seem to add to that -- or does it? I'll live out in the asteroid belt, and live as far as I could see. Unfettered consciousness is a precious, precious thing, at the very least it should be. -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake, and his eyes on the living ring. =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1= =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1= =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1 Government or Social Harassment REPORT - Presently, "ZERO" Personal HARASSMENT; however, the harassment index is infinite for each of us. Consider that Pol Pot would have had new body parts grown to order.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Solved abduction cases From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:42:53 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:40:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved abduction cases The Duke of Mendoza presents a helpful tip, along with his compliments. >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:18:38 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: re: Solved abduction cases >For reasons unknown I can't get into Paul Devereux's >recent posting, so I'm having to respond in an independent >posting. Jerry: A mysterious coincidence. Same thing happened to you with one of mine in this thread, too, as I recall. Try the UpDates archive on the Web. The Web address is under the UFO UpDates .sig that ebk will have pasted beneath this message. When you've done that, let's all know what you think about this lucid dream research Paul has been doing. This may help you to stop worrying about your *amour propre*. best wishes Mendoza
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:46:01 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:42:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage Regarding... >Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 20:39:32 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage Jim wrote: >>It was noted: >>"August 6th was one of the most polluted days in Mexico. The >>authorities declared it an emergency...". >> Would this be consistent with the conditions apparent in the >>footage, where the visibility looks almost perfect and even distant >>buildings can be clearly seen? >It could be, James. The furthest buildings away that can be seen >in the stills I downloaded look to be only a mile or two away. >If so, that's pretty polluted. Jim, Acknowledging I've only seen the .mov file with it's limitations... at the beginning of the footage, it seems the buildings clearly visible on the horizon are considerably more than a mile or two distant. I would say more than 5 miles away, but that's just a best guess. >However, pollution emergency alerts could be due to excessive levels >of CO and/or ozone, which are transparent, and not just particulates, >so you'd need more information there. Yes, Mexico City apparently has the world's largest concentration of ozone, however, the major problem is smog. It should be a simple matter for someone out there to check what the conditions were at the time the video was allegedly taken. A declared state of emergency, or what I understand is termed a Phase I alert, would likely have been news, as apparently the use of cars is banned and factory production [is supposed to be] cut etc., in a fight against the smog. It seems that conditions under a Phase II alert are so serious that the city practically shuts down. Maybe this has been checked, but given that emergency conditions did exist, it just seems an obvious point to verify. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:31:52 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:48:04 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 20:48:55 -0800 >From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >> From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com >> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 14:45:13 -0600 (CST) >> To: updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >> > From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com >> > Date: 3 Nov 1997 15:34:06 UT >> > Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >> > To: updates@globalserve.net >> Regarding the hypothesis that some of the bright lights seen in >> the sky to the west of Phoenix on March 13 were flares, Bill >> Hamilton writes: >> > The magnesium flares burn bright white, not orange or yellow, >> > but this has never been addressed by the skeptics. >> Could white flares seen at a great distance look orange because of >> Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere? (This is the effect which >> causes the setting sun to look orange.) >> -George Fergus >Hmmm.... Multiple witnesses, multiple videos... >Come on folks, lets all say it together. >Triangulation... >It doesn't take any wizz-bang high falutin computer video >graphics wizardry to go to the sight of a few videos, identify >landmarks and draw lines on a detailed map. The program was >playing a little coy with the story. The map graphics showed the >views of the witnesses converging just southwest of Phoenix east >of the military range. Yet they use only a single video to >conclude that the lights were far west of the location indicated >on the map. >Bill and Tom really let me down. If the program is correct, the >two see something in the sky and neither one of them think to >immediately jump in a car and drive a mile or so to another high >spot so that they could triangulate the sighting. Triangulation, >the most powerful and accessible tool to measure most any >phenomenon and yet so seldom planned for and used. Three or four >widely placed people in high locations can cover a whole city. >Each only needs a handy camcorder on a tripod and a telephone. >Decades of unexplained aerial phenomena watching and >triangulation remains only a footnote or afterthought. Am I just >being dense here? That was briefly discussed during the sighting. We did drive to another location after the event to scope out the area. I have alot of experience in videotaping UFOs. I have been thru the experience, and the rush of seeing it many times. There are millions of things you think of after its all over, what you could of done. If I only brought this with, sort of thing. On the original audio from my tape you can here one witness suggesting to go to Pecos road. I knew if we did, we probably would lose it. We weren't familar with Steve's neighborhood. Later on we found out that someone who works with Steve was already down on Pecos road that night. He witnesses some of what we videotaped that night. >Where could the depths of paranoia take me? March 14, 1997, >triangulation quickly tells the many ufo experts that the lights >appeared over the military range. Huddling in a dark Italian >bar, in whispered conversations, they swear an oath of allegiance >to never mention triangulation... >After all aren't we constantly reminded here on this mail list >how easily ufologist come together for their own self interest. >(Ow, I am killing myself. Somebody stop me...) >So, anyway, where are those triangulation maps from all those >March 13 videos??? The triangulation maps haven't completly been released on the Internet yet. It is one of the few cards to check against the military. We know where these objects are at exact times, locations, and descriptions. The hundred of witnesses were interviewed by Bill and Village Labs. A wealth of data exists but is used to cross check new witnesses. We waited along time to get a few pieces of information about that night from our military. If the triangulation maps were released, then the Maryland National Guard might have taken that data and worked it in their counter-story. Some other investigators checking into the military recently. The Military said before they launched their flares at 3,000 ft. Now they're changing to 15,000 ft. Also noted was "decoy flares" are now changed to "decoy/illumination flares", that are white? Now they don't want to seem to even talk about it anymore. Tom King, Skywatcher Arizona Skywatch director AZ Skywatch http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/skywatch/skywatch.htm OVNI Chapterhouse at http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:04:36 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:55:58 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback By Tom King The episode was not a bad in my opinion. However it contained several added in effects to spin the end of the show. The first half was right on track, but it seemed to attack Village Labs and take the flare theory. This might be because of Richard Motzer and Kal Korff, giving their approach which the producers bought. Kal was cut out of the episode mostly likely because of him discrediting himself recently. One thing that was delibrately inserted was the time dates on the videos. These are not the times we gave them. Over half of the videos contained on that show don't reflect what the videographers told them. They couldn't quite seem to get their story straight on "decoy" or "illumination" flares. Or the location they dropped them in. The computer work which overlays the Mike Krysten video near the shows end is way off. I can't believe someone on the list hasn't pointed this out yet. Look just over the upper hill thats closest to the camera in the left part of the screen there is a tree. In the actual video the "loner" object on the left side is always seen, to the right and part way up the tree. These other people have it far over on the left of the tree. It appears they have resampled the lights to far, and placed in the wrong spot! This could have been done purposely to support the flare theories. Recently Fox Channel 10 reporter Jim Schnabelt has done his own independent investigation on the Mike Krysten video. Jim obtained day shots and turned them over the channel 10 editors. What took the computer experts hours to overlay they did in minutes. Channel 12 is also interested in doing this process. I'm not going to say what the results were from the tests, but you can find out this Sunday on FOXs's "10-files". Another update coming... Tom King, Skywatcher Arizona Skywatch director AZ Skywatch http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/skywatch/skywatch.htm OVNI Chapterhouse at http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:00:20 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 02:03:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:07:02 +0100 >From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> >Subject: Belgian Radar-Visual. (was: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Hello All! >>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:23:59 -0500 >>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >>Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >>>Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 12:21:03 -0800 >I've been following this thread only recently, but I wonder >whether you all discussing on the above are aware of the analyses >published by SOBEPS (the Belgian UFO society), PHENOMENA (French >UFO magazine), SCIENCE ET VIE (skeptical viewpoint). >I've long been aware the radar targets were not correlated with >the ground observation of astronomical objects, but I may have >been deluded by my memory. >The complete text of the dialogue between pilots and ground >control (which I did translate for our own journal, years ago) >seems indeed highly suggestive of not-so-rare propagation >"ghosts" (Italian Air Force radar men call'em "zombies"), as >finally admitted in SOBEPS second volume about the Belgian wave >by that same (pro-ET) scientist and SOBEPS consultant (August >Meessen) who had claimed them to be unidentified in the chapter >he wrote in the first volume. >I dared to ask, since much too often English-speaking ufologists >are (or seem) unaware of what published locally in other >(too-numerous) national languages. >Regards As I said earlier, it was inevitable for a new bogus explanation to arise. It just dawned on me that if I ever write a book on UFOs, I would call it 'Bogus Book'. We have had Blue Book, Omni's Open Book (sadly discontinued), I will add 'Bogus Book'. Furthermore, inspired by this case I am assembling a collection of Rules of Ufology, that will eventually be included in Bogus Book, so that it can serve as a sort of survival handbook for the ufologist. Pertaining to the Belgian case, especially note Rules 3 until 5. Henny's Rules of Ufology=B7 1. Never trust a quality newspaper 2. The level of certainty with which people say that a case is just invented for the money is inversely related to the amount of research that is done on the case. 3. No matter how many facts indicate an anomalous event, a continuous stream of bogus explanations will arise to 'explain' the case in prosaic terms. 4. Every time someone points out the facts, new bogus explanati- ons will surface, entirely unrelated to the previous ones. 5. When a case consists of multiple sorts of evidence, people will split up the evidence in different categories and explain the case away piece by piece. Hall of Fame of Bogus Explanations for the Belgium case: 1. F117 Source: French scientific magazine 'Science et Vie' Bogus because: F117 can't fly supersonic and is invisible on radar 2. B2 Source: RBAF=B7 Bogus because: B2 is not triangular, but boomerang shaped and is invisible on radar 3. Laser show Bogus because: lasers need clouds to be projected on, the objects have been seen, filmed and photographed on cloudness nights and a wealth of radar data exists 4. Cultural aberration of French speaking Belgium: Bogus because: First sighting was in German speaking Eupen. On night March 30-31, object has been recorded on three radars in Dutch speaking Belgium. Though known as the Belgium flap, the same objects have been witnessed in the Dutch provinces of Limburg and Gelderland in the same time frame. 5. Mass hallucination Bogus because: One photographs, 25 videos and a wealth of radar recordings exist 6. Aurora/Senior Citizen Bogus because: Senior Citizen is a human made aircraft that can't reach accelerations of over 40 G's. Furthermore, it makes a lot of noise when going through the sound barrier and is a secret reconnaissance aircraft that no air force or secret service would repeatedly display to the public, especially not in areas where there is nothing to spy 7. LoFlyte - Maurice Chittenden, Sunday Times Bogus because: LoFlyte is a human made aircraft that can't reach accelerations of over 40 G's. Furthermore, LoFlyte did not fly at the time. 8. Triangular Balloon - Wim van Utrecht, Belgian Ufologist=B7 Bogus because: Balloons can't fly faster than sound. 9. Ground clutter on F16 radar screen - J. Pharabod Bogus because: Object has been detected on a total of 6 radars, including four ground radars. Several times simultaneous contacts, F16 air-to-air radar has a limit on the underside of its range 10. Atmospheric diffraction - J. Pharabod Bogus because: Object has been detected on a total of 6 radars, 25 videos and one photograph exist. Object played cat and mouse game with F16 pursuers. 11. 'Ghost', 'Zombie' - Eduardo Russo=B7 Bogus because: 25 videos and one photograph exist. Object played cat and mouse game with F16 pursuers. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: Penrose Christopher <penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 12:09:56 +0900 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 02:05:37 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 20:48:55 -0800 >From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Bill and Tom really let me down. If the program is correct, the >two see something in the sky and neither one of them think to >immediately jump in a car and drive a mile or so to another high >spot so that they could triangulate the sighting. I don't know about the Phoenix Lights March 14th sighting, but I do know that Tom King has called pals to triangulate subsequent sightings. Evidence of this is available in the UpDates Archive. Chris Penrose penrose@sfc.keio.ac.jp
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" From: rossdowe <rossdowe@netlink.net.au> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:47:57 +1100 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 02:15:33 -0500 Subject: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific UFO Hotline. Monitored today at 1015UTC the following statement from Russia's Voice of Russia, World News Service. Announced that Mr. ?(inaudible)" says our solar system has two EARTHS. He says, a planet whose mass and dimensions equal our home planet is located behind the sun, on the other side of the solar system, it never shows up because it takes it, and EARTH exactly the same time to orbit the sun. None the less it can be see if a space satellite with a telescope aboard is launched towards MARS or VENUS. To hear a copy of this VOR statement call Ross Dowe on AUST 190 224 3529 N.Z 090 058 367 ippoz@eisa.net.au Regards Ross Dowe IPP International Peacemaker Project.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: 'UFOs: The Best Evidence Caught on Tape' From: Kerry Ferrand <kferrand@rocketmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:47:26 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 02:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: 'UFOs: The Best Evidence Caught on Tape' > From: "David Butterfield" <BUTTERDA@mail.cit.ac.nz> > To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Show on TV > Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:53:13 +1300 > Just incase anyone is interested, we had a programme on TV here > in New Zealand about the March sightings in Arizona (great > speech, Mr Hamilton) but it seemed to debunk rather than offer > explanations. You guys in the US have probably seen it already, > it was called UFO's: The best evidence caught on tape. > Interesting, but I was disappointed there wasn't the Mexican video. Oh well, maybe next time. I believe that show was produced before the latest Mexican stuff was alledged to have been filmed. I was amused to see that footage of a home-made minature hot air balloon (made a few of those as a kid) and a interior lamp reflecting off a window made it into "The best evidence.."..hmmm.. Kerry
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper' From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:34 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 03:54:03 -0500 Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper' >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:57:54 -0600 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper' (10/30/97) To the several people still following this discussion: Here are my comments on her 10/29 message.. > <snip> >> > > HERE IS MY COMMENT ON HER PAPER: I am aware that the GB >>>> skeptics have tried, unsuccessfully, to discredit all the other witnesses. (SNIP) >> > **** BB: There were NONE that came forward before Ed and only >> > ONE, a man named Thompson, who described and drew a picture >> > similar to Ed's. >> The fact is that over a dozen people came forward within the 8 >> months following Ed's initial report. Presumably no one twisted their >> arms or otherwise forced them to make their statements to the effect >> that they saw the same object. I realize this is a bitter pill for the >> skeptics to swallow, but if you took Ed completely out of the picture >> you would still have an amazing series of sightings. Quite likely (SNIP) >> Presumably there would have been some publicity and then >> investigators would have learned about the sightings that took >> place in November, December 1987 and January and February, 1988. >> And many of the witnesses reported the basic key features: a >> round object with a bright ring on the bottom and a light on the >> top. Some reported other key features as well. >(BB10/29)The problem with their reports is that there was too much time >between Ed's photos hitting the newspaper and these people coming >forward. In ANY OTHER case, these reports would be viewed > skeptically. What does this mean? What should have been done differently? Each sighting should be judged on its own merits. Or, would you have them rejected simply because there are many similarities to what Ed photographed? >> ( I don't care WHAT Don Ware's reason was >>.for showing Ed Walters the Billy Meier video and other UFO books the >>first week in December, it was not correct procedure.) At least we agree on one thing. Contamination of witnesses is a dumb thing to do. On the other hand, it apparently didn't affect Ed. However, if his pictures had begun to resemble Meier's after December, 1987 the investgation probably would have been closed in January of 1988. >>>>BSM, 10/17/97: The following people stated they saw a UFO >>> > like or the same as what appeared in Ed's photos (list taken >> >*****BB I have many of these reports. Unfortunately, with the >> >exception of Thompson, the other sketches of witnesses in 1987, are >> >NOT identical to Walters UFo. ANd once again, most of the reports >> >were taken much later. Yes, some of the reports were taken much later because sightings were much later. (e.g., McCann, Holcomb, Pollock,McConnell, see below) >> Your requirement of "identicality" reminds me of similar >> fallacious reasoning by the writers of Project Blue Book Special >> Report #14. <snip> >> Your reasoning could be used to achieve the same result with the >> Gulf Breeze sightings. You could state that because the >> witnesses did not all report exactly the same thing they probably >> saw nothing at all... or at least no flying saucers. >This has NOTHING to do with MY reasoning. Ive been in this long >enough to know that no two reports of THE SAME OBJECT will be >reported IDENTICALLY. When I hear people saying that they have >seen the SAME object, I am suspicious. WHOA THERE!! If I understand correctly up to this point you have been demanding that support for Ed's sightings means that the descriptions must be the "same" or "identical." Now you admit different people won't report things identically and, moreover, if they did you'd be suspicious. You can't have it both ways. Consider the report by Fenner McConnell (county coronor and pathologist) and his wife Shirley. Their sighting did not happen until July, 1988. They said they saw the same objected that Ed photographed hovering over the water near their house on the western shore of Gulf Breeze. This was early in the morning. So much light was coming out of the bottom that they could see the reflection from the water. They also reported seeing "windows." As they watched, the light got brighter and then it moved away acress the Pensacola Bay. The sketch by Shirley MConnell is in GULF BREEZE WITHOUT ED (MUFON Symp 1991). Do you accept their sighting as real? Or do you reject it? >BTW: You apparently >forget that even in your corresondence to me it is YOU who state >that these other GB witnesses saw the SAME UFO as Ed. That seemed >to be a way for you and they to validate what Walters claimed he >saw. As far as I know, from the documentation I have, no one >drew anything IDENTICAL to Walters, the pictures look more like a >bastardized version of Walters. WHOA..here you ago with identical" again. Let's see, if I understand what you are (or seem to be) saying: it is my mistake to suggest that these sightings/sketches support Walters because the descriptions/drawings are similar. They would only support Walters if the drawings/descriptiong were identical. On the other hand, arguing from your Walters-hoax point of view, the fact that these sketches/descriptions are somewhat similar (or nearly identical) indicate his photos are a hoax because (1) the drawings/descriptions are not identical and therefore don't support Ed's photos or (2) the drawings/descriptions are so similar that they must be "bastardized versions" of Walters' photos, i.e., the witnesses don't really recall what they saw (if anything) and so they don't support Walters photos. CONGRATULATIONS! With reasoning like this...... you could never be wrong. >The reports were taken much too late not to rule out mis remembering >what (if anything) these people DID see. WHOA THERE AGAIN! Many interesting sightings occurred long after Ed's first photos were published and the witnesses made their reports soon after the sightings. (see McConnell sightings above and others below) >Here are a few tidbits from your 1991 Symposium Paper. See, I >HAVE read it. GOOD FOR YOU! **>p.190/ "Mr. Art Hufford had stated publicly and unequivocally **>that what he saw was exactly the same thing as shown in the **>pictures." > (The Huffords did not make their report until March 1988.) **> p.189/ In a letter to the GBS, Billie Zammit claimed she saw "this **> same object", as the photo in the newspaper. **>p.189 / Jeff Thompson, (whose report I find compelling but would **>like it better if he had not waited 6 months to make a formal **>report), said that what he saw was "similar". **>p. 189 / Doris and Charles Somerby, Duane Cooks' parents, and **>former editor of the GBS, said '"what I saw on Veterans's Day **>night , (November 11) was exactly what was depicted in the **>pictures published in the GBS."' >> So, what is it, Barbara? Do you accept ANY of the sightings in >> the November 1987 - July 1988 time frame (when Ed was taking >> these pictures), or do you reject them all? >As I said previously, I find Thmopson's report compelling, but I >would have liked it to have been taken when the event was fresher >in his mind. How about Truman Holcomb who made his report SOON AFTER his April 28 sighting? How about Ray Pollock who also made a confidential (name not released at the time) report soon after his sighting May 27 (see page 202, "anonymous"). I already mentioned the McConnells. These people made "fresh" reports. Do you reject their accuracy of description simply because what they describe resembles (closely!) what Ed saw and photographed? Or do you think that in the several days or so between their sightings and their reports their memory had been sufficiently "bastardized" by Ed's photos (which had been published MONTHS earlier; there was no book at this time, you know) that they couldn't accurately describewhat they saw? <snip> >> Its not enough to have an overall similar or even identical >> shape, plus a bright ring on the bottom? Just because the "windows" >> don't show in every photo by other people doesn't mean the objects >> aren't the same. >Thats the point. I WOULDNT EXPECT THEM TO. I agree. >> Hence a verbal report which mentions the key details (overall shape, >> bright ring on bottom, light on top) should not be rejected simply >> because it doesn't include all the details shown in Ed's pictures >> Also, even many of Ed's recent pictures (since 1992)show objects which >> are not identical in shape to the ones he photographed in 1987-88. >I dont reject them. I reject Ed Walters photos as published in >GBS. They are just too damn perfect. Thank you for explaining the scientific basis for your rejection of the Walters photos in the face of "whelming" (some might even say "overwhelming") evidence that other people saw the SAME THING!! Said scientific basis being "too damn perfect." I think I'll invent an acronym to simply further reference to this scientific principle of UFO photo evaluation: reject photos that are TDP! Perhaps there are degrees of TDP. For example, if anyone should be rejected it is Billy Meier who definitely ranks at the top of TDP. In comparison with this, many of Ed's photos rank low, even below the famous McMinnvile photos, because in many of Ed's photos the images are too dark to see the whole UFO. Sometimes all that is visible is the "power ring." >>Persons who wrote to Ed in response to the publication of his first (SNIP) >>>> Bruce you can personally attest that you have seen each and >>> >every one of these letters, and that they are written differently >>> >different people? >>> I have not seen all these, but have seen many letters...all from >>> different locations. Different writing. Ed saved the >>> envelopes..all different addresses and postmarks. >Which photos letter and envelopes have you personally seen? > Do you have copies for your records? I looked at my file and found that in January 1991, four years before there was any talk of a book by me and Ed, Ed sent me copies of about two dozen letters he received from Florida, other places in the USA and other countries. With each letter was a copy of the envelop with postmark. In reviewing the letters I found many with drawing and descriptions and statements of "similarity" or "identicality" , just as in the published letters. I found only two in the collection I received in 1991, which are published in the book: Alan Stutzamen (from Germany) and "Marsha Pagan" (not her real name). You will find these on pages 122, and 130 in the book....Ed had literally thousands of letters to choose from and apparently he chose mostly letters that were more recent than what he sent me. Example of unpublished letters: March 6, 1988 sighting (letter date May, 1990) "...what it looked like most was photo 17..."; June 10, 1989 sighting (Mar 1990 postcard) "My wife and I saw something glide through the sky that greatly resembled your photo #18..." <snip> >> > Your comment, "Oddly enough, they are from around Costa Rica, (SNIP) >>>****BB I really dont know what you are saying here but...Has >>> this one been in the newspaper? Which of the South American >>> reports and sightings were recorded in a newspaper at the >>> time of the sighting? >> See my response above to the previous comment. >Which of the South American reports/pictures used in the book are >fixed in time by an independent source? You can read a UPI story dated March 18, 1989. Then in his letter James Warnerfred says it was the publicity that got him to go to the area on March 30, 1989. So far as I know none of the photos published in the book was published in a newspaper. > <magnum snip> > > >**** BB: Anyone with the slimmest doubt was kept away from this > > > case. No skeptics allowed...only believers. >> Instead they proceded on their own. Perhaps you don't recall (or >> never knew) about Ray Stanford getting egg all over his face in >> April, 1988, <snip> >>I know about Stanford...but I also know that it was Andrus who >>made a proclamation about rain in one of the photos, so anyone, >>with bad info can open mouth and insert foot. Yes, indeed. However, there is a considerable difference between what Andrus did (saying that in his opinion the little white spots on photo 19 were water drops on the windshield) and what Ray did. (He sent letters to the mayor, TV station and newspaper to claim publicly (and loudly) that he had proof that a man generally considered to be an upstanding and respected citizen of the community was actually the perpetrator of an amazing hoax and conspiracy!) If Walt Andrus inserted his foot then Ray swallowed himself whole. (SNIP) >>> The person Tommy "came forward" to with his story was his >>> father. (SNIP) >>>At the press conference Mr. Smith was careful to avoid criticizing >>>any of the other Gulf Breeze witnesses, including those who >>> claimed to have seen exactly the same thing have seen exactly >>> the same thing that Ed photographed. >There you go with the "same thing Ed photographed"... There you go again mixing up identicality with "the same thing..." >>> Tommy's photos were analyzed. Tommy had claimed that >>> Ed had faked them by double exposure methods. > > 10/17/97 Readers: note well the following paragraph: (SNIP) >>> However, analysis revealed no evidence of double exposure >>> and, in fact, the photos appeared to be just single exposures, >>> not double exposures as Tommy had indicated. The shape >>> and color of the depicted UFO was consistent with what Ed >>> had photographed. (SNIP) >> Evidently you don't understand. I'll try again, The proof that Ed >> faked the pictures that Tommy gave to the Sheriff was >> ***supposed to be** the evidence that it was a double exposure, >> according to T. Smith. But there is no evidence of a double >> exposure. >> Hence your claim "Ed took the photographs" is not proved by >> the photographs. >Who analyzed the photographs? Please don't tell me you did. Oh, but I did. And so did Bob Oechsler. And so did Robert Nathan at JPL. None of us could find even the slightest hint of a double exposure. There was simply nothing on the negatives other than the faint reddish images of the UFO itself. If there had been a double exposure there would have been siome other images like a background scene. But there was nothing. And, by the way these photos rank near or at the bottom of the TDP scale mentioned above. <snip> >>>**** BB: I cant speak for any of these people but everyone >>>makes a bad call once in while...even you Bruce. >>>Yeah me.....and even You, Barbara. >> > ****BB Bruce. The above line is childish. >> Yeah, so is the above line. >Ya! Well, mom always liked you better!!!!! Right, but you got the dog and all I got was that stupid chicken! BARK,. CHICKEN!!!! Never could get that chicken to bark. (unquote, Smothers Brothers, ca. late 1960's or early 1970's) > > > 4) Here is my comment on her paper: > > > This discussion about the copyright does not prove Ed > > > created the Bill and Jane photos. Hence Barbara's claim >> <big snip> >> > > "this demonstrates his ability...." is also not proven. In >>> >BSM: 10/17/97 When it comes to deciding who's right, you >>>> grasp for legalities is you wish; I'll stick to the physical >>>> analysis. >> >****BB Your physical analysis can be wrong. Law, at least this >> >copyright law, is very specific. And it VERY specifically says (SNIP) >> Physical analysis can be wrong.....and the law can't be wrong? >>Can lawyers repeal the "laws" of optics and photography? But we >>are talking about diverse things here. I claim that the photos >>which Ed claims to have taken were not hoaxed by Ed...and >> severalof them contain images which could not have been >> hoaxed by Ed for reasons outlined in UFOS ARE REAL..... >> Also, I claim there were many other witnesses to the same type >> of UFO. Hence, I claim the >> photos and sightings are real >> You claim that Ed broke the law if he published the Bill and Jane >> photos without owning the rights to those photos. > >But to arrive at your conclusion you must assume Ed (and his >> lawyers) would be smart enough not to break the law. >Oh, pullleeeese. Dont go through this "Ed's too stupid to..." >routine. Who said Ed's too stupid? Perhaps he got bad advice. After all, he doesn't claim to be an expert on copyright law. >> Therefore he would have transfer agreements with Bill and >> Jane to protect himself against a lawsuit... or else he took the >> photos himself. >"By George, you've got it!" Got what? Your TDP principle? >> Since he has no transfer agreements you conclude that he >> must have taken the photos himself. (But then he would be a >> liar because he said someone else took them, and this lie >> then carries over into the other sightings... etc.)' >You're smarter than I thought. >>BUT....WHAT IF ED DID BREAK THE LAW IN PUBLISHING BILL >>AND JANE'S PHOTOS? Ed doesn't think he broke the law. Ed's >>lawyer doesn't think he broke the law.Morrow's lawyer doesn't >>think he broke the law. But, according to you, if he is telling the truth >>HE BROKE THE LAW. SHAME ON ED!!!! Well, as I have >>suggested (challenged you) in the past, if you really think he >>broke the law in publishing the photos, the sue him on behalf of >>Bill and Jane! >But I dont think he broke the law. I think he owns the copyright >(ie didnt break law) because he took the pictures. He is >perfectly legal. There is nothing to sue. And your justification for thinking Ed didn't break the law is what? The TDP principle? > <snip> >> >****BB I'll repeat the question. Maybe you overlooked it the >> >last time I asked. Hey Bruce....Is Ed dead????? If not how >> >about calling him on the phone (surely you have his number) >>>and ask him why he doesnt have a transfer agreement and >>>why he owns the copyright to the B&J photos? Thats simple. >>> And please no BSabout Duane giving him the photos. >> The answer has alread been given. >NO IT HASNT. Why wont you just get on the phone,or send him >a letter and ask him point blank about the Bill and Jane photos? >ANd if you refuse to do that, how about telling me and the rest >of the people on this list exactly why you wont do it. I did talk to him some time ago when you brought this up in private letters. His answer was that he has no transfer agreement and his lawyer thinks he is not infringing on any copyrights. >>> If you are correct, Ed is a CRIMINAL, A FELON, >>> GUILTY OF INFRINGING ON THE COPYRIGHTS >>> OF BILL AND JANE... >>> So, why don't you sue Ed on behalf of Bill and Jane?> >Because there is nothing to sue. Walters owns the copyright >because HE took the pictures. That is what his LOC Copyright .>registration says. If its good enough for them, (and Morrow and >Ed's lawyer) then its good enough for me. As I said before, looks as if we're back where we started....except for one thing. Every reader of this message is now aware of the TDP principle, which appears to have been your underlying justification for this"attack." As far as the legal aspects are concerned you haven't proven a thing. Ed could be guilty of copyright infringement, but we'll never know for certain if he isn't taken to court. You think he owns the copyright and therefore can't be sued. His lawyer thinks he owns the right to publish the photos in his book because Bill and Jane ha ve abandoned the rights to the photos. This sounds to me like a stalement. If this were a court of law I would ask the judge for a summary dismissal of this argument. Too bad it's not a court of law.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Oliphant advances a theory From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:20:35 -0700 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 04:15:48 -0500 Subject: Oliphant advances a theory The following was originally posted to UFC by respected cattle mutilation researcher Ted Oliphant Source: http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newse/nov/moo.html Mad Cow Disease and Cattle Mutilations ? Hello, I'm Ted Oliphant, as a police officer in Fyffe, Alabama I investigated over 35 cases of cattle mutilations over a six month period from Oct 1992 through May 1993. I have made several recent breakthroughs in researching this problem. Would you consider posting the following article on your website? Regards, Ted Oliphant III Recently the British Secretary of Health admitted that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or "Mad Cow Disease" may be a species jumper. This means that humans exposed to animals with BSE, can also contract it. This announcement set off a panic with many countries (Most Notably France, Belgium and Germany) announcing boycotts of all British beef. There was serious consideration given to destroying all eleven million head of British cattle. Current projections for the year 2010, suggest that 200,000 people will die each year from Mad Cow Disease, and it's pre-cursor, Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease. This is in Great Britain alone. What is Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease? Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease ("CJD") is a rare, fatal brain disorder which causes a rapid, progressive dementia and associated neuromuscular disturbances. The disease is often referred to as a sub acute spongiform encephalopathy because it usually produces microscopic vacuoles in neurons that appear "sponge-like". * Under the microscope, you can see "holes" in brain tissue. "Prions" (Spongiform Associated Fibrils) proteins or plaques, are believed to be responsible for other fatal brain diseases in humans, as well as animals. In addition to CJD, the suspected human prion diseases include Kuru, Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease and Fatal Familial Insomnia. Kuru has been found only among the Fore tribe in Papua, New Guinea and has been virtually eliminated since the cessation of the ritual handling and eating of the brains of deceased relatives. The disease is characterized by progressive problems with coordination which are typically followed by dementia. Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease and Fatal Familial Insomnia are predominantly hereditary disorders with the former usually marked by progressive coordination and movement problems and the latter evidenced by sleeping problems preceding dementia. The suspected prion diseases occurring in animals consist of: Scrapie in sheep and goats; Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy; Chronic Wasting Disease of mule deer and elk; Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy; and, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("BSE"), also known as "mad cow disease".* On March 20, 1996, the British Government, in a complete reversal of its previous position, stated that there was a possible link between BSE and CJD. This new acknowledgment arose from the identification of an apparently new strain of CJD which was discovered in 10 people under the age of 42, including some teenagers. Additionally, five of the people were associated with the meat and livestock industry. Scientists advising the British Government decided that the most likely explanation for this unusual outbreak was the consumption of beef from diseased cattle before 1989, when regulations were adopted for the disposal of potentially infectious cattle offal, including brains, and the use of sheep entrails as feed ceased.* At the present time, the only proven manner for contracting CJD from an infected person has been through iatrogenic transmission, an unintended consequence of a medical procedure using tainted human matter or surgical instruments. Iatrogenic transmission of CJD has occurred in cases involving corneal transplants, implantation of electrodes in the brain, dura matter grafts, contaminated surgical instruments and the injection of natural human growth hormone derived from cadaveric pituitaries. Thus, one may become infected with CJD from direct contamination with infected neural tissue.* There are new, strict guidelines for the handling of suspected BSE, CJD and Kuru infected tissues. Once a brain biopsy is completed, surgical instruments, scalpels and the like, are disposed of because sterilization will not kill the Prions, or proteins. This raises the question of how many times before the new guidelines were instituted, were contaminated surgical instruments used from patient to patient? BSE & CJD are Doomsday Diseases, they are very hard to detect, there is no cure or treatment, and both are %100 fatal in ALL cases. How did this happen & where did it come from? The main suspicion traces the un-natural practice of feeding vegetarian animals "Rendered" food. Rendered foods come from "Rendering plants" like the Avon plant in Geraldine, Alabama. There are hundreds of these plants throughout the United States and the world. What goes on at a rendering plant? Rendering plants act as an animal disposal unit for dead livestock. Instead of burning and disposing of dead animals, they are converted to animal feeds. I visited the Avon plant in 1993 and witnessed this process, where nothing is wasted. Area farmers and ranchers are invited to drop off any dead farm animal. The animals are crushed up in large mulchers and poured into enormous high pressure vats where they are cooked into multi-animal stew. The stew is furtherprocessed until it is packaged and sold to area farmers as livestock feed. I've witnessed pigs, goats, cows and horses brought to rendering plants. The animals were in various conditions. Some had been dead for over 24 hours, yet were still rendered into livestock feed. Shockingly, many cows that been found "mutilated", ( missing various glands, tissue and organs) were brought to the rendering factory and processed into food for their still living relatives. I was shocked, but unlike Great Britain which has had protections against such practices since 1989, there are no such guidelines here in the United States. What is the prospect for Mad Cow Disease to appear in the United States? That is THE question several of us are asking, what does our government know and what aren't they telling us? The first case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease appeared in the 1890's, was finally identified in 1920 and first considered contagious during the identification and study of Kuru in the 1950's though it was, at that time, thought to be fully contained. However the identification of contaminated surgical instruments as a transport mechanism raises a bigger question...how many surgeries used contaminated scalpels? The incubation period for BSE, CJD and other associated Spongiform Associated Fibrils (SAF) ranges from six months to forty years. That means that if you ingested contaminated meat prior to becoming a vegetarian, you can still get sick many years down the road. This isn't the first time animal parts introduced into the food chain, caused illness and death. Thyrotoxicosis (New England Journal of Medicine, Hedburg CW, Fishbein DB et all 316: 993-8, 1987) occurred when bovine thyroid glands were combined with hamburger meat and distributed throughout many communities. This caused over 100,000 people to get sick. Finally the Center for Disease Control (CDC) investigated and concluded that large doses of bovine thyroid hormone in hamburger meat, was the culprit. Here's what happened. For years the US Government bought every bovine thyroid gland it could get it's hands on for research. As a result, every meat packing plant in America was removing the thyroids and selling them to Uncle Sam for top dollar. Then all of the sudden, our government stopped buying them. Meat packing plants and butchers starting grinding up the glands and mixing them with our hamburger. That practice has, for the most part, been stopped thanks to the CDC. The U.S. Army, The National Institute of Health (NIH) & Rocky Mountain Labs. Quietly and secretly, The United States Army and the Center For Disease Control have worked together, off & on, for years. A perfect example of this clandestine cooperation was the outbreak and containment of Ebola Reston. You can learn more about this in an excellent book "The Hot Zone". The Army & The CDC entered the Reston monkey houses, took care of business and were gone beforeanybody knew what happened. They showed up in civilian clothes, and un-marked vans. All of this was done right under the noses of television camera crews who were looking around, but never saw them because the Army & CDC hid their vehicles behind buildings! Currently another organization, The National Institute of Health (NIH) has been tasked with tracking and studying somethingeven more frightening: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathies and other Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs). Much of the research has been conducted at Rocky Mountain Labs. Not far away, Dr. John Altschuler, a veterinary pathologist/hematologist has also been studying this problem, he's been doing so quietly since 1967. All the tests and studies he's done as "favors" for cattle mutilation guru Linda Moulton Howe, haven't just been for her. Dr.John has a friend in the government he's been comparing notes with for sometime. Originally it was thought that a foreign power might be trying to contaminate the American food supply. Instead they discovered a new biological evolution, TSEs. The funding for this research is hidden in the NIH's black budget for the study of AIDS. Neither AIDS or BSE are viruses, rather they are the consequences of immune systems that have been thwarted. BSE and AIDS are both plaques. The research has been kept quiet to prevent an outbreak of panic. But the cats out of the bag, all of us are in the same boat. Every American who's ever eaten meet has been exposed to our new, common threat: Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. Over the last ten years, law enforcement in dozens of States have been trying to track and identify unmarked helicopters sighted where area livestock have been discovered dead under suspicious circumstances. The helicopters are seen before and after these cows are found in pastures, missing certain organs. The same things are always taken. Bovine jaws are stripped to the bone, reproductive organs removed, digestive tracks and rectums "cored" out. There is little to no blood at the scene. Tissue samples taken by police investigators and analyzed at veterinary labs, all show signs of exposure to heat, three hundred degrees or more. The tissue is cooked and the incisions are cauterized by the heat. This prevents blood and other fluids from leeching onto the ground. Everything taken has to do with input, output and reproduction. In recent mutilation cases, Alabama 1993 & 1994, California 1996 and Florida 1997; pharmaceuticals have been found in bovine blood. They are: Barbiturates, Anti-coagulants, Synthetic Amphetamines, Aluminum-Titanium-Oxygen-Silicon flakes, and Antimony (Antimony: A brittle lustrous white metallic element occurring in nature, free or combined, used chiefly in alloys and in compounds in medicine. Webster's). The drugs found are NOT veterinary drugs, they are pharmaceuticals associated with humans. Among those law enforcement agents who have thoroughly investigated these bovine excision sites, there is a consensus that some kind of medical testing going on. The additional presence of un-marked helicopters on scene, before and after cattle are found dead missing specific organs, leads both victimized farmers and investigating officers to conclude that there is a connection. But why use human drugs on cows? Use your imagination. Every organ taken from affected livestock has to do with input, output and reproduction. Where entire jaws have been excised in large, oval excisions, the bone is exposed and is perfectly clean. The wounds have been cauterized and there is no presence of blood. The jaw is an important part because enzymes are produced there. Enzymes that can kill viruses and bacteria, it's an antibody factory. The digestive track also acts as a filter, that absorbs, collects and stores traces of any chemical or toxin introduced. The rectum is a similar filter as are ears. They store traces of toxins and chemicals like a library. Because many diseases (like CJD & BSE ) can be inherited, the reproductive system may be a good place to find look for clues on how it passed to the next generation. In 1993, I got a call from a man who told me that if I went to a certain place on a certain evening, I would see several helicopters land and refuel. He was right. Well after dark, two Chinook helicopters (The large twin rotor type) landed in the field behind some trees and opened their doors revealing large black plastic fuel bladders. Minutes later several smaller scout helicopters landed nearby, shut down and crews from the Chinooks walked over with large hoses and refueled each of a half dozen helicopters. The whole operation took less than 30 minutes and the helicopters took off and headed across the border where we tracked them to their home base, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Now we knew who they were but we couldn't figure out why they refueled on Sand Mountain. The next morning a reporter, Steven Smith from the Rainsville Weekly Post, called the Public Affairs Officer, William Gibbons of the 101st Airborne and asked if they might've been in our area the previous evening. "We have no aircraft in your area, it wasn't us" said the captain. It certainly was. So we knew then that some kind of secret operation was being conducted, but we didn't know what it was. We still don't, but when you look at each piece of evidence and try to use them as puzzle pieces, these so called "cattle mutilations" might be associated with government studies of epidemiology. With BSE & CJD being such devastating "new" diseases, is it possible than many alleged cases of "cattle mutilations" are actually evidence of our tax dollars at work? The Evidence Suppression Team from Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; & The F.A.A. Investigation of un-marked helicopters over Sand Mountain. The 101st Airborne Division is not suspected of being directly involved in the cattle mutilations that occurred between Oct. 1992 through May of 1993. But is seems possible they may have refueled the un-marked helicopters that we eventually traced to Maxwell Air Force Base. The 101st's inability to tell the truth about where they had been, seems to be a constant in Federal Government employee behavior: You don't tell the truth unless somebody holds a gun to your head. When un-marked helicopters were witnessed by local farmers and law enforcement officers, Albertville Police's Chief of Detectives Tommy Cole called in the Federal Aviation Administration to investigate. Detective Cole had lost a cow to the phantom surgeons and his wife had seen an un-marked helicopter over their pasture January 8th, 1993; the day before they discovered one of their Black Angus steers mutilated. An FAA investigator came to Albertville and Cole took him for a ride in his police car. The FAA investigator was skeptical until an un-marked helicopter flew near them. The FAA investigator couldn't believe his own eyes and pulled out a hand held radio and hailed the helicopter. The helicopter pilot didn't respond and ignored demands that he identify himself. This infuriated the FAA investigator who had now reversed his skepticism. He was able to trace the helicopter to Maxwell Air Force Base in Southern Alabama. When he launched an inquiry at the base, he was immediately told to drop it and never talk about again. A week later Chief Detective Cole received a call after midnight, it was the FAA investigator. It seems that while out in a boat on nearby Lake Guntersville, he and his family had witnessed a large triangle shaped craft flying maneuvers above them. I wonder if he ever reported that to his superiors? I don't pretend to know the solution to either the bovine excision cases nor the appearance of the mystery helicopters. I don't know that America faces a threat from BSE, but I do feel that these questions deserve our attention. President Ronald Reagan once hypothesized: "What if one day we all found that we faced a common threat from outer space, wouldn't we all put aside our differences and work together?". President Reagan wasn't so far off, today we DO face a common threat, soon we'll realize that we all have something in common: exposure to Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. If you have any information, pertinent speculation or a rebuttal, please contact me. Ted Oliphant III email: alkahest@slip.net (510) 486 0611 *Courtesy of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Research Foundation
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: User103271@aol.com [DC] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:14:57 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:40:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual I agree with most of your assessment but being an airforce pilot I know that the B2 is not radar proof as commonly thought ...via doplar, the designers of the Stealths gave little thought to this kinda of radar. Secondly, European nations as I recall Belgium was the first government to acknowledge ufos existences back in a news conference showing ufos being pursued by military jets but naturally to no avail. They showed actual radar trails of these objects. DC
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Mike Smith <mickey@anix.co.uk> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:13:57 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:40:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage Mark Cashman wrote: > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:51:14 -0800 > > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/3/97 10:43 PM: > > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:19:27 -0800 (PST) > > From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage > > Froning's explanation might hold for an ordinary source of > > ultraviolet radiation, IF a pathlength of non-absorbent air, such > > as the ionized channel he postulates, existed from the craft down > > to the observer. But it's very speculative to postulate such > > conditions when we don't know beans about the radiation that > > advanced technology might give off. He's probably not qualified > > to speak as a skin specialist either. > Yes, but even if there were such a path, and even if it were more > permeable to UV (which remains to be proven), and, yes, I agree > UFOs emit UV, if the UFO in question were emitting sufficient > UV to generate a sunburn, I would expect many witnesses to have > experienced the effect. We're told of one. All I want to know is > whether there is a reason to expect this to be a UFO UV burn and > not a conventional sunburn. And believe me, I want to know, even > if the explanation advanced sounds like a crock. If the witness > exists, and was medically examined, it would be interesting. Note > also that UV and other forms of radiation effect leave traces in > blood which can be measured. We don't know whether any tests > have been performed. > > But let's not let such an observation sidetrack us from the fact > > that the "sunburn" was reported to have occurred. That's one of > > the items to keep in mind, since we (and you) know of many other > > similar occurrences connected with close encounters with UFOs. > > It's a piece of supportive information that the event actually > > occurred, to be added cumulatively to all the other pieces. [Big Snip] Don't know if this is relevant but there has just been a patent issued for a 'Phaser' a'la Star Trek.[See Last weeks New Scientist] The Device is a UV laser. The Laser produces an ionisation trail to the intended target. Down which electricity is then discharged. The present prototype is limited by the size of the laser to the size of a small tabletop. The priciple is sound however. Charges can be used to inflict pain, stun or kill. The Research was an attempt to produce taser like weapons that had more than single shot capabilities and were non-projectile. The Weapon would be effective through clothing/body armour. If a UFO were to produce such UV ionisation, burns could be accounted for by electrical discharge or if stong enough the UV itself. This may either be an unfortunate side effect, or intentional. As another aside. Earthlights could have similar properties. Regards to list, Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Smith Anix Business Systems Ltd "Death isn't the Handicap it used to be" Third Technician, Dave Lister Jupiter Mining Corporation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tel: (44)1454 329555 mickey@anix.co.uk Fax: (44)1454 317444 Mobile: (44)410 997453 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Any Opinions Expressed within this mail message are my own, and may not reflect the views of my Company ----------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 12:56:55 UT Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:36:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage George Fergus wrote: >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:38:56 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >It seems a minor point, but the original poster was talking >about two different video defects. Actually, my experience (12 years in the TV/Film Industry) was that the sync block and the frame rate of the playback machine took care of all the problems you bring up - roll bar and lines. Diana Botsford Forum Manager UFO Forum Project: watchfire http://forums.msn.com/UFO
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:44:47 +0100 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:22:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual I would like to add some perspective to this information. We do have different type of evidences but SOME of them have found a possible explaination. My father proposed an explanation for all radar related evidences. The current conclusion is that MOST but NOT ALL radar evidences are artefacts. The first type of artefact are atmospheric diffraction as correctly stated by J.Pharabod. But they have a caracteristic signature that make them easy to identify. The most important of them is that there is no correlation of these echos between two radars. The second type of artefact are convection bubles. In this case two different radars will report an echo at the same location. Second, it appeared that flight identification normaly sent by airplanes could be mistakenly affected to these bubles. This appeared when I noticed that two simultaneous and independent echos showed the same military flight identification. This was obviously bogus and we guess result of a reflection on the convection buble of the identification signal sent by the original plane. But these type of artefacts can also be identified because they all follow wind direction (thus parallel for all tracks), fly at a relatively constant altitude, and a constant speed. When seeing these many unexplained echoes my father was suprise by the apparent indifference of these phenomenon from the radarist who learned to live with it. These two artefact types are specific to ground radar and concern civilian as military radars. I must say here that there is one echo track we found that can't be classified in these two categories. But in general apparently no correlation was seen between ground visual observation and radar echoes. Now about the F16 radar echoes. This was intensively studied and compared with previous studies. This event had ground visual observations by different gendarmes (policemens) at different location, ground radar echoes from civilian and military and of course the F16 radar recordings. But even with all these extraordinar conjuction of evidences, all of them could be explained by conventional phenomenon. This does not mean there was not an UFO, but it means that the question becomes undecidable. At least this study unveiled a potential problem with radar using doppler effect. Again F16 radar echoes with similar behavour is frequently seen at 30000 Feet and was told by the pilots themselves. But in this case it happened at a much lower altitude. This night meteorological conditions were also unusual. I can give more details on this study if requested. The final conclusion I would like to make about this information is that this does NOT explain UFOs reported from visual contact or on photographs. For instance the photograph of a triangular object over Petit Rechain has been give a high degree of credibility after deep study. About radar evidences all we can say is that it is possible that UFOs that may have flown over belgium where not detectable by our radars. So to me what happened in Belgium these two years remain an unsolved mystery and the proposed explanation for radar evidence hardly scratch the mystery. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to draw any other conclusion on the belgian ufo flap. Ch.Meessen
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Abduction Conspiracy Hysteria at the Millennium From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:07:00 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:04:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Abduction Conspiracy Hysteria at the Millennium Greetings Errol, MUFON Ontario members and UFO UpDates subscribers, On Tuesday, December 9 Mark Kingwell, Ph.D. (Yale) will be giving a talk tentatively titled "The Truth Is Out There: Abduction Conspiracy Hysteria At The Millennium" at the next The Ontario Skeptics meeting. Mark has taught philosophy at Yale University, York University and University of Toronto (where he still teaches) and is the author of many magazine and newspaper articles and several books, the latest being "Dreams of Millennium". The talk, which should appeal to everyone interested in the UFO abduction phenomena, will be given at the First Unitarian Congregation, 175 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto (starts at 8:00 p.m.) and the admission is $5 (free to The Ontario Skeptics members). For additional information, contact me by e-mail. Nikolaos Balaskas
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: VOR - 2nd Earth Found in Solar System From: Mike Smith <mickey@anix.co.uk> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:07:11 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:31:02 -0500 Subject: Re: VOR - 2nd Earth Found in Solar System rossdowe wrote: > Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:47:57 +1100 > From: rossdowe <rossdowe@netlink.net.au> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: 2nd EARTH found in our solar system > Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific UFO Hotline. > Monitored today at 1015UTC the following statement from Russia's > Voice of Russia, World News Service. > Announced that Mr. ?(inaudible)" says our solar system has two > EARTHS. He says, a planet whose mass and dimensions equal our > home planet is located behind the sun, on the other side of the > solar system, it never shows up because it takes it, and EARTH > exactly the same time to orbit the sun. > None the less it can be see if a space satellite with a > telescope aboard is launched towards MARS or VENUS. > To hear a copy of this VOR statement call Ross Dowe on > AUST 190 224 3529 > N.Z 090 058 367 Hi All, Does this sound familiar to anyonelse. There was a series of Books called GOR. These books were written by John Norman [???] not sure of his name. They were about a place called Counter Earth or GOR by it's inhabitants. The planet was positioned in an orbit that mirrored that of the earth. The main character was Tarl Cabot a man of Earth who was captured and sent to GOR where he became a great warrior in their Warrior Caste. The Planet was Ruled by the Priest Kings. Who were insectiod and had access to advanced technology ie. Spaceships/UFO's. They had humans from GOR mount capture missions to Earth on a regular basis. [They needed a fresh supply of Slaves] There were also some other Technologically Advanced bad guy's. Who looked like great Apes and were very savage. They had bases around Jupiter/Saturn and fought it out, covertly, on GOR, where technology was deliberately restricted by the Priest Kings. They were great SF/Fantasy books and the early ones were the best. Part of the story was that these were true chronicles, sent/brought by Tarl Cabot to Earth. Perhaps someone has taken these novels too literally, or perhaps they are true, ??? who knows. I think the former is more likely however. Regards to All, Mike
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 First Observation of Space-Time Distortion by From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:38:59 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:15:28 -0500 Subject: First Observation of Space-Time Distortion by Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC November 6, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Bill Steigerwald Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD (Phone: 301/286-5017) RELEASE: 97-258 FIRST OBSERVATION OF SPACE-TIME DISTORTION BY BLACK HOLES Astronomers using NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) spacecraft reported today that they have observed a black hole that is literally dragging space and time around itself as it rotates. This bizarre effect, called "frame dragging," is the first evidence to support a prediction made in 1918 using Einstein's theory of relativity. The phenomenon is distorting the orbit of hot, X-ray emitting gas near the black hole, causing the X-rays to peak at periods that match the frame-dragging predictions of general relativity. The research team, led by Dr. Wei Cui of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is announcing its results in a press conference today during the American Astronomical Society's High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) meeting in Estes Park, CO. Collaborators in the research include Dr. Wan Chen of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, and Dr. Shuang N. Zhang of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL. "If our interpretation is correct, it could demonstrate the presence of frame dragging near spinning black holes," said Cui. "This observation is unique because Einstein's theory has never been tested in this way before." Black holes are very massive objects with gravitational fields so intense that near them, nothing, not even light, can escape their pull. This effect shrouds the hole in darkness, and its presence can only be inferred from its effects on nearby matter. Many of the known or suspected black holes are orbiting a close "companion" star. The black hole's gravity pulls matter from the companion star, which forms a disk around the black hole as it is drawn inward by the black hole's gravity, much like soap suds swirling around a bathtub drain. Gas in this disk gets compressed and heated and emits radiation of various kinds, especially X-rays. The research team used these X-ray emissions to determine if frame dragging was present. The team found that the X-ray emissions were varying in intensity. By analyzing this variation, they found a pattern, or repetition, that was best explained by a perturbation in the matter's orbit. This perturbation, called a precession, occurs when the orbit itself shifts around the black hole. This is evidence for frame dragging because as the matter orbits the black hole, the space-time that is being dragged around the black hole drags the matter along with it. This shifts the matter's orbit with each revolution. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has been highly successful at explaining how matter and light behaves in strong gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a wide variety of astrophysical observations. The frame-dragging effect was first predicted using general relativity by Austrian physicists Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring in 1918. Known as the Lense-Thirring effect, it has not been definitively observed thus far, so scientists will scrutinize the new reports very carefully. The possible detection of frame dragging around another type of very dense, quickly spinning objects, called neutron stars, was accomplished very recently by Italian astronomers, whose work led Dr. Cui's team to seek the effect near black holes. The Italians, Drs. Luigi Stella of the Astronomical Observatory of Rome, and Mario Vietri of the Third University of Rome, will report their findings at the November 6 conference in Estes Park. These observations also were made using the RXTE, which is available for use by astronomers throughout the world. "This is exciting work that needs further confirmation, as for any seemingly major advance in science," said Dr. Alan Bunner, Director of the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Program at NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. The RXTE spacecraft is a 6,700 pound observatory placed into orbit by NASA in December 1995. Its mission is to make astronomical observations from high-energy light in the X-ray range, which is emitted by powerful events in the universe. These events are often associated with massive, compact objects such as black holes and neutron stars. - end - NOTE TO EDITORS: Computer animation and background video to illustrate this story is available and will be broadcast on NASA TV Videofile Nov. 6.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:59:37 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:10:18 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/4/97 12:04 PM: > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 09:23:59 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments. > (The witnesses on the ground see the F-16s pass three > times. During the third passage, they see the aircraft > turn in a circle in the center of the first observation: > a big triangular formation.) > In other words this whacking great thing is sitting over > the fighters while they fly round in a circle. Whatever the > turning circle of an F-16 is, even at near-stalling speed > it's going to be measured in hundreds if not thousands of > metres. And, when they get a contact at all, the pilots have > not-very-big dots on radar... Unless, of course, as some have contended, this sighting represents a formation and not an actual object. I seem to recall some part of this sighting went something like an original set of points was seen, and another group joined that set of points. It seems to me that both the Belgian and Hudson Valley sightings have a number of cases where formations rather than single objects may have been involved. Certainly, one can make no definitive statement unless the witnesses specifically attested to a lighting situation which allows them to see an intervening object, and the observation of appropriate surface details in that situation. Am I correct in recalling that this was not part of the testimony of the witnesses who also saw the F-16s? ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:13:19 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:52:09 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Dennis....in a word.....a very Jewish, very New York word.....feh. > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Greg & List: > My problem with the ETH isn't that it isn't a viable UFO > hypothesis, but that it simply doesn't know when to stop. Hence > underground bases, vats of floating body parts, missing fetuses, > governments in league with ET, California hot tubs, the creation > of the transistor and integrated circuits, hybrid babies, crashed > saucers all over the place, the abduction of the Secretary > General of the United Nations, dead fish on a beach at night, > environmental catastrophe(s), social collapse, the coming > Apocalypse, Hale-Bopp, remote viewing, crop circles, animal > mutilations, ancient astronauts, black helicopters, Men in > Black...hell, where do I stop? That ain't a *theory,* that's a > way of life. This fish stew -- whose ingredients you enumerate -- isn't the ETH. The ETH is the simple proposal that UFOs might come from other planets. What you're objecting to are specific beliefs, factual allegations made by certain people who believe the ETH. Feel free to crusade against some or all of these (as if I could stop you!). But if disgust with abducted secretaries-general leads you to trumpet theories by Mike Davies, simply because they cast doubt on the ETH, then you've eaten too much stew. Logically and scientifically, the ETH has no relation to anything anyone thinks is going on underground at Dulce, NM. And as for mainstream science.... > Until ufology cleans up its ETH by pruning all the excess > baggage, it isn't going to get anywhere with mainstream science, > and the sooner it realizes that the better. It ain't the Rodney > Dangerfield of 20th century science for no good reason, you > know? I think you've got it backwards. Mainstream science -- or, anyway, the leading mainstream scientists who've paid unfavorable attention to UFOs -- gets irrational the moment UFOs are mentioned. That's been true since the beginning. The likes of Sagan and Menzel needed no help from Hale-Bopp crazies to distort and misunderstand everything ufologists say, while introducing hilarious irrationalities of their own. If you ask me, the excesses of ufology exist partly because mainstream science has neglected UFOs. If scientists had been serious about UFOs, the study of UFOs would be a scientific subject, and people who talk about vats of floating body parts would have the same standing in ufology as inventors of perpetual motion machines have in physics. Thanks to scientific neglect, ufology became a cottage industry, with all kinds of dotty relatives making up dotty theories in the back rooms of the cottage. Why don't you just ignore all that, and concentrate on the ufology you think makes sense? Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: "Philippe Piet van Putten" <abp1@uol.com.br> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:12:15 -0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:58:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >From: User103271@aol.com [DC] >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:14:57 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >I agree with most of your assessment but being an airforce pilot >I know that the B2 is not radar proof as commonly thought ...via >doplar, the designers of the Stealths gave little thought to this >kinda of radar. >Secondly, European nations as I recall Belgium was the first >government to acknowledge ufos existences back in a news >conference showing ufos being pursued by military jets but >naturally to no avail. They showed actual radar trails of these >objects. >DC Dear colleagues and friends, I'm sorry, but Belgium WAS NOT the first to officialy recognize a radar-visual UFO tracking. The first case I've heard of happened in Brazil, when the Lt-Air-Brigadier Octavio Julio Moreira Lima (Ministry of Aeronautics) disclosed during a press conference that Brazilian Air Force (FAB) fighters were sent on an interception mission (May 19, 1986) against 21 unidentified "points" plotted on radar scopes. The FAB pilots had visual contact with such luminous "points". The case is mentioned in my Encyclopedia of UFOs and Anomalous Aerospatial Phenomena. Best regards Philippe Piet van Putten Director - The Brazilian Academy of Parasciences (ABP) National Director - Picard UFO Research International (PUFORI) Editor - Fenomenos Aeroespaciais (Aerospatial Phenomena) E-mail: abp1@uol.com.br ---------------- >From: User103271@aol.com [DC] >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:14:57 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual > >I agree with most of your assessment but being an airforce pilot >I know that the B2 is not radar proof as commonly thought ...via >doplar, the designers of the Stealths gave little thought to this >kinda of radar. > >Secondly, European nations as I recall Belgium was the first >government to acknowledge ufos existences back in a news >conference showing ufos being pursued by military jets but >naturally to no avail. They showed actual radar trails of these >objects. > >DC
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" From: Ralf Zeigermann <kag15@dial.pipex.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 21:20:46 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:51:47 -0500 Subject: Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" Quoted message from UFO UpDates - Toronto: >Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:47:57 +1100 >From: rossdowe <rossdowe@netlink.net.au> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: 2nd EARTH found in our solar system >Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific UFO Hotline. >Monitored today at 1015UTC the following statement from Russia's >Voice of Russia, World News Service. >Announced that Mr. ?(inaudible)" says our solar system has two >EARTHS. He says, a planet whose mass and dimensions equal our >home planet is located behind the sun, on the other side of the >solar system, it never shows up because it takes it, and EARTH >exactly the same time to orbit the sun. Yawn. British Film & TV Producer Gerry Anderson (Thunderbirds are go!, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, UFO, etc) once made a film about exactly that: a second Earth, hidden behind the Sun. The Film was called 'Doppelganger' and you might imagine it: the second Earth was an exact mirror of our Earth, loads of 'doppelgangers' running around and so on and so forth... Seems as if it has been shown in Russia's cinemas now... If anyone is interested, I can dig out some more information about the movie. But it really isn't worth it and off topic. Cheers, Ralf
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: 20 Mule Team From: "Blair Cummins" <ufoblair@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 15:02:26 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:53:54 -0500 Subject: Re: 20 Mule Team >Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:24:26 -0800 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: 20 Mule Team >UFO's are often spotted near borax mines. Indeed, I believe the >area near LaGrange, GA, where John Thompson has investigated >numerous sightings recently, is rich in borax. We have often >wondered what aliens could possibly want with borax short of >making "20 Mule Team Boraxo" (sorry, Mr. Reagan <G>). >Well, a poster on the Vortex-L listserver has provided an answer >while discussing a table-top fusion device. Borax, and other >boron compounds, can act as a neutron absorber/moderator. This >could be a critical ingredient in any reactor which liberates >neutrons. >(Vortex-L is a listserver which deals with the topic of cold >fusion, zero point energy, overunity motors, etc. See: >http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb) Terry - On the Ufomind site, there is some information on a man who goes by the name Jarod 2. He claims that he built UFO simulators at Area 51. Among the things he's claimed, he's said that the aliens "sure use a lot of boron". Maybe the info there could be of some help. While I know nothing of his claims, you can check out the info on him at: http://www.ufomind.com/area51/people/jarod2 Blair Cummins ufoblair@hotmail.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:37:20 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:41:18 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/5/97 3:27 PM: > Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:56:47 -0800 > From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? > As supportive as I want to be with much of your work Mark, let's > be fair about these angular perceptions. There are many reason's > why a pilot would not see a 200 foot object at 7 miles of your > favorite flavor, this angular argument is not one of them. Many > of us have seen a twenty story building at seven miles. Unless > it was covered by trees, obscurred by billboards, or surrounded > by 50 story buildings. Visual clutter and contrast, our acuity > and training really determine what we will see. Everyone, lean > back from your monitors an even meter. <<<LOOK, see that period > at the end of the last sentence? It is about one to two tenths > of a millimeter. Or about one one hundreths of a degree. A > black dot on white and we easily see it. Ted, I appreciate your comment. However, you should be clear on the observing conditions. It was night, the aircraft were over terrain covered with normal architectural lighting, and the object may have subtended .3 degree. Of that .3 degree, we have significant testimony that the objects are not completely luminous, but that only the tips of the triangles (or the objects at the corners of the formation, depending on which sightings we're discussing) are luminous. If we use the Petit-Rochain photo as the prototype, then each discrete light source is probably no more than 1/4 of the size of the object, and possibly less. Thus, the size of an individual light would be no more than 50' (and possibly smaller), thus having an angular size of roughly 0.075 degree. I am willing to believe that even the acute vision of a pilot might have some trouble with discriminating this. It is also important to note that the pilot is primarily focusing on the HUD during an intercept, and while a pilot will certainly appreciate visual contact during a night intercept, he is in fact relying almost entirely on instruments. In addition, the HUD itself presents a variety of symbology which is directly centered on the radar track. This symbology could also obscure any visual contact. Note also the weather conditions are "visibility 8-15 km" which is 4-9 mi. Perhaps Henny can help us out with information that will also be useful with regard to how long the pilots were in dark conditions prior to the radar lock on. According to Haines [1980], the human visual system requires about 20 minutes for complete dark adaptation. In addition, Haines points out that in the period between 15 and thirty minutes of dark adaptation, human visual sensitivity increases 60,000 times. According to Sheffield [1996] the intercept was launched at 0:05, and the first lock on was 8 minutes later. Even assuming a 10 minute period in the aircraft on the ground during the scramble, this is only 18 mins for dark adaptation. > At one meter, each degree is some 17.5 mm long. Imagine a garden > pea one meter from you. This is about 0.3 degrees. We can > easily tell that it is a garden pea. We can even tell how tasty > it might be. But Ted, that is not the situation. In the case being considered, the pea is luminous, and randomly rolling around a garden filled with other luminous vegetables. And you are looking for the pea through a panel with luminous lines and symbols that are moving and changing, and, in fact, you are doing this while flying above the garden in a helicopter. That makes it a little tougher, doesn't it? :-) ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 'Alien Brothers, Come on Down!' - 'Outside' Article From: bikebob <bikebob@Walden.MO.NET> [Bob Soetebier] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:21:56 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:00:17 -0500 Subject: 'Alien Brothers, Come on Down!' - 'Outside' Article To all: Just in case you missed the hardcopy version of the renowned "Outside" magazine article on Steven Greer and CSETI...check it out on-line. (See URL noted below.) Linkname: Outside magazine, September 1994: Features: Alien Brothers, Come on Down! URL: http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/0994/949falei.html Bob S. Tailwinds to you... See you ON the road! /// BICYCLE BOB /// bikebob@mo.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:46:55 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:38:40 -0500 Subject: Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" >Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:47:57 +1100 >From: rossdowe <rossdowe@netlink.net.au> >Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific UFO Hotline. >Monitored today at 1015UTC the following statement from Russia's >Voice of Russia, World News Service. >Announced that Mr. ?(inaudible)" says our solar system has two >EARTHS. He says, a planet whose mass and dimensions equal our >home planet is located behind the sun, on the other side of the >solar system, it never shows up because it takes it, and EARTH >exactly the same time to orbit the sun. >None the less it can be see if a space satellite with a >telescope aboard is launched towards MARS or VENUS. >To hear a copy of this VOR statement call Ross Dowe on >AUST 190 224 3529 >N.Z 090 058 367 >ippoz@eisa.net.au >Regards >Ross Dowe >IPP >International Peacemaker Project. Hi All I vaguely remember a crap Sci-Fi film made about in the mid seventies postulating this theory that there was a mirror planet almost an exact duplicate of Earth but like reflected in a mirror exactly one hundred an eighty degrees opposite our Earth. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | rossdowe |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Chupacabras - 'Outside' Article From: bikebob <bikebob@Walden.MO.NET> [Bob Soetebier] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:49:11 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:00:10 -0500 Subject: Chupacabras - 'Outside' Article If you missed the original hardcopy version of the "Outside" mag. article on the "Chupacabras" ("goatsucker"), then be se sure to check it out on-line via the URL noted below. Linkname: Outside magazine, September 1996: Features: Goatsucker Sighted URL: http://outside.starwave.com/magazine/0996/9609fego.html Bob S. Tailwinds to you... See you ON the road! /// BICYCLE BOB /// bikebob@mo.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Witness Anonymity From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 16:58:54 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 21:42:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity >Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:35:59 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity Hi Steven >Some tribal cultures (to this day) would have to go through a >form of a paradigm shift to accept the reality of man landing on >the moon. (IMHO) The strength of the belief structure would in >turn help to define the level of evidence needed to for that >"shift" to begin. In some cases, I would imagine that one might >have to actually take the tribal leaders to the moon to overcome >their "belief" that it just couldn't occur. (Again, IMHO) This >is somehow similar to the response the bulk of the scientific >community gives when provided with data that doesn't seem to fit >their current view of the norm. If you ask some scientists they will tell you that science evolves. Others will tell you it merely changes with the influx of new information, technology and etc but if you ask me, (IMHO) its the people that make the changes not "science". Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | steve |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:20:44 -0500 Subject: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Hi all, I have a question I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. I'm doing research on the Kenneth Arnold sighting and remember reading somewhere that the press misquoted Arnold's initial description of his UFO. Arnold's claim was that the craft was boomerang shaped, but appeared to fly "like saucers skipping over water." I haven't been able to find this detail in the books I have, and am wondering if I am in error here about it. Anyway, didn't Arnold describe the UFO as boomerang shaped also? Any help would be greatly appreciated. ScottR.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Oliphant advances a theory From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 18:58:35 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:38:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Oliphant advances a theory > Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:20:35 -0700 > From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > To: Updates <updates@globalserve.net>, CNInews1@aol.com > Subject: Oliphant advances a theory > The following was originally posted to UFC by respected cattle > mutilation researcher Ted Oliphant > Current projections for the year 2010, suggest that 200,000 > people will die each year from Mad Cow Disease, and it's > pre-cursor, Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease. This is in Great Britain > alone. Projections based on what? There are still less than 30 cases of new variant CJD in the UK. Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, has analyzed the first 21 confirmed cases and found that the incidence rate is constant at 6.7 cases per year [95% confidence interval 6-3-6.9], with no evidence that this rate is increasing. (For a copy of his report, email Robert at ral@lcfltd.com) > Shockingly, many cows > that been found "mutilated", ( missing various glands, tissue and > organs) were brought to the rendering factory and processed into > food for their still living relatives. I was shocked, but unlike > Great Britain which has had protections against such practices > since 1989, there are no such guidelines here in the United > States. Now that the existence of a risk to humans has been established, the FDA has banned the use of any mammalian protein (with a few specific exceptions) in the manufacture of animal feed given to cattle, sheep or goats. There is also an extensive surveillance program here in the U.S. Any potential "mad cow" (i.e. one that behaves abnormally, falls down or whatever, when it is taken for slaughter, is first tested for rabies, and then its brain is examined at one of 60 veterinary diagnostic laboratories around the country. Some 3000 brains of cattle showing potential neurological signs have been examined so far, and no evidence of BSE has been detected. > The funding for this research is hidden in the NIH's black budget > for the study of AIDS. Neither AIDS or BSE are viruses, rather > they are the consequences of immune systems that have been > thwarted. BSE and AIDS are both plaques. The research has been > kept quiet to prevent an outbreak of panic. But the cats out of > the bag, all of us are in the same boat. Every American who's > ever eaten meet has been exposed to our new, common threat: > Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. I think this is moving too far into the unsupportable "conspiracy theory" area. And AIDS is unrelated to BSE. It is not a "plaque". For those interested, there are several websites. There is also a mailing list for BSE, which like UFO Updates is archived on the world wide web at http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~listserv/archive/BSE-L.html -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:35:28 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:41:25 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments. >>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? Hi List, I wanted to make a few final comments on the Belgian flap. Firstly, contrary to what the rumors say, French researcher Jean Pierre Pharabod has informed me in a private email that he is still of the opinion that the events of the night of March 30-31 involved an unidentified craft: 'Other points of interest: it seems that contacts number 5 (lasting 8 seconds) and 6 (lasting 11.4 seconds) were not false echoes, but real contacts on the unidentified craft flying at subsonic speed in straight line from Brussels to Liege, and followed by the Glons and Semmerzake radars. This craft, according to the F-16 radar, was flying in a regular way, with mean registered speed 515 knots (contact number 5) and 380 knots (contact number 6).' Secondly, contrary to another rumor, there HAS been correlation between visual observation and radar contact. This visual observation by gendarmes did not just involve three lights, which gave rise to the explanation of starlight being diffracted - ridiculous enough by itself - but the three lights were observed to be at the tips of a triangular craft. I dismissed Eduardo Russo's 'propagation effects' or 'zombies' as an explanation for the radar contacts a bit lightly in a previous post, but I would add that for any alternative explanation to have any merit, there should be at least an explanation as to how these effects might explain the data. And if scientist August Meessen takes this explanation seriously, does this also mean he believes that all the radar contacts could be explained by this effect? J. Pharabod's email in any case does not suggest this. And if he does - big IF - , how does he account for the visual-radar corroberation? And for the apparent intelligence behind some of the radar contacts (see below)? And how does he account for the over 2,500 visual sightings, 25 videofilms and one photograph that shows a triangular craft with three lights? In my Bogus Book, I will explain how statements by scientists and government officials can be adapted, sometimes by just leaving out part of the statement in such a way as to let them conform to our beliefs. Examples: Here in the Netherlands people who have read the book 'UFO!' by a noted UFO debunker - Dutch list subscribers know who I mean - now know that the Belgian flap consisted of nothing more than that one F16 had mistaken the other F16 for a UFO. This was revealed by 'later investigation'. Indeed, according to J. Pharabod, it was revealed in a later investigation that one of the contacts involved the other F16. And this was new information for SOBEPS, because the RBAF had failed to inform them about this previously. Contacts 5 and 6 however, were real contacts even according to this later investigation. Later investigation by SOBEPS on the photograph, finalized in 1994, produced the same result as that on the radar contacts: unidentified flying object. Again in the Netherlands the rumor has spread that Gen. De Brouwer, leader of the investigation, has changed his mind about the case a little after the LoFlyte 'explanation' of August 1996. However, in a November 1996 article in UFO Magazine (UK), Tony Dodd has spoken with De Brouwer and this article reveals nothing of the sort. This does not surprise me, because De Brouwer is fully aware of all the details of the investigation. Meanwhile, let's look at that most interesting radar contact sequence again. Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)=B7 00 200 150 7000=B7 01 200 150 7000=B7 02 200 150 7000=B7 03 200 150 7000=B7 04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000=B7 05 turn 270 =3D 22 g 560 6000=B7 06 270 560 6000=B7 07 270 570 6000=B7 08 270 560 7000=B7 09 270 550 7000=B7 10 210 560 9000=B7 11 210 570 10000=B7 12 210 560 11000=B7 13 210 570 10000=B7 14 270 770 7000=B7 15 270 770 6000=B7 16 270 780 6000=B7 17 270 790 5000=B7 18 290 1010 4000=B7 19 290 1000 3000=B7 20 290 990 2000=B7 21 290 990 1000=B7 22 300 990 0000=B7 22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock=B7 A former US Air Force employee has kindly pointed out to me the possibility that the unknown object performed a so-called 'Split S' manoeuver, a manoeuver to escape from a radar lock. Indeed, when one visualizes the sequence of altitudes, speeds and headings, a Split S comes out. Combine that with the visual corroberation and the acceleration of the signal and the data appear to be highly suggestive of an intelligently operated craft that tried to escape its pursuers. Nevertheless, despite the wealth of all the publicly available data, in the Netherlands we now know that one F16 mistook his colleague for a UFO (silly Belgians again, a bit short on grey matter as always), in Belgium everyone is assured the flap was caused by a secret American experimental aircraft, while in Italy the events of March 30-31 are explained as zombies. I hope that around 50 % of the members of this list now knows better. Finally, having provided the debunkers with more facts than they can safely dismiss as 'nothing serious went on', their last line of defense seems to be that the F16 pilots did not actually see the object they were chasing. I would simply say: 'So what?' Let me point out a simple trick that every military pilot uses when he wants to avoid being seen against the dark of the night: he switches off his lights. Enough for now, at least for me. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: ETH &c From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:22 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:58:42 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:57:25 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c Phew. Something like a concrete response, at last, for which I am duly grateful, and I'm sure many another is too. It remains a mystery as to why Jerome will not say what *he* thinks are the factual, reasonable and even natural scientific arguments in favor of the ETH or even the genuine UFO, just as it remains a mystery as to why (despite his protestations) he thinks he has actually answered my questions and why he cannot bring himself to cite a few cases in which he considers the ETH or even the U-ness of the UFO to have been advanced. Possibly this is because he is not confident of being able to defend either his selection of cases or the nature of the "science" involved; which may in turn explain why he prefers citing others' opinions to stating his own. Curiously, I'm not alone I'm wondering if this is the case. I had this from a fellow subscriber not too many days ago (I quote with permission): "I have to admit, I can't figure the guy out. Jerry castigates Mack for the errors of his ways, but doesn't see, or refuses to admit, that his bud, Budd [Hopkins], makes the same errors. He constantly claims that certain cases provide "intriguing evidence" for the ETH, but then refuses to commit himself on which cases. (I assume because he has seen too many of "the best case[s]," like Roswell, crumble when carefully studied.) He scorns the description of problems with the ETH based on current scientific knowledge as appeals to authority, and then counters by saying "Read Appelle, Read Bullard, Read Swords." I could at least respect Jerry's point if he could summarize the relevant parts of their arguments, but he doesn't so it makes me suspect he doesn't really get it. This is especially true of Appelle, who doesn't do the ETH any favors by any means." But as neither my correspondent nor I can read minds I have to admit that these are but speculations. Jerome, however, despite his further protestations to the contrary, as in: >I think you're wrong, but I take your ideas at face >value. In other words, I don't feel the need to make up >mental, emotional, cultural, or intellectual [...lacuna...] to >"explain" why you believe as you do. [*1] continues to regale us all with the results of his incautious researches into my thoughts, motives and erudition, with results that are either imaginative, fictional or the product of privately engaging Major Ed Dames and being deservedly ripped off by said charlatan. I take the opportunity to remind Jerome of what he wrote back on 1 Oct 97, in the "Questions for Abductees" thread: 'Declaring "abnormal psychology" every time we hear something we don't like is the functional equivalent of shouting "shut up." Emotionally satisfying, no doubt, but not intellectually productive.' There are several errors of fact and judgement in those two sentences, but they launched the mind-reading career of Jerome K. Jerome Clark. This continues in his latest post with all the latest news that's fit to print from the seething theater of my mind: >The scientific UFO literature, with which I gather you are >largely unfamiliar, Asking for citations was a desperate attempt to get something like a straight answer to a simple question. A compromise, even, in light of the many demands upon your constricted time. At least one would be able to see on what you were basing the opinions you were not prepared (or at sufficient leisure) to justify in your own voice. Kindly do not presume. And then there is: >As the cliche goes, you can take a horse to water, but >you can't make him drink. One way of saying that Duke >seems intent on confining his reading to list chitchat. This one's a keeper for sure. Definitely one for the big black book. Some subscribers to this List may be slightly less than whelmed to know Jerome regards their considered opinions as no more than "chitchat" (and before he gets the Major in for another look at Zoe's knees, delightful as they are, I am excluding myself from that "some"). Apart from the diplomatic angle, I remain amazed that Jerome thinks he can know or predict what my reading has been, is, or will be. In any case he's wrong on all counts. And then we have: >Your huffing and puffing seem not a trifle hypocritical >coming from one who, not all that long ago, was putting >off Greg Sandow's probing questions on the grounds >that you were dealing with these matters in print elsewhere. >I didn't knock you for that, and I respected the plea you >copped. Apparently, though, one set of rules applies to >you, another to those who presume to disagree with you. Is Jerome preparing something along these lines for print, and would prefer to keep his latest, brightest thinking to himself? Then why didn't he say so? If he is not, how am I moving the goalposts or being hypocritical? I certainly didn't want to get into a to-and-fro with Greg or anyone about the principles of the ETH, but there again I didn't ask him to justify his stance on the matter while smirking silently the while. Greg thinks (or thought) I'd benefit - sorry, my writing would benefit: I am beyond salvation - from such an exchange. I disagree. With perfect and characteristic good manners and no attempt to speculate on my logic or motives, Greg acknowledges that I should do what I think best. There the matter rests, in perfect neutrality. So the "rules" apply equally. Jerome then pronounces a number of generalities on the scientific respectability of the ETH and I ask him to explain some of the terms he used and otherwise justify his assertion(s). He writes reams trying not to do that and, indeed, in the end succeeds in avoiding giving a straight answer to all but one (and that a compromise-come-lately) of my enquiries. These actions conform to strange rules if they follow any at all, but they have nothing to do with my exchange with Greg. So it is hardly Jerome's place to be moralizing, here. The most spectacular instance of the persistence and irrationality of Jerome's latest venture into displays of paranormal talent come with his demonstration of my "Ameriphobia", a word I put in quotes because it is so grotesque, as well as being barely pronounceable. Jerome first remarks upon: >Duke's fanciful theories about why >Americans report gray-skinned humanoids. They ain't >flattering, folks. [Here incidentally we have a neat bit of Clarkian misrepresentation: my speculations concern why people in general report Grays, but look for the roots of that in American culture, snce that's where the whole abduction syndrome began. In other words, I don't say Americans report Grays because are Americans are very horrid indeed, but Afghans or Brits or Australians report Grays for some other reason and besides are much nicer people altogether. But I do say that behind it all lies not America but the Semitic religions.] And in due course he quotes me: >> But you're really scraping up the ullage if you're trying to >> represent that paper as an exercise in anti-Americana. This >> does not become you. And replies: >I stand by what I said. This is bizarre. Possibly mad. Certainly weird. I deny being anti-American. I did then and I do now. I insist on this. I could even call witnesses, and none of them bribed. But Jerome knows better. He insists I am, er, Ameriphobic. How could he do that without thinking he can read my mind and see into the terrible pit of denial and self-delusion and compulsive lying in which I so pitifully writhe? Well, maybe Jerome *can* read my mind. But in that case why does he keep reading it wrong? If anyone wants to test the degree of my destestation and disgust at all things American, by the way, they can slip over to http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/authors.html and read the two articles by me available from there (expanded from the lecture concerned, with wicked 12 words still intact), and report to the List, if you want. There is also a piece by Peter Rogerson about alien body shapes, a matter Jerome mentioned in passing, which ought to interest anyone interested in the ETH. Jerome thinks Rogerson is some kind of horror from the Night of the Living Dead, though, so be prepared for your glands to get in an uproar at what you read. >Probably the effect was magnified by >your habit of glaring at Loren Coleman and me while speaking >the offending 12 words. (That's a joke, Duke.) Yes, that sentence I can see was striving for that eminence. That's enough about clairvoyance, I think. I *think* I have made the point. A couple of other matters deserve mention: >The scientific evidence certainly leans >in the pro-UFO direction -- even one of the largest scientific studies, >the University of Colorado project, failed to explain 30% of the cases Pro UFO, perhaps, but not pro ETH. There is a difference, but Jerome slips from one term to the other as if they were synonymous. Does he know he is doing this? And bear in mind that in "The UFO Enigma" (Doubleday 1977) Menzel and Taves demolished (to their own satisfaction at least) these "unexplained" cases, many of which they felt were "unexplained" because the data was so sparse that nothing sensible could be said about them one way or the other. Bear in mind too that Condon remarked that what he was being asked to do was the exact opposite of what science usually does. Not to take those thoughts on board (or to ignore them) distorts the picture. For myself, I do not see how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that 30 "unexplained" cases versus 70 solved ones constitutes a "leaning" in the "direction" of the unexplained ones. This is odd arithmetic, even in a democracy. >A major forthcoming study of a >seminal UFO case will document, in a way that is going to be >enormously difficult to refute, the operation of an >extraordinary technology in the context of a complex >instrument-recorded encounter. O, go on, Jerry, it's rude to tease. Where is this gem to be published or presented, and when? I mean, someone could get some extra advance orders if you at least let us know where to look. >And with this I bow out of a discussion which has become >ever more pointless and tedious and now, I note, degenerated >into an exercise in name-calling. (I rapidly lose interest in >somebody who has nothing better to do than call me a "twit." Everyone has his twittish moments. This may even be another one. Ne'er mind. Lighten up, it'll soon pass. Hardly anyone will remember it anyway. But they may recall Jerome's describing me as hypocritical, disingenuous, a shouter (of "shut up"), selectively outraged, and probably a few other things, which is not in the grammatical sense name-calling, but amounts to it. None of which bothers me much in itself, and it certainly doesn't match the smokescreens of insults put up by the Princess of South Street or the sheer loopiness of Henny the Tulipomaniac. This passage, despite moving on to some flattering remarks about my books, has all the marks of a *flounce* and a thin excuse to sweep off stage in the best traditions of amateur histrionics, from someone who has not yet, in three enormous posts (made larger by squeamish underapplication of the delete key), actually offered us anything concrete of his own by way of argument or justification for assertions that he himself first introduced into this forum in the course of a dialogue with the Metaphysical Michaelangelo of Mesa, AZ, aka Mr Clarke Hathaway, but refuses even to illustrate by way of specific instances, and has many times compounded one's suspicions by advertising a number of his own works (available at great expense) from which he recommends the writings of others. [How'd I do, Mr Whitewolf?:-)] A bit of money where the mouth is doesn't do any harm. Now the hosts of Mendoza are packing up their tents in the night, to slither over to the 'Abductions' thread and have a go at these claims that Chief Eddie Hard Bull is some kind of empiricist, among other things. The fat lady ain't sung by a long way. best wishes Pedantic D. Marlinspike Wittgensteinian Beetle NOTE *1: At around this point Jerome remarked: "I don't recall, for example, your protesting when your pal Paul Devereux launched into a mind-reading act directed at me." Nor, I may I point out, did hundreds of others. The essential initial point Paul made was that Jerome was getting hot under the collar while saying some insupportable things about folklore. By and large, I tended to agree. I also tend to agree with Paul that much of Jerome's response was needlessly ad hominem, a ploy that does tend to corkscrew into the Devereux sinuses, and was likely to be produce a somewhat irritated response. Jerome had the choice of ignoring that and getting on with a debate, but now refuses (more flounce, and the rattle of bells and the whistle of silks). This, we are invited to believe, is not an emotional exit, as some contrast seems to be implied with the notoriously hot-headed and irrational Devereux. Who has merely pointed out - sometimes in quite up-front language - that Jerome is confusing personality with propositions. When Jerome stops worrying about his personal dignity and notices (for example) that Paul casually remarked on having been within 20ft of an alien, and wonders as follows: "How come?", and pursues the question, we shall perhaps see how he justifies being an agnostic on the abduction issue - and, I hope, how he does it without moral abdication. In other words, "pals" has nothing to do with it. That isn't the level on which I want to argue (I can ferociously agree or disagree with the best of friends), and why Jerome thinks - or seems to think - it should be is another mystery. What an enigmatic fellow he is turning out to be.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: Solved Abduction Cases From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:05 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:49:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments. The following paper may be of interest to those who remember where this thread started - with the matter of whether any abduction cases in the literature had been solved. It comes from: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/ Enjoy, and ponder! Yours &c Patacake D. Masterbaker Mince Pie --------------------------------- REALL News, Vol 3 No 7 (July 1995) "WE'VE ALL STUDIED LIFTON" Martin Kottmeyer "Don't be afraid to believe. This is the most significant development in the history of man." The words are those of a visionary, the newest defender of the reality of alien abductions. He is a psychiatrist addressing a group of colleagues. They aren't buying it. "With all due respect, doctor. Everyone knows there are people who gravitate to this kind of thing. They read about it, see it on TV, in the movies. This is the pathology of a space-age psychosis. People don't see the Virgin Mary anymore -- now they see alien baby snatchers." The psychiatrist is prepared. "Robert Lifton's work on survivors -- we've all studied Lifton -- the people that he writes about -- the survivors of Hiroshima, the Holocaust, Vietnam -- they all have the exact same symptoms as the people I've told you about; fear, anxiety, nightmares, suspicion -- suspicion especially of the mental health community who consistently misdiagnose them. These are reactions to real trauma. There's no fantasy here." The exchange is from the 1992 mini-series Intruders. The visionary and skeptic are fictional, but the argument is familiar enough. John Mack, the Harvard psychiatry professor who authored the controversial book Abduction was not the inspiration for the Richard Creena character, but the writer admitted it "ends up being more like John Mack than anybody." Mack said it was kind of spooky how things in it happened to him, notably the credibility questions. People in the production had sat in on his therapy groups. One can find Lifton's name in the acknowledgments of Mack's book. This was not the first time that Lifton's name had been invoked by defenders of the abduction phenomenon. Editorializing in the January/February 1987 International UFO Reporter Jerome Clark observed, "A milestone of sorts may have been reached on April 10, 1987, when Dr. Robert J. Lifton, one of this country's most prominent psychiatrists, acknowledged on NBC's Today Show that the UFO abduction phenomenon has yet to be explained and merits serious investigation." In the October 1988 Fate, he regarded Lifton's statement as emblematic evidence of "a quiet revolution" that had taken place as scientific, medical-health professionals displayed a growing involvement, believing the evidence pointed toward "an extraordinary cause" and "a potentially explosive payoff." Elsewhere, he also thought it indicated abductions constituted now "a subject that could be discussed seriously outside the pages of tabloids." (J. Gordon Melton's New Age Encyclopedia, Gale Research, 1990, p. 473.) An instructor at Yale, Lifton has unambiguously high status. He authored Death in Life, an often cited study of the psychological aftermath of Hiroshima. It won the National Book Award in the Sciences and has had enduring respect among people in the social sciences. Even his most derisive critic, Adam Garfinkel, who lumps Lifton with Mack as Psycholeftists for their anti-nuclear politics, grants he is a serious writer whose "views, unlike Mack's, haven't departed from prevailing notions of reality, at least not yet." Maybe not the highest praise, but you should have seen the rest of the article. ("Psychobabble and Its Discontents" Heterodoxy,) I missed Lifton's appearance on the Today Show and have to admit I didn't quite know what to make of this purported milestone. There were no direct quotes and no details. It might have been tact or deferring to the Slater study based on a casual reading. How deeply into the subject he was could only be termed unknown. I was curious about it in an idle way since I had read Death in Life and knew he once regarded alien invasion films as a reaction to the radical impairment of life-death balance and helplessness spawned by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Japan had made a number of such films in the Fifties. So, too, did America. Why he should think any differently about the persecution fantasies of UFO believers didn't quite make sense. I guessed it would only be a matter of time before he wrote a paper or book on the matter. Time passed; nothing appeared. I forgot about it. Then, recently, I learned there was a sequel of sorts. Lifton had written a book six years later called The Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation (BasicBooks, 1993). The book is a descriptive enterprise which details the psychological adaptations that part of humanity has created to deal with the amazing cultural transformations of the 20th century. It's a good, solid work which strikes a fair balance with regard to the implications of these adaptations. Neither utopian or dystopian, it's a refreshing change of pace from the general run of psychological tomes one encounters. Quietly waiting to be found is half a paragraph devoted to the alien abduction phenomenon. It's in a section titled "The Deracinated Self." Lifton essentially considers alien abduction experiences part of the dissociative constellation of psychological byproducts of our rapidly changing times. The current era is "an age of numbing" that has left the Self detached and disaffiliated from the outside world. It displays impaired symbolization with a marked separation of thought from feeling. He cites a paper on multiple personality disorder that considers the abduction experience a "mythic version of childhood abuse." This is not exactly the same as calling it a "space-age psychosis," but there a radical presumption here of pathology that mirrors the skeptic in Intruders. Both share the suspicion that this is fallout of the times we are living in; for Lifton, however, the dissociation started decades before Sputnik and Apollo. Curiously, Lifton is proposing a pathology that seems more disturbing than the explanations proposed by most of the debunkers and psychosocial adherents on record. Ironic indeed, when you consider Lifton was being pointed to as an authority demonstrating how wrong-headed the skeptics were in thinking abductees shouldn't be believed. Turnabout being fair play, shouldn't we now wonder if Lifton's stance represents a milestone in a heretofore silent counter-revolution pointing to ordinary causes and a potentially boring outcome of this program of investigation? I'd counsel against it. Frankly, Lifton's stance shows no deep acquaintance with the abduction phenomenon. It is rooted entirely in a paper by Nicholas Humphrey and Daniel C. Dennett titled "Speaking for Our Selves: An Assessment of Multiple Personality Disorder" (Occasional Paper # 8, Center on Violence and Human Survival, John Jay College of Criminal Justice: The City University of New York). The paper is a philosophical meditation on the multiple personality problem rooted in interviews with multiples and their therapists. The authors deal with the abduction myth in only one paragraph in a section explicitly admitted to be random speculation. Here it is in its entirety: 'In contemporary America, many hundreds of people claim to have been abducted by aliens from UFO's. The abduction experience is not recognized as such at first, and is described instead as "missing time" for which the person has no memories. Under hypnosis, however, the subject typically recalls having been kidnapped by humanoid creatures who did harmful things -- typically involving some kind of sex-related surgical operation (for example, sharp objects being thrust into the vagina). Are these people recounting a mythic version of an actual childhood experience? During the period described as missing time, was another personality in charge -- a personality for whom the experience of abuse was all too real?' No interviews with abductees are cited and their knowledge of abduction lore can only be termed as hearsay in form. They are asking questions, not arguing positions. As it happens there are known cases of abductees with multiple personality disorder, but if anyone has come forward to reveal an alien-ascribed missing time was confused with a personality shift in which the person was doing things with other people, it hasn't been mentioned. The involvement of childhood abuse was noted by several workers, notably Kenneth Ring and Susan Marie Powers, but the linking of specific motifs to documented episodes of abuse has yet to be demonstrated. There are good reasons to be cautious in accepting this as a blanket explanation. Dreams and fantasies tend to be more closely related to ongoing mental conflicts in the individual rather than his early life. Some of D. Scott Rogo's work is more supportive of this life crisis view of abductions. Early abuse may only predispose the person to paranoid styles of expectation and interpretation in a vague way. The specific motifs may be borrowed from a variety of sources; lore about other abductees, distorted memory residues from earlier in the day, movies, TV, creative imagining, and the vast pool of transpersonal imagery we ascribe to the human unconscious. Recall the material Stanislav Grof described in his LSD studies. What is amusing here is not so much that Lifton was wrong, but that he didn't care enough about the abduction phenomenon to give it more than a few seconds' thought. Lifton, after all, was truly into bigger business. Protean adaptations are something all of us encounter in people we know, perhaps even in ourselves. Abductees are a fringe phenomenon which matter to a tiny percentage of people. Contrary to the visionary in Intruders, he blatantly doesn't consider them the most significant development in man's history. They rate half a paragraph, which sounds about right for a Yale man. I can certainly respect that. I wonder though whether ufologists will appreciate what it means. -------------------------------------- Excerpt from The Protean Self Editor's note: The following is full text of the paragraph that Kottmeyer referred in Lifton's latest book: "Historical forces may also be contributing to a dissociative constellation that includes: multiple personality and borderline states as clinical syndromes; a general increase in child abuse, especially sexual, and particularly by parents and other relatives; and a very different social manifestation, the dramatic expansion of the UFO (unidentified flying object) phenomenon in the form of sightings and descriptions of "missing time" attributed to "abductions" by extraterrestrial creatures. There is at least the possibility that these three elements are interrelated. Nicholas Humphrey and Daniel Dennett raise the possibility that much of the UFO experience, particularly its component of medical or surgical procedures ostensibly performed on abductees by humanoid creatures, could be a "mythic version" of actual child abuse. There is some evidence of increased incidence of child abuse in people reporting such abductions; but even if this correlation is uncertain, all of these states and our ways of talking about them could be greatly influenced by the vast dissociative trend in our time. Also related to the dissociative constellation could be the massive expansion of cult formation and of contemporary fundamentalism; and the increasing evidence of a "false memory syndrome," in which accusations of early parental abuse are made by adult children on the basis of claimed recovery of memories that had ostensibly been repressed for decades, the memories sometimes including satanic rituals -- the entire sequence considerably influenced by therapists and support groups focused on such repressed memories." - Robert J. Lifton, The Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation. New York: BasicBooks, pp. 210-11. -------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6 Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:50:02 +0100 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 20:25:06 -0500 Subject: Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" >Australian, New Zealand and the Pacific UFO Hotline. >Monitored today at 1015UTC the following statement from Russia's >Voice of Russia, World News Service. >Announced that Mr. ?(inaudible)" says our solar system has two >EARTHS. He says, a planet whose mass and dimensions equal our >home planet is located behind the sun, on the other side of the >solar system, it never shows up because it takes it, and EARTH >exactly the same time to orbit the sun. >None the less it can be see if a space satellite with a >telescope aboard is launched towards MARS or VENUS. This is a very old Sci Fic theory. I don't know who expressed the idea first. I was told that such planet would have a significant influence on other planets behaviour and could thus be detected. May be we should not believe everything comming out of Voice Of Russia ;-)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:53:06 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:35:20 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:13:19 -0500 >This fish stew -- whose ingredients you enumerate -- isn't the >ETH. The ETH is the simple proposal that UFOs might come from >other planets. What you're objecting to are specific beliefs, >factual allegations made by certain people who believe the ETH. Even something like the Anthropic Principle has a Weak version and a Strong one, in other words, variations on a theme. If you can get orthodox ufology to adopt a conservative ETH (*some* UFOs are alien spacecraft), I'm all for you. That's what Stanton Friedman, for example, does in public -- but he also associates the ETH with a worldwide government coverup, a shadow organization known as MJ-12, and plentiful crashes and retrievals of alien bodies near Roswell. All I was pointing out is that it doesn't work that way. Before you know it, all sorts of paths are leading into the briar patch, each proponent of which believes the evidence for same follows "logically" from the fact that we're being visited not just once or sporadically, but daily and routinely by extraterrestrials. You don't need to play six degrees of Bacon to see that this is so. One or two will do just as well in this instance. An excellent and recent case history of the process can be seen in what happened to cerealogoy, a microcosm of ufology. People could have gone into the field and done good science -- and perhaps a handful did, but in the main it was soon overrun by claims the available evidence couldn't even begin to support, let alone prove, ranging from claims of a government cover-up, intelligent contact, a floating raft of associated paranormal (and paranoid) claims, and so on, including even the involvement of the Vatican, black helicopters, and the Pope only knows what else. It really was an enlightening show. >Feel free to crusade against some or all of these (as if I could >stop you!). But if disgust with abducted secretaries-general >leads you to trumpet theories by Mike Davies, simply because they >cast doubt on the ETH, then you've eaten too much stew. Logically >and scientifically, the ETH has no relation to anything anyone >thinks is going on underground at Dulce, NM. Mike Davis's article is approximately 75 pages long. I think there might be one paragraph in it that contains the word extraterrestrial, or maybe as many as three or four. The article is about the history and nature of the solar system. UFOs aren't on his mind, one way or the other. Branch out and read it. You might like it -- or you might not. But at least you would know what you are referring to. And you might come away with a somewhat enhanced appreciation of our local corner of the Cosmos in the bargain. In any event, if you accept abducted secretaries-general before reading it, I assure you you'll still be able to accept them after having read it as well. It won't do you no harm, in other words, to paraphrase James Brown. >I think you've got it backwards. Mainstream science -- or, >anyway, the leading mainstream scientists who've paid unfavorable >attention to UFOs -- gets irrational the moment UFOs are >mentioned. That's been true since the beginning. The likes of >Sagan and Menzel needed no help from Hale-Bopp crazies to distort >and misunderstand everything ufologists say, while introducing >hilarious irrationalities of their own. You should know better, Greg. Sagan may have ended up like a Menzel, but he certainly didn't start out as one. Or maybe you've forgotten his and Thornton Page's UFOs: A Scientific Debate. If so, you can pick up a nice cheap hardback edition of same at your local Barnes & Noble. James McDonald got almost 75 pages in same, probably his largest exposure to a popular audience. The book was the result of a UFO symposium held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which Sagan was instrumental in organizing. There's some dispute as to how instrumental his role in saving Blue Book records was, but he certainly wasn't in favor of their destruction. >If you ask me, the excesses of ufology exist partly because >mainstream science has neglected UFOs. If scientists had been >serious about UFOs, the study of UFOs would be a scientific >subject, and people who talk about vats of floating body parts >would have the same standing in ufology as inventors of perpetual >motion machines have in physics. Thanks to scientific neglect, >ufology became a cottage industry, with all kinds of dotty >relatives making up dotty theories in the back rooms of the >cottage. I hate to be the one to inform you that evidence is evidence and suggestive evidence isn't -- it's only suggestive. For example, if an alien flying saucer had crashed into downtown Cincinatti in, say, 1957, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? I think the situation is a bit more complicated than you make it out, Greg. For instance, scientists have been serious about evolution for, what, a century and a half now? By your lights, the number of creationists should have gone down and people should have stopped saying all those crazy things about angels, miracles, and the Virgin Mary. You also overlook the fact that mainstream science has its own Weak version of the ETH already -- it's called SETI, not to be confused with Steven Greer's CSETI. Whoever gets the first unambiguous intelligent signal from outer space gets the Nobel, simple as that. And ufology's stock goes up accordingly. In a very related way, then, as opposed to a purely metaphorical one, mainstream science *is* looking for our UFOs -- they just haven't found them yet. Finally, I'm reminded of what Vallee once said, that the Air Force could no more cover up the UFO phenomenon than it could the Andromeda Galaxy, because there was nothing to prevent you or I from hauling a telescope into our backyards and seeing for ourselves. Similarly, who convinced mainstream science that there was nothing to UFOs? After all, if UFOs are as physically prevalent as everyone seems to think they are, you would think that enough scientists would have seen or been abducted by them now to the extent that they wouldn't believe anything the Air Force said, no matter what it said. Obviously, not enough of them have yet had a personal experience to turn the tide. But who knows? Maybe critical mass is just around the corner. I don't think McDonald ever had a personal sighting, yet he was quite passionate about the subject. Wouldn't scientists with a personal experience be even more vocal and passionate? >Why don't you just ignore all that, and concentrate on the >ufology you think makes sense? >Greg Sandow Because I don't want to be associated by name or anything else with the stuff that doesn't make sense. And that stuff, in case you haven't noticed, Greg, is growing by the minute. Besides, what's wrong with me criticizing what I think needs criticizing about ufology's excesses? Aren't there enough people already concentrating on the ufology they think makes sense? I edited 157 issues (13 years) of the MUFON UFO Journal. Anyone who wants to wade through all the back issues can see that I did quite a bit of what you suggested already. I happen to think that it's time ufology put it's best two feet forward and disavowed -- not just ignored -- the other 998 of the slinky millipede it's become.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Desert Rat #38: Project Preserve Destiny From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:06:26 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:38:16 -0500 Subject: Desert Rat #38: Project Preserve Destiny THE DESERT RAT - Notes from the Research Center Issue #38. Nov. 7, 1997 ----> SSECORP CITARCOMED A TON SI HTURT <---- UFOs - Parapsychology - Philosophy - Government Secrets Direct from Las Vegas, the Center of Human Civilization. Glenn Campbell, Editor Archived at: http://www.ufomind.com/rat/1997/38/ See bottom for copyright information. In this issue... WE'RE BACK! PROJECT PRESERVE DESTINY -- A REVIEW [Note: This file ends with "###".] ----- WE'RE BACK! ----- The Desert Rat is back in service, and the first order of business is to refute our obituary. We were never really dead; we were merely resting. Since our last issue of over a year ago, we feel that we have evolved into a higher form. We were once a humble worm, but we wrapped ourselves in a silken cocoon, hibernated for a while and now have proudly emerged -- a bigger worm. We have moved from childhood into full blown adolescence, and apart from picking at zits, we are now asking vague and meaningful questions like "Who are we?" "Why are we here?" and "What should we be when we grow up?" Time has softened us a bit. We are somewhat larger about the belly, owing to all those Las Vegas buffets. We hardly ever slink along the borders of secret bases anymore. That unnamed facility in the Nevada desert that gave us life is still unnamed, but for us it has become as much a burden as an asset. As a defiant symbol of our coming of age, we have purged that base from our title, although we will probably never be free of its influence. None of us has had the privilege of choosing our parents, and no matter how we try to reinvent ourselves, we cannot escape our heritage. In the past few months, we experimented with being someone else. We tried walking with a limp. We tried wearing a monocle and speaking with a fake British accent. It didn't work. We decided in the end that we am who we am -- The Desert Rat -- and there is no sense in pretending otherwise. People can change. They can grow. But you also have to work with what you've got. That's one of the sermons of the "New Rat." Truth, we preach, is relative. We'll probably never find any absolute, permanent truth about anything. Science, technology and current affairs are changing too fast to allow anything to be set in stone. What we can find, though, is a "better truth" -- better, that is, than other available theories when applied to a particular purpose. In the New Rat, we will explore the unknown and conduct ridiculous mind experiments along the fringe of possibility. Ultimately, though, we must bring whatever we find back to earth and somehow integrate it with our mundane personal lives. The New Rat will not be too concerned with secret bases. We will report on them if something significant happens, but we will not be trapped by them. We will accept no prior restraint on the subjects we can cover but will report on anything interesting that crosses our desk. And a big desk it is! While we were repairing in our cocoon, we were fortunate to be equipped with Internet access, and in the past year we have built what appears to be the largest and most sophisticated website for UFOs and paranormal phenomena. It is an open system that anyone can contribute to, and we will discuss its philosophy in future issues. A lot of weird stuff passes through our portals, most of which we can only shrug our shoulders about and file on the appropriate webpage. Some of it, though, evokes in us more than a passing interest, and these are the cases we'll focus on. In future issues, we will perpetuate myths and distort current affairs to illustrate the political and philosophical points we wish to make: for example, that in this crazy mixed up world of ours all the problems of the universe don't amount to a hill of beans which compared to those of two small people. We will also explore UFO and paranormal claims that show restraint and retain substantial connections to our life on earth. There ain't no rules, however. We will report on whatever topic we want, whenever we want, for however long it amuses us. If you don't like it, then get off the bus. ----- PROJECT PRESERVE DESTINY -- A REVIEW ----- We love a good story, quite apart from its relative truth, and while on hiatus we were eager to hear new accounts from alleged government insiders. Former Army Colonel Philip Corso made a splash this summer with his Roswell revelations. We read his book, or at least tried, but the effort left us more queasy than entertained. Corso, if he is believed, has to be one of the most important men in the history of our planet, having brokered not one technological breakthrough but dozens. He was the intermediary who brought alien devices from the Roswell crash into our homes as microwaves ovens and television sets. Lord knows what we would have done without him and his alien suppliers; we'd probably still be rubbing sticks together to make radio. Analyzing Corso's revelations posed a problem for us, however, being as there were few leads to follow up on. We were also disappointed by the lack of human details, the sort of unexpected twists that give a story depth and texture. In the end, Corso proved too large a figure for our feeble mind, so we chucked the book and turned on "The Simpsons." Homer we can relate to. He may never understand the alien agenda, but at least he appreciates a good doughnut. Fortunately, our dry spell has ended with the low-key release of another book by an ex-government employee. "Above Black: Project Preserve Destiny," has just been published by former Air Force technical sergeant Dan Sherman. Like Corso, Sherman offers no proof for his claims, but neither does he portray himself as a central figure in world history. In spite of its revelations, Corso's book offered few surprises -- rooted as it was in the well-known MJ-12 documents and the conspiracy theories arising from them. Sherman's book, in contrast, seems quite original. It offers a new synthesis of popular themes, including alien abduction, genetic manipulation, government cover-up, alien-government collusion and the growth categories of remote viewing and psychokinesis. Regardless of its veracity, we expect this book to have a significant impact on the direction of the UFO movement, much more so than Corso's. Sherman's story is refreshingly simple. While in the Air Force, he was assigned to a routine electronic intelligence course at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland. There, he was informed that he would also be taking another, not-so-routine course -- an evening training program in communicating with aliens. He was told that he had a special "intuitive" ability that had been genetically engineered by aliens during an abduction of his mother in the early 1960s. (He expresses as much surprise as we do.) The course would "turn on" this ability through a series of exercises in front of a computer terminal. A few months later, Sherman was receiving "comms" from extraterrestrial entities consisting of both coded alphanumeric transmissions and direct "conversations" with two aliens he called "Spock" and "Bones." Sherman learned a few things about the aliens, but he never saw any. He seems to have been little more than a communications officer who was kept mostly in the dark and who never got much support from his employers. He performed his new duties for a couple of years -- namely typing communications into a blank window on his workstation -- but he eventually became disenchanted and quit. End of story. Sherman has no information on what the aliens are up to, although he believes that abduction data was part of the communications he received. He doesn't know what the government's agenda is, either. He was told that this form of communication, under the name of "Project Preserve Destiny," was being developed because at some point in earth's future all electromagnetic communication would be disrupted, but he was given no details. (To us, this is the most terrifying revelation of all, since without electromagnetics we at the Desert Rat will cease to exist. We will cry "I'm melting! I'm melting!" and will end up a puddle on the pavement.) Sherman reports only what he says he directly experienced, and he generally declines to speculate further. In that sense, his account is not unlike that of Bob Lazar, whose story we still recall fondly. (Is Lazar still alive?) The difference, however, is that Sherman has put his claims down on paper, so there can be no renegotiation of them. Those who have followed academic parapsychology research will find the description of Sherman's training sessions familiar. To activate his abilities, Sherman was submitted to a series of exercises at a computer workstation. While facing the terminal, but without touching it, Sherman's task was to "flatten" a series of sine wave graphs displayed on the screen. This is reminiscent of psychokinetic research in which a subject tries to remotely influence the output of a random number generator. The difference is, Sherman appeared to achieve near 100% success once his abilities "clicked." After mastering the skill of flattening ten lines simultaneously, more meaningful communication began. In a matter of weeks, Sherman learned how to correlate photos and video clips with their "intuitive" equivalents. He was then released from Fort Meade with little information about what would happen next. A few months later, Sherman was transferred to what he calls, "PPD Base #1," an Air Force base he declines to name but that he provides three photos of (enough, in theory, for us to identify it). There he held a "conventional" Top Secret job while occasionally receiving "Above Black" communications from the aliens. The "comms" happened only while he was at work and consisted mainly of numbers and letters, most of which he no opportunity to decipher. At one point, however, he "hiccuped" and found himself in a higher level of communication. (No, not Hungarian!) There, he found that he could communicate directly with his alien contact, asking questions and occasionally getting answers. The aliens were, as Grays are often described, strictly business, with a reserved sense of humor and an abrupt manner. If Sherman asked a question they did not want to answer, they would simply terminate the session. Often they did respond, however. Sherman claims no earthshaking revelations and provides few details to compare with other stories. The alien lifespan is similar to ours. They have a male and female sex. They eliminate waste like us, but "not in the same way." They have been visiting earth for a "long time" and have impacted at least three cultures in the past. (They did not say which ones, and Sherman departs from his just-the-facts demeanor by offering his own speculation. We wish he wouldn't.) In storytelling terms, this is not the best material. The book is like the first five minutes of an "X-Files" episode: riveting, but without enough conflict to sustain a whole show. We'd like to hear more about our alien brethren -- where they come from, what they're up to, whether they know who killed JFK, etc. Any fiction writer ought to have supplied these details, because that's the payoff of the whole exercise. But Sherman does not come across as a fiction writer. We sense that he does not supply those details because he simply does not have them, and he resists many opportunities to make the story more sensational. His is a straightforward chronological account of what he says happened to him. There is no artifice or embellishment, no outrage or significant speculation. There is nothing here to make this book a bestseller, which, if you are going to create a hoax, ought to be your top priority. We should note that Sherman first came to our attention in quite the opposite vein: In January, an email campaign by "Word of Mouth Publishing" promised to sell 20 million copies of Sherman's forthcoming book by a sort of pyramid scheme. If you recommend the book to a friend and they recommend it to another friend, and so on, you were supposed to get rich in "recommendation rewards" at the end. This ill-conceived plan was apparently not Sherman's, but that of the amateur marketers he got involved with. Sherman later pulled the plug on the scheme, and when the book was delayed he sent a refund to everyone who had ordered. Sherman's book, as now released, is anything but sensational. He may make a little money on this self-published work, but not a lot, and it can't compete for market share with the more colorful books like Corso's which claim to have all the answers. Although this book may be overlooked in the UFO mainstream, it is likely to have a subliminal influence on it, especially in the abduction field. The modern history of the abduction movement started with the notion that there was "missing time" in which aliens took us away for unknown medical experiments, then brought us back with our memories wiped clean. Then, a few years later, we learned from Budd Hopkins that the experiments were genetic in nature, and that aliens were interested mainly in our sperm, eggs and embryos. Now, Sherman is giving us a reason for that manipulation: The aliens are genetically preparing our offspring for psychic communication later in life. Soon, we predict, we'll be hearing a lot more about this in abduction circles. The UFO subculture seems ready for this kind of claim right now. This is because psychic "information exchange" has come to be widely known and accepted, especially remote viewing. Even hardware-oriented ufologists (i.e. males) are more open to psychic claims these days because there seems to be some experimental evidence for them. It is now known that the NSA had its own remote viewing program during the Cold War. What if that research had succeeded to a far greater degree than acknowledged? In that case, a program like the one Sherman describes would not be that absurd. Previously, the major connection between UFOs and parapsychology were the revelations of remote viewers like Ed Dames and Courtney Brown, who claimed to have the inside scoop on alien activity. Based on their personal psychic observations, Brown and Dames have made a number of specific predictions regarding the impending alien arrival, including a spaceship on the backside of comet Hale-Bopp. Sadly, they have been stood up every time, and you wonder whether Krusty the Clown could have managed these disclosures more wisely. (Hmmm... Art Bell, Krusty the Clown... Separated at birth?) Sherman's book adds a slightly more plausible dimension by saying that the aliens are far more reliable in the psychic domain than we are. Sherman indicates that his communication sessions were dominated primarily by the aliens and that he himself has shown no psychic ability outside of those controlled conditions. Sherman's scenario also adds a new level of subtlety to government cover-up claims. According to his military contacts, every alien program is hidden behind a "collateral" black project. This conventional secret project provides a cover story as well as an additional level of security. While it could be difficult to prosecute personnel for discussing aliens, which do not exist, an employee cannot provide too many details about these imaginary creatures without also divulging conventional Top Secret information. Sherman says he is being cautious here. He is not afraid to reveal the alien program, but he won't discuss many details about the conventional black projects he was assigned to. He indicates only that his work involved the analysis of radar emissions. Sherman was assigned to a series of military supervisors, one at each base where he served. Apart from the first, each was personally introduced by the previous contact, as is the policy in compartmentalized programs. Each was a captain with little apparent knowledge of the "big picture," who seemed in his interaction with Sherman to almost be reciting from a script. With no one he could talk to about his experiences, Sherman says he felt profoundly isolated and unhappy. It seems unthinkable that so many resources, alien and human, should be invested in this program without the "talent" being provided with some psychological support. The human management of the project appeared to be inept, being so obsessed with its envelope of security that nothing could survive within it. One PPD officer seemed unaware of what the previous one had already briefed Sherman on, and the actions of Sherman's last supervisor were purely incompetent. Upset by the abduction data he seemed to be receiving, Sherman voiced an interest in resigning. Instead of offering support, the officer said that no resignation would be allowed, adding the Mafia-like assertion that Sherman could never leave the program. This is not the way to treat a sentient being, and it prompted Sherman seek a discharge at any cost. (Although it is not mentioned in the book, he apparently did it by falsely claiming homosexuality.) Inept? Our government? It couldn't be. If the program is real, then it is probably still in its infancy, because there is only so much talent you can burn through before you are forced to loosen up. Wherever you have humans in stressful positions you have to provide some personal acknowledgement and emotional support if you expect them to perform. This project seemed to treat its people like laboratory rats, which works only in the laboratory or in the minds of military planners. In spite of Sherman's reluctance to talk about his Air Force position, it seems clear that this part of his resume is genuine. We have little doubt that he attended the electronic intelligence class at Fort Meade during the period he claims, and we have no reason to question his military credentials. Of course, the alien portion of his resume is a different story. There are a few leads we can follow up on, but for the most part the story rests on his testimony alone. That doesn't mean it will never be resolved, though. This story by itself might not be verifiable, but other reports might later emerge to reinforce or discredit it. There are a lot of possible reasons why someone might fabricate claims like this. Money and attention are obvious motivators, but Sherman's presentation is so low-key and non-sensational that we think he could have done a lot better. He should have added sinister guards shoving guns in his face. A midnight abduction or a visit from the Men in Black would have probably helped sales, too. Where is the moral outrage those aliens must be feeling about the way we have screwed up our planet? Sherman could have taken a hint from Corso and peddled some alien technology. (Aliens invented the Gillette Sensor razor blade: We know it is true because those things never wear out.) He also should have told us more about the aliens and their agenda. There would be no risk in doing so because no alien is likely to come forward to protest. Instead, Sherman drops the ball. He gives us only an unadorned, dramatically incomplete account of what "really happened." Conspiracy buffs will claim that it is all a government disinformation ploy, to which we reply, "Cool!" A government program to confuse the public about aliens would be almost as interesting as aliens themselves. There could also be more subtle psychological forces at work that we can only guess at. What possible motivation could Sherman have if not truth, money, attention or government coercion? We see no obvious answer right now, but that does not mean one will not emerge later. In all, we are pleased that Sherman stuck to the facts and created a story worthy of attention. He has delivered unto us a new mystery, and the Rat is grateful to him for our revival. ["Above Black: Project Preserve Destiny" is available from the Area 51 Research Center for $18.00 plus $4.00 shipping (in US). See http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/p/ppd/ for on-line ordering, or call 702-729-2648 for credit card orders.] ----- RELEVANT LINKS ----- Dan Sherman: http://www.ufomind.com/people/s/sherman/ Sherman's Book: http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/p/ppd/ Philip Corso: http://www.ufomind.com/people/c/corso/ Corso's Book: http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/c/corso/ Roswell Incident: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/place/us/nm/roswell/ Ed Dames: http://www.ufomind.com/people/d/dames/ Courtney Brown: http://www.ufomind.com/people/b/brown/ Remote Viewing: http://www.psispy.com/para/psi/rv/ Psychokinetic Research: http://www.psispy.com/para/psi/pk/ MJ-12: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/mj12/ Abduction: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/topic/abduction/ NSA: http://www.ufomind.com/people/n/nsa/ Bob Lazar: http://www.ufomind.com/people/l/lazar/ Budd Hopkins: http://www.ufomind.com/people/h/hopkins/ More links and images can be found on the WWW version of this issue at http://www.ufomind.com/rat/1997/38/ ----- COPYRIGHT AND DISTRIBUTION ----- The new Desert Rat newsletter will be issued at irregular intervals. It is primarily a World Wide Web publication, which is the only place you will find the full set of links and images. All or part of each issue may be distributed on existing Internet mailing lists for promotional purposes, but no separate email list will be maintained. At present, we have no plans to issue a printed version of this newsletter. Copyright (c) 1997, Glenn Campbell, PO Box 448, Rachel, NV 89001 (campbell@ufomind.com). This document may not be reproduced except by permission or as allowed below. This text-only version of Desert Rat #38 may be freely redistributed, by email only, to anyone you think may be interested, but only for six months following its publication date (until May 7, 1998). After that, no further email reproduction of this issue is allowed without permission. The Rat may not be stored on any website except our own at http://www.ufomind.com/rat/ - where we expect it to be available indefinitely. No permission is required to link to any issue of the Rat on our website. If you appreciate this publication and our many other free research services and would like to help support us, please visit our bookstore at http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/ For the latest news, updates and discussion, see the Area 51 mailing list at http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/ ###
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Not science fiction From: "Derrel" <derrel@holman.net> [Derrel Sims] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 13:49:31 -0600 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:48:11 -0500 Subject: Not science fiction These reports are given freely by "Ted" Oliphant lll. I relay them as given to me with a minimum of editing. No editing is done to the body of this work. Cattle and human mutes have been discussed by Ted and I for several years. When I am in the Bay area, we meet. This is a fascinating man. He is succinct and articulate. This is his work, I contribute very little to his body of knowledge. It is his work that many have done their "work" off of. There is much more to this mutilation business than meets the eye, or that has been found out by those who investigate such matters. Perhaps this will open some areas of investigation on the Medical/Scientific level by others who may have guilty knowledge of such matters, and might come forth. Derrel Sims, CM.Ht., R.H.A. Director of Physical Investigations F.I.R.S.T.(Fund for Interactive Research & Space Technology) P.O. Box 60944 Houston, Texas 77205 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 8888888 ---------- : From: Charles T. Oliphant III : To: Derrel <derrel@holman.net> : Subject: Not science fiction. : Date: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 10:34 PM : : Derrel, : thanks for getting back to me, I know you're a busy boy. Everything I claim will hold up in court, : every instance actually occurred. The witnesses are real and I was there : when it happened, I take 100% responsibility for every statement. This : is a true story and you can take that to the bank. I know for a fact : that my other source was physically involved in refeuling the flights. : The last seven years of my work have finally come together, in only the : last three weeks. I think it's important information that people have a : right, and a need to know. : : I would very much appreciate it if you did pass it along to anybody you : think will find it pertinent information. I can give you specific : references to every paragraph in my article. Every reference is : documented in a way you'd appreciate. I don't claim to explain "every" : cattle mutilation case, but I can explain some of "them". : : Thank you for the kind words Derrel, you are one of the FEW people out : there doing real research. You maintain my respect. : : Regards, : : Ted Oliphant III www.ufochronicles.com : 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 88888888 [snipped - article previously posted to UpDates 04:15 11-06-97 ebk] 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 88888 ---------- : From: Charles T. Oliphant III : To: Derrel <derrel@holman.net> : Subject: Reply #3 : Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 2:13 AM : : Derrel, : thanks, I knew you'd understand. I'm not about to compromise those I : trust, and that includes you. : Best wishes on your multiple, impending projects. By the way, here's : part two of my article for your perusal. : : Regards, : : Ted Oliphant III : www.ufochronicles.com [snipped - article previously posted to UpDates 04:15 11-06-97 ebk]
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Frost vs. Perry From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 12:17:06 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:55:51 -0500 Subject: Frost vs. Perry (My report on a first hand account of court case in San Francisco which I attended. [inserted by ebk after query on source]) HELEN FROST vs. WILLIAM PERRY THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 11/5/97 The case of government workers exposed to hazardous waste at the Groom Lake facility at Area-51 went to the appellate court this morning in San Francisco. The 3 judges presiding were Harlington Wood jr., Pamela Rymer, and A. Wallace Tashima. The lawsuit which began in 1994 was originally directed towards three individuals, Defense Secretary William Perry, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall of the DOD and Carol Browning of the EPA. Jonathan Turley is the sole lawyer representing a group of plaintiffs consisting of base workers the primary of which is Helen Frost representing her deceased husband Robert who died due to complications resulting from exposure to toxic substances. Walter S. Kasza who also died since the inception of the lawsuit in 1994 is being represented by his widow Stella. The additionial plaintiffs remain anonymous. Turley made a passionate plea for the opportunity to prove criminal activity by base administrators in a court of law. Due to limited time, Turley only touched on 2 of the 11 issues presented on appeal directed by the affidavits from his clients. Judge Rymer continued to ask "which facility was in question?" The judge's lack of clarity about the priniciple facility may have been compounded by the assertions of Air Force attorney Colonel Richard Sarver in the District Court hearings where he stated that the facility at Groom Lake was run by the Department of Energy, was not a military asset, and was not called Area 51. Turley responded by saying that he presented evidence indicating that all of Sarver's testimony was false and there was no dispute about which facility was in question in the District Court case. Turley stated that the government was lying both in and out of court at least 5 times during his rebuttal making constant reference to how no one in the government acknowledged the existance of Project 51 (Area 51 operating project name). Judge Rymer also expressed concerns over whether Turley would be able to prove guilt since state secerts had been applied to protect the facility. Apparently the government did not appeal the District Court's decision but elected to take exemption. Turley disagreed with Judge Rymer and made several vague assurances that he could prove guilt and pleaded for the chance. The judge in turn stated lack of existing evidence in discovery requests indicated the case could not be tried. Judge Rymer asked Turley point blank "If you had hard proof that hazardous waste exists at the base, what would you do with it?" contending that Turley could not prove guilt by association. Turley faced four government lawyers for the defense the first of which to speak was Justice Department lawyer Robert Klarquist who made a number of brief but succinct responses to Turley's contentions including that Congress should not be forced to release classified information as a routine matter in the case. Klarquist contended this was a clear conflict between national security and environmental law. The next defense lawyer to speak was James Kilbourne also from the DOJ. Kilbourne stated that a 3 year DOJ evaluation of the case revealed that no prosecution was necessary based on the available evidence. After the court recess Turley answered questions for reporters in front of court building. The media frenzy included a full news crew from KLAS TV Las Vegas with front man George Knapp asking Turley questions on camera. Knapp also attended the appeal along with a number of other reporters all of which furiously scribbled notes while the attorney's made their arguments. Turley told reporters that biopsies of Robert Frost's tissue were sent to labs at Rutgers which determined that his body had been saturated which TCE (trichloroethyline) and that he had satellite photos of waste dumps at Groom Lake in his possession. Turley stated that if guilt is proven the ultimate burden will fall on president Clinton's shoulders as he will have to be accountable for crimes committed by a "black" facility that he exempted from environmental laws through executive order but conversely did not exempt from the disclosure provision.I asked Turley to respond to the assertions made by Washington Lobbyist Stephen Basset on a national radio talk show this week alleging that the government had attempted to "classify" him, his practice and his office. He stated that it was all absolutely true and that he had been threatened numerous times and told not to speak to the media etc. He humoursly stated that he couldn't even get a janitor into to his office to vacuum it. Results of the appeal hearing are pending... Jared
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: "Andy Blunn" <mcji5apb@fs1.me.umist.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:38:57 GMT Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:42:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Hi Scott, you wrote: > From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> > To: <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 > Hi all, > I have a question I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. I'm > doing research on the Kenneth Arnold sighting and remember > reading somewhere that the press misquoted Arnold's initial > description of his UFO. Arnold's claim was that the craft was > boomerang shaped, but appeared to fly "like saucers skipping over > water." I haven't been able to find this detail in the books I > have, and am wondering if I am in error here about it. Anyway, > didn't Arnold describe the UFO as boomerang shaped also? Any > help would be greatly appreciated. > ... You're correct Scott. Arnold never actually described the objects as 'flying saucers', but as moving as a saucer would if it were "skimmed" across water. Some reports said he also seemed to think that the objects looked like they were 'alive' - ie that they may be living beings as opposed to spaceships. It is interesting then, that most subsequent reports were of 'classic' flying saucers! And to think people argue that cultural ideas have nothing to do with UFO reports! For more info, I suggest you read Pete Brookesmith's "The Complete Sightings Catalogue". All the best.... Andy Blunn ************************************************** andrew.p.blunn@stud.umist.ac.uk University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology Manchester, England. ************************************************** Search for other documents from or mentioning: mcji5apb | sreed |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" From: Kerry Ferrand <kferrand@rocketmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 03:38:00 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:54:37 -0500 Subject: Re: VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:46:55 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: UFO UpDate: RE-VOR - "2nd Earth Found in Solar System" > Hi All > I vaguely remember a crap Sci-Fi film made about in the mid > seventies postulating this theory that there was a mirror planet > almost an exact duplicate of Earth but like reflected in a mirror > exactly one hundred an eighty degrees opposite our Earth. I remember that film (but not its title)..I think it was produced by Gerry Anderson of "Thunderbirds", "Stingray" etc fame. I think the nasty Cybermen from "Doctor Who" origianlly came from a duplicate earth opposite ours in orbit too..something went wrong there and they had to start replacing body parts with machines to survive. ---- K. D. Ferrand Christchurch, New Zealand kerry@hungerford.chch.cri.nz kferrand@rocketmail.com Search for other documents from or mentioning: kferrand | tedric |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: First Observation of Space-Time Distortion by From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:17:39 +0000 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:57:11 -0500 Subject: Re: First Observation of Space-Time Distortion by >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:38:59 -0500 (EST) >From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov >Subject: First Observation of Space-Time Distortion by Black Holes >Sender: owner-press-release@lists.hq.nasa.gov >To: undisclosed-recipients:; >FIRST OBSERVATION OF SPACE-TIME DISTORTION BY BLACK HOLES > Astronomers using NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer >(RXTE) spacecraft reported today that they have observed a black >hole that is literally dragging space and time around itself as >it rotates. This bizarre effect, called "frame dragging," is the >first evidence to support a prediction made in 1918 using >Einstein's theory of relativity. Does this now mean that we have proof that time is non-linear and can be distorted. Therefore we have the possible root that time travel is possible?? > The phenomenon is distorting the orbit of hot, X-ray >emitting gas near the black hole, causing the X-rays to peak at >periods that match the frame-dragging predictions of general >relativity. If space can be distorted does this not also mean that this could be utilised to "drive" an interstellar space vehicle?? Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | nasanews |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: Solved Abduction Cases From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:16:50 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:01:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases There's much more to this Lifton business than Peter B. or Martin Kottmeyer knows. Lifton knows quite a bit about abductions....read on to see why. > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter > Brookesmith] > Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases > Sender: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments. > The following paper may be of interest to those who remember where > this thread started - with the matter of whether any abduction > cases in the literature had been solved. > It comes from: > http://www.reall.org/newsletter/ > Enjoy, and ponder! > Yours &c > Patacake D. Masterbaker > Mince Pie > --------------------------------- > REALL News, Vol 3 No 7 (July 1995) > "WE'VE ALL STUDIED LIFTON" > Martin Kottmeyer > Frankly, Lifton's stance shows no deep > acquaintance with the abduction phenomenon. It is rooted entirely > in a paper by Nicholas Humphrey and Daniel C. Dennett titled > "Speaking for Our Selves: An Assessment of Multiple Personality > Disorder" (Occasional Paper # 8, Center on Violence and Human > Survival, John Jay College of Criminal Justice: The City > University of New York). [much snipped] > What is amusing here is not so much that Lifton was wrong, but > that he didn't care enough about the abduction phenomenon to give > it more than a few seconds' thought. Lifton, after all, was truly > into bigger business. Protean adaptations are something all of us > encounter in people we know, perhaps even in ourselves. Abductees > are a fringe phenomenon which matter to a tiny percentage of > people. Contrary to the visionary in Intruders, he blatantly > doesn't consider them the most significant development in man's > history. They rate half a paragraph, which sounds about right for > a Yale man. I can certainly respect that. Lifton and Budd Hopkins are long-time friends. They've talked about abductions at great length. Which doesn't mean Lifton holds Budd's view of the subject. I do understand that Lifton prefers not to comment at any length on it in public. Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Chinese Ufology From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:21:07 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:07:46 -0500 Subject: Chinese Ufology The following was in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, November 7: -------- Chinese Scholars Tap Physics To Learn About Flying Saucers By KATHY CHEN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL BEIJING -- In ever-changing China, which in places has rocketed from agrarian poverty to urban modernity in less than a decade, nothing seems impossible these days. Not even UFOs. That may explain why 60-year-old Sun Shili, professor of international trade at Beijing's University of International Business and Economics, is holding court at China's hallowed Academy of Science along with a South Korean delegation from something called the Embassy of Extraterrestrials. Mr. Sun poses with a dress-up alien In the West, unidentified flying objects and alien abductions are the stuff of Hollywood pulp and supermarket tabloids. But in China, UFOs are a matter of great national importance. Prof. Sun's group, the Chinese UFO Research Association, receives government grants, and its members include some of the nation's most respected scientists and academics -- even Communist Party officials. These enthusiasts aren't merely trying to prove the existence of UFOs: They are attempting to figure out what makes them fly and then harness that power for everyday use in China. "UFOs are faster than any airplane or car," Prof. Sun explains. "We hope to use the UFO phenomenon to resolve China's energy and efficiency problems." The professor, who once worked as a translator for Mao Tse-tung, adds that while "the focus of foreign UFO studies on sightings is a little passive," in China "we've always linked our research with science." Of course, classifying the study of UFOs as "science" protects Prof. Sun and his group from Communist Party prohibitions against engaging in superstition. And China does have its official skeptics: Ji Fusheng, general director of the Department of Basic Research and High Technology of the China Association for Science and Technology, says "the study of UFOs does no harm, but I believe it won't have any concrete results." Yo-Yo Mao A serious scholar with a dignified air, Prof. Sun experienced what he says was his first and only close encounter in 1969, when he spotted a bright orb bouncing like a yo-yo above the horizon during a Maoist learn-from-the-peasants campaign at a rural cooperative. Not having heard of flying saucers, "I thought it was a Soviet reconnaissance plane," he recounts. Mr. Sun only considered the other-worldly possibilities of his sighting after the author of a Spanish-language book on UFOs sent him a copy to translate. At the time, Mr. Sun was working for the government, even translating for Mao during meetings with Spanish-speaking dignitaries. Before long, Mr. Sun had become the nation's leading UFO expert. He attended official conferences organized and funded by the government. A vice premier, Yao Yilin, wrote a commentary in 1980 urging the Chinese to respect his findings. Sitting in his Beijing apartment in a study crammed with UFO books, Mr. Sun recounts how he helped transform the nation's UFO association from a science-fiction club, founded at Wuhan University in 1979, into a nationwide organization with 5,000 members. One of his first moves after taking the helm in 1986 was to use his connections in government and academia to move the association's membership away from mostly students and laborers. He stepped up contact with the outside world, attending international conferences and posing for photos with dress-up aliens. Today, he brags, "80% of our members are college graduates or above." Gao Ge is characteristic of the members Prof. Sun has been trying to recruit. The 52-year-old scientist at Beijing Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics holds three Chinese patents and one U.S. patent for aerospace-related advances, as well as China's National First-Class Invention prize for his research on improving the efficiency of jet engines. Ever since spotting what he says was an orange UFO in Miami, where he was a visiting professor at Florida Atlantic University in 1990, Mr. Gao has been trying to build his own. What he envisions is an ellipsoid with tiny wings that he says can take off vertically and move like an alien spaceship, albeit at subsonic speed. Beds and Dragonfly Wings Mr. Gao says he has test-flown a wooden prototype with the dimensions of a king-size bed. He is confident that, someday, with his craft's maneuverability and energy-saving "vortex generator" (a device that creates lift much like dragonfly wings) "you won't need airplanes anymore." He can't offer much more than a description, however: He says Beijing Institute has labeled his invention top secret and has banned him from showing even blueprints to outsiders. Strolling by a lily pond at a senior citizens' recreation center in the southern city of Guiyang, another UFO buff and association member, Ma Ruian, 54, envisions a future filled with superfast submarines, floating cars and energy-saving ships shaped like flounders -- all gunned by his patented flying globe. Mr. Ma conducts some of his experiments on this pond, using rudimentary models to test his theory. He believes that by redirecting air or water flow, his globe can decrease resistance, significantly speed up moving objects and save energy. To demonstrate, he releases a balloon fit with a special plug that controls the outrush of air. The balloon moves fast as it deflates, but Prof. Sun has his doubts about Mr. Ma's theory. "It could be a little exaggeration that the globe's speed could exceed that of a rocket," the professor says. Fountain of Youth? Perhaps the boldest dream belongs to Liu Zhongkai, 47, an official at the Beijing Meteorological Bureau with wild eyes and vertical hair. Patent authorities are weighing whether or not to register his invention, which he describes as a magnetic field that produces as much as a third more energy than it requires to run. Among other things, he claims, his magnetic field can alter time. "If you live to be 100 on Earth, in my UFO you will be able to live at least 100,000 years," he says. Tinkering with his contraption -- two steel bars with coils of copper wire at each end -- Mr. Liu says his self-generating energy machine "is what UFOs must use to fly long distances because they can't use gas. It's a simple logic thing." Which, of course, begs the question: How do these scientists know what makes a UFO run, since none claims to have ever been inside one? "I've studied many photographs of UFOs," Mr. Ma says with a shrug. "In physics, you can work backward to figure out the theory." That isn't to say the quest isn't tough. Says Mr. Sun: "Working with UFOs is more complicated than translating for Mao." [Greg Sandow]
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: ETH &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:52:11 +0000 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:23:46 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:22 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: Re: ETH &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. And I present mine to the most honourable Duke of Civilities and fair insults. <g> >Phew. Something like a concrete response, at last, for which I am >duly grateful, and I'm sure many another is too. I do believe that I posted a response to your post, but I wished to know from which standpint I was to argue, Guilty until proved innocent or Innocent until proven guilty, or did you just miss it?? > (I assume because he has seen too many of "the best >case[s]," like Roswell, crumble when carefully studied.) Without going to great depth on this one subject (because at the end of the day its enormous) regarding the incident Roswell (IMHO) the case is either you believe that there was an extra-terrestial craft(s) that crashed or you don't and then on from either standpoint (either/or its your preference) the arguments are already coloured/tainted by your initial beliefs. > Americans >are very horrid indeed, I disagree I know some very nice Americans. > but Brits and besides are much nicer >people altogether. Why thank you for the compliment. <humungous snip> >best wishes >Pedantic D. Marlinspike >Wittgensteinian Beetle On an entirely different note I thought a Marlin was a fish not a beetle, or is it that you are admiting to being a lower life form <very huge G>. OR Like Ludwig you are trying to solve all of lifes mysteries? <<WITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig (1889-1951). Twice in his lifetime Ludwig Wittgenstein tried to solve all the problems of philosophy. His second attempt marked a criticism and rejection of his first, and in the end he regarded both as failures. A multitalented man, never at ease with himself or the world around him, he was mathematician, engineer, architect, and musician. He pursued philosophical problems with zeal, yet he regarded nothing so absurd as to be a teacher of philosophy. --------------------------------------------------------- Excerpted from Compton=92s Interactive Encyclopedia Copyright =A9 1994, 1995 Compton=92s NewMedia, Inc.>> Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | 101653.2205 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:33:53 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:29:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/6/97 10:20 PM: > From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> > To: <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 > I have a question I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. I'm > doing research on the Kenneth Arnold sighting and remember > reading somewhere that the press misquoted Arnold's initial > description of his UFO. Arnold's claim was that the craft was > boomerang shaped, but appeared to fly "like saucers skipping over > water." I haven't been able to find this detail in the books I > have, and am wondering if I am in error here about it. Anyway, > didn't Arnold describe the UFO as boomerang shaped also? Any > help would be greatly appreciated. Scott - Your best bet is to obtain Steiger's "Project Blue Book", which contains the original accounts and analyses. It has just been reissued and is available at Borders. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: ETH &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:00:28 PST Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:36:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:22 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Re: ETH &c > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. > >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:57:25 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > Phew. Something like a concrete response, at last, for which I am > duly grateful, and I'm sure many another is too. It remains a > mystery as to why Jerome will not say what *he* thinks are the > factual, reasonable and even natural scientific arguments in > favor of the ETH or even the genuine UFO, just as it remains a > mystery as to why (despite his protestations) he thinks he has > actually answered my questions and why he cannot bring himself to > cite a few cases in which he considers the ETH or even the U-ness > of the UFO to have been advanced. Possibly this is because he is > not confident of being able to defend either his selection of > cases or the nature of the "science" involved; which may in turn > explain why he prefers citing others' opinions to stating his > own. Well, Duke, I guess I'm going to have to respond. You certainly know how to waste a guy's time. Let's see now: We have a minimum of five decades of reports of structured objects (let me explain here, Duke: "structured" means something somebody apparently built) with extraordinary performance characteristics beyond those anything we have been able to duplicate on earth. Some of these objects are tracked on radar. Some are photographed. Some leave landing traces. Over the decades people of sanity and sincerity report encounters with the occupants of some of these craft. Most do not look like human beings. Gosh, now, why would anybody ever think that gosh, just maybe these things could come from other planets? Impossible to imagine, isn't it? > Curiously, I'm not alone I'm wondering if this is the case. I had > this from a fellow subscriber not too many days ago (I quote with > permission): > "I have to admit, I can't figure the guy out. Jerry castigates > Mack for the errors of his ways, but doesn't see, or refuses to > admit, that his bud, Budd [Hopkins], makes the same errors. He > constantly claims that certain cases provide "intriguing > evidence" for the ETH, but then refuses to commit himself on > which cases. (I assume because he has seen too many of "the best > case[s]," like Roswell, crumble when carefully studied.) He > scorns the description of problems with the ETH based on current > scientific knowledge as appeals to authority, and then counters > by saying "Read Appelle, Read Bullard, Read Swords." I could at > least respect Jerry's point if he could summarize the relevant > parts of their arguments, but he doesn't so it makes me suspect > he doesn't really get it. This is especially true of Appelle, > who doesn't do the ETH any favors by any means." What a load of crapola here. When have I ever said Roswell is one of "the best cases"? Roswell is difficult, complicated, and ambiguous and depends, in the absence of more conclusive evidence, whom one chooses to believe. Talk about constructing a straw man. Budd Hopkins does not "make the same errors" as Mack, and it amuses me to see abductionphobes speaking of them in the same breath, despite enormous differences in outlook and approach. After my scathing IUR piece on Mack was published, Hopkins shared with me letters he'd written JM months before making many of the same points. A critique of Hopkins would be a different sort of entity from one of Mack. As Greg Sandow has shown, some of Hopkins' loudest critics are the wrongest. Pardon me if I don't "summarize the relevant part of [his] argument," since I assume list readers are literate; see IUR, spring and summer 1997. And yes, I stand by what I said about Appelle's piece. Literate readers can judge for themselves (JUFOS 6, 1995/1996). And I did not discuss Appelle in the context of the ETH; I mentioned him in the context of his careful explication of the problems of counterexplanations. Incidentally, I recognize the prose of the individual whom Duke quotes, for what it's worth. > continues to regale us all with the results of his incautious > researches into my thoughts, motives and erudition, with results > that are either imaginative, fictional or the product of > privately engaging Major Ed Dames and being deservedly ripped off > by said charlatan. I take the opportunity to remind Jerome of > what he wrote back on 1 Oct 97, in the "Questions for Abductees" > thread: > 'Declaring "abnormal psychology" every time we hear something > we don't like is the functional equivalent of shouting "shut > up." Emotionally satisfying, no doubt, but not intellectually > productive.' Well stated, if I do say so myself. > >The scientific UFO literature, with which I gather you are > >largely unfamiliar, > Asking for citations was a desperate attempt to get something > like a straight answer to a simple question. A compromise, even, > in light of the many demands upon your constricted time. At least > one would be able to see on what you were basing the opinions you > were not prepared (or at sufficient leisure) to justify in your > own voice. Kindly do not presume. I naively assumed you knew the scientific literature on the ETH. I beg pardon for my naivete. > And then there is: > >As the cliche goes, you can take a horse to water, but > >you can't make him drink. One way of saying that Duke > >seems intent on confining his reading to list chitchat. > This one's a keeper for sure. Definitely one for the big black > book. Some subscribers to this List may be slightly less than > whelmed to know Jerome regards their considered opinions as no > more than "chitchat" (and before he gets the Major in for another > look at Zoe's knees, delightful as they are, I am excluding > myself from that "some"). Apart from the diplomatic angle, I > remain amazed that Jerome thinks he can know or predict what my > reading has been, is, or will be. In any case he's wrong on all > counts. Most everything on this list, including what I write, is essentially "chitchat." Apparently it's Duke's idea of intellectual enlightenment. Like many of you out there, I have written books and articles in which my views are outlined at length. Those too lazy to read them prefer to engage in the sort of mind-reading Duke practices. Anybody who isn't lazy is referred to my writings or the citations I give. > And then we have: > >Your huffing and puffing seem not a trifle hypocritical > >coming from one who, not all that long ago, was putting > >off Greg Sandow's probing questions on the grounds > >that you were dealing with these matters in print elsewhere. > >I didn't knock you for that, and I respected the plea you > >copped. Apparently, though, one set of rules applies to > >you, another to those who presume to disagree with you. > Is Jerome preparing something along these lines for print, and > would prefer to keep his latest, brightest thinking to himself? > Then why didn't he say so? If he is not, how am I moving the > goalposts or being hypocritical? I certainly didn't want to get > into a to-and-fro with Greg or anyone about the principles of the > ETH, but there again I didn't ask him to justify his stance on > the matter while smirking silently the while. Greg thinks (or > thought) I'd benefit - sorry, my writing would benefit: I am > beyond salvation - from such an exchange. I disagree. With > perfect and characteristic good manners and no attempt to > speculate on my logic or motives, Greg acknowledges that I should > do what I think best. There the matter rests, in perfect > neutrality. So the "rules" apply equally. Uh huh. Your point being? > Jerome then pronounces a number of generalities on the scientific > respectability of the ETH and I ask him to explain some of the > terms he used and otherwise justify his assertion(s). He writes > reams trying not to do that and, indeed, in the end succeeds in > avoiding giving a straight answer to all but one (and that a > compromise-come-lately) of my enquiries. These actions conform to > strange rules if they follow any at all, but they have nothing to > do with my exchange with Greg. So it is hardly Jerome's place to > be moralizing, here. May I suggest less huffing and puffing and more reading, Duke? > The most spectacular instance of the persistence and > irrationality of Jerome's latest venture into displays of > paranormal talent come with his demonstration of my > "Ameriphobia", a word I put in quotes because it is so grotesque, > as well as being barely pronounceable. Jerome first remarks upon: > >Duke's fanciful theories about why > >Americans report gray-skinned humanoids. They ain't > >flattering, folks. > [Here incidentally we have a neat bit of Clarkian > misrepresentation: my speculations concern why people in general > report Grays, but look for the roots of that in American culture, > snce that's where the whole abduction syndrome began. In other > words, I don't say Americans report Grays because are Americans > are very horrid indeed, but Afghans or Brits or Australians > report Grays for some other reason and besides are much nicer > people altogether. But I do say that behind it all lies not > America but the Semitic religions.] Yup. And that and seven bucks will get us into a first-run movie anywhere. Someday, just for the sheer perverse amusement of the exercise, I'm going to read a pile of psychosocial literature (or maybe just a run of Magonia issues) and recite the dazzling variety of explanations these armchair speculationists have advanced for abductions and abduction entities. A favorite that comes to mind is from Duke's pal Peter Rogerson, whom Duke takes deeply seriously. May I quote: "Beyond the crashed saucer stories lies the fear that passionless symbols of pure reason are in command, and somehow need to steal our passion and our physicality in order to survive and reproduce. The atrophied `animal parts' of the alien cadavers have theiri psychological counterpart in the `glacial indifference' of the abductors. These are, of course, literal `eggheads,' the antithesis of the `red-blooded American male,' and thus the ultimate symbol of un-Americanism." Elsewhere Rogerson once wrote that American ufology and UFO experiences are driven by a deep-seated fear of Hispanic immigrants. Yes, he was serious. They always are. Commenting on this, I wrote in IUR: "How many armchair psychosociologists does it take to construct a falsifiable hypothesis, or even know what one is? Try to prove that little gray humanoids are NOT `passionless symbols of pure reason.' Or, for that matter, that they're not `symbolic' of our deep unconscious fear of dentists (remember Barney Hill's teeth?). Or short people. Or bald, skinny people. Or people with cold, unblinking stares and long, thin fingers. Or -- most horrifying of all -- short, bald, skinny, thin-fingered Jungian dentists who glare frigidly at their terrified patients. The possibilities are endless." Call me a sentimentalist, but I'd take one Walt Webb, Ray Fowler, Bill Weitzel, Jim McDonald, or Brad Sparks -- guys who actually investigate cases, interview witnesses, and check all relevant information over a thousand psychosocial speculationists. Hell, make then ten thousand. More to come..... Jerry Clark > A couple of other matters deserve mention: > >The scientific evidence certainly leans > >in the pro-UFO direction -- even one of the largest scientific > studies, > >the University of Colorado project, failed to explain 30% of the > cases > Pro UFO, perhaps, but not pro ETH. There is a difference, but > Jerome slips from one term to the other as if they were > synonymous. Does he know he is doing this? And bear in mind that > in "The UFO Enigma" (Doubleday 1977) Menzel and Taves demolished > (to their own satisfaction at least) these "unexplained" cases, > many of which they felt were "unexplained" because the data was > so sparse that nothing sensible could be said about them one way > or the other. Bear in mind too that Condon remarked that what he > was being asked to do was the exact opposite of what science > usually does. Not to take those thoughts on board (or to ignore > them) distorts the picture. For myself, I do not see how anyone > can arrive at the conclusion that 30 "unexplained" cases versus > 70 solved ones constitutes a "leaning" in the "direction" of the > unexplained ones. This is odd arithmetic, even in a democracy. There is so much goofiness in this single paragraph that the mind boggles and swoons. First, anyone who would cite Menzel as an authority has announced that he is not serious. Menzel was not just a fanatic but a liar. He never let the facts get in the way of a good debunking, and when the truth didn't suit him, he just made stuff up. I cite a number of instances in my Encyclopedia volumes. In the new version of the Encyclopedia, I have much to say about Menzel's weird ufological career and the judgments of his contemporaries. As nonufologist Ian Seymour once wrote, Menzel "consistently distorted cases." James McDonald wrote that Menzel "seems to calmly set aside well-known scientific principles almost with abandon, in an all-out effort to be sure that no UFO report survives his attack." I used to think of Duke as disingenuous. I now realize I was doing him a favor. He may actually be as obtuse as he appears. Gee, he asks, why should we draw anything from the fact that only 30 of the 100 Condon cases remain unexplained? The old Jerry Clark would have responded, Get real, Duke. But maybe the poor lad can't get real. Maybe he really means that questions. Maybe he really is that desperate. I gotta run right now, but there's more to come shortly.... Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Life on Mars? - Jury is still out From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 12:34:24 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:38:09 -0500 Subject: Life on Mars? - Jury is still out Greetings, Below is an article from Spaceviews, November 1997, about the "Mars" meteorite recovered in Antarctica which caused much excitement a little over a year ago when NASA presented it as the strongest evidence it had of E.T. life. I am still hoping that this was a NASA trial balloon to see what the public reaction would be to the discovery of E.T. life and if it was a favourable reaction, then NASA would share some much more convincing evidence of E.T. life with us, which we all know they have, don't we? ;) As for what I think, I still feel there is a stronger case that these microfossils found in the "Mars" meteorite, if they are real, could be distant relatives of Earth organisms that made their way to Mars much earlier in time in a similar way the "Mars" meteorite got to Earth. Nikolaos Balaskas SpaceViews -- November 1997 by the Boston National Space Society <snip> Strengthening the Case for Life on Mars Dr. Everett Gibson of the Johnson Space Center, one of the members of the team which found evidence of past, primitive life in Martian meteorite ALH 84001 last year, presented an update on his team's research in this field at the meeting. Gibson spent much of his talk presenting objections other researchers had raised to his team's work, and his rebuttals to those objections. A key point of contention has been claims that the carbonate globules seen in the meteorite formed at high temperatures, which would rule out a biological origin for them. Gibson referred to research on the isotope ratios in the globules as well as the magnetism of the globules, each of which point to origin temperatures no higher than 100 degrees Celsius. Gibson said work by a UCLA group which estimated a temperature of origin as high as 250 C, too high for life, was in fact subjected to a calibration error which has since brought their temperature estimates to 100-150 C. Gibson also rebutted criticism that the microfossil-like structures seen in the meteorite were too small to truly be fossils. While much smaller than typical microfossils on Earth, they are comparable in size to microfossils seen in sections of Columbia River basalt that were not discovered until recent years. Gibson also addressed claims that the polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) seen in the Martian meteorite were actually contamination from Antarctic ice and not indigenous to Mars. Gibson pointed out that PAHs were not seen in other, younger Martian meteorites also recovered from Antarctica, thus, the PAHs came from Mars, and were created by biological processes. Gibson also pointed out some intriguing new features seen in the meteorites in recent months. In addition to the segmented microfossils first shown last year, they have seen evidence of microscopic appendages and also unusually nesting microfossils, both of which have yet to be explained. They've also seen evidence of fossilized "biofilm", a layer of organic material secreted by bacteria on Earth. While Gibson said they have not found the "smoking gun" for life on Mars, they have evidence that they feel is "60 to 70 percent in our favor," he said. He pointed out eight criteria for proving life existed on Mars: geologic context, age, microfossils, colonies and communities, chemical disequilibrium, biological isotope patterns, organic "biomarkers", and indigenous features. Gibson said they have evidence in all eight areas to prove life once existed on Mars. "We feel stronger today than when we wrote that [first] paper," Gibson said. Additional papers are due out in coming months in research journals like Science as well as an article for laypersons in Scientific American. <snip>
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: ETH &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 13:45:37 PST Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:44:20 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c Hi, Duke and list, This is the second part of a message posted earlier. If you haven't read that yet, I urge you to start there. All best, Jerry Clark > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 22:02:22 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Re: ETH &c > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. > >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:57:25 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c Let me start out by saying that I am at a loss to understand what Duke is doing here, besides being disingenuous. This whole business started because I stated briefly to somebody else that the ETH is a reasonable hypothesis for which a body of evidence seems to exist. Even most ufologists who reject the ETH would find this an unexceptionable observation.. I didn't even say the ETH is true, only that it is one reasonable inference from the data. (I personally am not so enamored of the Final Explanation as Duke, Devereux, and other believers in same are. No wonder they go ballistic when they hear the word "agnostic" -- a position apparently incomprehensible to those whose tolerance of ambiguity seems far too slight for the difficult business of UFO research.) Much of the serious debate about UFOs has focused on the question of whether the UFO evidence supports a theory which, on its face at least, appears sensible and in some ways inevitable; thus its wide acceptance (right or wrong) all over the world. I was surprised when Duke objected, even more surprised when he acted as if I had stated that the ETH is definitively proved. At a loss to understand why he was so excited, I could only theorize that he considers the ETH absurd and even those who consider it worth thinking about crazy. When I said as much, he got mad again and swore he thinks no such thing. So what, exactly, are we supposed to be arguing about? . I take the opportunity to remind Jerome of > what he wrote back on 1 Oct 97, in the "Questions for Abductees" > thread: > > 'Declaring "abnormal psychology" every time we hear something > we don't like is the functional equivalent of shouting "shut > up." Emotionally satisfying, no doubt, but not intellectually > productive.' Well stated, if I do say so myself. > >The scientific UFO literature, with which I gather you are > >largely unfamiliar, > Asking for citations was a desperate attempt to get something > like a straight answer to a simple question. A compromise, even, > in light of the many demands upon your constricted time. At least > one would be able to see on what you were basing the opinions you > were not prepared (or at sufficient leisure) to justify in your > own voice. Kindly do not presume. Let's see. I'm damned if I provide citations, damned if I don't. It does surprise me, I must confess, that you would make sweeping pronouncements on ETH-related issues without having read Swords at least. > [Here incidentally we have a neat bit of Clarkian > misrepresentation: my speculations concern why people in general > report Grays, but look for the roots of that in American culture, > snce that's where the whole abduction syndrome began. In other > words, I don't say Americans report Grays because are Americans > are very horrid indeed, but Afghans or Brits or Australians > report Grays for some other reason and besides are much nicer > people altogether. But I do say that behind it all lies not > America but the Semitic religions.] I'm glad you're not an Ameriphobe, Duke. You certainly had me fooled for a while there, I admit. Loren Coleman, who was sitting with me enduring your unConvention lecture in 1995, also interpreted some of your words as anti-American. I can't imagine, myself, standing in front of an American audience, with Brits in the front row, including one who's just lectured before you, making sneering comments about Brits and their foolish cultural delusions. But then I guess you and I have a different concept of what constitutes good manners, and by "your" I don't mean to implicate all your countrymen. I will give you this: you are no sensitive New Age guy. And though I will continue to question your manners, I will take you at your word on your feelings about this former colony of yours. > There is also a piece by > Peter Rogerson about alien body shapes, a matter Jerome mentioned > in passing, which ought to interest anyone interested in the ETH. > Jerome thinks Rogerson is some kind of horror from the Night of > the Living Dead, though, so be prepared for your glands to get in > an uproar at what you read. Ah, yes, Peter Rogerson would know. See my previous posting for more of the wit and wisdom of PR. For additional insights into same, I urge all to read Ray Fowler's The Allagash Abductions, then Peter Rogerson's review of same in Magonia 50 (September 1994, p. 15). You may then ask yourself, what book did Peter read? And why does Duke take him seriously? Why should anybody? (Don't get me wrong: Peter is a nice, bright guy; it's just that his writings on the UFO phenomenon are ... well, er, shall we say, mmm, idiosyncratic.) For more on Rogerson, see p. 498 of my The UFO Book. > A couple of other matters deserve mention: > >The scientific evidence certainly leans > >in the pro-UFO direction -- even one of the largest scientific > >studies, > >the University of Colorado project, failed to explain 30% of the > cases > Pro UFO, perhaps, but not pro ETH. There is a difference, but > Jerome slips from one term to the other as if they were > synonymous. Does he know he is doing this? And bear in mind that > in "The UFO Enigma" (Doubleday 1977) Menzel and Taves demolished > (to their own satisfaction at least) these "unexplained" cases, > many of which they felt were "unexplained" because the data was > so sparse that nothing sensible could be said about them one way > or the other. Bear in mind too that Condon remarked that what he > was being asked to do was the exact opposite of what science > usually does. Not to take those thoughts on board (or to ignore > them) distorts the picture. For myself, I do not see how anyone > can arrive at the conclusion that 30 "unexplained" cases versus > 70 solved ones constitutes a "leaning" in the "direction" of the > unexplained ones. This is odd arithmetic, even in a democracy. I started to address the above dizzy observations in my previous posting. Duke professes to find nothing significant in 30 unexplained cases out of about 100 and, moreover -- the truly hilarious part -- expects us to think he's saying something that makes sense. Much has been written critically on the Condon Committee, and where this specific matter is concerned, I quote what Allen Hynek wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1969): "the percentage of `unknowns' in the Condon report appears to be even higher than the Air Force investigation ... which led to the Condon investigation in the first place." It should also be added that Hynek also complained that Condon used no discrimination in taking on cases; thus the most obviously explainable, which Hynek and others thought weren't worth anybody's time, were tossed into the pile, when the truly interesting cases ought to have been the focus of attention. Thus it's even more remarkable that so many remained unexplained at the end of the investigation. Actually, as McDonald showed, some of the "explaineds" probably weren't. Thus an even higher real percentage of unknowns, perhaps. But even if the Condon committee was right in every particular, we have a startling percentage of unknowns. Duke trots out the absurd, desperate "insufficient- information" dodge, citing -- incredibly -- Menzel, whom I would have thought even debunkers had given up on long since. Maybe that tell us something about the degree of Duke's desperation. Of course if you believe unknowns exist only because of insufficient information, then you can never prove unknowns exist; you can always say it could be explained if, however much information we already have, we had that one more item, however elusive. Hynek once wrote that "insuffient information" was essentially a Blue Book synonym for "insufficient investigation." Unless you apply the above principle, which Duke apparently is doing, the Condon cases were well investigated and an enormous amount of information bearing on them was secured. Having read a fair chunk of primary Condon materials, I can testify to that, as can anyone for himself or herself if he or she makes the effort. As we have known for a long time, the best unknowns are the cases for which the greatest amount of information is available. When Blue Book was doing its best investigations, under Ruppelt, "insufficient information" was a separate category from "unknown." The same for the Battelle Memorial Institute's famous study of Blue Book cases. Menzel had little interest in securing that additional information (he even attacked McDonald for the sin of interviewing witnesses), but investigators such as McDonald, Sparks, Maccabee, and others had or have, as witness their post-Condon inquiries into such seminal cases as RB-47, McMinnville, Lakenheath- Bentwaters, and others. Through their efforts they have added considerably to the already massive Condon data. A footnote here: As late as 1995 Roy Craig, in a skeptical memoir, openly conceded the RB-47 case to be "inexplicable"; at least he was honest enough not to use the in-suf-info dodge. And we now know immensely more about the case than Craig did (we probably know nearly everything that is knowable about it), and the additional data have only confirmed, not disproved, the profoundly anomalous nature of the episode. And now, a word to whatever patient readers are still awake: Are you finding this exchange as dreary as I do? My point, in this exchange and here and there in my literally voluminous writings on the UFO phenomenon, is simply that the ETH is reasonable, not that it is undeniably true -- a moderate position which has been distorted here as vigorous advocacy (I refer those wanting to take on a vigorous advocate to Stanton T. Friedman). True, I have found the alternate explanations unconvincing and have written on same, but I have never written a single article or book outlining a personal ETH. And I probably won't, since that is not my primary interest in this field. My principal interest is in ufology's history, social and phenomenological, and in the peculiar manner in which the debate has been conducted over these past five decades. In short, I am not the sort of committed advocate Duke and his pal Devereux are. I'm not sure whether I envy or pity their certainty about what would strike most others as the deep uncertainties inherent in UFO research and theory. My heroes, really, are the pragmatists, the hard-working, critical-minded field investigators who go out there to see if they can determine what happened. And "what happened" is sometimes intriguing and suggestive. Most of the armchair speculationism to which we've been subjected in recent years is merely boring. To you, Duke, I urge -- though it probably is too late -- a new respect for the tentative nature of our knowledge about the phenomenon, a loosening of dogmatism, an understanding that there is room for more than one point of view (yours) in the UFO debate. I've tried to be a nice guy about this, and even recommended your books notwithstanding my misgivings about some of your judgments, but I confess you are sorely trying my patience, not to mention my attention span. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: galevy@pipeline.com Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:45:44 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:46:29 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:53:06 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 09:13:19 -0500 > big snip < > I don't think McDonald ever had a personal sighting, yet he was > quite passionate about the subject. Wouldn't scientists with a > personal experience be even more vocal and passionate? Well Dennis you are quite wrong about this statement, James McDonald did have a sighting or have you forgotten how Jacques Vallee documents how he double-crossed James McDonald by revealing information about McDonalds sighting which had been confidential. Gary Alevy Search for other documents from or mentioning: galevy | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 04:05:46 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:51:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:44:47 +0100 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual Hi Christophe, First of all, thanks a lot for throwing in your perspective. >We do have different type of evidences but SOME of them have >found a possible explaination. My father proposed an explanation >for all radar related evidences. The current conclusion is that >MOST but NOT ALL radar evidences are artefacts. I take it that you mean most radar echoes were definitely from natural sources, but not all. Please confirm. >The first type of artefact are atmospheric diffraction as >correctly stated by J.Pharabod. But they have a caracteristic >signature that make them easy to identify. The most important of >them is that there is no correlation of these echos between two >radars. I assume this is pertaining to ground radar echoes. Please confirm. >The second type of artefact are convection bubles. In this case >two different radars will report an echo at the same location. >Second, it appeared that flight identification normaly sent by >airplanes could be mistakenly affected to these bubles. This >appeared when I noticed that two simultaneous and independent >echos showed the same military flight identification. This was >obviously bogus and we guess result of a reflection on the >convection buble of the identification signal sent by the >original plane. So an F16 received a radar echo with its own identification in it, right? Please confirm. >But these type of artefacts can also be >identified because they all follow wind direction (thus parallel >for all tracks), fly at a relatively constant altitude, and a >constant speed. >When seeing these many unexplained echoes my father was suprise >by the apparent indifference of these phenomenon from the >radarist who learned to live with it. >These two artefact types are specific to ground radar and concern >civilian as military radars. >I must say here that there is one echo track we found that can't >be classified in these two categories. OK. Is there a contact sequence available, plotting data like speed, heading, altitude against seconds after contact? If so, could you present it? >But in general apparently no correlation was seen between ground >visual observation and radar echoes. Between ground radar and ground visual observation, right? Please confirm. >Now about the F16 radar echoes. This was intensively studied and >compared with previous studies. This event had ground visual >observations by different gendarmes (policemens) at different >location, ground radar echoes from civilian and military and of >course the F16 radar recordings. But even with all these >extraordinar conjuction of evidences, all of them could be >explained by conventional phenomenon. What conventional phenomenon could have produced this? Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)=B7 00 200 150 7000=B7 01 200 150 7000=B7 02 200 150 7000=B7 03 200 150 7000=B7 04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000=B7 05 turn 270 =3D 22 g 560 6000=B7 06 270 560 6000=B7 07 270 570 6000=B7 08 270 560 7000=B7 09 270 550 7000=B7 10 210 560 9000=B7 11 210 570 10000=B7 12 210 560 11000=B7 13 210 570 10000=B7 14 270 770 7000=B7 15 270 770 6000=B7 16 270 780 6000=B7 17 270 790 5000=B7 18 290 1010 4000=B7 19 290 1000 3000=B7 20 290 990 2000=B7 21 290 990 1000=B7 22 300 990 0000=B7 22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock=B7 >This does not mean there >was not an UFO, but it means that the question becomes >undecidable. When you combine the F16 radar echoes with the ground observation by the gendarmes on the night of March 30, involving a triangular structure with three bright lights that changed color, what would you say is the most probable explanation for some of the radar echoes, especially the one included above? Note I am not saying definite explanation, but most probable. >At least this study unveiled a potential problem >with radar using doppler effect. What exactly was this problem? >Again F16 radar echoes with >similar behavour is frequently seen at 30000 Feet and was told by >the pilots themselves. But in this case it happened at a much >lower altitude. This night meteorological conditions were also >unusual. What exactly were those unusual conditions and how would they have created bogus radar echoes? What is the typical make up of this 'angel/ghost' effect, in terms of speed, acceleration, making turns, variations in altitude during their existence? >I can give more details on this study if requested. >The final conclusion I would like to make about this information >is that this does NOT explain UFOs reported from visual contact >or on photographs. For instance the photograph of a triangular >object over Petit Rechain has been give a high degree of >credibility after deep study. >About radar evidences all we can say is that it is possible that >UFOs that may have flown over belgium where not detectable by our >radars. >So to me what happened in Belgium these two years remain an >unsolved mystery and the proposed explanation for radar evidence >hardly scratch the mystery. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake >to draw any other conclusion on the belgian ufo flap. >Ch.Meessen >My father proposed an explanation >for all radar related evidences. The current conclusion is that >MOST but NOT ALL radar evidences are artefacts Does this confirm J. Pharabod's assertion that the current view is that some F16 radar echoes indicate a UFO? Bij voorbaat dank/Merci beaucoup d'avance __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 7 Tom King's Comments About Kal Korff From: TotlResrch@aol.com [Kal K. Korff] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 05:26:23 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 23:04:16 -0500 Subject: Tom King's Comments About Kal Korff >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) >Subject: Discovery channel special. >Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 18:12:11 >By Tom King >The episode was not a bad in my opinion. However it contained several added >in effects to spin the end of the show. >The first half was right on track, but it seemed to attack Village Labs and >take the flare theory. This might be because of Richard Motzer and Kal >Korff, giving their approach which the producers bought. Kal was cut out of >the episode mostly likely because of him discrediting himself recently. <snip> Hi Tom: You are WRONG about why I was cut out of the Discovery show. I would appreciate it in the future that when you choose to SPECULATE, that you leave ME OUT OF IT! Most of my footage was "punted" to the upcoming Area 51 show and even then, it may not be used. It is not uncommon to have footage cut...I spent all day filming at Fox recently and my footage was cut to 15 seconds. This is part of the industry of TV in that you never know how things work out until the broadcast airs. How many interviews have you given to the evening news, only to have a ten second snippet used? Several, Tom. Frankly, I liked to show, and although I believe the later lights that were filmed that night were flares, I still have NO EXPLANATION for the earlier, V-shaped object and I told the Discovery Channel this. However, the V-shaped objects ARE consistent with various "Star Wars" toys. My objection is how people try to cram EVERY sighting that night into one big, UFO event and make this whole thing so very black and white. If only the Universe were this simple!! The TRUTH is, there were MANY things going on that night, INCLUDING FLARE DROPS and Hale Bopp, etc. There also remain a very core group of impressive, unexplained sightings. Have you accounted for the flares, Tom, and HOW MANY WITNESSES WHO REPORTED THE FLARES AND WERE SURE THEY WERE FLARES, HAVE YOU INTERVIEWED? These should be people who lived near the front side of the mountain, right?? I would not be surprised if the number was zero, Tom. I hope this is NOT so. Finally, I have not "discredited" myself, Tom, except perhaps in the eyes of those for which I never had any "credibility" in the first place. You know the type, Tom, those Meier/Pleiadian nuts you hang out with. I got LOTS of mail over the Art Bell thing and it was very supportive and I have lost no credibility with the media. That's why I was back on Sightings a few days later, after apologizing to Art Bell where the whole thing got started....duh, Tom! I have also done many interviews since then but won't really be back in the media spotlight or too active on the internet until my new projects come out. However, on November 21, you may watch me on the widely-syndicated Leeza show if you so desire. Who knows how that one will be edited, but the Phoenix lights are covered briefly if I recall correctly. Getting back to Art Bell, you see, Tom, my sources had confused the legal threats made against radio stations and the attempts to censor me with the activities of Art Bell. I quoted my sources and they turned out to be wrong upon closer investigation. Unlike certain UFO "researchers" both you and I know, Tom, I ADMIT when I am wrong. Even on national radio, and I did so on Bell's show. The TRUTH is, Art Bell did NOT threaten anyone over me, but JIM DILETTOSO did. I even sent Mr. Corbis, Bell's radio station affiliate's President, copies of Dilettoso's threatening material but it was never mentioned or even cited on Bell's show nor referenced on his web site that I know of. However, how Bell cares to edit the information he presents about this issue is his right and privilege of course. I felt I owed Art Bell an apology and he deserved it. I was wrong about Art Bell, but Jim Dilettoso is another story entirely, Tom. This is a FACT THAT YOU IGNORE AND OTHERS who have tried to use the Art Bell episode against me. Finally, Tom, if you wish to continue to allign yourself closely with Dilettoso so be it. However, I would prefer rather NOT to quote or cite the "expert" opinions of those like Dilettoso who go around LYING about claiming to have a Ph.D. Do you CONDONE THIS, TOM, AND HAVE YOU EVER ASKED JIM DILETTOSO ABOUT WHY he did this? If I have become so "discredited" for being wrong about something (the Art Bell incident), Tom, what does that make Jim Dilettoso then in your eyes? Or do you believe, Tom, that people who LIE about having Ph.D.s are more credible than those researchers who make totally human, albeit very visible, mistakes? Are you saying that Jim Dilettoso has NO credibility problems? I look forward to your sharing with all of us here, Tom, the details of those conversation(s) you have had with Dilettoso regarding his bogus claims about his bogus background. I am sure that you have done the proper personal introspection in yourself and have searched your soul and have a perfectly valid reason you will now all share with us as to WHY you continue to hang out and endorse someone who makes up the schools he claims he attended and the degrees he earned. While I have been accused of having a "vendetta" against Dilettoso, this is NOT true. Wrong. VERY WRONG. However, as long as the UFO field CONTINUES TO IGNORE AND NOT SPEAK UP ABOUT THOSE PHONIES WHO MAKE UP THEIR IMAGINARY COLLEGE DEGREES AND UNIVERSITIES ATTENDED, I feel I MUST speak up. After all, if I DIDN'T say anything, many more of you would actually go around CLAIMING Jim Dilettoso actually has a Ph.D. because NONE of you EVER BOTHERED to do some simple checking and would never know to the contrary!! If I have any "vendetta," it is to get to the truth. Even if it means I must admit I am wrong, like I was over the Art Bell issue. When are YOU going to ADMIT YOU were WRONG about the Dilettoso issue(s), Tom?? Kal (Hoping you will leave me out of your future, written and very public theorizing) Korff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS: Filer's Files #44 From: Majorstar <Majorstar@AOL.COM> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 17:36:06 EST Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 09:12:33 -0500 Subject: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS: Filer's Files #44 Filer's Files #44 MUFON Skywatch Investigations From George A. Filer: MUFON Eastern Director, Nov. 4, 1997 Majorstar@aol.com (609) 654-0020 New videos, flashes and news reports indicate strange hostilities in our skies. GEORGIA VIDEO Reportedly a Christian TV station was video taping a children's show near Marietta last May, when the cameraman noticed several black unmarked helicopters flying nearby. On seeing the choppers and knowing his Christian= TV audience has a fascination and dislike of unmarked black helicopters, he turned his video camera towards the choppers and got some good shots of= them. Upon returning to the TV station a technician noticed a UFO going in and= out of clouds could be seen behind the helicopters. According to Chris, a= retired physicist and camera buff, the UFO is no refraction, lens flare, reflection, or close by insect or bird.. He says it is clearly a real object darting in and out of clouds behind the choppers. It also is not something very small= in relation to the choppers The video was magnified and enhanced, the UFO= appears to be a real unknown flying structured object. Thanks to John Thompson, Georgia State Director. FLORIDA Nancy Dunning reports about her sighting on October 14, 1997, over the= central Florida Gulf Coast. "I had just left work. It was about 5:10 p.m. I was facing North and stopped at a traffic light in Palmetto, FL, when I saw an= egg shaped object moving northwest at a steady rate of speed. It was silvery= white in color. I watched as it went into a cloud and just disappeared. It never came out the other side of the cloud. I know it wasn't an airplane because,= I know a lot about airplanes. I can identify almost any plane there is." Ray Pollock also states, "I saw an object like this almost a year ago in Bradenton where I live. That object flew directly over the middle of town in broad daylight. It flew very fast, made a complete tight circle and disappeared toward the north. I don't know if anyone else saw these objects= or not. I have heard nothing reported in the papers for either one." Thanks to Nancy Dunning and Ray Pollock. INDIANA VIDEO The following information comes courtesy of a cordial and highly= professional staff member of the WXIX channel 19 Newsroom, who was contacted this= afternoon in regards to a piece which aired on their 11:30 a.m. newscast (an alert Mr. Paul Koch of Western Hills spotted the report). The gentleman at WXIX-TV searched through the computer and retrieved the script which was used to convey the story of the UFO to the TV audience. He was helpful to re-read= the script, which follows. Caption: "A mysterious UFO videotaped in Indiana?" A newsreel segment from WFLD TV in Chicago, Illinois stated, "This is something a fan of the X-files may enjoy. A young brother and sister from Indiana were startled by a mysterious light in the sky Wednesday night. Christy and Tony Venandor= were in their backyard in Porter, Indiana when they recorded these images of a light streaking across the sky. You can see it right above the tree-line.= They say the light lasted only a few seconds and disappeared without a trace." (Insert: interview with witnesses). "We saw a white dot being= trailed by flames. We thought it was crashing, but wasn't sure." The eyewitness said= it was like a rocket after take off. It wasn't a plane crash, and there are no official reports of a comet, so the light show over Porter, Indiana remains= a mystery. Thanks to Kenny Young at T.A.S.K: task@fuse.net GEORGIA, MINNESOTA, OKLAHOMA, AND NEW MEXICO FLASHES IN SKY John Thompson, MUFON State Director, reports bright flashes of light were observed across the country at 11:00 p.m. Eastern Standard time on October= 18, 1997. UFO Roundup obtained reports from a Georgia roofer who stated, "He thought what he saw was sometime before midnight (not sure exactly when ).= The wife said she only saw two flashes before she came inside and got her= husband. The flashes she said lasted about 5 seconds each and were unlike anything= she had ever seen before in her life. She said there were no balls or lights= just that the sky flashed blue. Her husband said the flashes--which he saw more= of because he went outside thinking maybe they were nearby--were of a light= blue color and finally disappeared while he was looking for them in the woods.= Both husband and wife said they couldn't tell if the flashes were stationary or moving around some. In the New Mexico report below blue flashes were= observed at 9:00 p.m. Now remember that New Mexico is 2 hours behind Eastern time.= This is one eerie coincidence! What is the chance of two unrelated couples 1600 miles apart seeing sizeable blue flashes on the same night and apparent= time? I wonder if these blue flashes could, perhaps, be seen all over the southern part of the U.S. on Oct. 18th around 11:00 p.m. EST? If so, what could make such light sources? Thanks to John Thompson and UFO Roundup, Joe Trainor editor. STRANGE BLUE FLASHES SEEN IN NEW MEXICO On Saturday, October 18, 1997, at 9 p.m. Mountain times, "a man= and his fianc=E9e were going home to" Los Alamos, NM. The couple "observed a= light blue flash that 'lit up the sky behind the Jemez Mountains.' They reported that the light faded slowly, then returned to its previous level of= brightness approximately five minutes later." About 45 minutes later, as the couple approached their house in Los Alamos, "the sky lit up with the same blue light, but this time it was on the opposite side of the Jemez Mountains. He reported that the light was so bright that the profile of the mountains was clearly visible in the night." Many thanks UFO Roundup and Steve Wilson for forwarding this story. Editor's Comment: A similar phenomenon took place at 8:50 p.m. on Thursday, September 4, 1997 just north of Beaver Bay,= Minnesota. The light flashes were green, however, not blue. For more information, see. UFO ROUNDUP, v 2, # 35.) Joe Trainor Editor OKLAHOMA On Friday, October-31, 1997 at 8:23 p.m. CDT, a "Flash of Light" was= reported N. E. of the town of Reydon, Oklahoma (appox. 120 miles N.W. of Oklahoma City). A local Sheriff's Deputy witnessed this flash. This radio report was monitored, and it was described as a 'Large Flash of Light in the Sky'. also heard- Dispatch-" was it lighting?" Deputy-" I don't see any clouds in the sky"..." "I saw one large flash to my northeast and it wasn't lightning!".Thanks to Jim Hickman and Skywatch. Editors Note: These strange blue flashes over much of the country over= several weeks my have some significance. I have frequently run into aircrews who= have also seen the flashes that light up the whole sky at night. I think they= may be a natural light phenomenon. Something in space such as a satellite could cause the sun to flash on the dark side of Earth. UFOs penetrating our atmosphere could also be responsible, but it is more likely to be some sort= of electrical phenomenon similar to the Northern Lights. Could lasers cause= the blue flashes? I wonder if a large craft entering the atmosphere at night or laser would cause this type of flashing? Do you have any ideas? AIR FORCE LASERS Air Force Magazine announces new YAL-1 attack lasers are being developed by the Air Force to destroy enemy missiles. Installed on a modified Boeing 747 the Attack Laser will employ an advanced beam control and atmospheric compensation system to precisely direct a multimegawatt high energy laser to destroy theater ballistic missiles during boost phase. Colonel Michael Booen is the program director at Kirtland AFB, NM. He stated the program is in= good shape and successfully passed the Critical Design Review for the full power Flight Weighted Laser Module last February. Thanks to the Nov. AFA= Magazine. Editors note: If a laser can destroy a missile, would it also be able to destroy a UFO? TEXAS NORAD also tracks UFOs and the change of direction and smoke could indicate that this unidentified object was in some sort of trouble. Regarding the recent sighting of a strange meteor like object that= reportedly slammed into the Texas border near El Paso causing Army, police, and helicopter response. Reuters News reports Steven Marquez stated, "I saw a large flash like an explosion in the sky near the Organ Mountains outside= Las Cruces, New Mexico. `Something fell off of it and left a huge cloud of smoke over there by the mountains '' Robert Simpson, a spokesman for the McDonald Observatory in Texas, said he saw what appeared to be a small meteor flash across the sky at 12:47 p.m. MDT and that it was about as bright as the surface of a setting sun. Las Cruces, NM Police Sgt. Joel Cano said, "The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) tracked the object as it entered Earth's atmosphere until it fell to the ground about 30 miles east of El Paso. A police command post was set up near the Organ Mountains as U.S. Army Reserve helicopters= used infrared sensors to look for pieces of debris from the object. "What they= are looking for is any debris that is still hot or anything that came off the object,'' Cano said. Witnesses said the streak of light left a contrail across southern New Mexico that hung in the sky for about 30 minutes. CNN claimed it then headed south according to weather radar. Ufologist and web master, Tony Craddock states that, "Sources I talked to at the NBC affiliate in El Paso feel that something was definitely shot down there October 9,= 1997. A Los Angeles radio station reported on October 19th that a large number of people in El Paso, Texas heard a very loud explosion in the sky earlier in= the month. A meteorogical scientist had given the explanation that a meteor had exploded 10,000 miles up, but a local Sheriff interviewed on the radio said "They can say what they want, but it is like I am standing here in a snowstorm". He described the debris= as being lightweight and metallic "like sequins or the metal flake makeup that ladies sometimes wear" This broadcast was reported by a local doctor, who listened to it at the time. The meteor attracted a surprising amount of government response. An update to this report is posted on the Website at http://www.cseti.org/crashes/crash122.htm. Thanks to Tony Craddock. Editors note: Assuming these reports are correct, this kind of debris indicates an explosion of a metallic object entering the atmosphere. Can= these metallic flakes be analyzed as to type, source, manufacturer? Can a laser cause this kind of damage to a metallic object? CANADA NEWS An October 1997, Poll finds that 3 million Canadians have seen UFOs. A national survey by an independent research consortium has found that 9.6= per cent of all Canadians believe they have seen UFOs. "This translates into nearly 3 million people who say they are UFO witnesses. Nearly 200= Canadians were randomly surveyed, and our results appear to be in line with similar studies in the United States." notes Chris Rutkowski, project coordinator.= 78 per cent of Canadians believe in the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. More than 52 per cent believe that some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Only 12 per cent of people who have seen UFOs actually report their sightings. More than 57 per cent of Canadians believe there is a military = or government cover-up regarding the existence of UFOs. Younger Canadian adults are more likely to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life. Thanks to MUFON Ontario at 416-249-0933 Chris Rutkowski, 204-269-7553, and Posted= by Thanos (news.ti.com) NEW FOUNDLAND On November 3, 1997, at 11:11 p.m. Don Jay Fredrico reports a sighting near the airport runway in Stephenville, Newfoundland. Don states, "I saw the strange craft hover over the ocean across from the run way it stayed their= for about 2 or 3 minutes and then it left without a sound. as it was leaving it looked life a ball of red fire then it divided into two different (balls of gas) and disappeared." Thanks to ISUR & Don Jay: sleepygonzals@hotmail.com GERMANY: A US Army soldier's wife living in Germany, called her mother in the US to report a UFO. She said, that in the afternoon of October 22, 1997, = numerous Army dependents saw a giant saucer UFO with lots of lights on its bottom,= fly over a highway. The UFO made allot of noise, flew low and moved slow enough for people to stop their cars and get out and look at it in astonishment.= This occurred outside of a unnamed American Army base in Germany. This same= person also told her mother that a friend of her 's took a photo of the UFO. The daughter is married to an Army sergeant stationed at the base. We are attempting to verify this story. If anyone has further info please contact= us. Thanks to John Thompson gin@wp-lag.mindspring.com (john c. thompson) BRAZIL Philippe Piet van Putten reports the possible suicide of a Brazilian= Officer after he allegedly revealed the truth about UFOs. Brazilian Air Force= retired colonel Uyrange Bolivar Soares Nogueira de Hollanda Lima, 56, made = important revelations concerning UFOs on July 20, 1997. He was interviewed during the national television show Fantastico (Globo TV). For the first time, the Colonel confirmed his personal UFO-experiences while commanding Operacao Prato. Operation Plate was activated by the Brazilian= Air Forces, 1st Regional Aerial Command in September, 1977. Colonel Uyrange and Operation Plate succeeded in filming and photographing numerous UFOs, which were causing panic in the Amazon region. He and agents of the now extinct National Information Service (SNI) had a real close encounter with an= enormous UFO. Operation Plate obtained hundreds of photos of strange aerial= phenomena which "seemed aware of the military presence" and moved in an intelligent fashion. There is an unconfirmed report that the Colonel may have committed suicide. Thanks to the Director, Philippe Piet van Putten, Brazilian Academy of Parasciences (ABP) UNITED KINGDOM Victor J. Kean reports on November 5th, 1997, "I am informed of UFO activity off Lowestoft, Norfolk in Southeast England, which is being videoed by= various reliable observers. Apart from "lights under the sea" various UFOs have been videoed "entering and leaving the sea. Large Flying Traingles (FTs) also seen in the= Lowestoft area. Witnesses have been visited by 'Military Intelligence" and additional UFO activity is centered upon Thetford Forest, Norfolk. Thanks to :VICTOR_J_KEAN@compuserve.com Editors note: I was stationed at RAF Sculthorpe in Norfolk, England and= often heard reports of UFOs and even had the opportunity to chase one. London Control vectored us to the Stonehenge area to investigate. I was able to= pick up the UFO on our aircraft radar at 25 miles. We were doing about 425 mph, when we spotted lights hovering in the distance. We closed quickly diving on the stationary target. We closed to one mile on the radar, when the UFO= took off at a high rate of speed. It reminded me of a shuttle launch at night.= We had other reports of huge mother ships launching smaller scout craft over= the UK. FAMOUS QUOTES ABOUT UFOs Dr. Herman Oberth, the father of modern rocketry and one of Germany's= greatest scientists, is quoted as saying in 1954, "UFOs are conceived and directed by intelligent beings of a very high order, and they are propelled by = distorting the gravitational field, converting gravity into useable energy. There is= no doubt in my mind that these objects are interplanetary craft of some sort. = I and my colleagues are confident that they do not originate in our solar system, but we feel that they may use Mars or some other body as sort of a way station. Years later he was quoted as saying, "We cannot take the= credit for our record advancement in certain scientific fields alone. We have been helped." When asked by whom, he replied, "The people of other worlds." Thanks to Skywatch &Tim Edwards: edwards@amigo.net (tim edwards) If you have a UFO news or comments, please, e-mail it to: = Majorstar@aol.com. Search for other documents from or mentioning: majorstar | task |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: Skywatch: UFO News International 31 From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:14:36 -0700 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 09:21:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Skywatch: UFO News International 31 ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:22:34 +0100 (MET) To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Subject: UFO News International 31 ______ ______ ___________________________ | | | / \ ___ ____ | | | | | |\ | | \ / / | | |____ | | | \ | |___ \ /\ / /____ | | | | | | \| |___ \ / \ |______| | \______/ ___________ / ________________________/ ____ I n t e r n a t i o n a l ____ _________________________________ y - 31 - Steven Greer on Sightings 2 Opinion 4 More debunking 5 Astronaut Story Musgrave: Greys are real 8 Quotes 9 Briefs 9 Web sites 10 Letter from Ben #4 10 You can use UFO News International articles 11 Editor's notes: 11 - 1 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ************************************************************* Steven Greer on Sightings ************************************************************** On Monday June 20, CSETI's director Steven Greer was on Sightings on the Radio with Jeff Rense. ____ Rense asks Greer to comment on the claim by American Computer Company (ACC) that there is evidence that the former Bell Telephone Laboratories faked the history of the transistor and decided to be silent about the influx of alien technology it acquired through the US military. Greer reiterates that CSETI has a total of well over 100 high level witnesses who are willing to testify before the US Congress that their work for the US military or private contractors involved extraterrestrial technology. ACC's story, which is backed by the book 'The Day after Roswell' by Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso (Ret.), is just the tip of the iceberg. Greer says it is not clear whether AT & T, parent company of the Bell Laboratories, is really to blame. "Artefacts could have been handed over, but the researchers may never have known where it came from." Furthermore every sensitive project where the military is involved, is highly compartmentalized. In most cases the left hand of the project does not know what the right hand is doing. Greer adds that transistors, lasers and optics are small potatoes compared with other technologies that are the result of acquired alien technology that CSETI is aware of. New propulsion systems, alternative energy sources and non-linear communication (telepa- thy - HvdP) are other, more important fields. Ben Rich, former director of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, said in a speech before he died in front of fifteen people: "We have the means to travel to the stars. But it will take an act of God to get anything out of these black projects". According to Greer the star travel technology involves electro gravitic systems and zero point energy. "These technologies can replace the fossil fuel economy of today and can deal with most of the environmental problems we have", says Greer. Greer wants his witnesses to testify before the US Congress. "The truth must come out. But the problem is one of collective will. We as a people have to educate the politicians about it." Greer says that the CIA director he has spoken to shared the notion that it is time for the truth to get out. Greer adds: "But people in power do not necessarily have the freedom to enforce change." Greer says that he and a CSETI team go out into the California desert regularly to make contact with extraterrestrial vehicles. CSETI has developed a "protocol" to let alien craft "vector in" on his group. Some kind of communication takes place, but Greer does not say what this contact is about. - 2 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - He says that on one occasion a big disk descended from the sky and went directly into a mountain without crashing. Many of these excursions have been done outside the USA, because the US military already has several reversed engineered craft in its possession that are frequently test flown over US territory. The CSETI group is interested in the real thing, not in so called Alien Reproduction Vehicles (ARV's). A caller to the program described her own UFO sightings. When she wanted to photograph the UFO, her camera switched off at the moment she poined it at the craft. This happened a few times. Greer confirms that the same thing has happened to his group. Greer says that so called "thought actuation" is to blame, by which the aliens switch off the camera. He says that the alien races are very familiar with this kind of control over equipment. Thought actuation also works on UFOs and underlies the "proto- cols" that CSETI uses to attract UFOs. Another female caller asked whether Greer had experience with women that have experiments done on them by alien beings. Greer answers that he has worked with people who were part of a military project in which innocent citizens were abducted and were made to believe this was an extraterrestrial event. Greer says that every single element of a so called "alien abduction" can be explained by electromagnetic stimuli that can stage an abduction. Greer feels that the concepts that underly the "alien abduction scenario" can induce an arms race with extraterrestrials and can lead in the end to a military confrontation. Greer says that he has multiple witnesses who say that the US military are tracking alien craft regularly and on more than one occasion has downed an ET object. Greer mentions a specific case in 1991. Greer says that the case of the crashed alien vehicle near Varginha, Brazil, 1996, that produced large numbers of Chupacabra sightings, also involved an alien craft that was deliberately shot down. This time by a sophisticated space based weapon system. Rense asks Greer why the aliens don't shoot back. Greer says that is not their way of operating. Another caller asks how can the truth about alien contact can be brought out. Greer says that it will take one member of Congress to take a serious look at the situation. But, Rense says, CSETI has already provided US representatives with an abundance of information. Greer says the process still takes education and CSETI is working on it. - HvdP ___ ______ /\ /\ \_\ /_/ \ " / \ _ / \ / - 3 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - Usually I don't add comments to these transcribed interviews, but this time I make an exception. Alien abductions are a world wide phenomenon that affects people in technological countries such as the USA as well as inhabitants from such remote areas as New Guinea. Unless the US military industrial complex wants to induce Papuas into a war with extraterrestrials, I don't see much merit in Greer's assumption that the greater part of abductions is artificially induced. The part about the reverse engineering of alien technology by the US military is confirmed not only by Greer's own pool of witnesses, but also by people such as Bill Hamilton (Skywatch), Col. Steve Wilson (Skywatch), Bob Lazar, Bill Uhouse, Lt. Col. Philip Corso and the consultant for American Computer Company. It should be noted, however, that all these individuals each possess just a piece of the puzzle. - HvdP __|__ --_---_-- \\ \\ CSETI's Dr. Steven Greer's radio interview October 19th on Jeff Rense's "Sightings on the Radio" can now be played back via Real Audio archives from CSETI's Website. It can be found in the "What's New" Section. Regards Tony Craddock Web Administrator CSETI http://www.cseti.org ************************************************************** Opinion ************************************************************** [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] I have read posts about what happened during the 19th century when a newspaper ran stories about a dramatic new telescope that discovered a race of people on the moon. People were very interested and the newspaper's circulation improved. There was no panic. - 4 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - Some posts have mentioned that no great fear or panic resulted from the Darwin or Galileo revelations. This was discussed concerning what would happen if the forthcoming pictures from Mars showed evidence of a previous civilization. In my opinion, revelation of now extinct civilizations on Mars would not cause any fear or panic. It may help to increase budgets for future space explorations. However, if non-human piloted craft entering Earth's air space were discovered, and if the propulsion of such craft was proven not to involve fossil or nuclear fuels, and another big if, if that method of propulsion could be duplicated and proposed as marketable, what would happen to our financial markets? Would the oil and energy stocks tumble? Would oil and energy shareholders keep calm knowing that the new propulsion technolo- gies would become products of the Corporations now in nuclear and fossil fuels? Would investment bankers, and mutual fund control- lers, take the news lightly, willing to wait things out? In my opinion, the reaction from the public, to knowing a previous civilization was on Mars, versus knowing fossil and nuclear fuels may become extinct, would be quite different. Doc in Phoenix ______ /\ /\ \_\ /_/ \ " / \ _ / \ / ************************************************************** More debunking ************************************************************** What this world needs is more UFO debunking. In last week's issue I included an article about a possible connection between the weather phenomenon El Nino and UFOs. A few days later I was surprised to find the same article, and a reference to UFO News International and me in eSufo, a new Internet publication by David Watanabe. This issue of eSufo was also distributed on the public Skywatch mailing list, so that it reached a total of several thousands of people. This was the introduction. ____ - 5 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - Now, boot up your cynicism, for I give you the Skeptical UFOlogist, a new feature which will serve to highlight the 'bad' aspects of UFOlogy. Here at exoScience we would like to promote scientific investigation of UFOs and related phenomena. The goal of this feature is not to mock, but rather to acknowledge the fact that a lot of bad work does take place under the nameplate of "UFOlogy". Today's article comes from UFO News International, a generally credible newsletter by Henny van der Pluijm. I'm not certain if he intended it as a serious article, or rather shared our intentions. ____ This was followed by the article. ____ I responded to David Watanabe with the following: Thanks for using the article about El Nino from UFO News International. FYI I did intend it as a serious article, though I had my reservations at first. It is so easy to link one sensational subject (UFOs) with another sensational subject (El Nino) and thereby creating an entire new field of wild speculati- on. However, the article was based on the observations and conclusi- ons of a serious meteorologist, so I felt free to include it in my newsletter, albeit at the bottom of the issue. As you understand, the report is just that: a report. I make no claim about the validity of the theories of the meteorologist, because it is beyond my powers to do so. Needless to say, the same goes for any report in any newspaper or magazine. While the claims might sound sensational, we can't dismiss reports because they sound sensational. Would we do that, the whole field of Ufology would have no merit and the research should be stopped. Having said that, I am not sure why you used this article for eSufo. Was it because you took it seriously or because you thought it should be exposed? In the latter case, please include these comments in one of your next issues. Henny van der Pluijm, editor of UFO News International. _____ - 6 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - To which David responded: Hello, I noted that the article was written by someone at the World Weekly News, which is, if I'm not mistaken, a devout tabloid! I must, on principle, be highly skeptical about anything taken from such a publication. Also, the fact that it was researched by a 'serious meteorolo- gist' means very little. There are millions of meteorologists around, and I'm sure one would be willing to accept a cash incentive from a tabloid. If there were a group, or even a significant number of 'experts' who claimed this as a serious possibility, I'd possibly give it more credibility. Dave btw...I still think your newsletter is great, and I hope to use more articles of a more serious nature on eSufo. Thanks! ____ Well, where must I start? For starters, David has not complied so far with my request to send my comments on the eSufo issue to his readers. It has been two weeks now since I asked him this. Which increases my suspicion that all David wanted to do was debunk an article while he did not care about the reputation of this magazine or me. Furthermore, no new issue of ESufo has been published since, so I suspect David was also a little short of material. I am angry about this. Because what good does it do? In a world in which the media, science and the rest of the establishment ignore all UFO reports, research and investigation. Where people who have observed a UFO in most cases hardly talk about is, let alone report it. Where honest investigators universally undergo the ridicule of people who couldn't care less about the truth. Where experiencers of alien abduction not only have to endure the torture by their kidnappers, but are also scoffed at by so called scientists who don't know what they are talking about. To start a new UFO newsletter in this climate that has the intention of promoting science, but in fact engages in single minded debunking and to suggest that this should help Ufology is, in my honest opinion, a kind of reasoning that is out of this world. If David wants to defend the science in Ufology, why doesn't he start with debunking the complete works of Phil Klass and Kal Korff? Or why doesn't he start a newsletter that contains high quality UFO cases or in depth investigations? A mere book review would even be better than this. Or doesn't David have anything to add to the field, as is usual for debunkers? - 7 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - I wanted to follow a policy of freely sharing information about UFOs and related subjects by offering to redistribute any article from this newsletter to any kind of magazine, newsletter, newspaper or what have you, because many people have a need or wish for information on this subject. It was not my intention to let these articles be abused for the sake of debunking. If David felt the article was without merit because he knew that World Weekly News is an Internet tabloid, he could have told me so and I would have written an appropriate disclaimer in the next issue. But no, not only did David debunk, the way in which he handled this matter is the style of the debunker too. I hope this was just an incident. Nonetheless, I feel forced to from now on pose the condition on using articles from this newsletter that they not be used for the express purpose of debunking, a condition which will be specified in the relevant section in each issue. Everyone, including David, is free to use these articles as long as - for the sake of Ufology, progress and mankind itself - something positive is done with it. The last thing Ufology needs is more debunking. - HvdP ************************************************************** Astronaut Story Musgrave: Greys are real ************************************************************** Dr. Story Musgrave is the most experienced Space Shuttle pilot. - HvdP Submitted by Steve W. Sawyer Regarding the recent AP story on Edgar Mitchell, there is another astronaut you really ought to talk to: Dr. Story Musgrave. In case you haven't heard, it was reported on Art Bell, by way of a caller, that Dr. Musgrave recently gave an astronomy presenta- tion with a closing statement that was totally unexpected and out of left field. The caller was a television reporter who attended the presentati- on. He said that Dr. Musgrave gave an interesting slide show with purely down to Earth stuff, but at the very end he put up slide of a "grey" and simply stated: "these guys are real... I guarantee it". He made no further comment and ended his presenta- tion. The reason I find this significant is that Dr. Musgrave was previously on the opposite side of the fence. What has happened lately to cause Dr. Musgrave, a die-hard skeptic, to suddenly and change his position? - 8 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - I have a taped episode of Sightings (TV) from a couple of years ago where Dr. Musgrave was discussing strange objects observed in space including things photographed near our spacecraft. When asked, "Does the United States have (extraterrestrial) evidence that it's hiding?" Dr. Musgrave responded: "No, I'm sure they would divulge it. That's what NASA's all about. Its about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I can see no reason that that would be classified in any way. And I wouldn't let it be. I'm an astronaut -- I fly in space. I have five flights. The second I see something I'm going to tell somebody." /\ -------- / \ ************************************************************** Quotes ************************************************************** Calvin and Hobbes (Bill Watterson) - "The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us." ************************************************************** Briefs ************************************************************** The International Peacemaker Project, together with the Australi- an, New Zealand and Pacific UFO Hotline, wishes to advise that at 0900 UTC "Voice of Russia" transmitted a story on the history of UFO reports and sightings in Russia, some from the 9th and 11th century and then to date. VOR stated that, "although that many reports can be explained there existes an number of reports that can not, and it is these that need to be looked into and studied. Copies of this recording will be able to soon be heard on the IPP National UFO Hotline's site. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1177/index.htm If you wish any information please contact "Ross Dowe" Regards IPP Australia Ross Dowe ippoz@eisa.net.au ippoz@hotmail.com - 9 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - /\ -------- / \ ************************************************************** Web sites ************************************************************** UFO Information Center, the home of UFO News International, has registered its 5000th visitor. ************************************************************** Letter from Ben #4 ************************************************************** Henny, baby...., That spot in the newsletter about the El Nino and alien space- craft connection was, I tell you, a barrel of laughs. I still get a chuckle just thinking about it. Yesterday, during a routine call with the local National Weather Service, I mentioned the spot and they were completely floored with laughter. They were beside themselves, of course we continued the logic to even more hilarious extremes. Now I can't get a weather report without giggling. Some of the past stories in the newsletter were humorous if to no one else but me. The series on the transistor I admit had me with the ususal remarks "Oh.. Please" or "Give me a break ". After that phase, I start giggling about the topic. I am not the only one. I share the story and laughs with others, and whenever the subject comes up. Henny, I hand it to you, when you dug up that El Nino bit, to me it was the topper. You sir have a wonderful and gifted sense of humor. Keep up the good work. Dear Ben, Thank you for your - as always - enthusiastic letter. I really appreciate you sharing UFO News International with others, because this way my newsletter reaches even more people than the 200 direct subscribers. I really can't express how encouraged I am by the warm response this newsletter is getting from your friends and acquaintances. Just the thought of your colleagues and the weather people rolling over the floor with laughter makes constructing this newsletter a worthwile endeavor. However, we have a saying here that who laughs last, laughs best and for the time being I await further news about El Nino hitting continental America this winter. So far the jury is still out on the connection with UFOs. - HvdP - 10 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - ************************************************************** You can use UFO News International articles ************************************************************** . Make a selection from this issue for your web site. . Redistribute articles in your owns newsletter or Bulletin Board System. Conditions: . Please give credit to UFO News International and, if relevant, to the original source. . Articles may not be used for the express purpose of baseless debunking. Baseless debunking can be defined as attacking the validity of a report without including substantial grounds for the attack. Violations of this condition will immediately be followed by exposure on the main Internet UFO discussion forums. ************************************************************** Editor's notes: UFO News International welcomes: . your own UFO report . abduction experience . analysis or commentary Anonimity will be provided if needed. UFO News International also welcomes: . congress announcements . congress reports . notification of a change in your web site . information about your UFO organization All contributions to this newsletter must be in English. Grammar and spelling need not be perfect. In case of a change in your e-mail address, please notify me in advance, so that you can continue to receive UFOPals. If you haven't received this newsletter for more than three weeks, something must have gone wrong, so please contact me. Readers are encouraged to invite their friends, acquaintances and colleagues to subscribe to this newsletter. The text of this newsletter can be transferred to your preferred word processor. First take care that this newsletter and your wordprocessor are both activated under a Windows operating system. Then select the text of the newsletter with the computer mouse, click on the copy command (Ctrl-C), change to your word processor and paste the text by clicking the Paste icon (suitca- se) into your word processor document. - 11 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - ______ /\ /\ \_\ /_/ \ " / \ _ / \ / ************************************************************** Date: November 3, 1997 Editor: Henny van der Pluijm Correspondents: Barry Chamish (Israel) Mike Stahl (Australia) UFOIC, http://www.ufoic.com, hosts: Henny van der Pluijm's UFO FAQ: http://www.ufoic.com/faq and the UNI archive: http://www.ufoic.com/faq/ufopals Personal website: http://www.worldonline.nl/~hvdp E-mail: hvdp@worldonline.nl Direct subscribers: 199 Copyright agreements: Project Watchfire BBS. NUN BBS Network, The Netherlands. Over 100 subscribers. UFO Online BBS - PDX, Portland, Oregon, USA. 75 subscribers. ______________________________________________________________ (C) Henny van der Pluijm, 1997. ______________________________________________________________ y - 12 of 12 - - UFO News International 31 - y
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 08:46:55 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 19:27:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> >To: <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 >Hi all, >I have a question I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. I'm >doing research on the Kenneth Arnold sighting and remember >reading somewhere that the press misquoted Arnold's initial >description of his UFO. Thanks everyone for your help in clearing up my question. I was finally able to dig up some info on it in one of my books, but I wanted to make sure the quotes were accurate. Thanks again!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:24:00 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:04:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:33:53 -0800 > > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/6/97 10:20 PM: > > From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> > > To: <updates@globalserve.net> > > Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony > > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 > > I have a question I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. I'm > > doing research on the Kenneth Arnold sighting and remember > > reading somewhere that the press misquoted Arnold's initial > > description of his UFO. Arnold's claim was that the craft was > > boomerang shaped, but appeared to fly "like saucers skipping over > > water." I haven't been able to find this detail in the books I > > have, and am wondering if I am in error here about it. Anyway, > > didn't Arnold describe the UFO as boomerang shaped also? Any > > help would be greatly appreciated. > Scott - Your best bet is to obtain Steiger's "Project Blue Book", > which contains the original accounts and analyses. Hello Scott, Hello List, Let's not forget Bruce Maccabee's three articles on Arnold's sighting that appeared in the International UFO Reporter, first 3 issues of 1995. It's especially valuable, in my opinion, for any comprehensive look at the case, and presents the poorly known second witness to this sighting, in the third article. This witness, Fred Johnson, described them basically as being "round about 30 foot in diameter tapering sharply to a point in the head and in an oval shape. with a bright top surface." It's not clear, is it Bruce (if you're browsing), if he meant "roundabout 30 feet in diameter or that they were "round" and about 30 feet in diameter? I suppose he could have meant they were round but appeared oval when viewed obliquely, or some such. Jim Deardorff Search for other documents from or mentioning: deardorj | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:19:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 19:39:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Dennis....forgive me, but what exactly is your logic? > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis You think some people who believe in the ETH also believe other things you think are silly. So is this somehow the fault of anyone who believes the ETH? Or who's merely willing to entertain it? Is anyone interested in the ETH now somehow responsible for denouncing any silliness even remotely associated with it? Is ufology now expected to work the way white people think African-American politics should? A black person becomes vocal about affirmative action and other civil rights issues -- and suddenly white people ask her to denounce Louis Farrakhan. Is that the kind of ufological litmus test you have in mind? And if you don't, what in Zeta Reticuli could your original post have meant? "Yes, the ETH is fine, but look what it's spawned!" (I'm paraphrasing.) If you don't mean what I just suggested, what DO you mean? > Even something like the Anthropic Principle has a Weak vesion > and a Strong one, in other words, variations on a theme. If you > can get orthodox ufology to adopt a conservative ETH (*some* UFOs > are alien spacecraft), I'm all for you. That's what Stanton > Friedman, for example, does in public -- but he also associates > the ETH with a worldwide government coverup, a shadow > organization known as MJ-12, and plentiful crashes and retrievals > of alien bodies near Roswell. Strangely enough, he even thinks he has evidence. Stranger still, that evidence -- no matter how it holds up in the long run -- isn't ridiculous on its face. He's free to make his arguments (which, unless I somehow stumbled on a private shipments of Crash at Corona and Stan's MJ-12 book), he even dares to make in public. What exactly is the problem here? Are we all supposed to think that only a lunatic would believe what Stan does? And that therefore the ETH is gravely polluted each time he opens his vociferous mouth? > All I was pointing out is that it doesn't work that way. Before > you know it, all sorts of paths are leading into the briar patch, > each proponent of which believes the evidence for same follows > "logically" from the fact that we're being visited not just once > or sporadically, but daily and routinely by extraterrestrials. > You don't need to play six degrees of Bacon to see that this is > so. One or two will do just as well in this instance. No way. Not at all. Silliness. Take Stan Friedman. His MJ-12 and Roswell work doesn't proceed logically from his embrace of the ETH. See my remarks above. He thinks he has separate evidence for MJ-12 and Roswell. You think he's SO dumb that his ETH belief leaves him open for anything? Why doesn't he believe in jars of human body parts? > Mike Davis's article is approximately 75 pages long. I think > there might be one paragraph in it that contains the word > extraterrestrial, or maybe as many as three or four. The article > is about the history and nature of the solar system. UFOs aren't > on his mind, one way or the other. Branch out and read it. You > might like it -- or you might not. But at least you would know > what you are referring to. Silly me, relying on your summary. I thought your point was to stress, based on Davis's theorizing, how rare life might be in this vast universe of ours. > You should know better, Greg. Sagan may have ended up like a > Menzel, but he certainly didn't start out as one. Or maybe you've > forgotten his and Thornton Page's UFOs: A Scientific Debate. If > so, you can pick up a nice cheap hardback edition of same at your > local Barnes & Noble. James McDonald got almost 75 pages in same, > probably his largest exposure to a popular audience. The book was > the result of a UFO symposium held by the American Association > for the Advancement of Science, which Sagan was instrumental in > organizing. There's some dispute as to how instrumental his role > in saving Blue Book records was, but he certainly wasn't in favor > of their destruction. Sagan's own comments in the symposium -- which, oddly enough, I've read -- strike me as slippery. But then, that's merely my judgement. If mainstream science didn't embrace UFOs in the '70s, despite Hynek and McDonald, what chance do ufologists, however scientifically conservative, have of bringing science around now? As I remember the "scientific debate" hosted by Sagan and Page, the non-believers (if you'll allow me to characterize them that way) don't really address the points made by the believers. That's all too typical of the way science has handled, or not handled, this problem. > Similarly, who convinced mainstream science that there was > nothing to UFOs? After all, if UFOs are as physically prevalent > as everyone seems to think they are, you would think that enough > scientists would have seen or been abducted by them now to the > extent that they wouldn't believe anything the Air Force said, no > matter what it said. Obviously, not enough of them have yet had a > personal experience to turn the tide. But who knows? Maybe > critical mass is just around the corner. You've got to be kidding. Here we have David Pritchard, one of the few openly sympathetic scientists, begging me a couple of years ago not to mention his name in mainstream media, for fear of getting him in huge trouble with the MIT physics department, and with his federal grants for mainstream research. More recently, he told a TV interviewer (who didn't use it in the show she produced) that the heat from skeptical colleagues was very hard to bear. Logic is not the issue here. Mainstream science carries a huge prejudice against UFOs (and against parapsychology too, for that matter; see Jeffrey Mishlove's The Roots of Consciousness for documented chapter and verse). And if you ask me what the problem really is, I'd say denial. I'd say that, in fact, even if UFOs turn out to be nothing more than scraps of my long white hair floating in the breeze. The whole question of alien visits has our culture in a tizzy. Hardly anyone can face it squarely, scientists and ufologists both included. Come to think of it, that also explains the excesses of ufology. The prospect of alien visits makes us so crazy that lots of people, attempting to deal with the question, stop making sense. Although, if you pin me to the wall, I'll take the better ufologists over the scientists, anytime. Whether or not I agree with Stan's conclusions on MJ-12, I challenge you to compare Stan's work on it with SETI astronomer Frank Drake's reasons why interstellar travel is impossible (and, therefore, aliens will never visit us). Stan comes off as an apostle of sweet reason, and Drake, by contrast, as a frightened idiot. Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:17:48 PST Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:02:53 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Hi, Dennis, Greg, and everybody, I've been having e-mail problems, so I lost Dennis Stacy's posting. Thus, after reading it in ufomind.com/ I'm having to respond in this separate post. There is much I could say, but I'm sure Greg will do his usual splendid job of responding. I will confine myself to an item or two: Dennis to the contrary, James McDonald did have a personal UFO sighting, in the company of his wife and two fellow meteorologists, on January 10, 1954, while driving in the desert. He prepared a typically meticulous, detailed report to Blue Book a short time later. The sighting had much, possibly everything, to do with McDonald's interest in the subject and later involvement in investigation and advocacy. As we all know, more scientists have a private curiosity about the subject than dare express same publicly. For example, in the summer of 1952, Allen Hynek surveyed 44 fellow astronomers and learned that as many as five had personal sightings (which they had not advertised to public or colleagues). "This is a higher percentage than among the public at large," he wrote. I probably am reading him wrongly -- I don't have his words at hand -- and so I doubt that Dennis means to imply that Sagan was a knowledgeable or impartial commentator on the UFO phenomenon. (You couldn't think that and still have read The Demon-Haunted World.) Sagan was, besides whatever else he may or may not have been, a careerist, and I suppose in the real world you couldn't truly expect continuing career-damaging intellectual courage from a guy who (1) had already experienced fierce pressure from senior scientists for sponsoring even a predominantly skeptical AAAS symposium on UFOs and (2) been seen by many as something of a kook and/or extremist for his advocacy of SETI. There's a certain strategy in this, too. Bill Corliss once coined the useful phrase "anomaly snobbism," by which one establishes credibility for one's own favored anomaly by bashing another. As to other SETI-oriented scientists, UFOs represented to Sagan an opportunity to bash one anomaly while enhancing another. I doubt seriously that dumb stuff about Dark Side mythology, contactees, or whatever would affect the judgment of scientists who really cared to investigate UFO cases. Around anything controversial a body of rumor and lore, sometimes crazy, develops (e.g., the Kennedy assassination), and this is particularly true in an area of inquiry that has already been marginalized, such as ufology. Scientists who have bothered to investigate UFO data don't confuse Clyde Tombaugh's testimony with Bill Cooper's, or investigatable landing traces with rumors of underground vats. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:33:43 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:08:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 97 13:10:55 UT >From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Elders Remarks on Mexico City Footage >>> Anyone who has attempted to film a >>> monitor or television knows that the scan lines of the camcorder and >>> the monitor do not sync. >As anyone who has worked in Hollywood will tell you, this is >untrue. There are tons of tv playback done on television shows >without seeing any lines. There is a simple device that syncs >the tape to film or vice versa. The tape needs to be transferred >at a certain speed in order to avoid the lines. >Not a big deal. >Diana Botsford Sorry, but this is mumbo-jumbo. It has nothing at all to do with tape speed, but with the frames not synchronizing. The device which makes this possible creates genlock, by using a frequency generator to synchronize the two video feeds. I don't think these are commonly available for camcorders. They are, of course, readily available for professional equipment. Bob Shell
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:11:12 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:13:16 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] >Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:45:44 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >> big snip < >> I don't think McDonald ever had a personal sighting, yet he was >> quite passionate about the subject. Wouldn't scientists with a >> personal experience be even more vocal and passionate? >Well Dennis you are quite wrong about this statement, James >McDonald did have a sighting or have you forgotten how Jacques >Vallee documents how he double-crossed James McDonald by >revealing information about McDonalds sighting which had been >confidential. >Gary Alevy Dear Gary: When I use the words "I don't think" that means I'm not certain. And if McDonald did have a sighting, it would only substantiate my point, not mitigate it. But anyway, I'm happy to have this information. I don't recall it off the top of head, so perhaps you could point me in the right direction. Where is the incident of Vallee's double-cross you mention? I'd like to look it up. Thanks! Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: om King's Comments About Kal Korff From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:21:24 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:21:33 -0500 Subject: Re: om King's Comments About Kal Korff >From: TotlResrch@aol.com [Kal K. Korff] >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 05:26:23 -0500 (EST) >To: Updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Tom King's Comments About Kal Korff >>By Tom King >>The episode was not a bad in my opinion. However it contained several added >>in effects to spin the end of the show. >>The first half was right on track, but it seemed to attack Village Labs and >>take the flare theory. This might be because of Richard Motzer and Kal >>Korff, giving their approach which the producers bought. Kal was cut out of >>the episode mostly likely because of him discrediting himself recently. ><snip> >Hi Tom: >You are WRONG about why I was cut out of the Discovery show. I >would appreciate it in the future that when you choose to >SPECULATE, that you leave ME OUT OF IT! >Most of my footage was "punted" to the upcoming Area 51 show and >even then, it may not be used. It is not uncommon to have footage >cut...I spent all day filming at Fox recently and my footage was >cut to 15 seconds. This is part of the industry of TV in that you >never know how things work out until the broadcast airs. How many >interviews have you given to the evening news, only to have a ten >second snippet used? Several, Tom. >Frankly, I liked to show, and although I believe the later lights >that were filmed that night were flares, I still have NO >EXPLANATION for the earlier, V-shaped object and I told the >Discovery Channel this. However, the V-shaped objects ARE >consistent with various "Star Wars" toys. My objection is how >people try to cram EVERY sighting that night into one big, UFO >event and make this whole thing so very black and white. If only >the Universe were this simple!! The TRUTH is, there were MANY >things going on that night, INCLUDING FLARE DROPS and Hale Bopp, >etc. There also remain a very core group of impressive, >unexplained sightings. >Have you accounted for the flares, Tom, and HOW MANY WITNESSES >WHO REPORTED THE FLARES AND WERE SURE THEY WERE FLARES, HAVE YOU >INTERVIEWED? These should be people who lived near the front side >of the mountain, right?? >I would not be surprised if the number was zero, Tom. I hope this >is NOT so. >Finally, I have not "discredited" myself, Tom, except perhaps in >the eyes of those for which I never had any "credibility" in the >first place. You know the type, Tom, those Meier/Pleiadian nuts >you hang out with. I got LOTS of mail over the Art Bell thing and >it was very supportive and I have lost no credibility with the >media. That's why I was back on Sightings a few days later, after >apologizing to Art Bell where the whole thing got started....duh, >Tom! I have also done many interviews since then but won't really >be back in the media spotlight or too active on the internet >until my new projects come out. However, on November 21, you may >watch me on the widely-syndicated Leeza show if you so desire. >Who knows how that one will be edited, but the Phoenix lights are >covered briefly if I recall correctly. >Getting back to Art Bell, you see, Tom, my sources had confused >the legal threats made against radio stations and the attempts to >censor me with the activities of Art Bell. I quoted my sources >and they turned out to be wrong upon closer investigation. >Unlike certain UFO "researchers" both you and I know, Tom, I >ADMIT when I am wrong. Even on national radio, and I did so on >Bell's show. Ok, Kal, I give credit where it is due. It takes a man to admit when he is wrong. So I have to give you credit for that. Although you may have only did this to prevent a lawsuit against you. >The TRUTH is, Art Bell did NOT threaten anyone over me, but JIM >DILETTOSO did. I even sent Mr. Corbis, Bell's radio station >affiliate's President, copies of Dilettoso's threatening material >but it was never mentioned or even cited on Bell's show nor >referenced on his web site that I know of. >However, how Bell cares to edit the information he presents about >this issue is his right and privilege of course. I felt I owed >Art Bell an apology and he deserved it. I was wrong about Art >Bell, but Jim Dilettoso is another story entirely, Tom. >This is a FACT THAT YOU IGNORE AND OTHERS who have tried to use >the Art Bell episode against me. >Finally, Tom, if you wish to continue to allign yourself closely >with Dilettoso so be it. However, I would prefer rather NOT to >quote or cite the "expert" opinions of those like Dilettoso who >go around LYING about claiming to have a Ph.D. Do you CONDONE >THIS, TOM, AND HAVE YOU EVER ASKED JIM DILETTOSO ABOUT WHY he did >this? I did ask Jim about this and he explained his side of the story. I accept it for that and have no reason to believe Jim is lying about it. >If I have become so "discredited" for being wrong about something >(the Art Bell incident), Tom, what does that make Jim Dilettoso >then in your eyes? Jim's a very nice guy in my opinion. He goes out of his way to help people and never asks for any money. He is very generous, and polite and I have no reason to believe he is a fraud. >Or do you believe, Tom, that people who LIE about having Ph.D.s >are more credible than those researchers who make totally human, >albeit very visible, mistakes? >Are you saying that Jim Dilettoso has NO credibility problems? No I don't think he does, he just has some monkeys on his back >I look forward to your sharing with all of us here, Tom, the >details of those conversation(s) you have had with Dilettoso >regarding his bogus claims about his bogus background. Its not my job or interest to report on Jim's background. I study UFO material and consider that a waste of resources. >I am sure that you have done the proper personal introspection in >yourself and have searched your soul and have a perfectly valid >reason you will now all share with us as to WHY you continue to >hang out and endorse someone who makes up the schools he claims >he attended and the degrees he earned. >While I have been accused of having a "vendetta" against >Dilettoso, this is NOT true. Wrong. VERY WRONG. However, as long >as the UFO field CONTINUES TO IGNORE AND NOT SPEAK UP ABOUT THOSE >PHONIES WHO MAKE UP THEIR IMAGINARY COLLEGE DEGREES AND >UNIVERSITIES ATTENDED, I feel I MUST speak up. >After all, if I DIDN'T say anything, many more of you would >actually go around CLAIMING Jim Dilettoso actually has a Ph.D. >because NONE of you EVER BOTHERED to do some simple checking and >would never know to the contrary!! >If I have any "vendetta," it is to get to the truth. Even if it >means I must admit I am wrong, like I was over the Art Bell >issue. >When are YOU going to ADMIT YOU were WRONG about the Dilettoso >issue(s), Tom?? >Kal (Hoping you will leave me out of your future, written and >very public theorizing) Korff Also Kal, I don't recall recieving a phone call from you, while you were investigating the March 13 events. I have checked with the videographers and none recieved a phone call from you also. So how did you get my video. When are YOU going to address to the list, how you investigation sightings and never talk to the eyewitnesses. The List is also STILL waiting for the video with "smoke" in it. I was the closest party to the lights with a videocamera that night. I doubt anyone was closer with a videocamera. Also I haven't met anyone who reported seeing flares that night, or stealth aircraft. Would you care to provide the names of the witnesses who did see them? You could also fill me into the running time of my video?, The breakdown of all the lights from all the videos, that if you studied them. Also you and your partner Richard Motzer have claimed to have over 12 videos from that night before the airing of the Discovery Channel show. How come they weren't on the episode? Why wasn't the smoke video aired, Ah yes, that important info was cut out! After you admitted you basically are a liar on national radio, only after threats of being sued. Then its not so far fetched that you are a liar in general, and your "stories" you tell are just that, "stories" all to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Also Kal, in the future try keeping Jim out of your posts, unless you want to keep up your love/hate obsession with him. Tom King, Skywatcher Arizona Skywatch director AZ Skywatch http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/skywatch/skywatch.htm OVNI Chapterhouse at http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:58:04 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:10:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/7/97 9:42 PM: > From: "Andy Blunn" <mcji5apb@fs1.me.umist.ac.uk> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:38:57 GMT > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > You're correct Scott. Arnold never actually described the objects > as 'flying saucers', but as moving as a saucer would if it were > "skimmed" across water. Some reports said he also seemed to > think that the objects looked like they were 'alive' - ie that > they may be living beings as opposed to spaceships. > It is interesting then, that most subsequent reports were of > 'classic' flying saucers! And to think people argue that cultural > ideas have nothing to do with UFO reports! This is a persistent myth among those who think that cultural ideas do control what people see as UFOs. However, Arnold's initial sketches are quite clear as to the lenticular shape of the objects; the only variation was a pair of notches at the rear. Also, please note previous posts by yours truly as to the actual variety of shapes reported after the Arnold sighting. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Radar Case Catalog/Database From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 10:09:34 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 19:49:54 -0500 Subject: Radar Case Catalog/Database [This posting came from the Project 1947 E-mail List-jla] Greetings List, For those who would like to probe the UFO phenomenon, radar cases remain an important and neglected area. Dr. James McDonald of the University of Arizona thought that radar might be the key to the mystery. Dr. McDonald before his death was very interested in radar cases. He obtained copies of all the radar cases he could find in the Project Blue Book files. That was not an easy task at the time. It involved traveling to Maxwell AFB and checking out each file. Copies were costly and took a long time to obtain. In a number of cases he interviewed operators and determine the technical characteristics of the equipment involved. He obtained the nearest meteorological data records and worked on the solving the cases. After he died, there were one or two scientists who were initially interested in carrying on his work. However, generally the effort seems have come to naught. There are few catalogs of radar sightings. The main one is in The UFO Evidence. Dick Hall tells me that he will use many of the same special categories into Volume II. So there will be an updated radar case listing in Volume II which is now in the hands of the publisher. One other good source is Larry Hatch's "U" database which contains about 600 radar cases worldwide. The Condon Committee' puny list of UFO radar reports among the Condon papers is laughable. There were about 30 cases. The Committee did not even obtain a list of "unknown" radar cases in the Project Blue Book files. The Condon Committee visited NORAD. Dr. Hynek had suggested that a scientific study check data in the SAGE air defense computers. Radar tracks that did not indicate an enemy bomber or missile attack were not necessarily displayed, but the SAGE equipment saved the tracks. Hynek suggested that such records be obtained for study. While the Condon Committee and NORAD wrote each other polite letters back and forth, there appeared to be no effort to obtain this important data or get NORAD to cooperate in any substantial way with the Condon study. In any case, as a start, is anyone aware of other catalogs, listings, or significant studies concerning radar? Is anyone aware of any such studies formal or informal, now or in the past? It might be embarrassing for scientists conducting current studies to be associated with UFO researchers. If so, we do not need to know the names of the scientists involved. Francis Ridge had gathered a list of radar cases different from those listed in the UFO Evidence. I think, just as in the case of the EME catalog, other researchers could help continue the collections effort concerning radar cases. Hopefully, there might be a volunteer to act as point of contact. It would also be desirable to start up a catalog or database which could be updated from time to time. Please let me know if this appeals to you or you know someone who might be interested. The person need not be a Project 1947 list member. Thank you Best regards, -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Alfred's Odd Ode #197 From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 15:07:16 -0600 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:30:48 -0500 Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #197 Apology to MW #197 (For November 8, 1997) A little female mongrel dog entombed in icy space, Unasked, so disrespected, yet a credit to the race. She starved to death, her air ran out, or burned up, but she suffered. She was the one, the first in space, surcease not made, or offered. She was just a dog, beneath concern, of shiny *honored* man. She was so completely terrified, and she couldn't understand. Her butt was shaved, electrodes placed, this side of vivisection, Then blasted into inky space, bereft of all affection. Laika was the small dog's name I commemorate with verse. She was the one so chosen, and in space she was the first. Of all the flesh that ever was from right back to the Cambrian She was the first to breath in space -- a very special champion. Forty years and now they choose to honor with a plaque The sacrifice she made unasked, though it caused her death, in fact. Better late than never, but 'twould been much better still To long ago have placed her stone on the highest sun washed hill. Half a year she spun the sky, then to Earth at last, ablaze. I wonder that some saw her as she burned up in the flames. Perhaps a child, chance looking up, and seeing shooting stars, Made a wish for her own puppy, and then thought of candy bars. Lehmberg@snowhill.com >From ABC News: As Russian cosmonauts completed a spacewalk around the Mir orbital station on Monday, a memorial was unveiled in Moscow to a pioneer who gave her life to make their mission possible=97a small mongrel dog called Laika. Exactly 40 years after she was blasted into orbit aboard the Soviet Sputnik 2, becoming the first living creature in space, Laika was finally remembered on a plaque a the Moscow research center where she was trained. On Nov. 3, 1957, just 30 days after the launch of the first Sputnik announced the Soviet lead in the space race to a stunned Western world, Laika (Russian for husky) was strapped into the 1,100-pound Sputnik 2 and launched into eternity. Unlike the more celebrated Belka and Strelka, who three years later blazed the trail for the first manned space flight by Yuri Gagarin in 1961, Laika was never destined to return. To howls of protest from animal lovers in the West, Soviet officials said Laika, a stray rounded up from the streets, died peacefully after a week in orbit when her air ran out. Western researchers have said she was more likely roasted to death when Sputnik 2's heat shields came away as it settled into its Earth orbit. It burned up on reentry 163 days later. While the first Sputnik revealed the Soviet lead in space, Laika's flight was a stunning follow-up because it underlined Moscow's intention to put a man in orbit. -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake for a basic respect.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Chat With Arizona Councilwoman Frances Barwood From: "Yvonne Hedenland" <VONNI_H@classic.msn.com> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 97 00:07:51 UT Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:32:15 -0500 Subject: Chat With Arizona Councilwoman Frances Barwood Join the UFO Forum and the Politics Forum Tuesday, 11/11/97, 6pm, PT in a special one hour chat with Phoenix, Arizona Councilwoman Frances Barwood. Barwood recently took alot of heat for requesting an investigation into the March/April UFO sightings in her city. This chat is available at http://forums.msn.com/UFO The Briefing Room chat can also be accessed by any IRC client. The chat server name is publicchat.msn.com and the room or channel name is #briefing.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Re: Skywatch: UFO News International 31 From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 12:34:10 -0700 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 20:25:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Skywatch: UFO News International 31 > From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 04:14:36 -0700 > Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 09:21:46 -0500 > Subject: Re: Skywatch: UFO News International 31 > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:22:34 +0100 (MET) > To: (Recipient list suppressed) > From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > Subject: UFO News International 31 > ************************************************************** > Astronaut Story Musgrave: Greys are real > ************************************************************** > Submitted by Steve W. Sawyer > Regarding the recent AP story on Edgar Mitchell, there is another > astronaut you really ought to talk to: Dr. Story Musgrave. In > case you haven't heard, it was reported on Art Bell, by way of > a caller, that Dr. Musgrave recently gave an astronomy presenta- > tion with a closing statement that was totally unexpected and out > of left field. > The caller was a television reporter who attended the presentati- > on. He said that Dr. Musgrave gave an interesting slide show with > purely down to Earth stuff, but at the very end he put up slide > of a "grey" and simply stated: "these guys are real... I > guarantee it". He made no further comment and ended his presenta- > tion. > The reason I find this significant is that Dr. Musgrave was > previously on the opposite side of the fence. What has happened > lately to cause Dr. Musgrave, a die-hard skeptic, to suddenly and > change his position? Before we start spreading this rumor here, I quietly did some checking into this awhile back and am now very skeptical of this story. One example of what I found came from Michael Lindemann when he and I traded information about it. He said in an e-mail quote: "My good friend and colleague Salley Rayl has interviewed Musgrave several times and spent time with him, face to face, as recently as last week. I asked her about this alleged statement of Story's concerning the greys. While she has not asked him point blank about the greys, she told me that she is completely certain he would NOT make any statement such as "These guys are real... I guarantee it." Musgrave DOES firmly believe in intelligent life in space, however. At some point, I hope to interview him, and I will ask him to be as specific as possible about who or what he thinks is out there" -end quote I think this caller's story amounted to little more than wishful thinking rather than fact. Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Clark on Abductions 2/2 From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:41 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:24:39 -0500 Subject: Clark on Abductions 2/2 [Pt 2 of 2] CHIEF EDDIE HARD BULL'S EMPIRICAL APPROACH Jerome writes: >Duke wants to believe, and wants us to believe, that ufologists >lead abductees. No one would say that never happens, or that we >shouldn't be concerned about it, but there is no empirical >evidence -- for all critics like Duke would have us believe to >the contrary -- that this is the usual course of action, or that >it's even, so far, a measurable problem. Again, go to Bullard's >The Sympathetic Ear (1995). Unlike his critics, Bullard frames >falsifiable hypotheses and investigates them empirically. The >empirical evidence so far indicates that whatever an >investigator's predisposition, abduction accounts end up sounding >pretty much the same. So (as Bullard showed in an earlier JUFOS >paper) do hypnotically elicited and consciously recalled >accounts. As a rule, as investigators have long insisted, >abductees are not leadable. Jerome entirely ignores four things here. They are: the natural dramatic structure of the typical abduction account; the *collaboration* of candidate abductees and their ufological investigators ("set and setting" in trade jargon); the numerous detailed parallels to the structure and imagery of abduction accounts found in other kinds of anomalous experience; and, most blindly of all, the fundamental cock-up in the design of Chief Eddie Hard Bull's research. For what he did was ask ABDUCTION INVESTIGATORS whether they led or influenced their subjects. Researcher: Would you say you were a prime cause of World War II? Adolf Hitler (for it is he): Outrageyous! I voss surrhounded by foollss! Or, to adapt an analogy I've used before: Bullard's method is like a time & motion expert who wants to find out how productive a coal mine is. But instead of dividing tonnes of coal delivered to the pit head by man-hours paid for, he goes about asking the miners if they work hard. Miner: Ay, laik a fookin dog, lad, aye, lewk ut dirt on clogs, and all fair nowt, lewk ut starvin' babbies. Mrs Miner: Eeeh, tha bloody liar. Tha's led mooer strikes than tha's ad hot dinners, tha reet lazy bastard. >Bullard is so uniquely valuable: a believer in empiricism in >this field is to be treasured. No wonder he drives the critics >nuts. He doesn't play by their rules and, in his own gentle, >understated way, shows that their rules get us nowhere. Bullard doesn't play by the accepted rules, or any acceptable rules, of objective research, in "The Sympathetic Ear", full point, end of story. That's one reason why he drives this critic nuts. And this is the genius Jerome hauls out at every opportunity to illustrate the hard-nosed logic of ufologists, the airy vacancies of their critics, and the fanciful ululations of psychosociologists, crepuscular creatures of the sepulchre that they are. >I was JOKING, Duke, when I cracked wise about abductees burying >themselves in obscure folklore texts. Okay? I was poking fun at >psychosocial theorists who act as if the mere existence of some >obscure folklore parallel to a modern abduction report deflates >the latter. Let me quote Bullard here: >"In most other efforts to establish media or cultural influences, >standards of evidence are most conspicuous by their absence. >After fishing expeditions amid folklore, science-fiction >literature, and movie imagery, psychosocial theorists satisfy >themselves to draw isolated motifs out of context, select >favorable examples but ignore the rest, and never worry about >whether the obscurity of sources limits the likelihood that an >abductee might have seen them. Movies are a plausible source >because they enjoy mass exposure, but why abductees choose the >same narrow selection of movie elements when Hollywood has >offered so much variety remains an unanswered question." Bullard seems to be saying in slightly more flowery language what Jerome claimed to be uttering as a joke. A slight contradiction here? (I am all for empiricism.) In any case, Bullard traduces the "psychosocial theorists" by erecting a strawman of cause-and- effect, or direct acquisition of imagery or motifs ("the obscurity of sources"), which no one, as far as I know, has ever proposed to occur in so grossly simplistic a fashion. That there are parallels with other cultural material is undeniable; and one of the best has been enunciated by Bertrand M=E9heust, in his essay in Evans & Spencer's "UFOs 1947-1987" (Fortean Tomes 1987, ISBN 1-870021-02-9), which does anything but rip things untimely from their context. To discover why and how those parallels occur, and what meaning we can draw from the abduction experience, and why the unmediated *experience* is mirrored by abduction accounts given under hypnosis, is the central challenge of the phenomenon, and of one of the best endeavors of psychosocial ufology. Yes, abductions are a mystery, but trying to solve the problem by hitting it with the literaist presumption of the ETH is to approach it from the wrong end. Perhaps Jerome's notion of empirical research is illustrated by his proposal to re-examine old CE-III accounts and comb them for signs of abduction. This follows exactly the false logic of Westrum et al in interpretating their infamous Roper poll results to claim 3.7 million US citizens may be abductees. >And then there's Martin Kottmeyer with his spurious claim about >the "Bollero Shield" Outer Limits episode and its supposed effect >on Barney Hill's testimony. The connection can be rejected on >other grounds (see High Strangeness, p. 250), but what is >particularly striking is that Kottmeyer was content simply to >draw the connection without bothering to ask Betty Hill if she >and Barney were in the habit of watching Outer Limits. (I did >ask her; they weren't.) Now, as Bismarck once remarked, for the pig-sticking. I asked her too, and reported my tentative conclusions in "On Martian Cats", posted here on about 9 Aug 97 & still available I imagine from the UpDates archive on the Web. [ http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/aug/m10-011.shtml ] Kottmeyer has since had this to say: I was intrigued to hear that Betty Hill denies that her husband Barney would have seen "The Bellero Shield" episode of THE OUTER LIMITS because they did not "watch that kind of TV program," she being "rather more intellectual than one might guess." It must be pointed out that the ad campaign for THE OUTER LIMITS pitched the show as one of "conspicuous excellence" and that one piece for TV Guide bore the come-on "They Deal in Ideas - and Outer Space." The particular episode of interest "The Bellero Shield" was richly Shakespearian in tone with parts adapted from "MacBeth." If allusions to Shakespeare are not one of [the] major symptoms of being an intellectual, it would be hard to know what is. It was a show by intellectuals and pitched partly as philosophy to the network brass. Betty Hill is not helping her case with such an upside-down reason as the basis of her denial. [You say] there is no proof that Barney Hill saw "The Bellero Shield" and none he did not. Take another look at the argument I made in "The Eyes That Spoke." The similarity between the alien in "The Bellero Shield" and the ufonaut described by Barney is not limited to the rare trait of wraparound eyes. They also share the unique bond of having eyes that speak. I also cite other features like a tilted bullet-like head which are less unique but also argue for a close relationship. It is hard to develop a rigorous statistical argument in situations like this, but my back-of-the-envelope calculations suggests odds against chance of the traits of wraparound eyes and speaking eyes appearing together in an SF production in the same month as Barney's hypnosis session are on the order of 100,000,000 to 1. Include the other features and the zeros string out even further. Suitably astonished, I've asked him how he arrived at that figure, and await the response. The intermediary who initially passed "Of Martian Cats" to Martin K. commented: As you can see from the attached, the Yeoman Farmer of Carlyle is a bit touchy about Jerome Clark's favorite attempt to refute the Barney Hill/Bellero Shield connection (though oddly enough Clark's favorite talisman to ward off criticism of abduction research, Bullard, found Martin's argument convincing). I tend to agree with Martin that the incredible coincidence that Barney Hill described an alien with talking eyes that looked so similar to the Bifrost alien just days after the episode aired is pretty good circumstantial evidence that Barney was exposed to the Bellero Shield alien's image. Betty's denial is pretty thin gruel, unless someone is going to seriously argue that she can remember every single show (not just series), commercial or trailer that Barney saw, even a part of, in the 1960s. I like to imagine what Clark's response would be to such a simplistic argument against one of his pet theories. And so would I. There is also a point in Fuller's book, I think during the initial UFO sighting, at which Betty exclaims something like "Jeez, Barney, what've you seen in all those 'Twilight Zone' shows you watch?", which I can't put my finger on at the moment. This isn't conclusive evidence of anything, but it is somewhat suggestive. MISCELLANEOUS RAMBLINGS >In the meantime, agnosticism is not, as Duke foolishly >implies, craven cowardice but perhaps the only truly >intellectually honest response. What it says is that we don't >have the answers yet, that we're going to have to do a hell of a >lot more work before we do. Why should that make Duke so mad? Insofar as the "research" of abductionists is not objective, and insofar as they rely on "techniques" that are irretrievably flawed in execution and untrustworthy in principle (read the literature on "memory retrieval" in child abuse and RSA cases, and the Royal Society of Psychiatrists' report on same that contributed to their decision to outlaw hypnotic and related techniques, and top that with the emerging revisionist literature on repressed memory), then agnosticism about abductions becomes a moral abdication and and intellectual snare and delusion. The best example of a moral sewer in abduction literature so far is "Witnessed", although when I outlined one reason why I hold this view on this List, Linda Cortibalone responded by describing the exercise as 25 paragraphs of nothing. Some minds are impenetrable (but I tried, Lord, I tried). Jerome's take on the Linda case - that the evidence for or against it is inconclusive - is an abdication of another kind. Fact is, there is no solid evidence *for* it at all. What doesn't come out of hypnosis can be construed in all sorts of ways besides the cover-all of "alien intervention" (under whose umbrella anything becomes possible, and one never gets to have breakfast for all the impossible things one has to believe before it). And I remain stupified by Jerome's acquiescence, early in Hopkins's "investigation", in the decision not to turn to law- enforcement agencies to pursue "Richard" & "Dan" after Linda's alleged terrestrial abductions. The Linda case can be deconstructed to an initial sleep- paralysis-type vision/hallucination, some standard-issue junk extruded from her brain by, and to please, Buddkins - we've all seen Linda's passion for approval and her porcupine response to rejection - and the intervention of two or more dubious characters (and here I do not refer to Messrs Hansen, Stefula and Butler), who may have been victimizing Linda to indulge their own perversity or may have been up to something else, conceivably with her eventual collaboration. What is especially noticeable about the Linda case is the way its exotic details garnered from hypnosis *follow* the revelations of the letters and tapes. None arise first in hypnosis, to be confirmed by missives from the Dodgy Duo. By itself this ought to arouse suspicion of various kinds. But one of the few virtues of "Witnessed" is its exposure of Buddkins' working methods. And what we see is the way he cues and prepares his subjects before hypnosis (against all clinical advice and practice), and encourages further confabulation - retrospective memory - after it. Where, in all this, is the chain of evidence that amounts to even the skeleton of a case "for" a real abduction? (There is better evidence to support an allegation that I engaged in sexual congress with Pres. Jimmy Carter in a Sheraton hotel in New York in September 1980. At least there are records to show we both stayed under the same roof on the same night - and I am notoriously fond of peanuts.) >Duke, I am going to do you the favor of assuming you are joking >when you imply that you take New Age speculationist Peter >Rojcewicz seriously. Gawd strewth. I *implied* nothing of the kind and, to be blunt about it, Jerome might occasionally rein in his galloping addiction to inferences. I was simply pointing out that Chief Hard Bull was not the only trained folklorist "in the debate", as Jerome had claimed he was. I wasn't offering my opinion of the others' contributions. For the record, I do find Rojcewicz's work just a trifle on the weird side. But that may go to show nothing more amazing than the truism that high academic qualifications do not guarantee sense or sensibility in any chosen subject. And to that extent, Chief Hard Bull's qualifications and training are irrelevant too, as it's demonstrable that his "Sympathetic Ear" paper is a shambles from top to bottom, while the premises of his 1987 study are flawed beyond repair and his conclusions are not borne out by reference to actual recorded folklore. The full demolition job has yet to be done, but some of us are working on it. Yours &c Polyester D. Medicineshow Tambourine Man
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 8 Clark on Abductions 1/2 From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:22 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 22:35:52 -0500 Subject: Clark on Abductions 1/2 The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:03:10 PDT >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees Even 48 hours is a long time in Cyberville, so for those like me who are unlikely to recall what Jerome said on this subject some three weeks ago, I'm going to be dealing with the points he raised here about (a) the Sandy Larson and the Hills cases (b) the empirical nature of Dr Thomas "Ed" Bullard's research and, in passing, (c) folklore and folklorists and ufology and the abduction syndrome. So if you'd rather watch the game, you can switch channels now. For economy I've quoted only what seem to me the core parts of Jerome's argument, without indicating snips, safe in the knowledge that if anyone thinks I've misrepresented or quoted him out of context, I shall be brought swiftly to book. SANDY LARSON, THE HILLS, &c Jerome writes: >When you have a credible multi-witness abduction story, >it's pretty hard to argue that you're dealing with a subjective >phenomenon. The credibility of any report of any event, mundane or anomalous, is speciously enhanced by convergent testimony of multiple witnesses, but there is more to the Larson case than that. And a lot hinges on that word "credible": it suggests how subjective the initial decision to investigate may be. Jerome comments that he was & is impressed because the Larson case (and the other that he cites, for some reason anonymously) featured conscious memories of UFO sightings and missing time. This is little enough to kickstart a investigation, but at least is 100% wider-ranging than what has started others' whiskers twitching. To me it suggests that consciously or otherwise the benchmark for initially justifying investigation and later for believing the case genuine is the abduction of Betty & Barney Hill. This is interesting in part because that is the case Budd Hopkins took as his template for judging the apparent reality of an abduction claim. The peculiar defensiveness of ufologists toward the Hills' case is based more on its mythic status than on objective evidence. (Ironically, Betty Hill is extremely rude in private about the competence and claims of Hopkins, et al, and fairly scathing in her book, "A Common Sense Approach to UFOs", ISBN 9648243-0-2, which I commend to all and sundry.) The Hill case can be deconstructed in exactly the way Dr Benjamin Simon did - seeing it as related directly to Betty's dreams. In other words, it does not need to be "real" to be explicable. Sometimes people get things right first time. Relevant aside: The claim made in the Boy Bishop of Canby's Bible that Dr Simon was "antipathetic" to UFOs ("High Strangeness" p248) is not borne out by John Fuller's "The Interrupted Journey", where Simon's neutrality on the whole issue (he had had two UFO sightings himself) is touched on at least four times (pp 85, 89, 134, 313-4 of the Transworld p/back, 1981 edn). Jerome scries Simon implicitly [note that word!] and a priori rejecting UFOs and so a literal interpretation of the Hills' experience, which in my view is just more Clarkian clairvoyance. According to Fuller (p314), "contradictory evidence prevented the doctor from" accepting the experience as reality; "his best alternative lay in the dream hypothesis"; and of that, Simon is quoted saying: "But I'm not absolutely convinced. ... Therapeutically, we had reached a good place to stop.... It was acceptable in my judgement to leave it not fully answered." [Unchecked hearsay: Simon apparently became brusque at Walter Webb's attempts to show him "UFO evidence", but before regarding that as a significant datum we'd need to know if Simon felt harassed by Webb. Unfortunately the whereabouts of Simon's (unpublished) memoirs, which might illuminate the point, is currently unknown.] The Larson case first came to Jerome's attention in autumn 1975, as a result of Sandy Larson seeing the NBC-TV movie "The UFO Incident" (based on the Hills' experience) and wondering if what she recalled of her experience of 26 August 1975 had a similar explanation. At that time there were precious few alleged abductions generally known among ufologists: Antonio Villas Boas (1957), the Hills (*1961), Herb Schirmer (*1967 - more an invitation than an abduction, and with strong contactee overtones), Jos=E9 Ant=F4nio da Silva (1969), Hodges & Rodriguez (1971, another case with shades of contacteeism), Hickson & Parker (*1973; later claims by Hickson put him in the contactee bracket), Pat Roach ("Patty Price") (1973), Carl Higdon (1974), the "Avis" family (1974), Charles Moody (1975 - which was breaking almost simultaneously with the Larson case), David Stephens (1975; not investigated until December that year) and Travis Walton (*1975 - which made international news a few weeks before Larson was investigated in person) constitute a fairly complete list, and I am not sure that news of the Avis case had reached the USA by autumn 1975. Most featured missing time, all began with a UFO sighting, and seven of these 12 are multiple-witness events. At least four (starred) were widely publicized outside the UFO literature. Leaving aside other divergences, the disparity between the entities reported is extraordinary: Villas Boas Striking blonde, short, fair-skinned humanoid female with slanted blue eyes & triangular face; features of male aliens not seen (uniformed, helmeted; wore breathing apparatus); barking speech Hills Uniformed, short, gray-skinned with wraparound eyes but "normal" iris & pupils. Initially described as big-nosed; description later changed to nearer Gray configuration, but entities had human-like hair Schirmer Humanoid with high forehead, long nose, sunken cat-like eyes, slit mouth; carrying 'radio' on 'helmet'; uniformed da Silva Hairy red-bearded dwarves; uniformed and helmeted initially; one Nordic (possibly vision of Christ) Hodges/ Brain-like entities and tall gray-skinned Rodriguez humanoids with yellow eyes, lipless mouths & flat noses. Webbed hands with six fingers and a thumb Hickson/Parker Tall gray creature with bizarre cephalic & other features, hands like lobster claws, elephant-like skin; robotic? Roach Short, large eyes, slit mouths, no nose, pasty skin, three-digit hands; uniformed, with gloves & Sam Browne belts. Case since deconstructed as the product of priming the central witness by lead investigator Higdon Tall humanoid, in black suit & black shoes; bow-legged; 'slanted head and no chin', thin hair 'stood straight up on his head' Avises Humanoid 'controllers': one-piece silvery suits; slanted pink eyes with no pupils; long noses. Examiners: hairy, bearded dwarves with triangular eyes, beaked noses and slit-like mouths and hairy, claw-like hands Moody Near-classic grays, 5-digit hands, uniformed Stephens 'Mushroom'-like creatures: hands with 3 digits & thumb, extremely pale skin, no mouths, 3.5ft tall; wore 'robelike garments' Larson 6ft-tall, mummy-like entities; glaring eyes that 'could control my brain'; metallic arms Walton Small Gray-like creatures in orange jumpsuits; tall humanoids (one female) in blue jumpsuits; unusual gold/brown eyes The dropping and gathering of different motifs within a broad general framework - one established, by and large, by the Hill case - is exactly like the operation of folklore. In 1975 there was little established imagery in the canon and the abduction syndrome was at once limited by this and open to development in any imaginative direction. One can speculate at length about why abduction imagery eventually settled (not exclusively) in the direction of the Grays, but that's beyond my scope here. At any rate the Grays' roots are visible in these early cases, but not in Larson's. Likewise Larson's anticipates later motifs in ways the others do not, but the proleptic motifs are common in other psychodramas enacted in altered states of consciousness (accepting that hypnosis is that). Their ufological-cum-alien garb can reasonably be ascribed to the set and setting of the hypnotic sessions themselves, fertilized by the Hill and Pascagoula cases. There is, it seems, a limit to the human imagination. An essential point is that in 1975 the reported physical appearances of the entities alone was heterogeneous; the folklore had not crystallized. The Hills' case has a dramatic simplicity and appropriateness that by itself accounts for most of Bullard's famous order of events - again nailed by Kottmeyer: the key essays are "Entirely Unpredisposed?", which is available from the Magonia website: http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/authors and "The Eyes That Spoke", on the REALL website cited above. Larson's inspiration that her odd experience may have been an abduction came directly from the dramatization of the Hills' case. In short, she had set herself up to learn she was an abductee. No one knows - or says - to what extent she familiarized herself with the UFO literature before she was hypnotized. She was questioned under hypnosis in conditions that broke all the most basic rules of such interrogation. The most elaborate account emerged with the least experienced hypnotist. >What impresses me even more, in retrospect, is how much what >these people reported anticipated what was to come. The Sandy >Larson case [...] is one of these. [...] Not long ago, moreover, >I was surprised to come upon an obscure CE3 in which an entity >identical to the one reported by Larson figured. Apart from a UFO sighting and missing time, the Larson case is proleptic of floating through solid walls, tunnels of light, nasal examination (Larson had had a sinus operation in real life), and visiting an alien base in a desert landscape. What is more striking to the dispassionate eye is the extent to which the Larson case does *not* conform to the abduction template. Larson as far as I recall is the only abductee to have her brain removed and 'rewired', an operation that produced no scars, or none noted by the investigators (Leo Sprinkle, Allen Hynek, Jerome Clark). Martin Kottmeyer has traced the mummy imagery to the Pascagoula case, and beyond: One possibility is that it relates to her falling into the hands of APRO which had a special interest in the Pascagoula abduction of 1973. It was ... only people with APRO who called attention to the mummy-like appearance of the Pascagoula entity and deemed it a feature that enhanced the credibility of the case. ... Much of the case seems different from anything reported before. Only the Pascagoula case seems reprised, and then in only two particulars. They both involve tummy exams by mummies. It is no stretch to believe she picked up these motifs in conversation with UFO buffs or researchers prior to her hypnosis sessions. Other than this, the two cases are different. ... The question returns for Pascagoula ... why did Charles Hickson opt for space mummies? ... Fortunately, the Lorenzens saved historians a big headache by themselves covering similarities between the Pascagoula entity and a case out of Peru involving a man designated C.A.V. The man encountered three mummies with a generally human profile, but the legs were joined and they slid along the ground. They were about 5'9" in height. The face was mostly featureless save for a sort- of nose. The arms seemed normal, but the hand consisted of a group of four fingers stuck together and a separate thumb creating the impression of pincers or claws. The match to the Pascagoula entity is remarkably good, and I have to agree with the Lorenzens that the odds against happenstance are too remote to be considered. They add that neither Hickson nor Parker (the other Pascagoula experiment) had prior UFO interest, and the case appeared "only" in the APRO Bulletin and chapter 8 in their 1968 book UFOs Over the Americas. "Only" is not exactly how I would describe a Signet paperback which was mass-marketed across America on wire racks in drug stores and five and dimes, but perhaps they were being modest. The Lorenzens further wondered why, if both cases involve fabrication, this particular form was chosen. "Why not a more acceptable and more frequently reported type?" More believable occupant encounters were readily available. They temporarily prefigure Fowler and Hopkins in their style of argument by ignoring the equally striking disparities between the two cases in these remarks from Encounters with UFO Occupants. Happily, they rectify this shortcoming in their next book Abducted! when they grant, "The only real difference between the two descriptions was that the Peruvian said the skin of the creatures was sandy-colored and that they had 'bubbles' where the eyes would be which moved around." This is at least a start. C.A.V.'s UFO is shaped like a disc. Hickson's UFO is shaped like a fish. C.A.V.'s entities were lost and asked to see our chief. They carry on an extended conversation about a variety of things including how we are endangering the balance of the universe and how they are able to reproduce by fission. C.A.V. tries to abduct one of the mummies as they try to leave in an effort to get rich, but they were too slippery. They don't try to abduct him and conduct a tummy exam. If the entities are the same because they are real, why are their craft and behaviors so different? The fish shape of the craft and the tummy exam with the eye are critical clues to what is going on here. They are not part of the C.A.V. case, but they are part of UFOs Over the Americas. Chapter 3 is called 'Underwater UFOs' and features a June 1959 incident from Buenos Aires involving an object generally shaped like a huge fish. The eye over the tummy is a compositing of cases on page 206: an 1880 incident involving a luminous ball suspended in mid-air, leaving the percipient terror-stricken, which is followed by a brief account of the Hill case and their physical examination, after which the authors discuss how UFOs could induce hypnotic effects and shock. The blending and distortion of the elements of these cases is identical to the way dreams remix and composite recent memories to come up with a dramatic experience. The choice of the mummies by Hickson's mind stems from the title given the chapter relating the C.A.V. case: "The Flesh Crawlers." It was the scariest-looking alien in the book. It worked. Charlie Hickson's personal account is reprinted in UFO Contact at Pascagoula and includes this line: "My flesh crawls when I think about those three things that appeared through the opening." With respect to C.A.V., the Lorenzens' objections about acceptability and frequency collapses with the realization that C.A.V. hailed from Peru. Peruvian culture is significantly different from the one the Lorenzens were living in. Mummies were pervasive in Incan religion. Incan leaders were embalmed with great care and their remains were worshipped like a god. It would be placed in temples. Sacrifices would be made to it. It was brought out for festivals. People were assigned to take care of the mummy. One archaeologist found a Necropolis of 429 mummies which demonstrated the antiquity of the practice in Nazcan culture. It would take an expert in Peruvian folklore to track down the immediate cultural precursors to C.A.V.'s experience, but we don't need a detailed analysis to understand that a Peruvian might find the idea of space mummies far more believable and emotionally resonant than would people in the USA. --Martin Kottmeyer, "The Curse of the Space Mummies", Promises & Disappointments #1 (1995); also on the REALL website, from http://www.reall.org/newsletter/ >Duke can rant all he >wants about what he sees as our failings. I don't claim to be >perfect, and this was, after all, 1975-76. I do feel sanguine >about this much: the story stands up, and we investigators did >not shape it. Irrelevant asides (1): The proper forms are 'the Duke', 'His Grace' or 'Your Grace'. I have been a jazz musician in my time but my surname was never Ellington. Irrelevant asides (2): I'll ignore the posturing about ranting. What the date of Jerome's investigation has to do with anything I do not know. I do not suggest the Larson story was entirely the product of leading (see above), but that leading of gross proportions did take place is apparent from the Lorenzens' account alone. And the core narrative detail of the Larson case was obtained from hypnotic regression, and as such is automatically suspect, even without the incompetence displayed by the investigators. Take away the hypnotic material, as caution would dictate, and we are left not with a story that "stands up" but a UFO sighting that bears many marks of a meteor shower, some unsurprisingly UFO-related dreams, a strange rearrangement of persons in a car, and some "missing" time. Yes, there are oddities here, but they do not require an abduction to explain them. Finally, on this case, the multiplicity of witnesses has been shown time and again to be no guarantor of the objective truth of anything, let alone abductions. The double abductions at Longmont, Colorado (19 Nov 1980), and at Goodland, Kansas (7 Nov 1989), the Jack & Peter Wilson case, the Hill case, the Larson case, the Avis case, even the egregious Cortibalone case, can all be plausibly deconstructed. And remember Fatima? Does Jerome really think the Sun danced in the heavens that day? According to legend, 70,000 people saw it happen. [continued in Pt 2]
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: ETH &c From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:23:21 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 00:26:16 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c Salutations to the list, and a response to: >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:00:28 PST >Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:36:54 -0500 >Subject: Re: ETH &c I realize that interjecting myself into this cat fight is probably a pointless exercise, but since Mr. Clark comments (badly) on a passage that I allowed His Grace to quote, I do feel obliged to do so. (Also, since this is my first attempt at posting to the list, I apologize in advance for any formatting, or other errors I may commit). >What a load of crapola here. When have I ever said >Roswell is one of "the best cases"? Roswell is difficult, >complicated, and ambiguous and depends, in the absence > of more conclusive evidence, whom one chooses to believe. Yes, you do now describe Roswell as �lost in confusion,� but let�s not forget these quotes from yesteryear: �In short order (in mid-June, to be specific) Kevin Randle and Donald Schmitt�s long-awaited �UFO Crash at Roswell� will be out. It records the most thoroughly investigated, the most completely documented event in the history of ufology. The Roswell incident is, of course, also the most important case of all. As its secrets are unraveled (and investigation continues), ufology�s big questions, the ones that brought our field into being in the first place, are being answered: What are UFOs? Who pilots them? What does officialdom know, and when did it know it? Those whose interpretation of the UFO phenomenon is based on empirical evidence will rejoice as the heretofore unkillable canard, that UFO research has made no progress in four decades, is disposed of once and for all.� Jerome Clark International UFO Reporter, March-April 1991. �The Roswell incident is the most important known UFO event in history. By the time this investigation is over it will shape our future understanding of the UFO phenomenon. This investigation gets to the very core of all issues.� Jerome Clark Oddysey Newsletter (unfortunately, the copy sent to me does not include the date of the issue, but it is apparently from 1989 or 1990) I will grant the possibility that you believe there is a substantive difference between the �most important case of all� and a �best case.� I, however, believe most �literate readers� think otherwise. Perhaps you could explain the difference to the rest of us or, better still, explain what in the last six years caused Roswell, in your estimate, to fall from �the most important case� to being lost in confusion. > Budd Hopkins does not "make the same errors" as Mack, >and it amuses me to see abductionphobes speaking of them >in the same breath, despite enormous differences in outlook >and approach. Yes, Hopkins does make the same fundamental error as Mack- his beliefs clearly influence how he reports and studies abduction accounts, to the point of leading his subjects. But don�t take my word for it, read Bullard�s The Sympathetic Ear, pages 66-67, where he clearly describes Hopkins� status as the Typhoid Mary of the hybrid baby motif. Even one of Bullard�s respondents recognized this fact. While Bullard concludes Hopkins� obvious influence on such an important element in the abduction narrative is relatively unimportant in evaluating the source of abduction claims, I think reasonable people can disagree. (Note the citation to a relevant work and a brief summation of why I think readers will find it relevant to my point.) >And I did not discuss Appelle in the context of the >ETH; I mentioned him in the context of his careful explication of >the problems of counterexplanations. You discussed Appelle as a counter to several non-ETH explanations for abduction accounts, without making it clear that Appelle is as (or if you saw him on the recent Discovery Channel special-more) critical of the ETH explanation as any other. This left a clear impression that Appelle�s article supported the ETH, if in no other way than by the process of elimination. You may not have intended it that way, but since several members of this list, only a few of whom responded, read your citation of Appelle the same way I did, you may want to consider that the problem lies in a lack of clarity on your part. >Incidentally, I recognize the prose of the individual whom Duke >quotes, for what it's worth. Oh, really? Please tell me how you have become so familiar with my writing that my prose is so instantly recognizable. Better yet, tell us who you thought I was so I can at least see if I�m insulted or complimented by the error. Jeff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: BWW MA 19971108 From: BufoCalvin@aol.com Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:31:24 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 01:04:49 -0500 Subject: Re: BWW MA 19971108 Bufo Calvin, P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 E-mail: BufoCalvin@aol.com Website: http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/ BufoCalvin/index.html">BufoCalvin's Home Page</A> ) TAP (The Address Project) Bufo's WEIRD WORLD e-zine Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.ht ml">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert provided that attribution is made to http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make sure it is clear that you are forwarding it). November 8, 1997 JAQN (Just A Quick Note) to let you know about a couple of this week's shows. Sunday, November 9 A&E at 4:00 PM, and The Discovery Channel at 6:00 PM, are both running Loch Ness Monster pieces. The former is ANCIENT MYSTERIES WITH LEONARD NIMOY and the latter is ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD. At 6:30 PM, the interesting cryptozoology program, INTO THE UNKNOWN on The Discover Channel, does a piece on the GOD BEAR OF KAMCHATKA. Thursday, November 13 A&E's THE UNEXPLAINED covers psychic detectives at 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM. At 9:00 PM, INTO THE UNKNOWN is about the search for living giant sloths in Brazil. Friday, November 14 At 1:00 AM, INTO THE UNKNOWN is about the search for living giant sloths in Brazil. This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!" ____________________________ You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's WEIRD WORLD (which covers theories and happenings) the same way. Also, please let me know if there is something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the week before. _____________________________ **OPUS is the Organization for Paranormal Understanding and Support. I am an Executive Boardmember, and Director of the OPUS Educational Institute. OPUS encourages its officers and Network Associates to express their own opinions: however, it is important to note that I do not speak for OPUS in this piece or others presented under my own name. The new OPUS phone number is (510) 689-4198 ______________________________ Bufo's WEIRD WORLD BOOKS ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.htm l">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) I'm very excited about this! Some of you know, I ran a bookstore for years, and it has always been a love of mine. I get asked often to recommend books (I do write reviews for several publications) on these topics, and now I can do it and actually give you a source for them at the same time! This is being done in association with Amazon.com, which has an outstanding reputation for the five "S"s of internet shopping: selection, searchability, service, savings, and security. If there is any specific book you want (or topic in which you are interested), let me know and I will do the research and e-mail you a link you can use to check it out more (and order it if you want). I will be linking to books within the Media Alert, to make it more efficient for you. If you click on the link, you will be sent to that title on Amazon. You do =not= have to buy it at that point! You may, but the option is yours.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: ETH &c From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:40:20 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 01:04:12 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments. >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:52:11 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >I do believe that I posted a response to your post, but I >wished to know from which standpoint I was to argue, Guilty >until proved innocent or Innocent until proven guilty, or did >you just miss it?? I didn't understand it, especially as (huge guffaw) you seemed to think I was an American at the time. Even so, I still don't understand it. Why don't you argue from your own point of view? Innocent until proven guilty is my own. I'm also against the death penalty, by and large. Self defense is one thing. Judicial murder is another. There again, this is a UFO list, so nuff said. >> (I assume because he has seen too many of "the best >>case[s]," like Roswell, crumble when carefully studied.) >from either standpoint (either/or its your preference) the >arguments are already coloured/tainted by your initial beliefs. This is sometimes true, but I think you can also start with no beliefs at all and come down on one side or the other in the end on Roswell. It all depends on what you regard as acceptable evidence (although there are fairly widely agreed standards about that). You can also end up regarding "Roswell" as unproven as an ET event without having to buy any of the alternative explanations that have been offered, some of which have been phenomenally dozy, e.g. Air Force dummies on parachutes. >> Americans are very horrid indeed, >I disagree I know some very nice Americans. I disagree too and I also know *many* very nice Americans. >> but Brits and besides are much nicer people altogether. >Why thank you for the compliment. You're welcome, but you're getting as clever at quoting out of context as some other people I know. Are you trying to get in my big black book by the back cover? >On an entirely different note I thought a Marlin was a >fish not a beetle, A marlinspike is neither, strange to say. On the other hand a merlin is a bird. Suggest you use dixionary and stop worrying. >or is it that you are admiting to being a lower life form ><very huge G> Fairly low. Bear in mind that about 90% of both of us is bacteria, though, so give credit where it is due. >OR >Like Ludwig you are trying to solve all of lifes mysteries? Wittgenstein didn't try to do that, really. However, to elucidate a bit on the tag: Wittgenstein invented his beetle as an analogy when pondering whether there could be such a thing as a private language, in "Philosophical Investigations". The beetle was something *called* a beetle, in a matchbox. In a private language no one would really be sure what a "beetle" was. "The box could even be empty," he says at one point, which makes him a kind of honorary Fortean, I guess. He also remarked (in private) that there was more good philosophy in any single Street & Smith's [or vice-versa?] detective-story magazine than in the whole run of "Mind". For these and other reasons Wittgenstein is one of my heroes, even tho' he was probably slightly nuts, definitely hard to have as a friend by all accounts, certainly a genius, and I am very glad I was not he. best wishes Palpation D. Metaphysician Spine Tingler
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:32 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 09:55:49 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:19:24 -0500 >Dennis....forgive me, but what exactly is your logic? Greg...Forgive me for asking the same of you. Did I catch you on a bad hair day or what? >You think some people who believe in the ETH also believe other >things you think are silly. So is this somehow the fault of >anyone who believes the ETH? Or who's merely willing to entertain >it? No, Greg, what I'm saying is that there is a range of options one can take (or deny) in association with the adoption, promotion, or merely entertainment of the ETH...and that they don't necessarily follow. What's so hard to understand? Are you saying that they do? I didn't think so. >Is anyone interested in the ETH now somehow responsible for >denouncing any silliness even remotely associated with it? But of course. If you were a doctor, wouldn't you defend your profession against demonstrable quacks? If a lawyer, journalist or stockbroker against traitors to the trade, people who sully your own profession? Of course you would. What's so illogical -- or difficult to grasp -- about that? When people who you associate with --if only in the public's perception -- do things that you don't agree with, or blatantly embarrass you simply by association, I think you ought to speak up and defend yourself. Or maybe you agree with the Coopers, Lazars, Deans and Corsos of the field and think they aren't doing anything detrimental to your pristine belief in ETH? >Is ufology now expected to work the way white people think >African-American politics should? A black person becomes vocal >about affirmative action and other civil rights issues -- and >suddenly white people ask her to denounce Louis Farrakhan. Is >that the kind of ufological litmus test you have in mind? No. See above. I would expect many people within the civil rights movement, prominent African-American leaders included, to denounce Farrakhan for what he is -- while at the same time promoting their own point of view and distancing themselves from Farrakhan's. Surely you're not arguing that we let the Farrakhans of our own field hold forth without so much as a burp of indignation and/or criticism? I didn't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong. >And if you don't, what in Zeta Reticuli could your original post >have meant? "Yes, the ETH is fine, but look what it's spawned!" >(I'm paraphrasing.) If you don't mean what I just suggested, what >DO you mean? Pardon me, but I'm not sure what *you* mean here. I meant to originally point out that the ETH, in and of itself, is fine as long as it's constrained or confined to just that -- one theory among several. It's when it gets out of hand, simply by its original assumption or adoption, and then is used to account for everything else associated with UFOs, but as yet unproved (advanced alien technology=magic, for example), that I objected to. Is this illogical on my part, or am I missing something? I didn't think so. >> Even something like the Anthropic Principle has a Weak vesion >> and a Strong one, in other words, variations on a theme. If you >> can get orthodox ufology to adopt a conservative ETH (*some* UFOs >> are alien spacecraft), I'm all for you. That's what Stanton >> Friedman, for example, does in public -- but he also associates >> the ETH with a worldwide government coverup, a shadow >> organization known as MJ-12, and plentiful crashes and retrievals >> of alien bodies near Roswell. >Strangely enough, he even thinks he has evidence. Stranger still, >that evidence -- no matter how it holds up in the long run -- >isn't ridiculous on its face. He's free to make his arguments >(which, unless I somehow stumbled on a private shipments of Crash >at Corona and Stan's MJ-12 book), he even dares to make in >public. I never said or suggested that Friedman wasn't entitled to make any argument of which he was enamored. What I suggested was that Friedman's own passionate advocacy of the ETH might have resulted in his being something less than an impartial observer (and reporter) of the UFO scene. If you want to accept Friedman's books, including his inclusion of Gerald Anderson's long discredited Roswell testimony, as reflective of UFO reality and the ETH, then I certainly don't want to stand in your way. (And obviously couldn't even if I wanted to.) >What exactly is the problem here? Are we all supposed to think >that only a lunatic would believe what Stan does? And that >therefore the ETH is gravely polluted each time he opens his >vociferous mouth? No, see the above, and how did you arrive at this assumption anyway? >> All I was pointing out is that it doesn't work that way. Before >> you know it, all sorts of paths are leading into the briar patch, >> each proponent of which believes the evidence for same follows >> "logically" from the fact that we're being visited not just once >> or sporadically, but daily and routinely by extraterrestrials. >> You don't need to play six degrees of Bacon to see that this is >> so. One or two will do just as well in this instance. >No way. Not at all. Silliness. Take Stan Friedman. His MJ-12 and >Roswell work doesn't proceed logically from his embrace of the >ETH. See my remarks above. He thinks he has separate evidence for >MJ-12 and Roswell. You think he's SO dumb that his ETH belief >leaves him open for anything? Why doesn't he believe in jars of >human body parts? If properly prodded, for all I know he does believe in body parts. Why don't you ask him? But who are you to say that "his MJ-12 and Roswell work doesn't proceed logically from his embrace of the ETH"? Do you know something that I don't, that maybe Friedman was merely hovering on the verge of objectivity and/or agnosticism before he just chanced to look into Roswell and MJ-12? Then I've got some theories I would like to promote about the origins of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto Numero Uno, one of which is that the latter was actually present at, and survived, the battle of the Alamo. The fact is that Friedman's vigorous and militant adoption of the ETH causes him to see its (imagined and implied) consequences everywhere, even when the evidedence is lacking, hence his continued waffling about the testimony of one Gerald Anderson. But maybe GA and the ETH aren't one and the same -- which is what I've been saying all along. Or maybe you still support GA's account of what happened at Roswell because you read it in one of Friedman's books and therefore it must be the truth, the absolute truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Mike Davis's article is approximately 75 pages long. I think >> there might be one paragraph in it that contains the word >> extraterrestrial, or maybe as many as three or four. The article >> is about the history and nature of the solar system. UFOs aren't >> on his mind, one way or the other. Branch out and read it. You >> might like it -- or you might not. But at least you would know >> what you are referring to. >Silly me, relying on your summary. I thought your point was to >stress, based on Davis's theorizing, how rare life might be in >this vast universe of ours. You're right, silly Greg, my comments did emphasize how rare life might be in the universe. Now do you want to read the original article for yourself or not? If you can't afford to buy a copy of The Anomalist 5 from me (and thereby support same, which you've previously praised on this list), which I seriously doubt, then Jerry Clark can send you a Xerox of same. Failing that, I'll make a copy myself. >> You should know better, Greg. Sagan may have ended up like a >> Menzel, but he certainly didn't start out as one. Or maybe you've >> forgotten his and Thornton Page's UFOs: A Scientific Debate. If >> so, you can pick up a nice cheap hardback edition of same at your >> local Barnes & Noble. James McDonald got almost 75 pages in same, >> probably his largest exposure to a popular audience. The book was >> the result of a UFO symposium held by the American Association >> for the Advancement of Science, which Sagan was instrumental in >> organizing. There's some dispute as to how instrumental his role >> in saving Blue Book records was, but he certainly wasn't in favor >> of their destruction. >Sagan's own comments in the symposium -- which, oddly enough, >I've read -- strike me as slippery. But then, that's merely my >judgement. Greg, slippery they may have been. So what? The man organized the symposium, thus giving McDonald a public platform, something Menzel would never have done. I only mentioned the book and the symposium because you equated Sagan with the "likes" of Menzel -- without any qualifiers. I simply supplied a qualifier. Would you rather I hadn't? >If mainstream science didn't embrace UFOs in the '70s, despite >Hynek and McDonald, what chance do ufologists, however >scientifically conservative, have of bringing science around now? >As I remember the "scientific debate" hosted by Sagan and Page, >the non-believers (if you'll allow me to characterize them that >way) don't really address the points made by the believers. >That's all too typical of the way science has handled, or not >handled, this problem. >> Similarly, who convinced mainstream science that there was >> nothing to UFOs? After all, if UFOs are as physically prevalent >> as everyone seems to think they are, you would think that enough >> scientists would have seen or been abducted by them now to the >> extent that they wouldn't believe anything the Air Force said, no >> matter what it said. Obviously, not enough of them have yet had a >> personal experience to turn the tide. But who knows? Maybe >> critical mass is just around the corner. >You've got to be kidding. Here we have David Pritchard, one of >the few openly sympathetic scientists, begging me a couple of >years ago not to mention his name in mainstream media, for fear >of getting him in huge trouble with the MIT physics department, >and with his federal grants for mainstream research. More >recently, he told a TV interviewer (who didn't use it in the show >she produced) that the heat from skeptical colleagues was very >hard to bear. Greg, again we appreciate the problem, but this won't wash. In case you haven't noticed, Pritchard's name appears quite prominently as one of the editors of (and contributors to) "Alien Discussions." He was also featured and interviewed in C. D. B. Bryan's big book (if I have the name right) about abductions. His involvement in UFO research, in other words, is hardly any media secret, let alone one closely guarded from his MIT colleagues. I appreciate your description of the situation, but it just isn't the case. Sorry. >Logic is not the issue here. Mainstream science carries a huge >prejudice against UFOs (and against parapsychology too, for that >matter; see Jeffrey Mishlove's The Roots of Consciousness for >documented chapter and verse). And if you ask me what the problem >really is, I'd say denial. I'd say that, in fact, even if UFOs >turn out to be nothing more than scraps of my long white hair >floating in the breeze. The whole question of alien visits has >our culture in a tizzy. Hardly anyone can face it squarely, >scientists and ufologists both included. This is a nice bit of effluvium, Greg, but are you seriously suggesting that ufologists can't squarely confront the "whole issue of alien visits [which] has our culture in a tizzy"? They've been actively promoting it for something like a half century, and you say they can't get quite squared away about it? What kind of logic is this? Did it ever occur to you that one reason why society might be in such a tizzy is because ufologists have extrapolated the original ETH beyond all bounds of decency and common sense? >Come to think of it, that also explains the excesses of ufology. >The prospect of alien visits makes us so crazy that lots of >people, attempting to deal with the question, stop making sense. >Although, if you pin me to the wall, I'll take the better >ufologists over the scientists, anytime. Whether or not I agree >with Stan's conclusions on MJ-12, I challenge you to compare >Stan's work on it with SETI astronomer Frank Drake's reasons why >interstellar travel is impossible (and, therefore, aliens will >never visit us). Stan comes off as an apostle of sweet reason, >and Drake, by contrast, as a frightened idiot. >Greg Sandow Greg, the above is so boundlessly beyond belief (or stupidity) on your part as to beg credibility. I'm a working writer and so are you. But if neither of us has anything else better to do with our time, I'll gladly accept your "challenge to compare Stan's work on [MJ-12] with SETI astronomer Frank Drake," having already admitted previously on this post that I'm no particular fan of Drake's work and conclusions. Let me also add that you're comparing apples and oranges here. But if you really and seriously want to adopt the voice of Friedman's "apostle of sweet reason" as your own, then so be it. Dennis Frightened Idiot
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: ETH &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:40:55 +0000 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:13:55 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:40:20 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net> >The Duke of Mendoza present his compliments. >>Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:52:11 +0000 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >>I do believe that I posted a response to your post, but I >>wished to know from which standpoint I was to argue, Guilty >>until proved innocent or Innocent until proven guilty, or did >>you just miss it?? >I didn't understand it, especially as (huge guffaw) you seemed to >think I was an American at the time. Even so, I still don't >understand it. Why don't you argue from your own point of view? >Innocent until proven guilty is my own. I'm also against the >death penalty, by and large. Self defense is one thing. Judicial >murder is another. There again, this is a UFO list, so nuff Bearing in mind that this is a truely internaional list I don't think my request to know my standpoint was worth a guffaw because there are those who's standpoint differ from yours , and mine for that matter. However for your benefit I will state my argument from the "Innocent until proven Guilty" standpoint. I will post it in a few days when I have written this lengthy tome, however, if I have a truely valid argument will you concede??? >said. >>> (I assume because he has seen too many of "the best >>>case[s]," like Roswell, crumble when carefully studied.) >>from either standpoint (either/or its your preference) the >>arguments are already coloured/tainted by your initial beliefs. >This is sometimes true, but I think you can also start with no >beliefs at all and come down on one side or the other in the end >on Roswell. It all depends on what you regard as acceptable >evidence (although there are fairly widely agreed standards about >that). You can also end up regarding "Roswell" as unproven as an >ET event without having to buy any of the alternative >explanations that have been offered, some of which have been >phenomenally dozy, e.g. Air Force dummies on parachutes. >>> Americans are very horrid indeed, >>I disagree I know some very nice Americans. >I disagree too and I also know *many* very nice Americans. >>> but Brits and besides are much nicer people altogether. >>Why thank you for the compliment. >You're welcome, but you're getting as clever at quoting out of >context as some other people I know. Are you trying to get in my >big black book by the back cover? Did I hit a nerve by perchance?? Debunkers have been doing this for years and I have never heard you once complain about them doing it when it confirmed your particular beliefs. However I do not wish to become the victim of your wrath because I hav'nt the time for it. >>On an entirely different note I thought a Marlin was a >>fish not a beetle, >A marlinspike is neither, strange to say. On the other hand a >merlin is a bird. Suggest you use dixionary and stop worrying. diCTionary dear chap please do learn to spell. Yes I have three in the house, to which I refer often so that I do not misunderstand your final statements said in your signiture. Marlinspike (n) (Naut) Pointed iron tool used to seperate strands of wire or rope. See I got a new bigger dictionary. Merlin is also the name of the Great Wizard who assisted the very Great King Arthur on his many quests and carried him unto Avalon. >>or is it that you are admiting to being a lower life form >><very huge G> >Fairly low. Bear in mind that about 90% of both of us is >bacteria, though, so give credit where it is due. Actually I thought I was 90% water myself. <g> >>OR >>Like Ludwig you are trying to solve all of lifes mysteries? >certainly a genius, and I am > not. titter. <G>hehehe >best wishes >Palpation D. Metaphysician >Spine Tingler Sean Jones, a mouse who wishes his squeaking to be heard.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: Saucer Error Error From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:06:25 +1000 (GMT+1000) Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:59:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 18:37:50 -0400 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Of Martian Cats, &c > To: UFO UpDates Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > I think that for all practical purposes there is little difference > between these two entities. Popular culture =A1 books, movies, radio > and TV broadcasts, newspaper stories, comic strips, even song and > dance =A1 draws on folklore on the one hand and contributes to and > becomes part of it on the other. Each is a facet of the other when it > comes to delineating what is "in the air" in any particular period. > This would include the craze for "flying saucers" in the American > mind and media in the midsummer of 1947. I think I hear you saying talk of saucers leads to people seeing saucers. That's the opposite of common sense. If we want UFO science to flourish then widen the net, make the truth entertaining. This is not. This idea was nonsense when it first came out. > Martin Kottmeyer has pointed out somewhere "The Saucer Errror" posted on alt.skeptic some years ago. See also my response: "The Saucer Error Error". > how strange it is that while Arnold saw crescent-shaped objects, the > flood of UFO reports that immediately followed his seminal sighting > confirmed not his report but the media characterization of what he > saw -- that is, "flying saucers", disk-shaped objects. Yes indeed! Arnold saw circular saucer-shaped objects. Any artist could see what happened here. Examine any flattish circular object lit from a single source. It will appear to have a big bite missing. Here, Arnold tried to make an aeroplane shape out of what his eye reported to him. (Deletia in which PB claims that Betty Hill must have seen a certain TV epsiode because it fits his theory better than accepting that she merely met exotic humanoids.) > Nonetheless the parallels that Shaeffer, following Kottmeyer, > presents between artefacts of popular culture and AE reports are > important. Like other skeptics he proposes, with these two examples, > a relationship of cause-and-effect between folklore and experience. > ....The polarities of the skeptic-versus-believer "debate"..... A skeptic is a ufologist who has not done his homework properly. In this case I infer that Kottmeyer and PB base their claims on the fact that they know of no previous reference to "saucers". In fact history is littered with reports of saucers and discs. Since propulsion seems to result from the interaction between an intense circular EM field and the Earth's field, it does seem as if a saucer shape would be the most logical for small craft. And indeed people have been seeing discs and saucers for a very long time. Like Texan farmer John Martin who reported that he had seen a "saucer" (his own word) sailing across the heavens at "a wonderful speed". That was in 1878. Clearly he was influenced by a Jungian archetype drawn from the popular unconsciousness that would be founded by Arnold 69 years later. Right? On Dec 22 1909 there were reports of a huge airship flying across the USA and seen by thousands. It crashed west of Chicago, but was never found. Perhaps it was saucer-shaped, because on April 20 1910 "The Chicago Ledger" had a front page illustration showing a squadron of flying saucers. They are shown at a side angle and in plan and are clearly similar to the craft commonly seen from the 1940's onwards. So maybe the seeding of human technology started in 1909. Then in 1931 Sir Francis Chichester saw "a dull grey-white airship... like an oblong pearl..." that vanished and reappeared and then became ghostlike and again vanished. He said later "It appears to have been very much like what people have since claimed to be flying saucers." So here is a witness not just to a "saucer" (his own words) but to one that fades in and out of sight, c.f.. the craft of Gulf Breeze, Warminster and myriads of other places. (And that was the year that abductions appear to have started, based on my admittedly slightly more comprehensive records. ; ) ) Not everyone sees "discs". The mother-ship of the Roswell UFO's appears to have been a cigar ship. On the night before Roswell (July 1 1947 ) the SS Llandovery Castle was en route from Mombasa to Cape Town. It was in the Straits of Madagascar when at 11pm a brilliant light overtook the ship then slowed. The light went off and those aboard the vessel saw a gigantic metal cylinder five times longer than its diameter, or about a thousand feet long and two hundred feet thick. It was at least three times longer than the steamship. After a while it rose silently to a thousand feet, gave off gushes of orange flame, and sped away. Has this incident been considered in the context of Roswell? A lot of books have come out lately. I hope it figured a mention. If these craft were folkloric delusions of the Kottmeyer Type, they convinced some awfully clever people. On Sept 23 1947 after a conference between personnel of the Air Insitute of Technology, Intelligence, T-2 Office, the Chief of the Engineering Division, & parts of Division T-3, Lt.Gen. Nathan F Twining reported that these "flying discs" were "real and not visionary and ficticious." They concluded that: "There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc.."circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domes on top..." On January 7 1948 Captain Mantell went aloft to do the famous American John Wayne thing riding in his mustang. As he approached the flying injun he just had to gun down he reported: 15.11 Hrs "Mantell here. Now I've got it! It's a disc, enormously large. Hard to say, could be 80 yards in diameter. Upper surface has a ring and a dome. Turning fantastically fast, apparently around a central vertical axis..." 15.12 Hrs right wing pilot radioed: "I can see the disc. Am photographing it. Mantell's behind. About 200 feet above me. Left wing pilot falling in. Attempting to pursue." 15.14, Mantell: "Another thousand yards and I've got it......" The other pilots were forced to give up at this stage. Lucky them. 15.18 Mantell: "The thing's gigantic. It's flying unbelievably fast. I can see windows. Now...." The wreck was said to be peppered with fine holes caused by flying into the wash from the ufo's propulsion system. That must have been a pretty dangerous piece of folkloric hardware. I have speculated that the accident actually occurred when Mantell "grounded" his craft with the UFO by firing a wire-guided missile at it, as in Project Moby Dick. But then I have to remind myself that it was really only a weather balloon. There have since that time been hundreds of cases where people have had plenty of time and light to examine a UFO at close range. In many instances these craft have unambiguously been saucer-shaped. In some of the most spectacular cases (e.g. Boiamai, PNG ) the many witnesses included people from a variety of cultures not in the least familiar with Buck Rogers or the Chicago Ledger. In the face of this kind of evidence small wonder that mainstream ufology has now accepted as axiomatic that UFO's are indeed flying craft. Lawrie Williams
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:20:50 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 11:48:45 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:32 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:19:24 -0500 > > I'll take the better > >ufologists over the scientists, anytime. Whether or not I agree > >with Stan's conclusions on MJ-12, I challenge you to compare > >Stan's work on it with SETI astronomer Frank Drake's reasons why > >interstellar travel is impossible (and, therefore, aliens will > >never visit us). Stan comes off as an apostle of sweet reason, > >and Drake, by contrast, as a frightened idiot. > >Greg Sandow > Greg, the above is so boundlessly beyond belief (or stupidity) on > your part as to beg credibility. Frankly sir -- it is your position that strains an open minded credulity. > I'm a working writer and so are you. But if neither of us has > anything else better to do with our time, I'll gladly accept your > "challenge to compare Stan's work on [MJ-12] with SETI astronomer > Frank Drake," having already admitted previously on this post > that I'm no particular fan of Drake's work and conclusions. > Let me also add that you're comparing apples and oranges here. > But if you really and seriously want to adopt the voice of > Friedman's "apostle of sweet reason" as your own, then so be it. > Dennis > Frightened Idiot Dr. Drake postulates a credible potential for ET existence, but retreats from ET actuality with a proclamation that they are not allowed to function in a manner that we, in our boundless, extensive, and complete physical knowledge <g>, consider impossible! Now that seems a completely foolish take, given that we ourselves daily function in a manner that we would have considered impossible just one hundred years ago. Mr. Friedman DOES seem to hold the high cards of sweet reason in comparison. Dr. Drake, cognitively shows more courage, and certainly asks tougher questions. Lehmberg@snowhill.com -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake for his sweet, sweet reason. Search for other documents from or mentioning: lehmberg | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 PROJECT-1947: Gila Bend, Arizona From: Paul <n6rpf@ARROWWEB.COM> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:10:05 -0700 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 13:03:14 -0500 Subject: PROJECT-1947: Gila Bend, Arizona WITNESSES WANTED--Would anyone who witnessed a spectacular UFO sighting just outside of Gila Bend, Arizona on the night of September 1st and 2nd, 1994, please contact the investigative group Orion at P. O. Box 15044, San Diego, CA 92175, or ORION (n6rpf@ix.netcom.com). According to one witness this sighting occurred immediately south of Gila Bend on Highway 8 Between 11:30 pm on September 1st and and 3:00 am on September 2nd, 1994. During those hours at least 30 automobiles and truck were paced by four UFO's sometimes at distances as close as six feet. Although most of the witnesses were driving to locations quite distant from Gila Bend, we hope that at least a few would see and respond to this request. You will find the Gila Bend story here. http://www.arrowweb.com/n6rpf/gila.html Paul Cook mime or binhex attachments - OK ___________________________________________________________ It's the opinion of some that crops could be grown on the moon. Which raises the fear that it may not be long before we're paying somebody not to. Franklin P. Jones http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2466/index.html http://www.arrowweb.com/n6rpf/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: ETH &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c > From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:23:21 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: ETH &c > Salutations to the list, and a response to: > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:00:28 PST > >Fwd Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:36:54 -0500 > >Subject: Re: ETH &c > I realize that interjecting myself into this cat fight is > probably a pointless exercise, but since Mr. Clark comments > (badly) on a passage that I allowed His Grace to quote, I do feel > obliged to do so. (Also, since this is my first attempt at > posting to the list, I apologize in advance for any formatting, > or other errors I may commit). > >What a load of crapola here. When have I ever said > >Roswell is one of "the best cases"? Roswell is difficult, > >complicated, and ambiguous and depends, in the absence > > of more conclusive evidence, whom one chooses to believe. > Yes, you do now describe Roswell as �lost in confusion,� but > let�s not forget these quotes from yesteryear: > �In short order (in mid-June, to be specific) Kevin Randle and > Donald Schmitt�s long-awaited �UFO Crash at Roswell� will be > out. It records the most thoroughly investigated, the most > completely documented event in the history of ufology. The > Roswell incident is, of course, also the most important case of > all. As its secrets are unraveled (and investigation continues), > ufology�s big questions, the ones that brought our field into > being in the first place, are being answered: What are UFOs? > Who pilots them? What does officialdom know, and when did it > know it? Those whose interpretation of the UFO phenomenon > is based on empirical evidence will rejoice as the heretofore > unkillable canard, that UFO research has made no progress in > four decades, is disposed of once and for all.� > Jerome Clark > International UFO Reporter, March-April 1991. I still think Roswell is an extraordinarily important case, potentially the most important of all. It is not, however, the best case. I think critics have considerably over-stated their argument, but I do think they have succeeded in highlighting weaknesses and ambiguities which ensure that as things stand Roswell is far from the "best case." (Literate readers will know the difference, Jeff, even if the distinction escapes you.) I have followed the debate, listened seriously to all sides, and adjusted my thoughts accordingly. I would like to think you'd do the same, Jeff, but maybe you think a view once lodged in your mind can never be removed or even modified. Personally, I harbor a sentimental preference for an always open mind. The core of the problem is that the serious investigation did not begin until 30 years after the fact. The reconstruction of any historical event, and particularly one that was quickly covered up and forgotten (in this latter instance even by ufologists), is extraordinarily difficult, even when done by trained historians -- not one of whom, I might add here as a lifelong student of history, participated in the research. As Mike Swords points out in his recent IUR article, the debate is further confused by "clashing visions of the possible" and also by the absence of a single relevant document on whose authenticity and/or relevance everyone agrees. (I urge open-minded readers to Swords' piece as the most lucid exposition yet of the opposing camps' a priori assumptions. The article appears on pages 11-13,33-35 of the Fall 1997 issue.) My mistake was in having and expressing excessive optimism about what we could learn about something that occurred long ago and under circumstances that would have rendered truth-determination difficult even had a (civilian) investigation been launched immediately. > �The Roswell incident is the most important known UFO > event in history. By the time this investigation is over it > will shape our future understanding of the UFO phenomenon. > This investigation gets to the very core of all issues.� > Jerome Clark > Oddysey Newsletter (unfortunately, the copy sent to me > does not include the date of the issue, but it is apparently > from 1989 or 1990) All true, should it be determined, conclusively, that the Roswell object was a UFO. For the difficulties of making a determination, see above. I have never heard of the Oddysey Newsletter, by the way. > I will grant the possibility that you believe there is a > substantive difference between the �most important case of > all� and a �best case.� I, however, believe most �literate > readers� think otherwise. Perhaps you could explain the > difference to the rest of us or, better still, explain what in > the last six years caused Roswell, in your estimate, to fall > from �the most important case� to being lost in confusion. Literate readers, as I've said, will understand the difference. > > Budd Hopkins does not "make the same errors" as Mack, > >and it amuses me to see abductionphobes speaking of them > >in the same breath, despite enormous differences in outlook > >and approach. > Yes, Hopkins does make the same fundamental error as Mack- his > beliefs clearly influence how he reports and studies abduction > accounts, to the point of leading his subjects. But don�t take > my word for it, read Bullard�s The Sympathetic Ear, pages 66-67, > where he clearly describes Hopkins� status as the Typhoid Mary of > the hybrid baby motif. Even one of Bullard�s respondents > recognized this fact. While Bullard concludes Hopkins� obvious > influence on such an important element in the abduction narrative > is relatively unimportant in evaluating the source of abduction > claims, I think reasonable people can disagree. (Note the > citation to a relevant work and a brief summation of why I think > readers will find it relevant to my point.) In fact, phantom pregnancies were noted in the UFO literature, but ignored and forgotten soon after, in John Keel's 1970 book The Mothman Prophecies. I made an interesting discovery while doing research on early CE3s for my Emergence of a Phenomenon (1992): the extra- ordinary numbers of CE3s in which witnesses have reported human or near-human entities. The possible implications, in light of the later abduction hybrid claims, are intriguing to speculate about, though of course impossible to prove. In any event, Jeff misses the larger, more important point: that unlike most abduction-related claims, phantom pregancies are falsifiable. As I have had occasion to say before, it is arguably Hopkins' major failing to bring forth no medical documentation proving or disproving abductees' claims that they experienced anomalously terminated pregnancies. About Hopkins' general methodology much can be, and has been, said for and against (the former usually by those who've observed it up close, the latter usually by those farthest from such observation); in any event, that argument can go on forever, inconclusively, to inflict onlookers with terminal cases of MEGO. In this one area, however, it seems to me that reasonably conclusive answers are possible and not that hard to obtain. > >And I did not discuss Appelle in the context of the > >ETH; I mentioned him in the context of his careful explication of > >the problems of counterexplanations. > You discussed Appelle as a counter to several non-ETH > explanations for abduction accounts, without making it clear that > Appelle is as (or if you saw him on the recent Discovery Channel > special-more) critical of the ETH explanation as any other. This > left a clear impression that Appelle�s article supported the ETH, > if in no other way than by the process of elimination. You may > not have intended it that way, but since several members of this > list, only a few of whom responded, read your citation of Appelle > the same way I did, you may want to consider that the problem > lies in a lack of clarity on your part. That's possible. We're not churning out deathless prose here. We're writing ephemeral stuff, and we're writing it fast, and it's not going to stand in print to get quoted back to us years (or, in my case, sometimes decades) later. My impression of Appelle, whom I know slightly (as a fellow CUFOS board member), is that he's open-minded about the ETH, sensitive to the difficulties of proving it, and focused more sharply on ufology's more immediate, pragmatic, methodological concerns -- rather like me. Meantime, again allow me to urge readers to turn to Appelle's splendid piece. It's in JUFOS 6 (n.s., 1995/1996), is titled "The Abduction Experience: A Critical Evaluation of Theory of Evidence," and appears on pages 29-78. it's available through either Bob Girard or the CUFOS office. If the general level of ufological discourse were on this level, or even close to it, we'd all be better off. Thanks, Jeff, for a chance to comment on the above and to clarify my views. Good luck in your own inquiries. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Posting Rules From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:30:35 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:30:35 -0500 Subject: Posting Rules To make List Life as painless as possible for you and the List moderator, please read the following FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) carefully. If you have any questions please send the moderators E-Mail. _______________________________________________________________ Posting Rules To help current and future readers of UFO UpDates' posts and the UFO UpDates Instant Archive software at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates please observe the following rules when posting to the List. 1. Line-length Please make your lines no more than 70 characters long ------------------------This line is 70 characters--------------------- Longer lines are wrapped by various pieces of software along the Net and leave awkward and eye-jarring line lengths. 2. Attribution When responding to a message from the List, _always_ include the four line 'header' from the body of that message at the start of _your_ message - eg.: >Date: 01 Jan 97 00:00:01 EST >From: Genghis@mukluk.com <Bob Bobberts> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Grays are Grey Area Again - it's at the beginning of the 'body' of the message you are responding to. 3. Quoting _Always_ quote from the message to which you are responding. Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the first character. It should look like this: >Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the >first character. It should look like this: The Archive software will automatically italicize these lines. Visit the Archive page and take a look. Keep quoted material from previous messages to a minimum: Just quote enough text to let people know what you are referring to. Quotes should come _before_ you key your response. Messages that do not utilize the required quoting protocol or contain excessive quoting will not be posted to UpDates. Most modern E-Mail software will allow the user to click a 'Reply' button and automatically open a new window, with the message being responded to inserted with universal quote-mark (>) at the beginning of each line. When 'Reply' is clicked, some E-Mail software will insert a line which states: On 01 Jan 97 at 00:00:01 EST, UFO UpDates wrote: If your program does this, please remove it - UFO UpDates did not _write_ the message - it merely posted it to the List. 5. Don't send 'personal' responses to the list that should be sent directly to the original author. Send a message to the list only if it contains new information that you want _everyone_ to see. Messages that contain what the List Administrator considers to be personal attacks or 'flames' will not be posted to the List. Those messages will be forwarded to the person they refer to for their information. 6. URLs (Web Site addresses) _must_ include 'http://' and be on one line. The Archive software will make the URL a 'click-able' link to that address in your archived message. ------------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 43 From: Masinaigan@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:51:28 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 16:29:50 -0500 Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 43 UFO ROUNDUP Volume 2, Number 43 November 9, 1997 TWO NATO JETS PURSUE UFO OVER FRANCE Two NATO jet interceptors, described as "the F-16 type," chased a UFO over France's Eure-et- Loire department at 4 p.m. on Monday, October 27, 1997. Eyewitness Marie Franck reported, "I was at my country home in Sainville, a village 40 kilometers (24 miles) east of Chartres. I was in the garden when I heard a progressive rumbling originating from the north, behind the house. It was then that I saw, to the west of the village, at 45 degrees above the horizon and about 2,000 meters (6,600 feet or just over a mile--J.T.) away a flying tube without wings but with fire coming out of the stern, which moved in horizontal flight from the north-northeast to the south-southwest." Mme. Franck watched the UFO for "five seconds" before it disappeared "behind a neighboring rooftop." "Its speed was around 1,400 kilometers per hour," she reported. "I was astonished at not hearing a sonic boom, and I thought I might have been mistaken in my calculations." She estimated that the UFO traveled two kilometers during the five seconds. "At the same time, I got the idea that it might be a missile (perhaps nuclear?) and that it was going to explode in the distance," she added. "Sudden terror! My sole reflex was to hurl myself to the ground, all the while counting the seconds to estimate the distance from the object." "I was at 50 seconds when a new rumbling sound made its approach, but it was coming from the southeast. I then observed passing from south to north a military plane of the F-16 type, which made a very tight turn north of the village (Sainville) in order to get on the north-northeasterly trajectory of the object." A few seconds later, "a new rumbling" was heard, and a second F-16 appeared, flying in the same direction as the first. Mme. Franck gathered her children from the pavilion very quickly and brought them indoors to safety. Sainville is located on L'Autoroute A.10-E.05, the main highway between Paris and Orleans. The Armee de l'Air, France's air force, has a base at Chateaudrun, 55 kilometers (33 miles) south of Sainville. (Merci beaucoup a Marie Franck et Banque OVNI pour ces nouvelles.) IRISH UFOLOGISTS QUESTION BOYLE SAUCER CRASH EYEWITNESSES Researchers from IUFOPRA, a UFO study group in Eire, are busily interviewing witnesses to a saucer crash in the Curlieu Mountains north of Boyle, County Roscommon, that reportedly took place in May 1996. According to Irish ufologist Rory Thornton, the saucer crashlanded on a mountain just north of Boyle, slicing off a few treetops and touching down in the lake. The saucer, alleged to be from "the planet Sunas," contained several occupants who were allegedly taken into custody by a retrieval team. Dave Walsh, publisher of the online newsletter Nua Blather, wrote, "New information has recently come to light that leads us to believe that despite earlier reports the incident is a hoax, that something did happen in the Curlieu Mountains." "The site of the alleged crash has been sealed off for months now, and even the locals have been denied access." Six months after the alleged crash, a new asphalt road was constructed, leading to the site, and "two (Quonset) huts were erected," IUFOPRA reported, "and no one was prepared to give any explanation as to why they were there. One of the huts is located close to the crash site with a lot of antennae protruding from it." "One thing is clear...the Irish and foreign military are involved in some type of covert operations," IUFOPRA was quoted by Walsh. "A lot of helicopters have been observed flying around the area, and, according to one witness, he was woken by the sound of 'rescue' helicopters, which hovered very close to the windows of his house, causing them to rattle." (Many thanks to Dave Walsh for this news story.) UFOs SIGHTED IN FLORIDA On Tuesday, October 14, 1997, at 5:10 p.m., Nancy Dunning had stopped her car at a traffic light in Palmetto, Florida (population 8,637) "when I saw an egg-shaped object moving northwest at a steady rate of speed. It was silvery-white in color. I watched as it went into a cloud and just disappeared. It never came out on the other side of the cloud. I know it wasn't an airplane because I know a lot about airplanes. I can identify almost any plane there is." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #44. Many thanks to George A. Filer of MUFON for forwarding this story.) On Saturday, November 1, 1997, at 1:50 a.m., Tige McMullen, age 15, was looking out the window of his home in Pensacola, Florida (population 57,619). "Then I looked up into the sky, and I saw a UFO. It was moving fast, left to right, then at one point disappeared, then coming back. It made no noise." Tige immediately phoned the Pensacola/Gulf Breeze UFO Hotline. Afterward, he "got my Mom's camera and took two pictures of it. I hope they come out." "It was like lightning in the sky. But there was no thunder, and lightning doesn't stay that long. There was mostly clear sky that night. I looked to try to find a video camera, but I could not. Then I looked out the window and it had gone. It had disappeared." (USENET report) LUMINOUS UFOs REPORTED ON ITALY'S ADRIATIC COAST Luminous UFOs were seen at four locations around the city of Ancona, on Italy's Adriatic Sea coastline last week. On Monday, November 3, 1997, at 5 p.m., "a luminous object was observed from diverse locations in the province of Ancona. In the area around Polverigi, two hunters saw a fusiform object of grey color pass by quickly and silently over their heads." "At the same hour, ten people on a promenade (boardwalk--J.T.) in Posatora observed for several seconds a luminous green ball with a yellow tail in the sky." (See the Italian newspaper Corriere Adriatico for November 4, 1997.) The same luminous green UFO was also seen in Senigallia and Porto Recanati, two seaside towns close to Ancona. The area is 224 kilometers (140 miles) northeast of Rome. (See Corriere Adriatico for November 5, 1997. Grazie a Edoardo Russo di CISU per questo rapporto.) TWO GIRLS SPOT A UFO IN WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA On Friday, October 17, 1997, at 8:30 p.m., Danielle F. and her cousin, Tessa P., were waiting in a car for Tessa's father in their hometown of Boswell, Pennsylvania (population 1,480). Boswell is located on Route 601 about 70 miles (112 kilometers) east of Pittsburgh. "Tessa said, 'What's that?'" Danielle reported. "I looked up and said it might be an airplane. We saw a big blurry white light. We went inside and got the binoculars to take a better look." The UFO hovered at about 45 degrees above the horizon, Danielle reported, "The center of the object was white, and on the ends were two yellow lights. On the top of the object was one red light. The object was moving very fast while it was descending toward the (nearby) mountain. Tessa and I both agree that we never saw a plane move so fast. We don't know what it was, but we wondered if it could be a UFO." (Email Interview) MYSTERIOUS LIGHT FLASH PUZZLES OKLAHOMA DEPUTY An Oklahoma sheriff's deputy had a Halloween suprise when he spotted a mysterious flash of light on the outskirts of Reydon. On October 31, 1997, at approximately 8:23 p.m., a sheriff's deputy saw a "flash of light" northeast of Reydon, 120 miles (192 kilometers) west of Oklahoma City. According to Jim Hickman of Skywatch, the deputy's radio report was monitored, and he spoke of a "large flash of light in the sky." A partial transcript follows: Dispatch: "Was it lightning?" Deputy: "I don't see any clouds in the sky." Deputy: "It was one large flash to my northeast, and it wasn't lightning." In recent months, similar "light flashes" have been reported in Los Alamos, New Mexico and Beaver Bay, Minnesota. (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #44. Many thanks to George A. Filer of MUFON for this report.) UFO WITH OCTAGONAL LIGHTS SEEN BY VIRGINIA COUPLE On Saturday, November 1, 1997, at 11:25 p.m., Mike S. was driving with his girlfriend in Earlysville, located eight miles (12 kilometers) north of Charlottesville, Virginia (population 40,341), "and it was a very dark night," he reported, "I took my eyes off the road and looked in the direction she was pointing. There was definitely something in the sky about 15 to 25 feet above the tree line." "I saw lights in the sky that were arranged in rings," Mike reported, "The lights were circular or almost octagonal, and they were dull and white. They were not like light bulbs or headlights. The lights outlined a disk-shaped object. I could tell that it was slowly spinning in a clockwise motion, and it repeatedly crossed over the road. It followed the road in front of me for about a mile to a mile and a half. I called my parents from my car phone and told them what I saw." After Mike got home, he and his father returned to that stretch of road outside Earlysville. But the saucer was gone. When both men returned home at 11:50 p.m., Mike's mother telephoned the local police. They learned that an officer on patrol had reportedly seen "the exact same thing." (Many thanks to Tim Hagemeister of NACOMM for this report.) MYSTERY EXPLOSION ROCKS TOWN IN QUEBEC On Friday, October 31, 1997, "a mysterious explosion, coming from either the ground or the sky, rocked the whole town" of La Mauricie, Quebec, Canada. An investigation by the provincial police produced no answers. According to Jean Casault of the Centre de Etude et d'Information sur les Phenomenes Inexplique (CEIPI), residents of La Mauricie "have seen different 'light shows' in the sky" for the past forty days. "A video has been shot which reveals a big luminous object that went up in the sky and transformed itself into a triangular-shaped object," Casault reported. "In the process of doing so, it was on a collision course with another object and made a drop very quickly, which was absolutely unusual at that speed." (Email Interview) UFO HOVERS OVER TOWN IN WESTERN NEWFOUNDLAND On Monday, November 3, 1997, at 11:11 p.m., Don Jay Frederico reported a UFO sighting "near the airport runway in Stephenville, Newfoundland," Canada (population 10,284). The town is located along Highway 460 on St. George's Bay on Newfoundland's western shore. "I saw the strange craft over the ocean across from the runway," Frederico reported. "It stayed there for about two or three minutes and then left without a sound. As it was leaving, it looked like a ball of red fire. Then it divided into two different (balls of gas) and dropped." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #44. Many thanks to Don Jay Frederico, ISUR and George A. Filer for this story.) LARGE UFO SIGHTED OVER THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO On October 5, 1997, a resident of Thunder Bay, Ontario (population 113,946) "was driving down (the) Fort William (section of the city--J.T.) road when I saw a large object in the sky, which appeared to be near the Ontario Tax Building. At first I thought it was a plane, but it quickly dived from the sky to a low altitude (much faster than a plane). I looked at it more carefully, although it was lower on the horizon." "It was shaped like an elliptical ball, but it was white like a cloud. I thought maybe it was a cloud, but then it moved across the sky in such an unnatural manner it couldn't have been. It was heading across Lake Superior, so I drove to the marina to see if I could see it. It must have been traveling at a very high speed." Thunder Bay is the largest city in western Ontario province, Canada, located on the north shore of Lake Superior approximately 868 miles (1,388 kilometers) northwest of Toronto. (Many thanks to Steve Wilson Sr. for this report.) NASA ENDS PATHFINDER'S MISSION TO MARS NASA officially halted daily communication with the spacecraft Pathfinder and its robot rover, Sojourner, on Tuesday, November 4, 1997. "The end of the $266 million mission comes four months after Pathfinder bounced to a thrilling Independence Day landing in the rocky Ares Vallis region and rolled out Sojourner, the first robot ever to set wheels on another planet." "But both spacecraft have been silent since Oct. 7, when controllers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. last locked onto a beacon from the lander's backup transmitter. It has been longer than that, since Sept. 27, that any data has been sent home from the Martian surface through Pathfinder's main transmitter." "Managers now have no choice but to conclude that the lander, renamed the Carl Sagan Memorial Station, has succumbed to the onset of the Martian winter. During this time, temperatures plunge to minus 50 degrees and more dust storms shroud the planet." "'We've been talking about having a wake,' mission manager Richard Cook says, 'But in one sense we really ought to celebrate, not mourn. Pathfinder has been much more of a success than we ever envisioned.'" Pathfinder's data "'will help provide a scientific basis for future Mars missions...for years to come,' says Wesley Huntress, NASA space science chief." (See USA Today for November 4, 1997, page A-3) (Editor's Comment: Would it be rude to point out that UFO ROUNDUP reported Pathfinder's first "difficulty" with uplink communications back on August 16? Or that the temperature reading of -58 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded on October 7, over a month ago? Be that as it may, it is now official--there has not been a successful mission to Mars since Viking II back in September 1976.) TWO MAJOR SOLAR FLARES ERUPT DURING THE SAME WEEK A major solar flare erupted on Sol (our sun--J.T.) on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, sending a hot stream of X-rays hurtling into space. The disturbance took place in the sun's southwest quadrant, which fortunately was not facing Earth at the time. A second solar flare erupted on Thursday, November 6, 1997 at 7:55 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). According to Ernie Hildner, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Space Environment Center in Boulder, Colorado, "The eruption produced five times more X-rays than" Tuesday's event, adding, "We're no longer looking down the barrel of the cannon, so I expect the ejection to miss the Earth, going off sideways." The second flare also occurred in Sol's southwestern quadrant, in a direction well away from Earth. The solar flares are expected to cause an increase in the Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis at our planet's poles, as the high-energy streams affect Earth's magnetosphere. (Editor's Comment: If Earth ever wanders into the path of one of those solar X-ray blasts, we'll be changing the planet's name to Toast.) from the UFO Files... 1972: UFO HOVERS OVER A RANCH IN UTAH "At first Lennis Gines didn't think much of the blue and yellow lights in the field behind her rural Summit County (Utah) home." "It was a little too early--about 4:30 a.m.-- for teenage visitors. And the silent, rotating lights weren't anywhere near the narrow country lane that meandered past the family's two story home and on to the Provo River." "At that instant, on a pitch-black moonless morn in the fall of 1972, Lennis Gines knew what it was like to see a UFO." "'If it hadn't gone up without a sound, I may have convinced myself in my mind that it was just kids driving around. But I know what I saw.'" "Gines was soon joined by her teenage son Sam, who was ready to round up the cows for milking. Together they waited and watched in the dark for 45 minutes as the blue and yellow lights, some 150 yards to the east, cascaded across the river bottoms." "Eventually Gines's 16-year-old decided he'd waited long enough...Sam got no help from the family's otherwise loyal cattle dog, who whimpered and ran inside to hide." "'My boy gets in the truck and goes over, and he said he could see a doorway, windows and shadows going in and out,' Gines recalled this week, nearly 25 years after the event. 'It was like someone was going in and out on the ground.'" "'The cows were bunched together, he said, and he had a hard time getting them out (of the field) without the dog, but they did come down the road and into the corral. The cows were nervous and didn't give the milk they usually gave.'" "Gines, still frightened, helped her younger son, Will, get dressed, then hustled to the barn to bring Sam back to the house. But when she emerged from the barn--the lights were gone--all except the distant glimmer of daylight." (See the Desert News of Salt Lake City, Utah for July 6, 1997, "Close Encounters in Utah" by Zack Van Eyck. Many thanks to Lou Farrish of UFO Newsclipping Service for forwarding this story.) FUN UFO WEBSITES: The Alberta UFO Study Group has a new website. AUFOSG began back in 1990 and was mentioned in Timothy Good's ALIEN UPDATE and Juergen Koenig's SPURREN IM KORN. Right now they're compiling UFO reports taken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Drop in at http://www.geocities.com/ Area51/Lair/3465 UFOs Online was updated last week by Anthony Chippendale. See what new features Tony's added by checking in at this URL: http://chipp.clara.net Here's a new site devoted to that mysterious face on Mars. Check it out at http://www.adam.com/ cydonia/ Or fly into Tianca's UFO Spaceport. You'll find this great site at http://spaceport.ufo.net Gerard Poley remarks, "The alien's aren't coming-- they've arrived!" See for yourself at his website, at http://www.PortlandWebSmith.com/spiritist/ Don't forget our parent site, UFOINFO, with tons of great news items, features, photos and downloads. Check it out at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/ If it's back issues of UFO ROUNDUP you're looking for, we have plenty at our site. Go to http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/roundup/ That's it for this week. The USA's Veterans Day is Tuesday, November 11, and UFO ROUNDUP wishes to send its greetings--and thanks--to the millions of American men and women who have worn the uniform in the defense of their nation. Thank you for a job well done, people. We'll be back next weekend with more saucer news from "the paper that goes home--UFO ROUNDUP." See you then! UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 1997 by Masinaigan Productions, all rights reserved. Readers may post any news item from UFO ROUNDUP on their websites or in newsgroups provided that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in which the news item first appeared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:06:11 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:47:01 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Correction follows: > Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:20:50 -0600 > From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:32 -0600 (CST) > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: > > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > > >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:19:24 -0500 Great suffering zot, how embarrassing ... this is the way the sentence is to read. > Mr. Friedman DOES seem to hold the high cards of sweet reason in > comparison to Dr. Drake, cognitively shows more courage, and certainly > asks tougher questions. Lehmberg@snowhill.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: Clark on Abductions 1/2 From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:09:56 PST Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:27:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 1/2 > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:22 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Clark on Abductions 1/2 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments to the List. > >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:03:10 PDT > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees > SANDY LARSON, THE HILLS, &c > Jerome writes: > >When you have a credible multi-witness abduction story, > >it's pretty hard to argue that you're dealing with a subjective > >phenomenon. > The credibility of any report of any event, mundane or anomalous, > is speciously enhanced by convergent testimony of multiple > witnesses, but there is more to the Larson case than that. And a > lot hinges on that word "credible": it suggests how subjective > the initial decision to investigate may be. Jerome comments that > he was & is impressed because the Larson case (and the other that > he cites, for some reason anonymously) featured conscious > memories of UFO sightings and missing time. This is little enough > to kickstart a investigation, but at least is 100% wider-ranging > than what has started others' whiskers twitching. To me it > suggests that consciously or otherwise the benchmark for > initially justifying investigation and later for believing the > case genuine is the abduction of Betty & Barney Hill. Speculationism, Duke. See below. > This is interesting in part because that is the case Budd Hopkins > took as his template for judging the apparent reality of an > abduction claim. The peculiar defensiveness of ufologists toward > the Hills' case is based more on its mythic status than on > objective evidence. (Ironically, Betty Hill is extremely rude in > private about the competence and claims of Hopkins, et al, and > fairly scathing in her book, "A Common Sense Approach to UFOs", > ISBN 9648243-0-2, which I commend to all and sundry.) The Hill > case can be deconstructed in exactly the way Dr Benjamin Simon > did - seeing it as related directly to Betty's dreams. In other > words, it does not need to be "real" to be explicable. Sometimes > people get things right first time. > Relevant aside: The claim made in the Boy Bishop of Canby's Bible > that Dr Simon was "antipathetic" to UFOs ("High Strangeness" > p248) is not borne out by John Fuller's "The Interrupted > Journey", where Simon's neutrality on the whole issue (he had had > two UFO sightings himself) is touched on at least four times (pp > 85, 89, 134, 313-4 of the Transworld p/back, 1981 edn). Jerome > scries Simon implicitly [note that word!] and a priori rejecting > UFOs and so a literal interpretation of the Hills' experience, > which in my view is just more Clarkian clairvoyance. According to > Fuller (p314), "contradictory evidence prevented the doctor from" > accepting the experience as reality; "his best alternative lay in > the dream hypothesis"; and of that, Simon is quoted saying: "But > I'm not absolutely convinced. ... Therapeutically, we had reached > a good place to stop.... It was acceptable in my judgement to > leave it not fully answered." [Unchecked hearsay: Simon > apparently became brusque at Walter Webb's attempts to show him > "UFO evidence", but before regarding that as a significant datum > we'd need to know if Simon felt harassed by Webb. Unfortunately > the whereabouts of Simon's (unpublished) memoirs, which might > illuminate the point, is currently unknown.] I confess never to have spoken with Simon, just as Duke here has failed to speak with the witnesses and claimants whose minds he claims adeptness at reading. One reporter who did, on several occasions, said Simon's view of it depended upon what day you asked him about it. In any event, that's neither here nor there. What strikes me is that Duke hasn't even read one of the most crucial documents of all: Walter Webb's investigative report for NICAP. Instead, he has the bad grace to characterize it as "unchecked hearsay," when in fact it is, as Webb's work always is, not only first-rate but first. As I've had occasion to remark earlier, I'd take one Walt Webb (or Bill Weitzel or Brad Sparks or Jennie Zeidman, or whomever) over 10,000 speculationists. Hilariously, Duke claimed in one of his books that Simon was "entirely unbiased about UFOs as such," when in reality, as Webb noted in his NICAP field report, he held the subject in such contempt that he refused the UFO literature Webb offered to loan him. For the problems inherent in Simon's a prior beliefs, see the discussion on pages 248-49 of my High Strangeness. For a larger discussion of the relevant intellectual fallacy, read David J. Hufford's illuminating The Terror That Comes in the Night (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982). > The Larson case first came to Jerome's attention in autumn 1975, > as a result of Sandy Larson seeing the NBC-TV movie "The UFO > Incident" (based on the Hills' experience) and wondering if what > she recalled of her experience of 26 August 1975 had a similar > explanation. > At that time there were precious few alleged abductions generally > known among ufologists: Antonio Villas Boas (1957), the Hills > (*1961), Herb Schirmer (*1967 - more an invitation than an > abduction, and with strong contactee overtones), Jos=E9 Ant=F4nio da > Silva (1969), Hodges & Rodriguez (1971, another case with shades > of contacteeism), Hickson & Parker (*1973; later claims by > Hickson put him in the contactee bracket), Pat Roach ("Patty > Price") (1973), Carl Higdon (1974), the "Avis" family (1974), > Charles Moody (1975 - which was breaking almost simultaneously > with the Larson case), David Stephens (1975; not investigated > until December that year) and Travis Walton (*1975 - which made > international news a few weeks before Larson was investigated in > person) constitute a fairly complete list, and I am not sure that > news of the Avis case had reached the USA by autumn 1975. Most > featured missing time, all began with a UFO sighting, and seven > of these 12 are multiple-witness events. At least four (starred) > were widely publicized outside the UFO literature. Leaving aside > other divergences, the disparity between the entities reported is > extraordinary: > Villas Boas Striking blonde, short, fair-skinned humanoid > female with slanted blue eyes & triangular > face; features of male aliens not seen (uniformed, > helmeted; wore breathing apparatus); barking speech > Hills Uniformed, short, gray-skinned with > wraparound eyes but "normal" iris & pupils. > Initially described as big-nosed; description > later changed to nearer Gray configuration, but > entities had human-like hair > Schirmer Humanoid with high forehead, long nose, > sunken cat-like eyes, slit mouth; > carrying 'radio' on 'helmet'; uniformed > da Silva Hairy red-bearded dwarves; uniformed and > helmeted initially; one Nordic (possibly > vision of Christ) > Hodges/ Brain-like entities and tall gray-skinned > Rodriguez humanoids with yellow eyes, lipless mouths & > flat noses. Webbed hands with six fingers > and a thumb > Hickson/Parker Tall gray creature with bizarre cephalic > & other features, hands like lobster claws, > elephant-like skin; robotic? > Roach Short, large eyes, slit mouths, no nose, > pasty skin, three-digit hands; uniformed, > with gloves & Sam Browne belts. Case since > deconstructed as the product of priming the > central witness by lead investigator > Higdon Tall humanoid, in black suit & black shoes; > bow-legged; 'slanted head and no chin', thin > hair 'stood straight up on his head' > Avises Humanoid 'controllers': one-piece silvery > suits; slanted pink eyes with no pupils; long > noses. Examiners: hairy, bearded dwarves with > triangular eyes, beaked noses and slit-like > mouths and hairy, claw-like hands > Moody Near-classic grays, 5-digit hands, uniformed > Stephens 'Mushroom'-like creatures: hands with 3 digits > & thumb, extremely pale skin, no mouths, 3.5ft > tall; wore 'robelike garments' > Larson 6ft-tall, mummy-like entities; glaring eyes > that 'could control my brain'; metallic arms > Walton Small Gray-like creatures in orange > jumpsuits; tall humanoids (one female) in > blue jumpsuits; unusual gold/brown eyes > The dropping and gathering of different motifs within a broad > general framework - one established, by and large, by the Hill > case - is exactly like the operation of folklore. In 1975 there > was little established imagery in the canon and the abduction > syndrome was at once limited by this and open to development in > any imaginative direction. One can speculate at length about why > abduction imagery eventually settled (not exclusively) in the > direction of the Grays, but that's beyond my scope here. At any > rate the Grays' roots are visible in these early cases, but not > in Larson's. Likewise Larson's anticipates later motifs in ways > the others do not, but the proleptic motifs are common in other > psychodramas enacted in altered states of consciousness > (accepting that hypnosis is that). Their ufological-cum-alien > garb can reasonably be ascribed to the set and setting of the > hypnotic sessions themselves, fertilized by the Hill and > Pascagoula cases. There is, it seems, a limit to the human > imagination. An essential point is that in 1975 the reported > physical appearances of the entities alone was heterogeneous; the > folklore had not crystallized. Yeah, right. Thanks for introducing "proleptic" to the discussion. Of course, if CE3/abduction testimony were wildly at variance, you would state, just as complacently, that the human imagination is limitless. For more on that, see below. > The Hills' case has a dramatic simplicity and appropriateness > that by itself accounts for most of Bullard's famous order of > events - again nailed by Kottmeyer: the key essays are "Entirely > Unpredisposed?", which is available from the Magonia website: > http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/authors > and "The Eyes That Spoke", on the REALL website cited above. Remember, Duke is a guy who takes Donald Menzel and Peter Rogerson seriously. Are we to be surprised that Martin Kottmeyer is far behind? If you want to see just how dopy MK's argument re the Hill case is, and how amusing it is that Duke refuses to acknowledging its corpseness, I refer readers to page 250 of my High Strangeness or to page 291 of my recently published The UFO Book. To the debunker, no corpse stinks so badly that it shouldn't yet be brought to the dinner. Nothing, it seems, is going to get in the way of a speculationist's appetite. > Larson's inspiration that her odd experience may have been an > abduction came directly from the dramatization of the Hills' > case. In short, she had set herself up to learn she was an > abductee. No one knows - or says - to what extent she > familiarized herself with the UFO literature before she was > hypnotized. She was questioned under hypnosis in conditions that > broke all the most basic rules of such interrogation. The most > elaborate account emerged with the least experienced hypnotist. "No one knows ... to what extent she familiarized herself with the UFO literature." Speak for yourself, Duke man. You wouldn't know Sandra Larson from Sandra Dee. Here we have, in a nutshell, what is wrong with armchair psychosocial speculationism. It's funny, too, that Duke is regularly accusing others of employing clairvoyant powers. In reality, Sandy Larson, on whose case I spent some time and talked with a whole lot of people who knew her, did not read UFO literature. She did not read much of anything. There was hardly any printed matter in her house. Nobody I spoke with had ever seen any evidence that she knew UFO literature or harbored even an unread fascination with UFOs. Sandy, who led a difficult life, was focused on making a living for herself and her daughter. She did it precariously by waitressing in local honkytonks and dreaming, unrealistically, of a future as a country singer. She was largely oblivious to anything outside her little world, whether it was world events or UFO sightings. > >What impresses me even more, in retrospect, is how much what > >these people reported anticipated what was to come. The Sandy > >Larson case [...] is one of these. [...] Not long ago, moreover, > >I was surprised to come upon an obscure CE3 in which an entity > >identical to the one reported by Larson figured. > Apart from a UFO sighting and missing time, the Larson case is > proleptic of floating through solid walls, tunnels of light, > nasal examination (Larson had had a sinus operation in real > life), and visiting an alien base in a desert landscape. What is > more striking to the dispassionate eye is the extent to which the > Larson case does *not* conform to the abduction template. Larson > as far as I recall is the only abductee to have her brain removed > and 'rewired', an operation that produced no scars, or none noted > by the investigators (Leo Sprinkle, Allen Hynek, Jerome Clark). > Martin Kottmeyer has traced the mummy imagery to the Pascagoula > case, and beyond: Amusing that so committed an advocate as Duke, who finds the very concept of agnosticism in these matters infuriating, calls his a "dispassionate eye." Looks more like a wildly flashing one to me and, I suspect, just about everybody else, even your friends. Certainly this friend. > One possibility is that it relates to her falling into > the hands of APRO which had a special interest in the > Pascagoula abduction of 1973. It was ... only people with > APRO who called attention to the mummy-like appearance of > the Pascagoula entity and deemed it a feature that > enhanced the credibility of the case. ... What evidence do you have of that, Duke? I love these endless, baseless speculations, based on nothing at all. The case did not fall into "the hands of APRO." I was not associated with APRO, and I was the primary investigator. Leo Sprinkle was brought in at one point, not by APRO but by Saga's UFO Report, which paid his expenses to fly from Laramie to Fargo. Leo and I did not discuss UFO cases in Sandy Larson's presence. Sandy did not know the difference between the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization and the National Weather Bureau. > mummies. It is no stretch to believe she picked up these > motifs in conversation with UFO buffs or researchers > prior to her hypnosis sessions. Other than this, the two > cases are different. ... Yup, it is a stretch. Didn't happen. More baseless speculationism, Duke. ("Speculationism," by the way, not theory; your guesses don't qualify as the latter.) > The question returns for Pascagoula ... why did Charles > Hickson opt for space mummies? ... All of this discussion, it should be noted, far removed from Pascagoula, Mississippi, and the frightening experience of two terrified men. In the sort of speculationism in which Duke freely indulges, human beings exist only as passive narrators. UFO experiences, often complex and surrounded by intriguing suggestive or circumstantial evidence, simply become stories from which the psychosocial speculationists can create new ones, all without having to stir from the comfort of rural Wales or urban London or wherever Duke the Clairvoyant is beaming cyber and psychic messages at the moment. For the full story, one has to go elsewhere. I have summarized the case and the surrounding evidence in an entry in my UFO Encyclopedia. Hickson and Mendez's book -- based in good part on Mendez's considerable investigation -- is an excellent source. > Fortunately, the Lorenzens saved historians a big > headache by themselves covering similarities between the > Pascagoula entity and a case out of Peru involving a man > designated C.A.V. The man encountered three mummies with > a generally human profile, but the legs were joined and > they slid along the ground. They were about 5'9" in > height. The face was mostly featureless save for a sort- > of nose. The arms seemed normal, but the hand consisted > of a group of four fingers stuck together and a separate > thumb creating the impression of pincers or claws. The > match to the Pascagoula entity is remarkably good, and I > have to agree with the Lorenzens that the odds against > happenstance are too remote to be considered. They add > that neither Hickson nor Parker (the other Pascagoula > experiment) had prior UFO interest, and the case appeared > "only" in the APRO Bulletin and chapter 8 in their 1968 > book UFOs Over the Americas. Any specific evidence, Duke, that Hickson and Parker were consumers of UFO literature? Ah, yes, excuse me. Such specific evidence is irrelevant to the speculationist. I beg pardon. Still, I beg your indulgence to add that unless you can demonstrate something like that by more than the sorts of broad, damned-if-they-do, damned-if- they-don't speculationism you love so much, what follows here is a waste of everybody's time: > "Only" is not exactly how I would describe a Signet > paperback which was mass-marketed across America on wire > racks in drug stores and five and dimes, but perhaps they > were being modest. The Lorenzens further wondered why, if > both cases involve fabrication, this particular form was > chosen. "Why not a more acceptable and more frequently > reported type?" More believable occupant encounters were > readily available. They temporarily prefigure Fowler and > Hopkins in their style of argument by ignoring the > equally striking disparities between the two cases in > these remarks from Encounters with UFO Occupants. > Happily, they rectify this shortcoming in their next book > Abducted! when they grant, "The only real difference > between the two descriptions was that the Peruvian said > the skin of the creatures was sandy-colored and that they > had 'bubbles' where the eyes would be which moved > around." This is at least a start. C.A.V.'s UFO is shaped > like a disc. Hickson's UFO is shaped like a fish. > C.A.V.'s entities were lost and asked to see our chief. > They carry on an extended conversation about a variety of > things including how we are endangering the balance of > the universe and how they are able to reproduce by > fission. C.A.V. tries to abduct one of the mummies as > they try to leave in an effort to get rich, but they were > too slippery. They don't try to abduct him and conduct a > tummy exam. If the entities are the same because they are > real, why are their craft and behaviors so different? > The fish shape of the craft and the tummy exam with the > eye are critical clues to what is going on here. They are > not part of the C.A.V. case, but they are part of UFOs > Over the Americas. Chapter 3 is called 'Underwater UFOs' > and features a June 1959 incident from Buenos Aires > involving an object generally shaped like a huge fish. > The eye over the tummy is a compositing of cases on page > 206: an 1880 incident involving a luminous ball suspended > in mid-air, leaving the percipient terror-stricken, which > is followed by a brief account of the Hill case and their > physical examination, after which the authors discuss how > UFOs could induce hypnotic effects and shock. > The blending and distortion of the elements of these > cases is identical to the way dreams remix and composite > recent memories to come up with a dramatic experience. > The choice of the mummies by Hickson's mind stems from > the title given the chapter relating the C.A.V. case: > "The Flesh Crawlers." It was the scariest-looking alien > in the book. It worked. Charlie Hickson's personal > account is reprinted in UFO Contact at Pascagoula and > includes this line: "My flesh crawls when I think about > those three things that appeared through the opening." > With respect to C.A.V., the Lorenzens' objections about > acceptability and frequency collapses with the > realization that C.A.V. hailed from Peru. Peruvian > culture is significantly different from the one the > Lorenzens were living in. Mummies were pervasive in Incan > religion. Incan leaders were embalmed with great care and > their remains were worshipped like a god. It would be > placed in temples. Sacrifices would be made to it. It was > brought out for festivals. People were assigned to take > care of the mummy. One archaeologist found a Necropolis > of 429 mummies which demonstrated the antiquity of the > practice in Nazcan culture. It would take an expert in > Peruvian folklore to track down the immediate cultural > precursors to C.A.V.'s experience, but we don't need a > detailed analysis to understand that a Peruvian might > find the idea of space mummies far more believable and > emotionally resonant than would people in the USA. > --Martin Kottmeyer, "The Curse of the Space > Mummies", Promises & Disappointments #1 (1995); > also on the REALL website, from > http://www.reall.org/newsletter/ Which reminds me. I think I'll indulge myself in a quote from me: "In place of falsifiable hypotheses, psychosocial speculations substitute a closed system from which it would be all but impossible for a genuinely new and novel phenomenon to emerge." Using Duke's logic and "methodology" (employing that term loosely), we would have no chance ever of identifying the presence of an extraordinary phenomenon, short of course of a crash of a UFO, with aliens and abductees inside, into the Washington Monument. Where evidence doesn't exist, Duke just makes it up. And if you just make stuff up (e.g., Duke on Larson's and Hickson/Parker's alleged familiarity with the UFO literature) and use what you've made up to declare the issue closed ... well, you might make yourself feel better, and feeling better has a lot to do, one suspects, with what Duke's about than getting at difficult truths. Duke has done his idol, pathological scientist Donald Menzel, who also made up stuff when it suited his purposes, proud. Well, that's not entirely fair. Menzel was dishonest. Duke is just blind. > >Duke can rant all he > >wants about what he sees as our failings. I don't claim to be > >perfect, and this was, after all, 1975-76. I do feel sanguine > >about this much: the story stands up, and we investigators did > >not shape it. > What the date of Jerome's investigation has to do with anything I > do not know. I do not suggest the Larson story was entirely the > product of leading (see above), but that leading of gross > proportions did take place is apparent from the Lorenzens' > account alone. And the core narrative detail of the Larson case > was obtained from hypnotic regression, and as such is > automatically suspect, even without the incompetence displayed by > the investigators. Take away the hypnotic material, as caution > would dictate, and we are left not with a story that "stands up" > but a UFO sighting that bears many marks of a meteor shower, some > unsurprisingly UFO-related dreams, a strange rearrangement of > persons in a car, and some "missing" time. Yes, there are > oddities here, but they do not require an abduction to explain > them. 'Fraid not, pal. As I remarked in an early posting, the Larson case anticipated some crucial features which came into focus in later years but about which we knew nothing at the time. For example, the business of being "stuck." That's where the really leading questions happened, and Jackie, Sandy's daughter, wouldn't budge, and Leo Sprinkle sure pushed her, even as I sat there quietly cringing. Naturally, Duke doesn't want to talk about this. Note the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't nature of Duke's speculationism. If Sandy's testimony had described humanoids precisely similar to the Hills', he would have declared that, of course, she based it on theirs, having seen the Hill movie. But since she doesn't describe those sorts of beings, Duke hatches up yet another speculationist solution. See my remarks about the closed system. Duke wants to make sure that anything he doesn't want to hear doesn't get a chance to breathe. What's interesting to me is that around the same time a witness in Colorado reported an encounter with an entity much like the one Sandy would describe. I didn't know about the case at the time. Even if I had, I would not have brought it up to Sandy, certainly not while the investigation was ongoing. I didn't discover this other case until a few months ago. Most of us would regard this as curious and conceivably even supportive. But Duke, with his endless supply of ever-ready explanations, will take care of it. Never worry. > Finally, on this case, the multiplicity of witnesses has been > shown time and again to be no guarantor of the objective truth of > anything, let alone abductions. The double abductions at > Longmont, Colorado (19 Nov 1980), and at Goodland, Kansas (7 Nov > 1989), the Jack & Peter Wilson case, the Hill case, the Larson > case, the Avis case, even the egregious Cortibalone case, can > all be plausibly deconstructed. And remember Fatima? Does Jerome > really think the Sun danced in the heavens that day? According to > legend, 70,000 people saw it happen. What a load of crap. This doesn't even rise to the level of apples and oranges. This is more like apples and elephants. For one thing, "plausibly deconstructed" by the same sort of speculationism, from which nothing is safe, that you employ in the above discussion. For another, 70,000 people, many in a state of high religious excitement (and only a minority of whom saw anything like a "dancing sun"), are not quite the same thing as three persons driving down a rural highway, concentrating on immediate, mundane business, UFOs the last thing on their minds. Reminds me of something else I've written about such speculationism: "All claims suggestive of other-than-human intelligences -- however credible or noncredible, whoever the claimant, whatever the circumstances, whatever the particular details of the story, whatever evidence may or may not exist -- become the same thing. Similarities, however slight, matter more than differences, however substantial. In science one must note similarities, of course, but one must also isolate differences. Psychosocial speculators seem to regard differences as irrelevant. They are, in short, employing arguments that flirt dangerously with pseudoscientific logic." Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:11:05 PST Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:52:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:41 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Clark on Abductions 2/2 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > [Pt 2 of 2] > CHIEF EDDIE HARD BULL'S EMPIRICAL APPROACH > Jerome entirely ignores four things here. They are: the natural > dramatic structure of the typical abduction account; the > *collaboration* of candidate abductees and their ufological > investigators ("set and setting" in trade jargon); the numerous > detailed parallels to the structure and imagery of abduction > accounts found in other kinds of anomalous experience; and, most > blindly of all, the fundamental cock-up in the design of Chief > Eddie Hard Bull's research. For what he did was ask ABDUCTION > INVESTIGATORS whether they led or influenced their subjects. > >Bullard is so uniquely valuable: a believer in empiricism in > >this field is to be treasured. No wonder he drives the critics > >nuts. He doesn't play by their rules and, in his own gentle, > >understated way, shows that their rules get us nowhere. > Bullard doesn't play by the accepted rules, or any acceptable > rules, of objective research, in "The Sympathetic Ear", full > point, end of story. That's one reason why he drives this critic > nuts. And this is the genius Jerome hauls out at every > opportunity to illustrate the hard-nosed logic of ufologists, the > airy vacancies of their critics, and the fanciful ululations of > psychosociologists, crepuscular creatures of the sepulchre that > they are. Now let's put things in perspective here. Duke, indignant defender of lost causes, claims that Bullard's empirical approach is seriously misguided, or his empiricism is misapplied, or whatever. Meantime, he accepts -- and even quotes -- the likes of Rogerson and Kottmeyer, whom he apparently regards as paragons of "objective research." Bullard and I have written separately of these guys' elemental failures of logic, research, adherence to demonstrable evidence, or even coherence, not to mention excessive (or even entire) reliance on speculation.. Yet Duke is drawing them ever closer, all the while, ever more -- it seems to me -- hysterically, as if he figures that if he can shout loud enough, he and they will start making sense. Bullard develops a testable hypothesis and then seeks evidence that will confirm or disconfirm it. He is scrupulously fair and balanced, would never engage in the rhetorical flights of fancy that characterize Duke's discourse, and comes to conclusions that are marvels of nuance, moderation, and restraint. At the end he declares, as he puts it, "the triumph of uncertainty" -- which at this stage seems an undeniable conclusion, given evidence that is, on one level, puzzling and, on another, inadequate. The one testable hypothesis I associate with Rogerson was a 1984 prediction that virtually all CE3/abduction claimants would be found to possess fantasy-prone personalities. He was entirely in error, as subsequent developments turned out, but I give him credit at least for trying to make something approximately scientific out of what heretofore had looked like the amiably muddle- headed, stream-of-consciousness mental rambles of a liberal-arts major who'd read a lot of books on subjects of uncertain or no relevance to UFO investigation, of which he had no experience to speak of. > >I was JOKING, Duke, when I cracked wise about abductees burying > >themselves in obscure folklore texts. Okay? I was poking fun at > >psychosocial theorists who act as if the mere existence of some > >obscure folklore parallel to a modern abduction report deflates > >the latter. Let me quote Bullard here: > >"In most other efforts to establish media or cultural influences, > >standards of evidence are most conspicuous by their absence. > >After fishing expeditions amid folklore, science-fiction > >literature, and movie imagery, psychosocial theorists satisfy > >themselves to draw isolated motifs out of context, select > >favorable examples but ignore the rest, and never worry about > >whether the obscurity of sources limits the likelihood that an > >abductee might have seen them. Movies are a plausible source > >because they enjoy mass exposure, but why abductees choose the > >same narrow selection of movie elements when Hollywood has > >offered so much variety remains an unanswered question." > Bullard seems to be saying in slightly more flowery language what > Jerome claimed to be uttering as a joke. A slight contradiction > here? (I am all for empiricism.) In any case, Bullard traduces > the "psychosocial theorists" by erecting a strawman of cause-and- > effect, or direct acquisition of imagery or motifs ("the > obscurity of sources"), which no one, as far as I know, has ever > proposed to occur in so grossly simplistic a fashion. That there > are parallels with other cultural material is undeniable; and one > of the best has been enunciated by Bertrand M=E9heust, in his essay > in Evans & Spencer's "UFOs 1947-1987" (Fortean Tomes 1987, ISBN > 1-870021-02-9), which does anything but rip things untimely from > their context. To discover why and how those parallels occur, and > what meaning we can draw from the abduction experience, and why > the unmediated *experience* is mirrored by abduction accounts > given under hypnosis, is the central challenge of the phenomenon, > and of one of the best endeavors of psychosocial ufology. Yes, > abductions are a mystery, but trying to solve the problem by > hitting it with the literaist presumption of the ETH is to > approach it from the wrong end. > Perhaps Jerome's notion of empirical research is illustrated by > his proposal to re-examine old CE-III accounts and comb them for > signs of abduction. This follows exactly the false logic of > Westrum et al in interpretating their infamous Roper poll results > to claim 3.7 million US citizens may be abductees. > >And then there's Martin Kottmeyer with his spurious claim about > >the "Bollero Shield" Outer Limits episode and its supposed effect > >on Barney Hill's testimony. The connection can be rejected on > >other grounds (see High Strangeness, p. 250), but what is > >particularly striking is that Kottmeyer was content simply to > >draw the connection without bothering to ask Betty Hill if she > >and Barney were in the habit of watching Outer Limits. (I did > >ask her; they weren't.) > Now, as Bismarck once remarked, for the pig-sticking Here Duke drones on, quoting fellow speculationist Kottmeyer, on what I call above the spurious association of the "Bollero Shield" episode with Barney Hill's testimony. I'm simply going to quote what I wrote in High Strangeness (reprinted in The UFO Book) about this bit of psychosociological speculationism. I wish to stress here that Kottmeyer, no empiricist, didn't even inquire of Betty Hill if they'd seen the show. She denies it, but Duke the Clairvoyant, who always knows more than mere witnesses, insists she and Barney did, anyway. What do witnesses know, anyway? >From High Strangeness (p. 250) and The UFO Book (291- 92): Another attempt to explain away the Hill encounter, or at least a portion of it, has been proposed by Martin Kottmeyer, a UFO skeptic and a student of popular culture. Twelve days before Barney underwent hypnosis on February 22, 1964, an episode of Outer Limits, a science-fiction television show, featured an alien with wrap-around eyes. The alien is given these words of dialogue: "In all the universes, in all the unities beyond all the universes, all who have eyes have eyes that speak." Under hypnosis Barney says at one point, as he encounters the beings on the road, "Only the eyes are talking to me." Kottmeyer finds this significant and further observes that Barney said nothing about wrap-around eyes in his earlier conscious memories. This is a point, but not much of one. For one thing, Kottmeyer did not trouble to inquire of Betty Hill... if she and her husband were in the habit of watching Outer Limits. (When asked by another writer [me], Betty said, "As for the Outer Limits program -- never heard of it. Barney worked nights. If he was not working, we were never home because of our community activities. If we had been home, I am sure this title would not have interested us.") In his conscious memory, dating back from that night in September 1961 (long before the airing of the show, in other words), Barney could recall seeing the beings only from a distance, from which perspective the precise shape of the eyes may not have been easily apparent. He did, however, remember vividly the intense stare and the apparent mental message that the beings were about to capture him. The sense of being caught in the stare, and of being the recipient of communication in that state, is consistent with his later testimony. Under hypnosis, interestingly, Barney says something whose significance would be apparent only many years later. After expressing his fears about the talking eyes, he states,"All I see are these eyes.... I'm not even afraid that they're not connected to a body. They're just there. They're just up close to me, pressing against my eyes. That's funny. I'm not afraid." This aspect of the story was overlooked in virtually all subsequent rehash and analysis of the Hill case, but eventually strikingly similar testimony would emerge in the accounts of other abductees. As the abductees told it, the abductors placed their faces right up against theirs and stared into their eyes. David M. Jacobs quotes these words from a woman under hypnosis: "I'm looking into those eyes. I can't believe that I'm looking into eyes that big.... Once you look into those eyes, you're gone. You're just plain gone.... I can't think of anything but those eyes. It's like the eyes overwhelm me. How do they do that? It goes inside you, their eyes go inside you. You are just held. You can't stop looking. If you wanted to, you couldn't look away. You are drawn into them, and they sort of come into you." Another investigator, Karla Turner, quotes an abductee who says, "The ETs like to put their noses almost on my nose, and when they do this, I just stare into their eyes. Sometimes that's all I ever see, their eyes, and nothing else that's happening." Even Kottmeyer refrains from contending that such accounts can be traced to a few overlooked sentences among the many Barney spoke during hours of hypnotic testimony. Having exhausted the argument, he retreats into "psychological symbolisms" which he professes to find meaningful and others may see as evidence of Kottmeyer's reluctance to entertain more heretical and disturbing possibilities. In any event, Kottmeyer's assertions about wrap- around and speaking eyes, while of some interest, simply do not tell us anything about the nature of the Hills's experience. Instead we are given a small detail, taken out of the much larger context of a complex experience, and asked to think of it as the only issue of consequence, and then, what is more, to dismiss testimony from other persons about this same obscure detail as irrelevant to consideration of its reality status. What is missing in Kottmeyer's argument is a coherent hypothesis, though it is hard to imagine what that hypothesis would be. ----end of quote--- Of course in the damned-if-they-do, damned-if- they-don't, always-an-out, hermetically sealed world of speculationist discourse, Duke will say: (1) Ah! All these other people got this detail from Barney Hill's testimony. (2) On the other hand, if nobody else reported it, Duke would declare: See, obviously a fantasy. Nobody else reported it! (Karl, if you want to weigh in on the Hill case, here's your chance.) Which reminds me. As I recall, on part one of his posting, Duke asserted that nobody besides Sandy Larson had ever reported the bizarre detail of brain removal. Not so. It figures in other, extremely obscure abduction claims. Of course: Ah! They got it from Sandy Larson. But of course if nobody else had reported it ... well, you get the drift. You gotta give it to Duke and company: they've jiggered the rules so there's no way for his pals to lose or anybody else to win. No matter what happens, it proves what they need to believe. > MISCELLANEOUS RAMBLINGS > >In the meantime, agnosticism is not, as Duke foolishly > >implies, craven cowardice but perhaps the only truly > >intellectually honest response. What it says is that we don't > >have the answers yet, that we're going to have to do a hell of a > >lot more work before we do. Why should that make Duke so mad? > Insofar as the "research" of abductionists is not objective, and > insofar as they rely on "techniques" that are irretrievably > flawed in execution and untrustworthy in principle (read the > literature on "memory retrieval" in child abuse and RSA cases, > and the Royal Society of Psychiatrists' report on same that > contributed to their decision to outlaw hypnotic and related > techniques, and top that with the emerging revisionist literature > on repressed memory), then agnosticism about abductions becomes a > moral abdication and and intellectual snare and delusion. The > best example of a moral sewer in abduction literature so far is > "Witnessed", although when I outlined one reason why I hold this > view on this List, Linda Cortibalone responded by describing the > exercise as 25 paragraphs of nothing. Some minds are impenetrable > (but I tried, Lord, I tried). Amazing. Duke, whose make-it-up-as-you-go-along methodology defies belief and whose don't-get-your-hands-dirty approach to UFO research and investigation is positively medieval, presumes to lecture everybody who begs to differ of lacking objectivity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Give me one good field investigator over 10,000 armchair gasbags, especially gasbags with attitude. Again, readers, for a really splendid discussion of the sorts of intellectual errors Duke repeatedly indulges in, at ever greater volume, read David J. Hufford's book. Among other things, Hufford demonstrates, to devastating effect, what happens when you ignore what the witness has told you, tell him or her what "really" happened, then reinvent the testimony so that you can "explain" it; see especially the chapter "The Psychological Dis-Interpretation of the Old Hag." Hufford also shows why a keen sense of agnosticism, as well as a willingness to concede the limits and tentativeness of knowledge, is absolutely essential in our investigation and consideration of poorly understood experiential phenomena. Unlike Duke, Hufford does not engage in phony moral grandstanding on this issue. In his vigorous -- some would say relentless -- pretense to certainty where none exists, Duke is as embarrassingly belief-driven as some of those he attacks so fervently. One does not know whether to admire or pity. One does know, however, not to travel down that lost highway with him. Yours in favor of saying "I don't know" when we don't, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: Saucer Error Error From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:25:36 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:16:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/9/97 10:59 AM: > From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:06:25 +1000 (GMT+1000) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Saucer Error Error > On January 7 1948 Captain Mantell went aloft to do the famous > American John Wayne thing riding in his mustang. As he approached > the flying injun he just had to gun down he reported: > 15.11 Hrs "Mantell here. Now I've got it! It's a disc, > enormously large. Hard to say, could be 80 yards in diameter. > Upper surface has a ring and a dome. Turning fantastically fast, > apparently around a central vertical axis..." > The wreck was said to be peppered with fine holes caused by > flying into the wash from the ufo's propulsion system. That must > have been a pretty dangerous piece of folkloric hardware. I have > speculated that the accident actually occurred when Mantell > "grounded" his craft with the UFO by firing a wire-guided missile > at it, as in Project Moby Dick. But then I have to remind myself > that it was really only a weather balloon. Actually, Lawrie, I wonder where you obtained this information, since none of it, so far as I know, has ever been documented by any official researchers. There were no recordings of Mantell's conversations with the tower, but the Air Force records of the conversations, according to Ruppelt, who did the most complete and close to the event investigation still extant, mentions nothing of any of the material you raise. Officially, and unsurprisingly, Mantell's death is attributed to his lack of oxygen, when he attempted to rise to the extremely high altitude of a skyhook balloon. While there remains some question about this explanation, in light of the ancillary accounts, there is nothing inherently implausible about the cause of death, regardless of the nature of the object. As for the wreckage of the aircraft, there was apparently nothing surprising about the nature of the wreckage to the crash investigators, and the photos / sketches of the crash site do not show anything unusual. I don't recall any reference which claimed the aircraft skin was peppered with small holes. Perhaps you could provide a reference for this? ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:47:27 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:31:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:42 -0500 > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > Subject: Your Posts to UpDates > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:01:08 -0600 > > >To: ufo updates <updates@globalserve.net> > > >Subject: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > > >Bruce: > > >Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on > > >photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document > > >scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for > > >review. > > >I think there are a number of intelligent people out there who > > >will find your work...intruiging. > > >How about it? > >> I'm not a sure what you are referring to. Were these calculations > >> in a personal letter to you? > > No this is the original paper you sent to Walt Andrus. The one > > where you place the camera height ("perfectly")at 4.1', the > > "UFO" dimensions at 24x17 with the ring measurement at 14.86, > > at a distance of 370'. > Are you saying you want to scan the handwritten notes I sent? > Complete with diagrams and calculations? Be my guest. > If you do post these notes with the sketches then I can post my > paper "Reanalysis of Photo 19 Supports Walters' Story." Why would you have to wait till I posted your calculations to post your article on the "reanalysis"? Just put it out there. > Of course it will be necessary to note that the specific > numbers were modified many months later when I discovered that > the magnification of the blowup photo I had used to make > measurements was actually 4.5% less than I had initially > estimated. In other words it must be noted that all measurements > on the blowup sketch of the UFO must be multiplied by 1.045 > (e.g., 4 mm becomes 4.2 mm, 3 mm becomes 3.14 mm, etc.) This > changed the distances calculated in the handwritten notes you > have somewhat. I am aware of that. I have adjusted the calculations. > Also, in order to carry out those calculations I used a > range of heights for the camera, as estimated from photographic > measurements and a crude road survey. I settled on 4.1ft as a > "best fit"to the available. I am aware of that also. The only problem with 4.1 is that the steering wheel on that truck is at least 5 feet from ground. > Many months later an actual road survey was done which basically > confirmed the crude survey. I thought there was a problem with that survey. Wasnt it the one Ware had done where the sighting line was incorrect? Or was this the one Walters did for you personally? > Furthermore, months later I was able to get actual measurements > from a Ford 150 truck such as Ed had in January 1988 (date of > Photo 19) and from these measurements I determined that the > camera height was probably closer to 4.5 ft (but not as high as 5 > ft or more, as had been suggested by someone else). Ya, I had nothing else to do either so I too measured (too many, that's more than one) Ford 150 pickup trucks and I couldnt find one where the top of the steering wheel was below five feet. <BIG snip> I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Rex. I dont think I should respond for him on this issue. > closer to the truck or farther away than the reflection (so it > would appear to be over the reflection). If it were farther away > the calculated size would be larger. I knew from the stereo > camera photos of May 1 that the diameter of the power ring in > that sighting calculatedto be about 15 ft. If I assumed the What? You assumed. (Gee, when those of us who dont subscribe to GB ASSUME that makes US stupid and wrong.) You have put a lot of assumptions out as fact. The stereo photos were only as good as Ed. He admitted that he did not take the pictures on both cameras simultaneously. And some were out of alignment. > UFO in photo 19 were the same size as the UFO in the May 1 > stereo photos, then that would mean it was about 370 ft away. With your adjustment of 4.5% I figured 354'. When I wrote to you you agreed. Do you still agree? > But then the question was, how did it illuminate the road? The > answer to this question would be a white beam pointed downward > from some point near the bottom of the UFO and headed in the > direction of the truck, but not hitting the truck. > Since Ed reported that he had already been hit twice by the > white beam (that caused a sensation of paralysis where it hit > his body), which was what made him stop the truck, Oh ya, this was the night he sent in his copyright application for all photos from 1 thru 19... <Snip> > >> And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you > >> have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, > >Dont go there. > Why not? Perhaps it doesn't obey your Too Damn Perfect (TDP) > principle because part of the image is obscured by the tree? No, because Ive seen other analysis where it has been looked at digitally and the "UFO" isnt even behind the tree. At face value it looks like it is but when looked at digitally it is obvious that a product of the chemicals on the film is a sort of "filling in" process. While we are on photo 1... What was wrong with "A Believer's" photos? You do remember "A Believer" dont you? GB Sentinel. Thursday November 3, 1988. Photo of "Ed type" UFO accompanies article. Headline: New UFO Photos Received at Sentinel. Story: Another anonymous photographer dropped photos in the Sentinel's night deposit this week with a letter signed, "A Believer". As has become our practice we will send the photos to MUFON for examinations. The letter is reprinted below in its entirety. Letter: Dear Sentinel, Please find enclosed the four photos that I took of an object which I observed on the evening of 10/12/88 at about 6 p.m. near Soundsign Drive. The object moved west to east , repeatedly tracing its path with a slow bobbing motion. It then remained motionless for about thiry seconds before moving to the east at a very high rate of speed. The object made no noise and moved moved like no other aircraft I've seen. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Sorry but because of my position, I must remain anonymous. "A Believer". Thursday November 24, 1988. Photograph in Sentinel with caption: After the publication of the UFO photos from "A Believer" a few weeks ago, The Sentinel received four more polaroid photos from him. We sent the first four to Dr. Bruce Maccabee who said Tuesday he has looked at the photos but can't begin a formal investigation without knowing precisely when and where they were taken. End Caption. The interesting thing about this photo is that the second one(11/24/88) that is reproduced in the Sentinel shows an "Ed type" UFO partially obscured by trees. In fact, just glancing at this photograph from "AB" it would be easy to mistake it for one of Ed Walters, perhaps even photo number 1. Correct me if I am wrong (and Im sure you will) but wasn't one of your arguments FOR the validity of Walters photographs the fact that photo number 1 shows Ed's UFO behind a tree? Didn't you say the sheer difficulty of accomplishing this rules out a hoax? But here we very clearly have an "Ed Type" UFO photographed behind a tree with a Polaroid...just like Ed's. When I asked you about this recently, you told me that you did not pursue "A Believer" because you thought the photographs were hoaxed. How can Walters' UFO be "real" and "A Believer" (a knock off for Ed's photo 1) be a hoax? Shouldn't the same standards apply for both photgraphs? If Ed's is real then so is "A Believer's" and if "A Believer's" is a hoax then shouldn't Ed's be a haox too? <Snip > > <snip> > >I think you're getting paranoid. I asked a question about photo > >19. I thought it would be fun to toss the calculations out for > >all the people with math and science degrees to discuss. We have > >a tendency here to discuss things that are not as concrete. This > >would be something for the hard core science group to bat around. > >Of course if you feel uncomfortable with others reading your work > > can totally understand. > You can totally understand? Barbara, that has been your > problem since 1991: uou don't "totally understand." Judging from > the letters we exchanged back in 1991 I concluded that you never > did understand. > OOOHHHH, getting kind of testy aren't we? [Shaking head back and forth] > As for me being paranoid, I think I gave a quite good > summary of the argument over the road reflection in my > discussion above. What you have offered (or threatened?) to > upload will provide mathematical support for my discussion. We'll see. Why dont you scan it in? Anyone out there with a scanner, want to load it in? Bruce will you send a copy to whoever volunteers (Im kind busy preparing to move to an even colder part of the country. BRRRRR. Looks like this email address will be invalid in a short while.) > But speaking of paranoid, are you now abandoning what you > put forward as the "conclusive" legal argument and are now > appealing to physical analysis (which "could be wrong") to prove > that Ed's photos are TDP? Hardly. If you are so damn sure Im wrong...just call up Ed Walters in Pennsacola Florida and ask him why he owns the copyright to the Believer Bill and Jane photos and ask him how he came to have it. Thats all. Prove me wrong...dont just keep skirting the issue. > >After all, what if someone without a stake in this case found > >your reasoning and math to be flawed...then what? > I would hope the readers here would have a better understanding > of what was going on in all those calculations than you did. I understood your calculations just fine. And by the way, your insults are more degrading to you than to me. <Snip> Just another free ad for his book. BB
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 The Hill case and social effects on UFO reporting From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:41:11 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:39:41 -0500 Subject: The Hill case and social effects on UFO reporting Nods to the Duke et al. Any approach to the Hill case which ignores the consciously recalled and reported UFO sighting does a disservice to the case and to research generally. We know from the record that both of the Hills observed an object which remains unidentified. Barney Hill observed the object at close range through binoculars, and claimed to be able to see the leader through the binoculars. Apparently sufficient detail was available for him to be able to distinguish clothing and eyes, and the sight of one occupant's eyes was enough to convince him that the occupants were not normal (i.e. human). There is also the physical evidence of the tops of Barney's shoes being scuffed (which was later correlated to his having been dragged up the ramp to the object), the broken binocular strap and sore neck (from Barney's fearful reaction to the sight of the occupants), the spots on the car paint (and an associated effect on a compass); and, finally, the medical effect of a circle of warts on Barney's groin (where the hypnotic account later indicated a device had been placed). And, of course, the missing time period. Betty's dreams did not begin until 10 days after the sighting. By that time, the sighting had been reported to the Air Force and to NICAP, and the Hills had done independent drawings of the object which agreed to the extent one might expect given their different perspectives on the object and normal observer variation. As for the "Bellero Shield" psychosocial explanation for one aspect of the Hill case, it aired in 1964. Since Betty's dreams started in 1961, 10 days after the sighting, it could not have influenced the dreams, and thus, neither Barney nor Betty could have incorporated them into the abduction account, even if that account came from nothing more than said dreams. In addition, Betty mentioned the eyes as being very dark - almost black - in her dream account, but said nothing about their geometry, so we do not know what shape she thought they had. Interestingly, neither Hill ever describe the occupants in detail under hypnosis. Barney drew his sketch and talked about the eyes, but Betty never described the occupants, eyes, or any hypnotic experience with the eyes. And since Barney noted the exotic occupant eyes in his consciously recalled story, one can reasonably conclude that this represents a real observation which may have affected which aspect of the occupant description was most important to him subsequent observations. In fact, if the event were real, it is also possible that, in accord with the "wish-fufillment" nature of dreams, Betty minimized the non-human aspects of the occupants in her dreams, so that the event would be less traumatic. Let us consider the pro and con of a "psychosocial explanation" of the Hill case: Pro physical reality Consciously remembered UFO experience, physical evidence, medical evidence, apparent emotional trauma, long term psychological effects reportedly alleviated by hypnotic and other therapy. Pro psycho-social There are TV shows and movies which show aliens with "wraparound" eyes, and one of those was seen just before the first hyponotic session where Hill clearly described the eyes. Psycho-social disconfirmation (in addition to pro-physical reality components) Witness reports that they did not watch the program; occupant's eyes had been described as unusual shortly after the initial sighting; the hypnotic recollection of the consciously recalled sighting is consistent with its conscious recall, even after a lapse of 3 years; the therapist did not encourage any particular interpretation or ask leading questions, nor was the therapist familiar with the UFO literature. In short, psychosocial explanations cannot solve this case. While confabulation is possible, and certainly must have occurred to some extent, even consciously, over a period of 3 years (as Haines [1980] showed in regard to another account), it is impossible to attribute several aspects of the case (esp. physical evidence) to confabulation. Cause and effect seem to be reversed in applying psychosocial reasoning to the Hill case. Rather than taking the commonsense approach that trauma comes from real events, and such trauma stimulates psychological effects, dreams, tension, etc., this explanation states that dreams cause trauma, and the source of dreams is some form of literature, cinema or TV program. The explanation fails to account for much of the evidence in the case (not to mention failing to follow much of the psychological literature), and if the objective evidence of the case is accepted, the weight granted to the rest of the case must necessarily increase. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: ETH &c From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:39:09 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:32:23 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:40:55 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >if I have a truely valid argument will you concede??? If you have, I'd be a fool not to. Yrs &c Photogenic D. Mamelon Bosom Friend
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 9 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:56:23 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:41:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> >To: <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 >Hi all, >I have a question I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. I'm >doing research on the Kenneth Arnold sighting and remember >reading somewhere that the press misquoted Arnold's initial >description of his UFO. Arnold's claim was that the craft was >boomerang shaped, but appeared to fly "like saucers skipping over >water." I haven't been able to find this detail in the books I >have, and am wondering if I am in error here about it. Anyway, >didn't Arnold describe the UFO as boomerang shaped also? Any >help would be greatly appreciated. >ScottR. Hi Scott. Yes. He did describe them as delta shaped, similar to what today we would describe as the B-2. I have an audio tape of his initial conversation with the reporters at the airport. REgards, Mike
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Re: ETH &c From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:02:24 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:49:01 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c Top o' the morning to the list, and especially to Jerry Clark: >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST >Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500 >Subject: Re: ETH &c >> "In short order (in mid-June, to be specific) Kevin Randle and >> Donald Schmitt's long-awaited 'UFO Crash at Roswell' will be >> out. It records the most thoroughly investigated, the most >> completely documented event in the history of ufology. The >> Roswell incident is, of course, also the most important case of >> all. As its secrets are unraveled (and investigation continues), >> ufology's big questions, the ones that brought our field into >> being in the first place, are being answered: What are UFOs? >> Who pilots them? What does officialdom know, and when did it >> know it? Those whose interpretation of the UFO phenomenon >> is based on empirical evidence will rejoice as the heretofore >> unkillable canard, that UFO research has made no progress in >> four decades, is disposed of once and for all." >> Jerome Clark >> International UFO Reporter, March-April 1991. >I still think Roswell is an extraordinarily important case, >potentially the most important of all. It is not, however, the >best case. I think critics have considerably over-stated their >argument, but I do think they have succeeded in highlighting >weaknesses and ambiguities which ensure that as things stand >Roswell is far from the "best case." (Literate readers will know >the difference, Jeff, even if the distinction escapes you.) First let me say that I seriously doubt that I am the only person on this list who has difficulty distinguishing between the *most important* case (note that the original quote was not qualified by "potentially") and a *best* case. Especially when the most important case is described as "the most thoroughly investigated, the most completely documented event in the history of ufology." It would seem that the definition of best case would be that which is the most completely documented and thoroughly investigated. Perhaps your understanding differs from mine in that regard. To each his own. >I have followed the debate, listened seriously to all sides, and >adjusted my thoughts accordingly. I would like to think you'd do >the same, Jeff, but maybe you think a view once lodged in your >mind can never be removed or even modified. Personally, I harbor >a sentimental preference for an always open mind. Please do not presume that you understand all there is to know of my ability to keep an open mind from the few short paragraphs I have posted to this list. I too have listened to the debate and changed my conclusions, as needed, on Roswell as well as many other ufological matters. I apologize in advance if you think I have been short with you, but I will note that nowhere have I described what you wrote as "crapola." >My mistake was in having and expressing excessive optimism about >what we could learn about something that occurred long ago and >under circumstances that would have rendered truth-determination >difficult even had a (civilian) investigation been launched >immediately. Perhaps. But let me also point out that you should hardly be jumping on me because I took your statements in IUR at face value. As I said above, your description of the case surely meets most people's understanding of a best case. You changed your mind after further information came to light. Fine. My statement to the Duke, therefore, would seem to be accurate, even if you don't agree with my choice of words to describe your change of heart. Unless, of course, I should give your statements in IUR the same weight you wish me to give your postings to the list. >I have never heard of the Oddysey Newsletter by the way. It is, or was, put out by Paranet. The only thing I have ever seen of it is the one poor photocopy of the article with your quote, which a friend sent me. In fact, irony of ironies, about the only thing legible on the page is your quote. >Literate readers, as I've said, will understand the difference. Perhaps a poll is in order, eh? >In any event, Jeff misses the larger, more important point: that >unlike most abduction-related claims, phantom pregnancies are >falsifiable. Wrong again sir. The laughing Duke has pointed out time and again that you are as ineffective at mindreading as the rest of us, so please stop trying. I am fully cognizant of the point. In fact you seem to be missing the most important point-that Hopkins' and others' claims of missing pregnancies have been *falsified.* To play the citing game I suggest the following: 1. Dr. Richard Neal's comments in Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind describing the prosaic causes of "missing pregnancies" and the fact that no abduction researcher has performed the minimal investigation required to conclude that any anomalous missing pregnancy has occurred. 2. The Duke's piece in Fortean Times 85 (making the same points as Neal, but with a British OB-GYN giving the expert testimony). 3. The November 1991 MUFON Journal article describing Ann Druffel and Georgeanne Cifarelli's investigation of the missing pregnancy claim of an abductee who had contacted Hopkins and was referred by him to Dr. Neal and others on the west coast. Their investigation included complete access to the abductee's medical records and doctors and concluded that the termination of the abductee's pregnancy was well within earthly norms. I also suggest Hopkins' follow up letter to the editor as a straight from the horse's mouth example of how poorly he investigates and interprets such material. >As I have had occasion to say before, it is >arguably Hopkins' major failing to bring forth no medical >documentation proving or disproving abductees' claims that they >experienced anomalously terminated pregnancies. So, can we now expect a piece from you in IUR that will castigate Hopkins, on this issue, with the same ferocity as you went after Mack? Don't get me wrong, I agree with your take on Mack. I just believe you have failed to be equally demanding of Hopkins. And yes, it is a major failing of Hopkins', one which is emblematic of his whole investigative enterprise. >We're not churning out deathless prose here. >We're writing ephemeral stuff, and we're writing it fast, and >it's not going to stand in print to get quoted back to us years >(or, in my case, sometimes decades) later. May I point out that the only years (not decades) old quotes of yours I posted were from IUR and a newsletter, not the list. Again, were they also meant to be ephemeral? From the ephemeral list or not, if someone makes a, relatively, logical inference from your words may I suggest that you provide a brief, polite explanation, rather than complaints about the speed of your writing. >Thanks, Jeff, for a chance to comment on the above and to clarify >my views. Good luck in your own inquiries. Thanks for the quick comments. And may all your best cases pan out in the end. Jeff P.S. You still didn't tell me who the master forger of my prose style is. I'll be gone for a week or so, but please, enquiring minds want to know.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Re: Clark on Abductions From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:04:31 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:07:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:09:56 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Clark on Abductions 1/2 As exercises in not addressing the issues - of "set and setting" in hypnosis (Larson) and Bullard's fundamental error in conducting his research for his "Sympathetic Ear" piece, just to cite two examples - both this & Jerome's other response must stand as classics. I am also wondering (pure speculationism of course) if Jerome is having difficulty reading through a red mist of rage. He complains at me constantly while quoting from my quotation from Martin Kottmeyer, for instance - clearly enough marked as such, I should have thought: Jerome, in his passion for quoting *almost* the whole of what one writes apart from the odd jokes and the really embarrassing questions, even quotes the attribution. But I'll pass on the comments to Martin K. and perhaps in due course we'll see what he makes of them. The weirdest and most irksome example of misreading, however, is this: >What strikes me is that Duke hasn't even read one of the most >crucial documents of all: Walter Webb's investigative report for >NICAP. Instead, he has the bad grace to characterize it as >"unchecked hearsay," when in fact it is, as Webb's work always >is, not only first-rate but first. The notion that *anyone* could imagine that Walter Webb would put "unchecked hearsay" out about himself, let alone that anyone could imagine someone else imagining such a thing, will remain in my mind to amuse and entertain me through the long winter evenings now approaching, and probably for several winters to come. The story of Walter Webb's attempts to show Benjamin Simon UFO "evidence" and Dr Simon's response was "hearsay" to me and "unchecked" by me - a mighty Don of New Mexico told me about it - what else, in the context, could that phrase possibly have meant? Perhaps a small retraction might be in order here, Jerry? Delicious on the other hand is Jerome's quoting himself (makes a change from Swords, Hufford & Bullard, anyway) pontificating thus: "Psychosocial speculators seem to regard differences as irrelevant", after I had just warbled on about the importance of taking note of differences among abduction accounts. Whaddayathink that nice table of early abduction entities was about, Jerry? Good ways to tie a trout fly? Fun phrases to teach your parrot? While I'm asking questions, a couple more spring to mind. What happened, Jerry, to the Jerome Clark who used to be so shocked at ad hominem attacks? Which perhaps gives me licence to ask: Rude as you are about arts majors (and even more mysteriously, librarians, of whom Chief Eddie Hard Bull is one), what did you major in all those years ago? And: is there something about the word "proleptic" that bothers you? In due course I'll get around to sorting, for the entertainment of the disinterested, the farrago of untruths, half-truths, tendentious remarks, messenger-shootings, misrepresentations, mind-readings, verdicts-by-association and misleading rhetoric with which Jerome has larded his two posts on this thread. Not that they don't contain a couple of good and fair points. What he has to say usually does. best wishes Punctilio D. Mitrailleuse Axiom Grinder
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Re: Saucer Error Error From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:32:38 PST Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:41:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:25:36 -0800 >> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] >> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:06:25 +1000 (GMT+1000) >> To: updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Saucer Error Error >> The wreck was said to be peppered with fine holes caused by >> flying into the wash from the ufo's propulsion system. That must >> have been a pretty dangerous piece of folkloric hardware. I have >> speculated that the accident actually occurred when Mantell >> "grounded" his craft with the UFO by firing a wire-guided missile >> at it, as in Project Moby Dick. But then I have to remind myself >> that it was really only a weather balloon. >Actually, Lawrie, I wonder where you obtained this information, since none >of it, so far as I know, has ever been documented by any official researchers. >There were no recordings of Mantell's conversations with the tower, but the >Air Force records of the conversations, according to Ruppelt, who did the >most complete and close to the event investigation still extant, mentions >nothing of any of the material you raise. >Officially, and unsurprisingly, Mantell's death is attributed to his lack of >oxygen, when he attempted to rise to the extremely high altitude of >a skyhook balloon. While there remains some question about this >explanation, in light of the ancillary accounts, there is nothing inherently >implausible about the cause of death, regardless of the nature of the object. >As for the wreckage of the aircraft, there was apparently >nothing surprising about the nature of the wreckage to the crash >investigators, and the photos / sketches of the crash site do not show >anything unusual. >I don't recall any reference which claimed the aircraft skin was peppered >with small holes. >Perhaps you could provide a reference for this? Hi, Mark, Lawrie, and list, Mark is absolutely correct. Nearly everything Lawrie writes here is false. I am not, of course, accusing him of making it up himself, just of passing on some of the vast legendry surrounding this non-UFO case. The Mantell case is complicated by the appearance of what apparently was a UFO over southwestern Ohio several hours after the crash. The object Mantell died chasing, however, was a Skyhook balloon launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. As Mark indicates, there was nothing unusual about the condition of the crashed F-51. The Air Force didn't help matters, though, by its initial, and absurd, identification of the object as Venus. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Flowers for the Colonel -- to which hospital? From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:49:13 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:52:28 -0500 Subject: Flowers for the Colonel -- to which hospital? ================================================================= From: UFO Sky Searchers International <deeaob@admin.itol.com> From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) Organization: SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL I want to inform everyone that the Colonel was taken to a hospital this AM. He has asked me and has previously explained how to post here. Please do not be surprised if some days there is no mail. I will do the best I can, but I have a family to care for also. I just ask that you all obey the posting rules as it is hard enough to sort through all the email that comes in. If anyone wants to contact him personally, do so at <colonel@wic.net>. I have no access to this account. Thank You Carolyn --------------------------- Billy Dee Remarks! Lets be in prayer for the colonel. He is suffering from cancer, and has been for some time, as well as he has already gone through Kemotherapy. ====================================================================== From: Ndunlks@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 18:03:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Send Get Well Cards to the Colonel In response to the flood of requests about where we can send get well cards to the Colonel . Skywatch, has informed me that the following address may be used . In our minds, many of us know what a great man he is . It is now the time to let him know . There are very few who can claim to match the dedication to our field, as our own Colonel Steve Wilson (Founder of Skywatch) . Steven L Wilson Sr (The other Steve, not the Colonel) Col. S. Wilson, USAF/ret Skywatch International P.O. Box 801 Leander, Texas 78646-0801 ---------- Index: Steve Wilson Hasn't this happened before? Everybody gets all geared up to meet "Colonel Steve Wilson" in the flesh, and then something happens, he dies or something, and we miss our chance. Now we learn that the Colonel is undergoing "kemotherapy" and is in the hospital... just in time to miss his first public appearance at the Skywatch conference in Phoenix on Nov. 15. (Is it still on?) Conference Info: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/aug/m27-016.shtml The only thing we ask is, "Which hospital is it?" It's not a big question, really. Sending a get well card to a PO box is nice, but what if we want to send flowers -- or call up admissions to find out how he is doing? PO boxes are too impersonal -- like email addresses. We want to send chocolate. GC
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 DISPATCH # 75 -- the weekly newsletter of From: ParaScope@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:03:15 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:48:07 -0500 Subject: DISPATCH # 75 -- the weekly newsletter of DISPATCH # 75 -- the weekly newsletter of ParaScope S O M E T H I N G S T R A N G E I S H A P P E N I N G 11/10/97 Quotes of the Week "Watch out for everything." --Conspiracy researcher and co-author of "The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time" Jonathan Vankin at a recent book signing, responding to the question: "Which conspiracies should we watching out for?" ----------------------- Rant of the Week: "Coincidence?" Every week we pick the wackiest, scariest, nastiest or funniest rant from the hundreds of letters received by us here at ParaScope headquarters, and present it to you as our Rant of the Week. This week, "the Prophet" lets us know of his special skill in praying for and summoning UFOs. Enjoy. "Yesterday, at 9am, Strange Universe, a nationally syndicated television broadcast, came to my home and interviewed me. They ask me to pray for a ufo so they could film it, and I did. Within seconds after my prayer to the most high and wonderful YAHWEH, a strange black probe appeared in the sky and allowed Strange Universe' cameramen to film it! This was a shock to everyone present." "Later that evening, the Aliens spoke to me. They told me to arrange for another interview, but the next one will be in the Pershing Square park in downtown Los Angeles. At that time, I'm to have as many people as possible there to verify if UFOs appear on my prayer or not." "This is my last letter to you; however, if you would like to attend my sightings prayer events, or if you only want to be kept informed, respond back to me and let me know, and I'll continue sending you updates on a regular basis concerning these UFOs as they appear on my prayer and the people that were present to witness them." "Also, if you would like to have a videotape featuring 15 UFO's that I filmed, please send a donation of at least $5." [Reprinted with spelling and grammar goofs unchanged. Names changed to protect the ranters.] -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Coming Up Next Week! Catch all these stories next week on a daily basis on America Online, or all at once next Friday on the web site! Spanish Air Force UFO Files In 1992, the Spanish air force began declassifying its UFO files, revealing some fascinating documents that contain tantalizing details on such incidents as the Canary Island sightings and the bizarre fighter jet/UFO chase at Motril, Spain. J. Antonio Huneeus examines the data contained in the documents, and reports on continuing efforts to obtain additional documentation from Spain's Aerial Operative Command. -------------------- Human Rights Abuses: The Campaign for Declassification The United States fought the Cold War in Latin America by supplying and training the police, military and intelligence forces that kept the local population in line. The still secret U.S. records detailing these repressive programs would be a great help to human rights groups and government commissions probing the abuses of the past. So argues the National Security Archive, a foreign policy watchdog group that is leading a campaign for the declassification of documents on rights abuses in Latin America. A coalition of supporting organizations recently called President Clinton to task for not accelerating this process. Dossier brings you up to date on a showdown over secrecy. -------------------- By Popular Demand: The New and Improved Cryptozoo! It began as a modest overview of ten famous cryptozoology creatures, but the Enigma Zoo has become one of the all-time most popular features on ParaScope. In response to endless requests from all you monster-hunters hungry for more, we've completely overhauled and expanded our encyclopedia of unexplained critters -- now appearing on our web site for the first time ever! The grand opening of the new Cryptozoo presents the Sea Monster Aquarium: Nessie, Champ, Morag, Morgawr, Manipogo, Ogopogo and plenty more beasts from the deep. Drop by next week to see us feed Keiko to the Morgawr, and stay tuned for future renovations such as the Missings Links Primate Center and the Weird Predators Petting Zoo. -------------------- Conspiracy Newsline Clinton pushes for dictatorial "fast track" trade legislation powers; "act-of-God" tornado reveals decades old Whitewater documents, including a cashier's check for $20,000 to Bill Clinton; Federal Reserve re-issued Nazi gold; Virginia public library adopts restrictive Internet access policy; lots more conspiracy news. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Jane, Stop This Crazy Thing! Thought you were tough enough to handle the Dispatch and now you realize you're not? Starting to think you've made a wrong turn off the info highway? Well, we're only going to go over this once, so listen up! To unsubscribe yourself from Dispatch: 1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com 2) In the body of your mail, type: unsubscribe dispatch That's all there is to it! Likewise, to unsubscribe: 1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com 2) In the body of your mail, type: subscribe dispatch ---------------------------------------- ParaScope 11288 Ventura Blvd., #904 Studio City, CA 91604 America Online -- keyword: parascope parascope@aol.com World-Wide Web -- http://www.parascope.com info@parascope.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Abductions and Paedophilia From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:50:33 +1000 (GMT+1000) Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:44:34 -0500 Subject: Abductions and Paedophilia Paedophillia and Abductions OK folks, here is a SERIOUS question. Just been watching Oz ABC's show "4 Corners" which is taking a look at the kerfuffle happening in New South Wales about child paedophillia. Proponents say they have a lot of witneses who have vivid memories of being sexually misused by strange men. And by some not-so-strange men, in fact politicians and judges have been accused. The accused and most other people besides are saying this is untrue and unjust, that there is no solid evidence for this, indeed some of the evidence is very dubious, even relying on "recovered memories". As you read this, careers on both sides of the controversy are going down the tube. One lady politician is about to be expelled from parliament for her brave but perhaps misguided stand. But she was only acting on very convincing testimony. This sounds in some ways very much like some of the goings on that can surround abductions and "satanic ritual abuse". I am wondering if we can help in a real way here. Remember my theory about this? Maybe it does not just apply to abductees, maybe a whole lot of other kinds of experiences can be relayed from one person's mind to another. Why not? So for example suppose we have a girl of 8, and one night she has a lucent experience, actually finding herself perceiving as if her mind was inside the mind and body of another person. I have had this happen briefly to me, as I have formerly described. Now supposing the person she is sharing experiences with is her mother, who is having sex with her husband, the little girl's daddy. The kid might remember this, or repress it and remember it later in life. And she will think her dad did it to her, but in fact it was something normal her mother and father were doing, but she did not realize it was another body it happened to. I want to know what others think of this idea. Here is a chance of a real breakthrough, a chance to get a lot of people to sit up and take notice and realize that here is in fact some very strong evidence in favour of telepathy. This has all happened before. It happened in ancient Greece, it happened in Europe up until the inquisition. Recently I figured out what happened here. During the Enlightenment many people of science testified that magic did not work. If magic did not work then there was no point in accusing people of witchcraft. So in that way decent people, as vulnerable as anyone else to persecution were able to put a stop to the torment, the torture and the burning of men, women and children by over-enthusiastic followers of Jesus. Now that UFO contacts and paranormal powers like telepathy are happening again, society does not believe in telepathy, so there are all sorts of misunderstandings happening. I am sure that telepathy is the key to this. And if there is some abductee consensus on this, and more testimony related to it, then maybe we can help out a lot of sincere but troubled people who are at present caught up in a sterile debate - because they have not the understanding of the world that abductees have been given. So the first thing to be discovered is: have many of the people saying these things have had abduction type experiences? I want to get on to this in the morning, and since many abductees will be coming on line about now, I thought I'd post this on related lists for some quick discussion. If there is support, I could trim off names and other identifiers and compile an anony- mized file of other first hand witnesses to this phenomenon and take it up with some newsgroups or mailing lists based in the Syndey area. So, what do YOU think? Lawrie Williams________________
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Re: ETH &c From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:04:39 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:48:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c While of course I'm on Jerry Clark's side in his dispute with my other friend the Duke, there's one point on which I must -- with great sadness -- dissent: > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:00:28 PST > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > Yup. And that and seven bucks will get us into a first-run movie > anywhere. In New York, depending on where you go to the movies, the price can be as high as $9.50. Sony's theaters are the worst offenders. Which makes me wonder whether Sony ( a devious corporation if ever there was one) is plugged into deep UFO secrets, and overcharges us at the movies to syphon money toward the maintainance of captive aliens..... hey, why not? I don't want to hear about Sony Music chief Tommy Mottola's alleged mob ties. This is MUCH better! Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Re: ETH &c From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:22:56 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:49:56 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c As I may have remarked here before, it's funny that I keep rushing to Budd Hopkins's defense. In private -- to his face, that is -- I'm more likely to criticize him. However, some of the stuff I read here is simply out to lunch: > From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:23:21 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: ETH &c > Yes, Hopkins does make the same fundamental error as Mack- his > beliefs clearly influence how he reports and studies abduction > accounts, to the point of leading his subjects. But don't take > my word for it, read Bullard's The Sympathetic Ear, pages 66-67, > where he clearly describes Hopkins' status as the Typhoid Mary of > the hybrid baby motif. Even one of Bullard's respondents > recognized this fact. While Bullard concludes Hopkins' obvious > influence on such an important element in the abduction narrative > is relatively unimportant in evaluating the source of abduction > claims, I think reasonable people can disagree. Jeff, would you care to provide transcripts of Budd's sessions with abductees, in which you can show us how he leads them? Perhaps I have an advantage on you here, since I've sat in on some of these sessions, and haven't noticed any such thing. But there are plenty of samples in print, notably, just for instance -- and lengthily -- in "Connections," a book by the two abductees who call themselves Beth and Anna. I didn't notice any leading in those transcripts, but then, maybe you think I've been contaminated with typhoid myself. Your move. Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:47:56 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:56:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 Memory, to rip a lyric from "Porgy and Bess" out of context, is a sometimes thing. We're constantly being reminded of that by abduction skeptics, so it's amusing to find our silly friend Peter providing a perfect example. > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:41 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter > Brookesmith] At issue is Martin Kottmeyer's contention that Betty and Barney Hill derived their description of UFO aliens at least in part from an "Outer Limits" episode. Betty Hill denies that she and her husband ever watched the show, but Peter notes: > There is also a point in [John] Fuller's book {The Interrupted > Journey], I think during the initial UFO sighting, at which > Betty exclaims > something like "Jeez, Barney, what've you > seen in all those > 'Twilight Zone' shows you watch?", which I > can't put my finger on > at the moment. This isn't conclusive > evidence of anything, but it is somewhat suggestive. The passage in question, on page 174 of the paperback edition, reads as follows. Betty Hill is being questioned under hypnosis by Dr. John Simon, a psychiatrist who didn't believe the abduction episode really happened. Betty Hill is describing something that happened, she says, when she and her husband saw their UFO: BETTY: And then Barney came over and got in the car, and he said, "They've seen us, and they're coming this way." And I laughed and asked him if he had watched "Twilight Zone" recently on TV. and he didn't say anything. DOCTOR: Why did you mention "Twilight Zone"? BETTY: Because the idea was fantastic. DOCTOR: Had there been anything like this on "Twilight Zone"? BETTY: I don't know. I never see "Twlight Zone." But I had heard people talk about the program, and I always was under the impression that it was a way-out type of thing. and so when he said that they had seen us, and that they were swinging around and coming in our direction, I thought his imagination was being overactive. Sorry, Peter. In the face of Betty Hill's denial, Kottmeyer defends his idea, noting: > I was intrigued to hear that Betty Hill denies that her > husband Barney would have seen "The Bellero Shield" > episode of THE OUTER LIMITS because they did not "watch > that kind of TV program," she being "rather more > intellectual than one might guess." It must be pointed > out that the ad campaign for THE OUTER LIMITS pitched the > show as one of "conspicuous excellence" and that one > piece for TV Guide bore the come-on "They Deal in Ideas - > and Outer Space." The particular episode of interest "The > Bellero Shield" was richly Shakespearian in tone with > parts adapted from "MacBeth." If allusions to Shakespeare > are not one of [the] major symptoms of being an > intellectual, it would be hard to know what is. It was a > show by intellectuals and pitched partly as philosophy to > the network brass. Betty Hill is not helping her case > with such an upside-down reason as the basis of her > denial. > [You say] there is no proof that Barney Hill saw "The > Bellero Shield" and none he did not. Take another look at > the argument I made in "The Eyes That Spoke." The > similarity between the alien in "The Bellero Shield" and > the ufonaut described by Barney is not limited to the > rare trait of wraparound eyes. They also share the unique > bond of having eyes that speak. I also cite other > features like a tilted bullet-like head which are less > unique but also argue for a close relationship. It is > hard to develop a rigorous statistical argument in > situations like this, but my back-of-the-envelope > calculations suggests odds against chance of the traits > of wraparound eyes and speaking eyes appearing together > in an SF production in the same month as Barney's > hypnosis session are on the order of 100,000,000 to 1. > Include the other features and the zeros string out even > further. > Suitably astonished, I've asked him how he arrived at that > figure, and await the response. The intermediary who initially > passed "Of Martian Cats" to Martin K. commented: > As you can see from the attached, the Yeoman Farmer of > Carlyle is a bit touchy about Jerome Clark's favorite > attempt to refute the Barney Hill/Bellero Shield > connection (though oddly enough Clark's favorite talisman > to ward off criticism of abduction research, Bullard, > found Martin's argument convincing). I tend to agree with > Martin that the incredible coincidence that Barney Hill > described an alien with talking eyes that looked so > similar to the Bifrost alien just days after the episode > aired is pretty good circumstantial evidence that Barney > was exposed to the Bellero Shield alien's image. Betty's > denial is pretty thin gruel, unless someone is going to > seriously argue that she can remember every single show > (not just series), commercial or trailer that Barney saw, > even a part of, in the 1960s. I like to imagine what > Clark's response would be to such a simplistic argument > against one of his pet theories. May I ask if the skeptical community has quite lost its mind here, or rather its common sense? The notion of compelling eyes was hardly invented on this "Outer Limits" episode. Has neither Kottmeyer, Brookesmith, or the unnamed gentleman who passed on Kottmeyer's remarks never encountered such expressions -- familiar enough in literature and everyday life -- as "His eyes transfixed me," "Her eyes bored right through me," and "I was hypnotized by his eyes"? The notion of compelling eyes, and even eyes that speak, is so widespread as to be very nearly a cliche. You don't even need an "Outer Limits" episode to find sources for Betty and Barney Hill's fixation on alien eyes. Albert Innaurato, a playwright with a passion for music, often writes on opera for the New York Times and Opera News. Once, either in an article or in a conversation with me, he mentioned seeing Maria Callas live when he was very young, from a distant balcony seat in Philadelphia. Wishing to convey her power as an actress, he commented that, even far away from the stage, he had the notion that he could see her eyes, and that they were focussed directly on him. Are we now to conclude that HE saw this "Outer Limits" episode, or -- which would be equally ridiculous -- that he's an abductee, and fixated on Maria Callas's eyes only because he'd already fallen under the spell of the aliens? Huge alien eyes are also not exactly new in popular culture, as anyone knows who's old enough to have encountered the familar old science-fiction term "bug-eyed monster" (affectionately abbreviaed, during my youth, as BEM). And would any of these eagle-eyed skeptics care to name similarities -- outside of the description of the aliens -- between the "Outer Limits" story and the tale told by Betty and Barney Hill? What's at stake here is simple reason, and common sense. Are we actually asked to take the following remark seriously? > Betty's > denial is pretty thin gruel, unless someone is going to > seriously argue that she can remember every single show > (not just series), commercial or trailer that Barney saw, > even a part of, in the 1960s. May I remind the increasingly frustrating Peter that he himself has insisted on a cardinal point of scientific method -- that hypotheses, in order to be seriously considered by science, have to be falsifiable? In other words, if there's no way to prove something wrong, there's no way for science to weigh its probability. Here we have a perfect example of a proposition that can't be disproved. Betty and Barney Hill, it's claimed, derived their alien from a television show. "But," cries Betty, "we never watched that show!" "Ah," say the skeptics, "but can you be sure? Can you account for absolutely everything you saw on TV during that long-ago era?" Of course they can't. Nobody could. So the skeptics' allegation can't possibly be disproved. So much for their claim that they're scientific. Like so many mere mortals, they practice scientific method only when it suits their purposes. With no positive evidence, they declare something to be true, unless it can be disproved with the kind of absolute certainly not obtainable anywhere, about anything. I only hope they take their life savings out of the sock under their pillow, and invest it all in the stock market, using similar logic. I won't be able to resist smirking at the result. And of course what's most disgraceful about them is their absolute certainty. While the best people on what might be called the pro-UFO side of the argument state their beliefs with becoming modesty, the skeptics make their own case in the language of absolute truth. Worse, they resort to derision. Worst of all, they misrepresent the arguments against them. I have never -- and I repeat, never -- seen a skeptical discussion of abductions that comes even close to stating the opposing case that abduction researchers make. Case in point, from Peter's latest: > Insofar as the "research" of abductionists is not objective, and > insofar as they rely on "techniques" that are irretrievably > flawed in execution and untrustworthy in principle (read the > literature on "memory retrieval" in child abuse and RSA cases, > and the Royal Society of Psychiatrists' report on same that > contributed to their decision to outlaw hypnotic and related > techniques, and top that with the emerging revisionist literature > on repressed memory), then agnosticism about abductions becomes a > moral abdication and and intellectual snare and delusion. Peter, who has written a book on abductions, and ought to know better, conveniently neglects to note that: 1. The case for abductions doesn't depend on hypnosis. Many abductees remember all of their experiences consciously, and virtually every abductee has SOME conscious memory, ranging from mere traces to substantial recall. Virtually every abductee has conscious memories of what might be called "pre-abduction" experiences (beings glimpsed by the bed, unaccountable lights in their rooms, and so forth). 2. The case against "recovered memories" (and the use of hypnosis to recover them) is made only against memories that can't be corroborated. There's been a plague, in recent years, of people who make accusations of sexual abuse, solely on the basis of memories allegedly recovered by hypnosis, even though these memories can't be otherwise corroborated. Whether or not hypnosis actually can recover memories is quite a different question, which at this point is not at all settled. Laboratory research has convincingly demonstrated that hypnosis can't recover trivial memories, but whether it recovers traumatic memories has barely been investigated. Psychological journals have, in fact, printed papers demonstrating cases when hypnosis has, in fact, recovered traumatic memories whose accuracy could later be corrorborated. It's true that abduction reports haven't been corroborated by objective evidence, but the similarity of abduction recollections (both hypnotically and non-hypnotically collected) is at least suggestive. Nobody, in fact -- or at least nobody with any sense -- believes in abductions soley because abductees claim to remember them. It's the similarities in abduction accounts that make abductions plausible. Peter may not be convinced by those similarities, but to unhorse them, he would, like other skeptics, have to bring in further hypotheses -- that abductees have been contaminated by the media, let's say, or that they're fed the standard abduction tale by careless or dishonest investigators. We could argue forever about whether these theories have any merit, but to support or oppose them isn't my point. My point right now is that Peter doesn't mention these refinements in his violent denunciation of abduction research and abduction researchers. His denunciation, in other words, is all but wilfully dishonest (to throw one of his accusations back in his own teeth). He knows, or ought to know, that the argument is far more complex than he makes it. And without these refinements, his denunciation is worthless. It's the classic attack on a straw man. I adore Peter as a human being, but I find his arguments here not just ignorant, but also intellectually dishonest on a gigantic scale. To demonstrate how this is so, I'll ask him publicly something I've also asked him in private. Then we can all await his response. When he was working on his abduction book, he sent me e-mail asking my opinion about something that he felt Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs had been less than honest about. I won't mention what it is, since this was a private communication, and I don't know if the matter in question is something Peter would want to say publicly. In reply, I gave him my opinion of the question he'd asked, and then asked him a question in return. My question was about an allegation David Jacobs frequently makes. Abduction reports are so consistent, Jacobs says, that once an abductee starts to describe an alleged alien procedure, he himself knows in detail what's coming next. He says he could tell the exact story, before it drops from the abductee's hypnotized or non-hypnotized lips. Even more specifically, he says he now can recognize most of the medical implements the aliens allegedly use. Once an abductee mentions any of them, Jacobs says, he knows exactly what they're going to say the aliens do with it. I've never seen Jacobs corroborate these claims. But then, I've never tried to write a book about abductions. Since Peter was writing such a book, I asked him more or less this question. "Peter, you've accused David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins of being dishonest on a certain point. You also now know, if you didn't before, that Jacobs makes claims about the consistency of abductee accounts, claims which, if substantiated, would rather strongly suggest that the accounts might be genuine. Which of these two questions are you going to investigate first? Which is more important to your research?" OK, Peter -- I'll ask you this again. Is your research objective, or fatally biased toward one side of this complex question? You've evidently spent some of your research time reading the "emerging" critique of repressed memory. Have you spent any time at all trying to prove or disprove the astonishing -- and centrally relevant -- pro-abduction claims that David Jacobs makes? Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 eSufo - update From: "David Watanabe" <davew@exosci.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:10:22 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:57:38 -0500 Subject: eSufo - update exoScience UFO Tuesday November 10th, 1997 http://exosci.com/ufo/ ___________________________ Hello, This is just a quick note to tell you about the status of the eSufo website. I'm quite pleased to say that the exoScience UFO main page has been redesigned for the first time in quite a while. It now features news right on the main page, in the exoSci-style. Please check it out at: http://exosci.com/ufo/ If you haven't done so already, we recommend you add a bookmark to this page as it will be updated as frequently as possible (perhaps even daily), and will often feature UFO news which does not make it onto this list. In addition, the Helios Science News site has undergone some changes and now features a nifty news-item-sidebar-list on all Helios articles making navigation a snap. This features new back-end technology which is making its way onto the exoScience site. Check it out: http://helios.org/ Thanks, Dave Watanabe ____________________________________________________ exoScience UFO http://exosci.com/ufo/ Members: 9400 **************************************************** SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE INSTRUCTIONS: * to SUBSCRIBE, send email to: ufo-list-request@exosci.com with the word "subscribe" as the subject * to UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to: ufo-list-request@exosci.com with the word "unsubscribe" as the subject **************************************************** Messages to be posted must be sent for approval to: davew@exosci.com ____________________________________________________ Distributed by exoScience and David Watanabe Portions Copyright (c) 1997 David Watanabe Served using Pair Networks - http://www.pair.com/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 10 Antigravity? From: "Andy Blunn" <mcji5apb@fs1.me.umist.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:02:08 GMT Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:40:15 -0500 Subject: Antigravity? Hello all, Dr. R A Evans, Senior Mathematician, British Aerospace, Military Aircraft & Aerostructures, Preston, Lancashire will be giving a talk at UMIST (Manchester, England) in December on his work. The topic of his lecture is none other than �The Search for Gravity Control.� Apparently, Evans is interested in using an electromagnetic analogue to make Einstein�s complex theory of gravito-dynamics easier to understand. This prediction will shortly be tested in a forthcoming NASA Satellite Gravity Experiment. All the best.. Andy Blunn
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:41:43 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:55:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:11:05 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Clark on Abductions 2/2 <Mucho snippo> >Which reminds me. As I recall, on part one of >his posting, Duke asserted that nobody besides >Sandy Larson had ever reported the bizarre detail >of brain removal. Not so. It figures in other, >extremely obscure abduction claims. Of course: >Ah! They got it from Sandy Larson. But of course >if nobody else had reported it ... well, you get the >drift. <More snippo> >Jerry Clark Let's forget labels for a minute like agnostic, advocate, psychosociologist, critical, skeptical, etc. When someone says "aliens took my brain out, rewired it, and put it back in without so much as a trace," in MHO it seems that a lot of ground needs to be thoroughly covered and dealt with in a rigorous fashion before one arrives at a literal interpretation, ie, that alien beings really *are* capable of such magical (if not downright divine) feats. Similarly, statements of missing fetuses. In those few cases of same which have been investigated, absolutely no evidence for same has surfaced. It is perfectly reasonable, then, to question what abductees are saying and to look for other explanations before taking such accounts even remotely literally. If your stockbreaker were to casually say something of an equally outrageous nature, but outside a UFO context, I daresay that you'd probably start looking around for a new broker. If I read my Hufford right, for example, it seems to me he's arguing for an old Hag experience -- not for the existence of an actual Hag who sneaks into peoples' bedrooms at night. It seems quite clear that there is an abduction experience, but why, if we're going to be agnostics, accept descriptions of same as a reflection of physical reality in the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, it would be quite interesting to see what would happen if one were to hypnotise a couple of hundred of Old Hag experiencers. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:27:32 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:52:09 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c > From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:02:24 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: ETH &c > Top o' the morning to the list, and especially to Jerry Clark: And likewise. > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST > >Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500 > >Subject: Re: ETH &c > First let me say that I seriously doubt that I am the only person > on this list who has difficulty distinguishing between the *most > important* case (note that the original quote was not qualified > by "potentially") and a *best* case. Especially when the most > important case is described as "the most thoroughly investigated, > the most completely documented event in the history of ufology." > It would seem that the definition of best case would be that > which is the most completely documented and thoroughly > investigated. Perhaps your understanding differs from mine in > that regard. To each his own. I am not sure I understand the point of Jeff's posting here. It adds nothing to what he or I have already said. Perhaps he just wants to be heard again, which makes him human if not especially illuminating or interesting about the matters at hand. If people have a hard time distinguishing between the potentially most important case and the currently best- documented case, perhaps they should examine their souls, and possibly their IQs as well. > >I have followed the debate, listened seriously to all sides, and > >adjusted my thoughts accordingly. I would like to think you'd do > >the same, Jeff, but maybe you think a view once lodged in your > >mind can never be removed or even modified. Personally, I harbor > >a sentimental preference for an always open mind. > >My mistake was in having and expressing excessive optimism about > >what we could learn about something that occurred long ago and > >under circumstances that would have rendered truth-determination > >difficult even had a (civilian) investigation been launched > >immediately. > Perhaps. But let me also point out that you should hardly be > jumping on me because I took your statements in IUR at face > value. As I said above, your description of the case surely > meets most people's understanding of a best case. You changed > your mind after further information came to light. Fine. My > statement to the Duke, therefore, would seem to be accurate, even > if you don't agree with my choice of words to describe your > change of heart. Unless, of course, I should give your statements > in IUR the same weight you wish me to give your postings to the > list. Again, what point are you making, Jeff? I have written a great deal -- arguably, in fact, more than any other single human -- on the UFO question. Over time I have changed my mind, for which my critics love to attack me. Of course, if I never changed my mind, they'd accuse me of rigid dogmatism. Remember, there was a time when I adhered to psychosocial speculations which I now consider nonsense (I have never been forgiven for that heresy in some quarters.) In fact, my and Loren Coleman's 1975 book was the first book-length treatment of this particular approach. Like anybody, my opinions are based on my best reading of a particular situation at a particular moment in time. When new, conflicting evidence comes to mind, I am willing to adjust my views. For which practice, by the way, one of my critics calls me wishy-washy. To others, however, I am the Great Satan, the focus of all evil in ufology's universe. A guy just can't win in the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't universe of paranormalist/ psycho-sociologist rhetoric. At least, thank God, I don't have to be one of them. > >In any event, Jeff misses the larger, more important point: that > >unlike most abduction-related claims, phantom pregnancies are > >falsifiable. > Wrong again sir. The laughing Duke has pointed out time and > again that you are as ineffective at mindreading as the rest of > us, so please stop trying. I am fully cognizant of the point. > In fact you seem to be missing the most important point-that > Hopkins' and others' claims of missing pregnancies have been > *falsified.* To play the citing game I suggest the following: > 1. Dr. Richard Neal's comments in Close Encounters of the Fourth > Kind describing the prosaic causes of "missing pregnancies" and > the fact that no abduction researcher has performed the minimal > investigation required to conclude that any anomalous missing > pregnancy has occurred. > 2. The Duke's piece in Fortean Times 85 (making the same points > as Neal, but with a British OB-GYN giving the expert testimony). > 3. The November 1991 MUFON Journal article describing Ann > Druffel and Georgeanne Cifarelli's investigation of the missing > pregnancy claim of an abductee who had contacted Hopkins and was > referred by him to Dr. Neal and others on the west coast. Their > investigation included complete access to the abductee's medical > records and doctors and concluded that the termination of the > abductee's pregnancy was well within earthly norms. I also > suggest Hopkins' follow up letter to the editor as a straight > from the horse's mouth example of how poorly he investigates and > interprets such material. Again, guy, you are nowhere near the point. I am well aware of this information, have actually written an article about it, and cited Ann Druffel's excellent research into a particular case elsewhere (e.g., The UFO Book, p. 215). I have said these raise serious doubts about the reality of ATPs (anomalously terminated pregnancies). Hopkins and Jacobs (not to mention other abduction investigators) continue to report that abductees with whom they work experience ATPs. This is an extraordinary claim for which they ought to produce relevant medical evidence. > >We're not churning out deathless prose here. > >We're writing ephemeral stuff, and we're writing it fast, and > >it's not going to stand in print to get quoted back to us years > >(or, in my case, sometimes decades) later. > May I point out that the only years (not decades) old quotes of > yours I posted were from IUR and a newsletter, not the list. > Again, were they also meant to be ephemeral? From the ephemeral > list or not, if someone makes a, relatively, logical inference > from your words may I suggest that you provide a brief, polite > explanation, rather than complaints about the speed of your > writing. I have already answered you on this. See above. Perhaps now you can start doing something useful, such as collecting papers written by scientists, political pundits, social critics, and others over the years and documenting how they've changed their minds, been wrong, or otherwise failed to be dogmatically consistent over time. You've got your work cut out for you, buddy. > P.S. You still didn't tell me who the master forger of my prose > style is. I'll be gone for a week or so, but please, enquiring > minds want to know. How old are you, Jeff? Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Clark on Abductions From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:59:01 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:59:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:07:33 -0500 > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark on Abductions > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:04:31 -0500 > From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] > Subject: Clark on Abductions > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: > > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:09:56 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Clark on Abductions 1/2 Howdy, Duke and list, As an exercise in pointless venting, Duke's latest communication takes the cake and maybe the surrounding kitchen, too. So little of substance is being addressed here that it seems not worth my or anybody's time to write an extended response. I will say this, though: your communications do not enrage me. To the contrary, I find them amusing. You're doing yourself too much -- or maybe too little -- credit. And I much prefer to laugh with you than at you. > >What strikes me is that Duke hasn't even read one of the most > >crucial documents of all: Walter Webb's investigative report for > >NICAP. Instead, he has the bad grace to characterize it as > >"unchecked hearsay," when in fact it is, as Webb's work always > >is, not only first-rate but first. > The notion that *anyone* could imagine that Walter Webb would put > "unchecked hearsay" out about himself, let alone that anyone could > imagine someone else imagining such a thing, will remain in my mind > to amuse and entertain me through the long winter evenings now > approaching, and probably for several winters to come. In other words, Duke, you haven't read Webb's investigative report. > Delicious on the other hand is Jerome's quoting himself (makes a > change from Swords, Hufford & Bullard, anyway) pontificating thus: > "Psychosocial speculators seem to regard differences as irrelevant", > after I had just warbled on about the importance of taking note of > differences among abduction accounts. Whaddayathink that nice table > of early abduction entities was about, Jerry? Good ways to tie a > trout fly? Fun phrases to teach your parrot? Perhaps you can enlighten us benighted souls and explain why both differences and similarities in abduction accounts prove they are subjective in nature. In other words, it would be nice if, rather than fly into the state of righteous indignation of which you now are in danger of becoming a permanent resident, you could lay out some falsifiable version of your views about alien and other images in abduction cases. In other words, a version in which both A and its opposite, B, do not verify what you want to believe. > Which perhaps gives me licence to ask: Rude as you > are about arts majors (and even more mysteriously, librarians, of > whom Chief Eddie Hard Bull is one), what did you major in all those > years ago? I majored in English (along with, at an early stage of my college career, political science). I love to read fat 19th-Century British novels, and I can discourse at length on many major 20th-Century writers. (V.S. Naipaul and George Orwell are two particular favorites.) I subscribe to several literary periodicals. I hang out with people who share those interests (my best friend is an English professor and medieval specialist; my fiancee is editor of a book on world literary movements). In other words, I recognize literary criticism when I see it. And literary criticism, not scientific investigation, is the stock in trade of the psychosociological speculationists, who apparently don't know the difference. Now, Duke, take a couple of aspirins -- or, better yet, a couple of bottles some great British brew (British brewing is one major source of my longtime Anglophilia) -- and relax. I'm not mad at you. This is just jousting, not mortal combat. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Saucer Error Error From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:07:58 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:03:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:32:38 PST > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:25:36 -0800 > >> From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >> From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] > >> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:06:25 +1000 (GMT+1000) > >> To: updates@globalserve.net > >> Subject: Saucer Error Error > >> The wreck was said to be peppered with fine holes caused by > >> flying into the wash from the ufo's propulsion system. That must > >> have been a pretty dangerous piece of folkloric hardware. I have > >> speculated that the accident actually occurred when Mantell > >> "grounded" his craft with the UFO by firing a wire-guided missile > >> at it, as in Project Moby Dick. But then I have to remind myself > >> that it was really only a weather balloon. > >Actually, Lawrie, I wonder where you obtained this information, since none > >of it, so far as I know, has ever been documented by any official researchers . > >There were no recordings of Mantell's conversations with the tower, but the > >Air Force records of the conversations, according to Ruppelt, who did the > >most complete and close to the event investigation still extant, mentions > >nothing of any of the material you raise. > >Officially, and unsurprisingly, Mantell's death is attributed to his lack of > >oxygen, when he attempted to rise to the extremely high altitude of > >a skyhook balloon. While there remains some question about this > >explanation, in light of the ancillary accounts, there is nothing inherently > >implausible about the cause of death, regardless of the nature of the object. > >As for the wreckage of the aircraft, there was apparently > >nothing surprising about the nature of the wreckage to the crash > >investigators, and the photos / sketches of the crash site do not show > >anything unusual. > >I don't recall any reference which claimed the aircraft skin was peppered > >with small holes. > >Perhaps you could provide a reference for this? > Hi, Mark, Lawrie, and list, > Mark is absolutely correct. Nearly everything Lawrie writes here > is false. I am not, of course, accusing him of making it up > himself, just of passing on some of the vast legendry surrounding > this non-UFO case. > The Mantell case is complicated by the appearance of what > apparently was a UFO over southwestern Ohio several hours after > the crash. The object Mantell died chasing, however, was a > Skyhook balloon launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. As Mark > indicates, there was nothing unusual about the condition of the > crashed F-51. The Air Force didn't help matters, though, by its > initial, and absurd, identification of the object as Venus. > Cheers, > Jerry Clark Hello Jerry, Errol and List, I sincerely hope that the Mantle, F-51 crash is not going to become a thread on this list. If ever there was a case explained, it is this one. The evidence is so overwhelming in favour of a skyhook balloon sighting and a pilot foolish enough to climb to altitudes well above the boundries of caution "without oxygen" that pursuing it further is just perpetuating a legend seeking a status that it once enjoyed. There are plenty of other good solid cases out there deserving of attention that need looking into. Let's move along. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 UFOs in China From: Tim Joiner <tjoiner@flash.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:37:34 -0600 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:03:50 -0500 Subject: UFOs in China Interesting story on UFO study in China, at: http://detnews.com:80/1997/nation/9711/08/11070173.htm Tim
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:34:11 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:12:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:00:20 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Belgian Radar-Visual [was: ET Hypothesis: > Government Concern?] >>Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:07:02 +0100 >>From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> >>Subject: Belgian Radar-Visual. (was: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >As I said earlier, it was inevitable for a new bogus explanation >to arise. >Furthermore, inspired by this case I am assembling a collection >of Rules of Ufology, that will eventually be included in Bogus Book, >so that it can serve as a sort of survival handbook for the >ufologist. >Hall of Fame of Bogus Explanations for the Belgium case: >10. >Atmospheric diffraction - J. Pharabod >Bogus because: Object has been detected on a total of 6 radars, >25 videos and one photograph exist. Object played cat and >mouse game with F16 pursuers. >11. >'Ghost', 'Zombie' - Eduardo Russo=B7 >Bogus because: 25 videos and one photograph exist. Object >played cat and mouse game with F16 pursuers. I be your pardon but, though honored to be included in your Hall of Fame, I doubt that I should, since: a) item 11 above is but the same as item 10 b) I am not its author, merely reporting it (mmmh! the messenger-shooting habit is becoming more and more common here 'round, isn't it?) But, for sake of argument, let's say I give it some merit. May I answer your objection by a question: are you meaning "25 videos and one photograph exist" of THAT specific object on THAT specific night, at THAT SAME specific time as the ground observations AND the radar targets (well! I might have lost something made known AFTER I last read SOBEPS reports), or are you more generally referring to pictures and videos of OTHER sightings of the Belgian wave (like the Alfarano one of a landing plane)? IMHO that would be quite a different matter. I remain waiting for you to clear us such detail, before even discussing that other detail of the UFO that played cat and mouse game with F16 pursuers, something of which plenty of useful and instructive examples exist in UFO literature. Best regards Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici CISU, Casella postale 82, 10100 Torino - tel 011-3290279 - fax 011-545033 http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo e-mail: edoardo.russo@torino.alpcom.it
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:21:48 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:16:14 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 10:20:50 -0600 > From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:32 -0600 (CST) > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: > > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > > >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:19:24 -0500 > > > I'll take the better > > >ufologists over the scientists, anytime. Whether or not I agree > > >with Stan's conclusions on MJ-12, I challenge you to compare > > >Stan's work on it with SETI astronomer Frank Drake's reasons why > > >interstellar travel is impossible (and, therefore, aliens will > > >never visit us). Stan comes off as an apostle of sweet reason, > > >and Drake, by contrast, as a frightened idiot. > > >Greg Sandow > > Greg, the above is so boundlessly beyond belief (or stupidity) on > > your part as to beg credibility. > Frankly sir -- it is your position that strains an open minded > credulity. > > I'm a working writer and so are you. But if neither of us has > > anything else better to do with our time, I'll gladly accept your > > "challenge to compare Stan's work on [MJ-12] with SETI astronomer > > Frank Drake," having already admitted previously on this post > > that I'm no particular fan of Drake's work and conclusions. > > Let me also add that you're comparing apples and oranges here. > > But if you really and seriously want to adopt the voice of > > Friedman's "apostle of sweet reason" as your own, then so be it. > > Dennis > > Frightened Idiot > Dr. Drake postulates a credible potential for ET existence, but > retreats from ET actuality with a proclamation that they are not > allowed to function in a manner that we, in our boundless, > extensive, and complete physical knowledge <g>, consider > impossible! Now that seems a completely foolish take, given that > we ourselves daily function in a manner that we would have > considered impossible just one hundred years ago. Mr. Friedman > DOES seem to hold the high cards of sweet reason in comparison. > Dr. Drake, cognitively shows more courage, and certainly asks > tougher questions. > Lehmberg@snowhill.com Greg, Dennis and Alfred, Putting aside the personal belief bashing for the moment, is there not a parallel here akin to, for instance, the Catholic Church's fearing the loss of heaven and suffering the pains of hell. In both cases that church, and others, continuously envoke both God and the devil however when someone claims to have been possessed by the latter or has seen the former the Catholic church is on record of denying exorcism and has gone to great pains to descredit sightings of the deities. With both SETI scientists, Sagan* it seems included, and church leaders it appears to be a matter of "proximity breeds contempt". Or I'll study it but I don't want it in my face. *I once had a scientist say to me after viewing Sagan's remarks on a local TV news show where Sagan was shooting down UFOs and the possibility of ETs visiting Earth now, "He says the words...but you can tell he doesn't believe them." I saw the show and Sagan was whipped, dying of Cancer. He lacked conviction with his attack. The scientist, a Marine Geologist, is also one hell of a fine Jazz pianist Greg. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:50:37 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:30:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> wrote: >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Clark on Abductions 2/2 >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:47:56 -0500 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 >Memory, to rip a lyric from "Porgy and Bess" out of context, is a >sometimes thing. We're constantly being reminded of that by >abduction skeptics, so it's amusing to find our silly friend >Peter providing a perfect example. >> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:20:41 -0500 >> From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter >> Brookesmith] >At issue is Martin Kottmeyer's contention that Betty and Barney >Hill derived their description of UFO aliens at least in part >from an "Outer Limits" episode. Betty Hill denies that she and >her husband ever watched the show, but Peter notes: >> There is also a point in [John] Fuller's book {The Interrupted >> Journey], I think during the initial UFO sighting, at which >> Betty exclaims > something like "Jeez, Barney, what've you >> seen in all those > 'Twilight Zone' shows you watch?", which I >> can't put my finger on > at the moment. This isn't conclusive >> evidence of anything, but it is somewhat suggestive. The microscopic conversations going on here are punitive bewilderments not relevent to the overall picture. These kinds of analysis fail to consider that human memories do alter, are chnageable to a great degree and do not necessarily have to agree with anything. The original experiences of the persons involved are translations at best of the original circumstances. So much for the mythical legendary literary accuracy you are searching for. Look for the Grail instead. It is more likely to be found than what you are looking for. Just what do you intend to prove by sticking supposed facts in everyone's face and crying that these are not facts at all? I would suggest you rethink your direction of attack. How do you think I feel about all of this dissection? I am no less involved in these discussions whether or not you realize it. I read a lot of stuff and comes a time when even I have to say something about what is going on when it becomes so surgical. How much have you considered the human part of these conversations? Are you seriously trying to see what actually happened way back when, or are you just cutting and editing the words of transcripts? If you weren't actually there, then what part do you think you play in those recorded events? I have vivid memories that go as far back as I can remember. I have found that there is a problem with the sequences or even time of those memories. But, the details that I can remember are enough to satsify my own questions about the early fifties time period. These memories of mine are my own little artifacts. No one can claim them. No one can view them. But when I translate them, and in turn those memories are re-translated into print, how well do the original memories compare with the printed versions of the same thing? We would have to admit that the track record is pathetic, enough to tease us into believing there is accuracy in our memories, but incomplete, convoluted, or muddled enough to be unreliable. Yes, unreliable. Do you not see the same thing happening here? Memories of experiences are taken in or out of context to convert or divert believers? Who do you think you are influencing by all of these arguements? Certainly not the experiencers themselves. They have their own convictions. But, to the people not directly involved in all of this, just how do you think you are appearing to them? Personally, I would have said, "Song and Dance! Now, where's my money?" But, I wouldn't give that to you when I see everything you have hacked to death, with help, I might add. >What's at stake here is simple reason, and common sense. Are we >actually asked to take the following remark seriously? >> Betty's denial is pretty thin gruel, unless someone is going to >> seriously argue that she can remember every single show >> (not just series), commercial or trailer that Barney saw, >> even a part of, in the 1960s. >Here we have a perfect example of a proposition that can't be >disproved. Betty and Barney Hill, it's claimed, derived their >alien from a television show. "But," cries Betty, "we never >watched that show!" Do you call Betty a liar? It is obvious to me that you have not had the experiences that Betty had. You fail to listen to what is being said to you and everyone else. Something did happen. Whatever that something was, some of the details are right, and some are mixed up. Some of the details are even missing. Does this in anyway have anything to do with the actual occurrence of the incident in the first place? Not on your life. The incident happened, unjustified and unwanted. It happened like so many other incidents to innocent people going about their lives in so many other places around the world. Go ahead, pick any of the thousands of abduction reports apart. And, it won't matter at all about who wrote it or who reads it. Have a greeat time! But, you will still fail to see what is going on just as you are now. You will continue to make the same mistakes like the rest of the non-participants. You will always be on the outside looking in. Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:55:27 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:50:36 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:04:36 -0500 (EST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) >Subject: Discovery channel special. Tom King writes re the UFO's Over Phoenix documentary: > The computer work which overlays the Mike Krysten video near the > shows end is way off. I can't believe someone on the list hasn't > pointed this out yet. > Look just over the upper hill thats closest to the camera in the > left part of the screen there is a tree. In the actual video the > "loner" object on the left side is always seen, to the right and > part way up the tree. > These other people have it far over on the left of the tree. It > appears they have resampled the lights to far, and placed in the > wrong spot! This could have been done purposely to support the > flare theories. It looked to me that since the tree was in the foreground (relative to the mountains and the lights) the relative positions of the tree and the "loner" light would be strongly affected by the exact position of the camera. They said only that the daylight video was taken from approximately the same position as the night time video, not from _exactly_ the same position. So I don't see how the tree being in a slightly different position in the foreground shows that their analysis was "way off". -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: FOIA Air Force reply From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:07:09 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:01:11 -0500 Subject: Re: FOIA Air Force reply > From: UFOLAWYER1@aol.com [Peter A. Gersten] > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 16:21:15 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: FOIA Air Force reply > The following letter is the Air Force's response to the Army's > referral of my FOIA request concerning the 'Day After Roswell'. > It should be remembered that it was the Army, not I, who referred > my request to the Air Force. Is this any surprise to anybody? Before the Roswell reports when you filed a foia request you got the standard Bluebook package, copies of press releases as to why their were no UFOs blah blah, how the AF quit in 1969 etc etc. Now when you file a request, you are going to get something very similar to the below letter. What this is called is "key word recognition" which means that any time the Army people get a request which mentions the words CARSO, OR DAY AFTER ROSWELL or similar, they will instantly refer the request to the AF. Why, because every military service knows that UFOs were once officially the perview of project bluebook/AF. Now when the AF gets a copy of same request they will default with the below letter, and OR the same old standard UFO package, copy of the 1969 press release that terminated blue book, we are no longer interested, blah blah: > DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE > 11th WING > October 16, 1997 > 11 CS/SCSR (FOIA) > 1000 Air Force Pentagon > Washington, DC 20330-1000 > Peter A. Gersten, Esq. > Attorney at Law > 7349 Via paseo Del Sur #515-194 > Scottsdale, AZ 85258 > Dear Mr. Gersten > This is in response to your September 10, 1997 Freedom of > Information request. > This office is not a repository for UFO information. > Copies of the Roswell Reports are sold by the Government Printing > Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington > DC 20402-9328. Please reference The Roswell Report: Fact vs. > Fiction in the New Mexico Desert, ISBN 0-16-048023-X and The > Roswell Report: Case Closed ISBN 0-16-049018-9. > Michael Parker is our action officer on (703) 696-7266. > Sincerely, > RHONDA JENKINS > Acting Freedom of Information Manager
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 UFOs Over Phoenix: Dilettoso color analysis From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:47:43 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:05:13 -0500 Subject: UFOs Over Phoenix: Dilettoso color analysis I have been trying to figure out Jim Dilettoso's color analysis, as presented in the Discovery Channel documentary. It was not very clear to me, but I presume that someone here on the list knows more about it. My basic problem is with video color analysis of an object whose color in the video is clearly wrong. According to all the witnesses, the 10pm lights were amber or orange. But on the videos, particularly the Mike Krysten video that is commonly shown, the lights appear white. I presume that this is not because everybody's white balance was way off, but because the lights were so bright that they exceeded the maximum brightness capability of the camera. When this happens, the "white clip" circuit in the camera would be activated and would produce a constant white output, instead of the real brightness and color of the incoming light. So then Jim Dilettoso analyzes the video and finds that for these lights the red, green and blue portions of the spectrum all line up exactly, and this is different from the spectral signature of normal lights, including flares. The brightness of the lights also doesn't vary, as one would expect if they were flares. But isn't this spectral signature and lack of brightness variation exactly what you would expect for a pure white produced internally within the video camera by the white clip circuitry? -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:29:44 -0500 Subject: part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network ______ _______ ____ ------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- U K / / // ___/ / / ' Nov 8th, 1997 / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 1 Issue 84 --- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with subscribers in over 40 countries. This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the subject section e.g. Repost {84} part 1, part 2 or part 3. In this issue: ------------- Editorial: --------- UK.UFO.NW IRC guests UFO/Alien songs Mexican UFO video Tidying things up United Kingdom News: ------------------- [UK 1] Alien Experiences wanted for TV documentary [UK 2] UFO's & Kent 'F.T.' response from European Parliament [UK 3] Hot Stuff [UK 4] Puzzle over mystery light at Dedridge [UK 5] Gobsmacked by Dedridge light [UK 6] UFO attacked our nukes [UK 7] Must fly! Aliens are after me [UK 8] What the aliens told the equerry about Prince Philip [UK 9] White suited figure - ghost or alien World News: ---------- [W 1] Pilot: UFO wasn't weather balloon [W 2] Authorities baffled by stringy UFOs [W 3] Scientists close universe age gap [W 4] CIA Black Budget revealed, first time ever [W 5] Mars Global Surveyor to resume aerobraking [W 6] The invasion is over - now we're waiting for the screaming! [W 7] Heaven's Gate suicide site on the market [W 8] Company offers trips into space in 3-5 years [W 9] Mars Pathfinder winds down after phenomenal mission A FEARFUL SYMMETRY ------------------ A TRUE STORY OF ALIEN INTRUSION INTO HUMAN LIVES By D. Lynne Bishop Ballad Of The Greys ------------------- Lyrics Editorial ========= UK.UFO.NW IRC guests We are very proud to announce that the below are confirmed guests on our IRC UFO channel: Dan Sherman - Project Preserve Destiny Graham W. Birdsall - world respected ufologist, lecturer and editor of UFO Magazine. Full details will be posted in the near future. UFO/Alien songs. We are on the look out for songs about our favourite subject UFOs and Aliens. Are you aware of any? If so please send us the song name, artist and album. Also the words to any related song if possible. Have you written any related songs or poetry yourself. Please send the words into us. There are three songs that we are aware of. 'Ballad of the Greys' by Dana Ray band. You will find the words to this ballad towards the end of the e-zine. 'Chupacabra' by an unknown group. It came to my attention that the group Hot Chocolate had a sighting some years ago and made a record about it. The song is called 'No Doubt About It'. I recently found this song amongst my wifes collection and sure enough it does describe an encounter. Both songs 'Ballad of the Greys' and 'Chupacabra' can be downloaded from the Art Bell web site and UK.UFO.NW home page. They are both in the Real Audio format. http://www.artbell.com/ http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/ (select the Real Audio button) Mexican UFO video >From the comments we have been receiving most of you have had no problems in downloading the Real Audio/Video file. However a handful did report problems. Anomalies such as 'link does not exist', 'file not available for download' or most common a screen full of strange characters. The link is obviously correct because I and many of you have successfully downloaded it without problems. Our web site counter jumped enormously during the week after the announcement. So it could just be that to many people were trying to download it at the same time. However if you are still having problems we are prepared to send you the file as an e-mail attachment. Please bare in mind that the file size is 284kb and should download to you reasonably quickly. As we stated before the video sequence has lost some of it's clarity compared with the original AVI file. However unless you are doing serious study the reduced file size all-but makes up for this. The original AVI file was 4.5mb in size. If you would like the file e-mailed to you send to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk with: 'REQUEST MEXICAN VIDEO' in the subject line. The file requires 'Real Player' ver. 4 or above to view it. This program is free to download for various computer systems from: http://www.realaudio.com/ The Mexican Real Audio/Video file can still be downloaded from the link at: http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/ Tidying things up Every time the e-zine gets posted out we have quite a few bounced/returned mails stating that the e-zine could not be delivered. One of the main reasons seems to be 'user not known'. Usually this means that a person has made a mistake in their subscription e-mail address or that the address no longer exists. We are slowly going through a stage of tidying up our subscribers e- mail list. If an error occurs whereby you receive a message saying that you have been unsubscribed or you do not receive a copy of the e-zine for some weeks please resubscribe. United Kingdom News =================== [UK 1]****** Source: Channel 4 (UK) teletext Alien Experiences wanted for TV documentary (Channel 4 is the UK's 4th largest terrestrial television station) Channel 4 is producing a major documentary series. We would like to hear from you if you have ever had an Alien Experience. Call on 0171 284 1469 [UK 2]****** Source: UFO Magazine (UK) Publish Date: November/December 1997 Url: http://www.ufomag.co.uk UFOs & Kent 'F.T.' response from European Parliament Chris Rolfe, whose group UFOMEK (UFO Monitors East Kent), investigated the major 'flying triangle' incident in early March which appeared near the residence of Michael Howard, MP. the former Home Secretary, persuaded Mark F. Watts and Anthony Wilson, members of the European Parliament, to raise this and other issues with the European Commission. Anthony Wilson raised two question: "Does the Commission acknowledge that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the most likely explanation for a number of unidentified craft? "Does the Commission acknowledge that European airspace has been penetrated on several occasions by unidentified craft whose performance characterises, such flight and manoeuvrability, far exceed state-of-the-art aircraft design? Mark Watts asked: " Is the Commision aware of reports on both the Folkstone Herald and Adscene in early March, concerning sightings of unidentified flying objects in the Donkey Street area of Burmarsh, close to the home of Michael Howard MP and the ruins of Lympne Castle? Eye witnesses described the objects as triangular-shaped crafts ringed with bright lights. I am concerned at possible danger to Mr Howard and Lympne Castle and anxiuos to ensure that these well- known ruins are protected from hazards of unknown origin. Does the Commission have any evidence of extraterrestrial activity in this area or in the English Channel?" A reply was forthcoming by Mr Neil Kinnock, one behalf of the Commission: "In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question." [UK 3] Source: The People newspaper Publish Date: Sunday 2nd November 1997 Hot Stuff By Heather King Rising star Debbie Flett is enough to send any poor alien's pulsar racing. The 24-year-old face of Richard Branson's Virgin company has now turned galactic cracker. Debbie dressed to kill for the front cover of the November issues of men's magazine 'Stuff'. And the gorgeous model was armed and dangerous as she illustrated a feature about scientists on the trail od UFOs. Stuff staff voted Debbie their ideal alien babe and one member said: "She can enter our atmosphere any time - but for most of us she could have come from another planet." Debbie, from New Malden, Surrey, made her name as a hostess with Bruce Forsyth's game show Play Your Cards Right. She was later plucked from thousands to become the face of Virgin. But even if she keeps her feet on the ground it certainly looks as if her career is out of this world. uk.ufo.nw says: 'Stuff' magazine and the UFO feature is now available from UK stores. [UK 4] Source: Herald & Post newspaper Publish Date: 16th October 1997 From: Vadir Puzzle over mystery light at Dedridge A livingston woman froze with terror after spotting a strange light coming from the sky in Nigel Rise, Dedridge, just after midnight on Tuesday. "I've never seen anything like it," said the 31-year-old-, who prefers not to be named. "People have told me that it must have been a laser light, but you don't get laser lights that wide - it lit up the whole side of the house in front of me." The woman told the Herald & Post that the blue light, which appeared to be coming out of the sky from the direction of the TA centre at Dedridge, reminded her of someone using welding gear. "It definitely wasn't lightning, but it came on and went off a couple of times," she added. "Strangely, two planes came over the sky at different times and each time the planes were there the light went off." Now the woman is looking to hear from anyone else who may have seen the light at the same time. If you have spotted the strange light, contact the Herald & Post at (UK) 01506 634436. Don't forget us here at UK.UFO.NW [UK 5] Source: Herald & Post newspaper Publish Date: 23rd October 1997 From: Vadir Gobsmacked by Dedridge light An Eliburn woman has reported seeing the strange light which was spotted above Dedridge last week. "I was gobsmacked," said the 27-year-old mum of one, who asked not to be named. "When I read the article in last weeks Herald & Post I told my husband - "that's what I saw!" The woman said she spotted the light about 4.30pm while walking across the footbridge between Ladywell and Craigshill. "I do a bit of star gazine," she added, "and I know for a fact that it wasn't a satellite, although it did look a bit like one. "It was very slow moving in the sky and was about the size of a football. "It had a very subtle blue light and reminded me of Trebor mints. "It looked like it was straight above Dedridge. "I stood there for a couple of minutes watching it." [UK 6]****** Source: The People newspaper Date: 2nd November 1997 UFO attacked our nukes Britain's former military supremo is asking the government to investigate whether aliens fired laser beams at our nuclear arsenal. Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton, retired Chief of the Defence staff, wants the probe to be launched into the sighting of a UFO hovering over RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk. He has now tabled questions to the Ministry of Defence asking whether nuclear weapons stored at Woodbridge were struck by light beams fired from an unidentified aircraft. He claims that US Air Force personnel who saw the "attack" filed reports which are being covered up by the MoD. He said: "The Ministry has doggedly denied that anything untoward happened and I simply can't believe them." Defence minister Lord Gilbert refused to confirm or deny whether the base was equipped with nuclear missiles. He added: "There is no evidence to suggest that the Ministry of Defence received any such reports." The mysterious sighting happened in December 1980 and was picked up on RAF radar. Phantom jet were scrambled and pilots reported intense, bright lights in the sky. [UK 7]****** Source: News Of The World newspaper Publish Date: 26th October 1997 From: Calb1701@aol.com Must fly! Aliens are after me A SCREAMIN man who believed aliens were about to abduct him tried to open a plane door and get off at 30,000ft. Passengers gaped in horror, as he struggled with handles to-escape. British Airways crew members quickly realised he had failed to take prescribed medication and was halluncinating. Stewardess Susan Harwood calmed him by pretending to be a nurse after hearing he had recently had a coronary by-pass operation in Brisyol. She coxed him away from the door and led him gently to his "ward" - the crew's rest area. Keeping up her act, Susan opened the plane's first aid box and took his blood pressure. Then she persuaded him to rest in his hospital bed- three seats with the arm-rest rasied. Susan's clever ploy helped avoid a diversion to Moscow for Flight BA26 from Hong Kong to London. She said: "He was convinced he even called me matron." [UK 8]****** Source: Sunday Times newspaper Publish Date: Sunday 2nd November 1998 From: "Brian Straight" <briansxx@gte.net> What the aliens told the equerry about Prince Philip by Hugh McManners and Walter Ellis WHAT would you do if you were an alien observer keen to establish contact at the highest level with the British Establishment? You might attempt to reach the prime minister but it's so hard to get through. The same would apply to the Foreign Office, the defence ministry and the intelligence services. Most likely, they would have you thrown out or locked up. Janus, an interstellar emissary assigned to the British beat, decided to go for broke: he would arrange an audience with the Duke of Edinburgh. Thus it was, on a damp and misty evening, in the winter of 1954, that Squadron Leader Peter Horsley, equerry to Prince Philip, found himself driving out of the main gates of Buckingham Palace on his way to the strangest, and most unearthly, en A meeting had been arranged by a general for him to meet a Mrs Markham in a flat in Smith Street, Chelsea. The squadron leader was expecting little more than sherry and biscuits. What he got, he said last week, was an introduction to man's destiny in the stars and a briefing on the supreme being, the Great Force, who commands the universe. Had such a claim appeared in the National Enquirer or the Daily Sport, it could readily have been dismissed. In fact, it came from Air Marshal Sir Peter Horsley, former deputy commander-in-chief of Strike Command, whose memoirs, Sounds From An "Prince Philip," said the stranger, "is a man of great vision, a person of world renown and a leader in the realm of wildlife and the environment. He is a man who believes strongly in the proper relationship between man and nature, which will prove of great importance in future galactic harmony." Horsley destined to be in charge of sending British nuclear bombers on missions deep inside the former Soviet Union in the event of war realised he had to tread warily. Janus, fortunately, understood this as well. "Where would you like to start?" he asked. Many would have wished to begin by taking a better look at this mysterious stranger from the other side of the galaxy. Not Horsley. "It is difficult," he writes, "to describe him with any accuracy; the room was poorly lit by two standard lamps and for the most part he sat in a deep chair by the side of a not very generous fire. "In fact, I never really got any physical impression of him." Tall, thin, short, fat, grey, white or green: Horsley does not recall. Instead, no doubt aware that such an opportunity might not come again, he pressed straight in with his questions. "As an airman," he began, "one of the difficulties I have with the idea that UFOs fly here from another planet is the vast distances involved." Quite so. "That's a good start," his visitor replied, before launching into a long disquisition on the reality of interstellar travel. Apparently, in the next century or so, mankind will become bored with its exploration of the solar system and press on into deep space, employing technology that bends the time-space continuum and enables us to travel 1,000 light years in (rel The future air marshal was understandably intrigued not least by his realisation that Janus was telepathic and could read his thoughts. The conversation ranged far and wide, ranging from Genesis and the Pyramids to the prospect of a universe teeming with life forms, all owing allegiance to the Great Force. Horsley remembers the encounter with total recall and noted it down in a report to his superiors. What they made of his tale is not known. But ever since, the retired air marshal, author of the Journal of a Stamp Collector and holder of the Portuguese Order of Christ, has been "at intellectual peace with the concept of God as a universal spiritual force without shape or habitat, As for Prince Philip, Horsley left the Smith Square flat and made no attempt to pass on the extra-terrestrial invitation to his royal master. When he later returned to the flat it was empty, and he never saw Janus again. He thought no more about it until now. "I was aged 33, very busy and had to get on with my job. So that's what I did." [UK 9]****** From: duncan@life.com White suited figure - ghost or alien My friend Joan and I came across something bizarre whilst traveling along the Fleet Road towards Aldershot at lunchtime on 25th February 1997. We had taken a short cut down Claycart Road and suddenly caught sight of a figure running through the trees on our left. The figure was running incredibly fast and at first we both thought it was a ghost. However as we drew level, we could see it was a figure dressed in a tight white fitting suit. It then darted right infront of the car and ran across the road. At this point in the road there was a hump - the figure disappeared under the hump via a tunnel by the side of the road. By now, Joan and I were terrified, and just wanted to get the hell out of there. After the incident, Joan and I asked several locals what they knew of the area, and were surprised to hear that sightings of these white suited beings were very common. They also informed us that soldiers from a nearby army compound regularly cordon off the area without warning to prevent public access. Our only conclusion is that the white-suited beings are aliens, as nothing human could ever run that fast, and that the military are aware of their presence. Joan and Nikki, Aldershot World News ========== [W 1]****** From: kondor@kondor.demon.co.uk PILOT: UFO WASN'T WEATHER BALLOON An unidentified object narrowly missed a SWISSAIR Boeing 747 while the aircraft was at 23,000 feet, passing in air space between Philadelphia and New York, on Aug 9, Swiss radio reported this morning. Major newswires are taking the story and moving it. The pilot described the object, which passed within 50 yards of the aircraft, as "white, elongated and without wings," and strongly rejected U.S. explanations that the object was a weather balloon, the radio report said. The object was moving at very high speeds, Swissair spokesman Erwin Schaerer tells the NTSB. The plane was Zurich-bound, from Philadelphia. AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE is reporting that there may be passenger witnesses to the incident... [W 2]****** Source: San Francisco Chronicle Publish Date: 22nd September 1997 From: kondor@kondor.demon.co.uk AUTHORITIES BAFFLED BY STRINGY UFOS Santa Cruz-- Just what were those stringy, spider-web like strands drifting throughout the skies of Santa Cruz County yesterday? Authorities were baffled as speculation varied wildly on the source of the unidentified floating objects spotted from Felton to Watsonville. "From a meteorological perspective, I cant explain it." National Weather Service forecaster Bob Benjamin said. No major fires were reported that could spread debris in such a widespread area. Robert Franklin, airport operator at the Watsonville airport said....the strands were about 3 feet long, and faced every which way. "Its like you took a piece of wet chewing gum and stretched it with your fingers. It had strands," Franklin said. "Then it went straight up into the sky like a hot air balloon." Santa Cruz sheriff's Sergeant Craig Wilson saw a few strands near downtown Santa Cruz and identified them as seed pods. ".....I'm not a botanist. But that's what they look like ," Wilson said. ...Could it have been related to El Nino, the much-hyped weather phenomenon expected to mess up the climate world-wide? Bob Benjamin (of the national Weather Service) said no, but "sure, go for it. Everything else has been blamed for it." [W 3]****** Source: Washington (Reuter) Date: 3rd October 1997 From: kondor@kondor.demon.co.uk Scientists close universe age gap U.S. astronomers said Friday they were helping to close one of the most troublesome age gaps of all time -- the discrepancy between the age of the universe and the stars in it. Many of the measurements taken by scientists indicate that some of the oldest and most distant stars are actually older than the universe -- something obviously impossible and extremely irritating to cosmologists. Physicists at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio said they had come close to sorting out the problem using measurements from the European Space Agency's Hipparcos satellite. They say these distant globular clusters, once thought to be as old as 15 billion years, are 11.5 billion years old. They are also farther away than experts once believed. This fits in with estimates made in February by European scientists. "If the stars in the globular clusters are actually farther away than we thought, they must also be brighter than we thought," said Lawrence Krauss, who led the research. "If brighter, the stars are burning faster. This means the stars would evolve more quickly, and thus the globular clusters would be younger than we originally thought." Age and distance of such stars tell physicists how fast the universe is expanding. This, in turn, tells them how long ago the Big Bang that started everything was, and gives hints as to whether the universe will keep on expanding forever, will eventually flatten out and stop, or implode back in a Big Crunch. Krauss said the latest measurements pointed to a flat universe. -[continued in part 2]-
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 {84} part 2 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:38:43 -0500 Subject: {84} part 2 - United Kingdom UFO Network ______ _______ ____ ------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- U K / / // ___/ / / ' Nov 8th, 1997 / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 2 Issue 84 --- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with subscribers in over 40 countries. This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the subject section e.g. Repost {84} part 1, part 2 or part 3. [W 4]****** Source: Washington (Reuters) From: kondor@kondor.demon.co.uk CIA Black Budget revealed, first time ever WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government Wednesday unveiled for the first time its annual spending on the CIA and sister intelligence agencies, a secret for 50 years. "The aggregate amount appropriated for intelligence and intelligence-related activities for fiscal year 1997 is $26.6 billion,'' CIA Director George Tenet disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit that left scant choice but declassification of the figure. The disclosure of the so-called Black Budget capped a heated political debate involving Congress, the White House and directors of central intelligence for the past 20 years. In making public the overall intelligence budget figure for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, Tenet said he had acted after consulting President Clinton and appropriate agencies. In April 1996, the White House said Clinton had determined that making the sum public would not harm U.S. intelligence activities, a stance shared by then-CIA director John Deutch. Clinton made clear at the time, however, that he wanted to declassify the total in concert with Congress, apparently to share any backlash from critics who might otherwise accuse him of undermining national security. The Republican-led House and Senate had refused to join Clinton in the maneuver on the ground that Congress did not rightly have the power to declassify and that this was a responsibility for the administration alone. In a statement, Tenet said the circumstances of the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit "do not allow for joint action'' with the Congress, as Clinton would have preferred. "We believe this action is appropriate because it does not jeopardize the ability of our intelligence agencies to carry out their missions and serves to inform the American people,'' he said. The lawsuit was brought by the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington group seeking greater intelligence agency accountability, on behalf of Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy. "This is a long-overdue reform,'' Aftergood said in a telephone interview. "Significantly, it took a lawsuit to accomplish this. Congressional oversight couldn't get it done.'' Kate Martin, counsel in the case and director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the CIA had been forced to unveil the budget figure Wednesday because it could no longer defend withholding it. "Only because the CIA was required to present its defense to the court today has it released the figure,'' she said. The annual spending total had been kept secret since the CIA was founded 50 years ago. Tenet runs the Central Intelligence Agency and serves as board chairman for the 12 other U.S. spy outfits whose aggregate funding level was at issue, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office. In his statement, Tenet stopped short of promising to continue to release annual combined totals for intelligence spending, most of which is buried in secret Pentagon accounts. "Disclosure of future aggregate figures will be considered only after determining whether such disclosures could cause harm to the national security by showing trends over time,'' he said. Executive branch officials would continue to protect from disclosure "any and all subsidiary information concerning the intelligence budget, whether the information concerns particular intelligence agencies or particular intelligence programs,'' Tenet added. "In other words, the administration intends to draw a firm line at the top-line, aggregate figure.'' The overall level of U.S. intelligence spending has long been considered one of Washington's worst-kept secrets, widely estimated at $28 billion to $30 billion. A few years ago, a House panel published the figure inadvertantly. [W 5]****** Source: Nasa press release Date: 30th October 1997 Uk.ufo.nw says: See last issue of e-zine {83} - [W 9] & [W 10] MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR TO RESUME AEROBRAKING (edited for length) After a two-week hiatus, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) flight team will resume lowering the spacecraft's orbit around Mars beginning Nov. 7. The effort will proceed at a more gradual pace than before, which will extend the mission's aerobraking phase by several months, and will change Global Surveyor's final science mapping orbit. The decision to resume aerobraking came after intensive engineering analysis, computer simulations and tests with representative hardware to characterize the current condition of one of the spacecraft's two solar panels, which began to flex more than expected during the spacecraft's lowest dip into the Martian atmosphere on Oct. 6. "After sufficient time to study the observed motion, we concluded that it is possible to perform additional aerobraking at a slower rate, without putting undue stress on the solar panel in question," said Glenn E. Cunningham, Mars Global Surveyor mission manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA. "This changes Mars Global Surveyor's final mapping orbit, but it should not have a significant impact on the ability of Global Surveyor to accomplish the mission science objectives." The spacecraft is currently in a 35-hour elliptical orbit which brings it 107 miles (172 kilometers) above the surface of Mars at its closest approach to the planet. "There are several types of desirable orbits for us to consider in the next several weeks that will give us global coverage of the planet and yield all of the science data we expected to return," Cunningham said. Even if we wind up in an elliptical orbit, we will have an opportunity to study Mars at closer range than we originally planned because the spacecraft's periapsis -- or closest passage over Mars -- will be closer than the 234-mile (378-kilometer) circular orbit that was to be its original mapping distance." A new color image from the MGS Mars Orbiter Camera of the giant volcano Olympus Mons is available on the Internet at the following URL: http://barsoom.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/camera/images/index.html Additional information about the Mars Global Surveyor mission is available on the World Wide Web by accessing JPL's Mars news site at URL: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/marsnews or the Global Surveyor project home page at URL: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov. [W 6]****** Source: The People newspaper Date: 2nd November 1997 The invasion is over - now we're waiting for the screaming! The silent invasion has begun. Former military intelligence operative Philip Imbrogno claims he has the evidence. Drawing on his contacts in the CIA and US Air Force the has built up a terrifying dossier of alien abductions. He has researched the claims of thousands of people. Today Matthew Benn's presents their terrifying testimony. George and Maria have a daughter who is almost two. One day she brought out her doll and asked her mum to open its head. Maria asked her where she had seen something like that and the little girl told her mother: "they do it too daddy at night." George and Maria are not alone. Thousands claim to have been abducted by aliens. When scientific researcher Philip Imbrogno began to talk to the worried couple be discovered a chain of events that he believes will stun the world. Imbrogno served with US Special Forces in Cambodia on a secret CIA operation called Shadow. He used his CIA contacts to verify George and Maria's story. Then he followed up more people who claimed to have been kidnapped by aliens. Imbrogno discovered several chilling similarities. Most terrifying of all was that almost every one of these people shared the same rare blood group. Imbrogno placed the abductions on a map and found they all formed straight lines that pointed to the Hudson Valley outside New York. A CIA former colleague told him: "the invasion is over. All we are waiting for is the screaming." Imbrogno believes those screens will start where the UFOs were first spotted in the towns along the Hudson Valley. The alien invasion had begun quietly. Middle school head Douglas Harlow arrived at his office to find that every clock in the school was 10 minutes fast. "I couldn't figure it out," said Harlow. But it was not just the school clocks. Every electric clock in the town had gained 10 minutes. A spokesman for the Conneticut Light and Power Company blamed a power surge - even though shift supervisor Philip Gervais said there had been no surge. Then the witnesses came forward. Mrs Diane Duont, 40, was driving her car when she saw a large boomerang pattern of lights slowly moving through the night sky. She said: "I watched as these lights approached and I was surprised that I heard no sound at all. "The object then passed directly over my car and as I looked up I saw a dark mass blocking out the brighter night sky." Police and the local radio station were deluged with reports of the slow moving flying wing with white and red lights. Arnold Sprinster said the giant triangular shape was the size of a football pitch and took 10 minutes to pass over his car. "It looked like one of the space ships in the science fiction movies but this was real." Local police chief Herbert Peterson said: "if this thing can come here and do this, I want to know where the hell are our country's defences?" But Imbrogno believes it is too late to worry about defences - the aliens are already here. Imbrogno began his search for evidence by calling a general meeting in a valley town called Pine Bush. He asked people to write down any experience they had with UFOs. He was stunned. 40 percent of the people in the room had been in contact with aliens. George and Maria are so used to the night time visits from alien creatures that when they appear Maria tells her husband: "your friends are here." Bill, a 32 years old computer programmer who would not give his surname, saw the giant UFO in the Hudson Valley as he drove home from work late at night. He saw the space ship pass over his car but remembered nothing else about the incident until he had hypnosis. Bill relieved the ordeal. "There is someone standing in the road and he's walking towards the car. Who are you?" The alien replied: "Do not be fearful. We need you. You have been selected." Bill said: "I feel strange, like I am floating in air. It's all dark. I am now on this table and these guys are all around me. "They have large heads with long black eyes, the eyes are so black I can't see any pupils. They look like shark eyes. "The one that is near my head is moving some type of thing up and down the side of my head. It looks like a portable vacuum cleaner. "He is moving it closer and it is making my head vibrate, it feels like a drill going through my head. STOP, STOP, IT HURTS. "They are looking for something and they've found it. I can't hear them speak, but I know what they are saying. "He is telling me that they come from a place which is very ugly in comparison to ours and they would like to live here but they cannot." The next thing Bill recalls is finding himself back in his car one hour later than the last time he looked at his clock. A CIA source told Imbrogno that an alien craft landed at a US military base shortly after the Second World War. The aliens were dying out and needed humans to infuse fresh genetic material into their species. They offered new technology in return. The US government allowed the grey aliens to abduct people for genetic experiments. Imbrogno took blood tests from people who claim to have been abducted. The outcome astonished him - 95% had the rare B-negative blood type. The said: "people with B-negative blood may be off-shoots of the hybrid race that the aliens are trying to create." If that is true, the silent invasion has begun. Contact Of The 5th Kind by Phillip J Imbrogno and Marrianne Horrigan published by Llewellyn at 7 pounds and 99 pence. [W 7]****** Source: CNN Date: 29th September 1997 Heaven's Gate suicide site on the market Anyone wanting to purchase the home where 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide six months ago must put in a bid within two weeks, says a California real estate agent selling the home. Realtor Burt Sveine said the home, located in a posh San Diego neighbourhood, is being offered on a sealed-bid-only basis, with all offers due by October 14. "Come and see your perception of the new 'Heaven's Gate' estate," says a flier about the sale of the sprawling home where members of the sect committed suicide in March for what they hoped would be a rendezvous with a UFO trailing Comet Hale-Bopp. The nine-bedroom, seven-bathroom estate -- complete with swimming pool, tennis courts, putting green, sauna and elevator -- is worth about $2.2 million to $2.5 million, Sveine said. The flier adds, "This property is being sold with the 'movie rights' passing to the new owner and in 'as is' condition and status." For those interested, Sveine can be reached at 1-888-2- HEAVEN. Sveine represents owner Sam Koutchesfahani, who rented the home to the cult. [W 8]****** Source: New York Times Date: 14th October 1997 Company offers trips into space in 3-5 years By EVERETT POTTER {edited for length) The Halloween season is usually a time of heightened UFO sightings and tales of UFO abductions. But if Mike McDowell has his way, some future UFO sightings will be readily identifiable, modern spaceships operating under the banner of his company, Space Adventures. Inside will be well-heeled Earthlings paying upwards of $100,000 for a chance to take a suborbital flight into space on the ultimate adventure travel trip. "It's three to five years away," McDowell claims. As president of the recently formed Space Adventures, McDowell is the first entrepreneur to offer immediately available simulated adventures in space and the prospect of suborbital flight. He's so confident that he's taking $6,000 deposits on a first-come, first-served basis -- money that will be held in escrow accounts. McDowell figures, admits that "it will probably cost them $75,000 to $100,000 each." Before anyone dismisses McDowell as a dreamer, consider his background. As founder of Quark Expeditions, the Australian-born McDowell pioneered travel through the Arctic and Antarctica on polar-class icebreakers. He's also a partner in Adventure Network International, the only private company offering air flights in Antarctica. A man who has climbed Mount Everest, dog-sledded to the North Pole and skied across 400 miles of Antarctica, the amateur climber, diver and small aircraft pilot personifies the adventurous spirit. McDowell's partner in Space Adventures is Gloria Bohan, the founder and president of Omega World Travel, the ninth-largest travel agency in the United States, according to Business Travel News. The company's advisory board includes Dr. Suzanne Churchill of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Giovanni Fazio of the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory and four astronauts: Captain Robert L. "Hoot" Gibson, Dr. Byron K. Lichtenberg, Dr. Charlie Walker and Dr. Owen Garriott. "These guys all want to go back themselves," McDowell explains. But since five years is a relatively long time to wait, and $75,000 to $100,000 a considerable sum for most Earthlings, Space Adventures has alternative adventures as well. First, there are "Terrestrial Tours," a series of programs that start as low as $750 per person and are designed to give an insider's perspective on space science. They include Rocket Scientist Training, where participants design, build and launch a 10-foot-tall rocket; a Space Camp Adventure at Rocket City in Huntsville, Ala., for amateurs to train for a simulated space shuttle mission; and a Star City Russia Tour, for those who would like to train as a cosmonaut in the space station Soyuz. Then there are "Zero G Flights," zero gravity flights in an Ilyushin- 76, a Russian-made four-engine jet aircraft. NASA has trained its astronauts for years in similar aircraft to achieve zero gravity, and Ron Howard used this type of aircraft to film the weightless scenes of his movie Apollo 13. "The only way you can produce weightlessness on Earth is with one of these aircraft," McDowell explains. "Basically, you follow a roller-coaster profile, making parabolic passes. You're weightless for up to 30 seconds at a time, and ideally you can do this 15 or 20 times on a flight." The price starts at $5,500 per person, with air fare and accommodations extra. Finally, the closest thing to space flight for civilians these days is Space Adventures' "Journeys to the Edge of Space." One lucky soul accompanies a pilot in a two-seater Russian MiG-25 military jet for the ride. For example, while the Concorde goes as high as 50,000 feet, the MiG- 25 goes over 70,000 feet. It uses afterburners to stand on its tail and reach a point where 99 percent of the Earth's atmosphere is below the aircraft. Ahead of pilot and passenger is the black, star-studded sky. "It's like being in a rocket," McDowell says, "but without the discomfort." Except, perhaps, on the wallet. These flights, on which McDowell says the pilot often lets the passenger take the controls, start at $11,900 per person and leave from Zhukovsky Air Field outside Moscow. "There are plenty of people out there who have a heartburning desire to go into space," McDowell says. "And it's a great thing to tell your friends." For more information, contact Space Adventures, 9411 Lee Highway, Suite J, Circle Towers, Fairfax, Va. 22031; call 888-85-SPACE; or access http://www.spaceadventures.com on the Internet. [W 9]****** Source: Nasa press release Date: 4th November 1997 MARS PATHFINDER WINDS DOWN AFTER PHENOMENAL MISSION After operating on the surface of Mars three times longer than expected and returning a tremendous amount of new information about the red planet, NASA's Mars Pathfinder mission is winding down. Flight operators at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, made the announcement today after attempting to reestablish communications with the spacecraft over the last month. With depletion of the spacecraft's main battery and no success in contacting Mars Pathfinder via its main or secondary transmitters, the flight team cannot command the spacecraft or the small rover named Sojourner that had been roving about the landing site and studying rocks. "We concede that the likelihood of hearing from the spacecraft again diminishes with each day," said Pathfinder Project Manager Brian Muirhead. "We will scale back our efforts to reestablish contact but not give up entirely. "Given that, and the fact that Pathfinder is the first of several missions to Mars, we'll say 'see you later' instead of saying goodbye," he said. Since its landing on July 4, 1997, Mars Pathfinder has returned 2.6 billion bits of information, including more than 16,000 images from the lander and 550 images from the rover, as well as more than 15 chemical analyses of rocks and extensive data on winds and other weather factors. The only remaining objective was to complete the high-resolution 360-degree image of the landing site called the "Super Pan," of which 83 percent has already been received and is being processed. The last successful data transmission cycle from Pathfinder was completed at 3:23 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Sept. 27, which was Sol 83 of the mission. The team plans to continue sending commands and listening for a spacecraft signal on a less frequent basis. "Basically we are shifting to a contingency strategy of sending commands to the lander only periodically, perhaps once a week or once per month," said Mission Manager Richard Cook. "Normal mission operations are over, but there is still a small chance of reestablishing a link, so we'll keep trying at a very low level." --- A FEARFUL SYMMETRY A TRUE STORY OF ALIEN INTRUSION INTO HUMAN LIVES By D. Lynne Bishop A FEARFUL SYMMETRY Copyright 1995 by D. Lynne Bishop All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission of the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages. First Printing September 1995 Printed in the United States of America BOOKFINDER PUBLISHING http://bookfinder.simplenet.com/ --- CHAPTER SEVEN At the conclusion of the hypnosis session, I found myself both amazed and shocked by the information recovered. It was very unsettling to discover that an encounter with the "unknown"-- and possibly unknowable--had happened to me as early as the age of four. The two events--one at ten years old, and one at four--had been so different in nature from the ones occurring in my teens. Through regression, I had come into contact with the child I had been, and had relived those events. As I recalled them during the session, I had even spoken differently--more childlike, and with a child's wonder at the strangeness of the universe. The trip home from Springfield was uneventful, although we had got into the habit of checking our watches periodically, to make sure we were not "missing time" anywhere along the way. Even though we laughed at ourselves for doing it, we still would catch each other surreptitiously glancing at the clock in the car. We felt compelled to make "reality checks" every so often--and often wondered sardonically which reality we were checking on. I had finally entered the "gray area" on my map to the new world I was inhabiting. I had accepted the gauntlet that had been thrown at me, and now found myself dueling with conflicting struggles. One side indicated that these aliens truly existed and that what I had seen and recalled were true events--and the alternative indicated I was dealing with imaginal events made real. And, in a very real sense, I no longer knew which world I belonged to. I was straddling a fence, waiting for something to push me over into the thorny brush of one side or the other. On August 3, I visited with my sister, and gave her a brief rundown on what had transpired at my last session. She startled me by saying, "Do you want to know why I knew something strange had happened down at your horse-tree?" I wasn't about to say, "No," so I asked her what she had in mind, and she replied, "When I saw you at the tree, you were glowing blue." I had no answer for this, but my life was becoming stranger by the minute! I told my sister about my encounter at four years old, and described the pajamas I had been wearing during the experience. My sister reminded me that we still had some old family photographs, and perhaps something from that era would be among them. Like children on an Easter egg hunt, we searched through the old albums, finally coming across some "glossies" dating around 1957. There, in a portrait taken of my brother, sister, and me, was the very pair of pajamas I had seen in my memory! -[continued in part 3]-
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: {84} part 3 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:51:20 -0500 Subject: Re: {84} part 3 - United Kingdom UFO Network ______ _______ ____ ------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- U K / / // ___/ / / ' Nov 8th, 1997 / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 3 Issue 84 --- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with subscribers in over 40 countries. This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the subject section e.g. Repost {84} part 1, part 2 or part 3. On the day of my session, my sister and brother had taken a metal detector down to the tree near the pond, where I had played with my horse figurines so many years ago. The tree's roots had become gnarled with time, and digging in the rocky ground was a daunting task. However, they had completely circumnavigated the tree, and found several old nails and wire, and one unusual rock. With just a little imagination, you could almost discern the outline of a saucer- shaped craft caused by the natural striations of the stone. It was almost as if Nature, itself, was laughing. I wrote John to fill him in on the latest information my sister had supplied, and through correspondence found that there would be a public meeting on August 14. At this meeting, he would be presenting a slide show of several of the drawings which had been made by numerous persons who had been affected by the alien abduction phenomenon. My husband and I decided to attend this meeting. I was very curious about what other people had reported seeing, and was intrigued as to whether there would be any similarities to my drawings. The evening of August 14 arrived, and we again made the trip to Springfield. I was excited, and also nervous as the lights were turned down, and the presentation began. An expectant hush fell over the crowded room. As the first drawing flashed on the screen, I knew my fence- straddling days were beginning to draw to a close. It was an eerie feeling, watching face after face appear, all drawn by different hands--and all depicting the same nonhuman creature-- time after time. Shortly after the presentation, my sister and mother had an experience that left them shaking. Since first looking into the missing-time event back in April, I had been noticing odd happenings. They were just vague premonitions that things were occurring--things that I just couldn't quite put my finger on, but knew were happening, somehow. I had awakened many mornings to find bruises on my arms and legs that weren't present the day or night before, and that couldn't be accounted for in the glaring reality of daylight. I had lucid dreams on an almost regular basis, and many of them contained elements of alien abduction scenarios. Still, while interesting, and somewhat thought-provoking, there was nothing that I could really declare to be alien phenomenon occurring in my present life. Then, my sister and mother shared what appeared to be a common "dream" one night--and yet they lived in separate houses. Mother's "dream" began with her standing by her kitchen sink, looking out the back window into the wooded area behind her house. As she watched, a blinding group of lights appeared in formation, white and red in color. This object drew near her house, and she immediately had the thought, "Oh, my God! It's a UFO!" With this realization had come the devastating knowledge that the aliens were coming for her younger grandson. She somehow knew they had already taken the older boy previously, and she was frantic with fear for the safety of the younger one. Without thought for herself, she tore out of her home, running toward my sister's house, a few hundred feet away. Ignoring the darkness outside, she ran to save her grandson. Winded, she finally reached the backdoor to the house, and threw the door open, bolting inside. With surprise, she noted there were five "men" standing in the den area. They appeared to be wearing blue outfits. She recalled weaving among the "men," refusing to look above their waists, trying to locate her grandson, but having no success. After an abrupt scene shift, she realized the encounter had taken on a sexual connotation. A brief lapse of time occurred, and Mother heard a roaring sound that rattled the house, as the UFO finally departed. The following day, Mother discovered my sister had also "dreamed" that night-- about five men wearing blue clothing, who had come from the hall into her bedroom. It seemed that these "men" had distracted her while a possible abduction occurred elsewhere. This event shook up the proverbial apple-cart, and we again contacted John Carpenter to let him know of their shared "dream," and a possible shared event of which they had conscious memory. He requested that they not discuss their memories on these two events with each other, until sessions could be arranged to explore each of their conscious recalls on an individual basis. A session was arranged for my sister, to be held August 23. On August 20, I felt compelled to mail a letter to the hypnotherapist. I had recalled a puzzling incident from the distant past--or actually, several puzzling events- - centering around a deceased friend of the family. In the past, during times of personal crisis, I had dreamed of this longtime friend, and had mentioned this to John Carpenter in the beginning of this "strange journey." An excerpt from this letter follows: "You'll recall that I mentioned in the questionnaire I had three dreams in the past about a deceased friend of the family, who in these dreams gave me assurances of some kind of continuation after death. This friend was George Mahon, the City Marshall of a small town. He had been in police work for most of his adult years, and had many friends and acquaintances among the State Troopers, FBI, and various other associated organizations. He and several of his "buddies" would often drop in on our family during their routine beats. These visits were both day and night, and we always looked forward to them. "Because our father was away so much of the time, George became a surrogate father for us, and we often sent him Father's Day cards, as well as sending them to our real father. The caring that he gave was of inestimable value, and we weren't the only ones who felt that way toward him. On the day of his funeral, the entire school turned out, so all the students could attend. There was standing room only, and not very many dry eyes. His loss was felt by the entire town. "He was a very special person, and filled many needed roles for many people, both children and adults. He was highly respected by his peers, who often sought his advice and assistance. George always felt very drawn to our and enjoyed the visits with us as much as we did. The interesting family--thing is that occasionally George would come by our house, and tell us that 'our house had disappeared' the night before--that he had driven by on his regular beat, and could not see the house at all, even though we always left lights on. We always laughed about it, and joked with him about our 'having gone somewhere', but in retrospect, I think he knew there was something different about either us or the place, and that was his way of letting us know." I had no idea what compelling force was working on me at the time I mailed the letter to the hypnotherapist, but knew it was important, somehow, that I let him know. Then, in going through some memorabilia, I discovered the source of my desire to let John know about my old friend--August 22 was the date of George's birthday, and also the anniversary of his death. I felt that in some obscure manner, I had again been in touch with a friend who had been very important to me. The day of my sister's session dawned bright and clear, and my husband and I drove with my sister to her appointment. She was a little tense this time. The possibility of an ongoing phenomenon--one not relegated to the past, but happening in the "here-and-now"-- was unsettling. The following excerpts have been taken from the conference with the hypnotherapist, prior to the induction of hypnotic regression: John: Tell us about this dream that you and your mom had. Consciously, what do you remember? Laura: I'm in my bedroom, and the door opens. A woman comes in and announces, "These men want to have sex with you." There are five men, wearing dark blue suits, lined up around the bed, and they all look the same. I tell them, "But I don't know you," and they say, "Yes, you do. We've come a long way for this." (What followed was a natural progression.) And then, in the morning, Mother came in and she was totally flipped out. She said, "I've got to tell you about this dream I had last night!" And then she describes the blue outfits they have on, and I start thinking, "This is strange. This is a little more strange than . . normal." In fact, it bothered her so much, she wasn't able to work well, that day. And, see . . . I work for a real estate company--normally, I'm very handy to my kids--but that day I had gone out to do an appraisal. A little boy had spent that night with my younger son, and they got up early and went across the street to play with a new kid in the area. My older son woke up later, and didn't know where he'd gone. He got worried and tried to call me, but I was out, so he called Mother. She was in an important meeting at her place of work, but she freaked out. She thought maybe "they" had picked up my younger son and forgot to bring him back home, so she left work immediately and went home to locate the boys. John: Why do you think she was so uptight about your younger son? Laura: Well, we know that my older boy has a hole in his nose . . . and there's some anxiety there. Mom thought, when she saw the lights, that they had already gotten her older grandson, but they weren't going to get her younger one, if she could help it. I want to tell you another thing, too. I had a really hard time coping after the last session, because I wanted to deny it all. The first week was super hard, and then by the second week, I was starting to come around a little bit. And I finally came to grips with it, and I believe it now. After examining the facts, I can't deny it. John: Okay. Let's hear about this airplane dream, now. (This referred to a conscious event my sister had recalled, and had written the hypnotist about previously.) Laura: Oh. That wasn't a dream. It happened in the late '80's. My mother and I-- and the kids, I think--were coming back from town. The grocery store, I think. And just about a mile from our house, just over the trees came a white airplane with no engine. It was coming down . . . and I braked immediately, 'cause it was so close I thought it was gonna fall right on us. Well, when I braked, it kept on--went across the road still in a decline. I pulled up to get a better view, and kept inching forward, because I was afraid of being rear-ended. I thought, "God, we're going to see a biggie here!" But nothing happened. It just eased on down, like it had found a way to land under the power lines. And we had a lot of amnesia about it-- couldn't remember what all we had done. I could remember pulling into someone's driveway and also going to the airport. When we got there, there were three men refueling . . . and they were kinda strange. I went inside to talk to the manager, and he acted like it wasn't even important. Since the time of the incident, a friend of my older son mentioned to me that my son had asked him if he'd ever seen a plane crash. His friend told him, "No," and my son told him that he had once seen a plane crash when he was in the car, and that he even remembered numbers on the plane. I have never been able to recall any identifying numbers at all, though. John: What does your mother think about this airplane incident? Laura: She says it's as strange as what happened to her and my sister (in 1972). John: Okay. What else was it that you remembered about your sister burying that little thing by the tree? Laura: Well, when I was under hypnosis that first time, when I had looked at my sister down there, she had a glow around her. A funny-looking glow. It was light blue. John: Do you remember how long it lasted? Laura: No . . . not very long. But . . . I have seen . . . uh . . . "glows" around other people. And I'll tell you about one, but then no more weird stuff. There was this man one time, and I knew he was going to die that day, see. And that's why I don't really like this aura thing. I don't like to tell other people when I see things, 'cause that one weirded me out. He had come to our house that day--he was a nice old man who was our neighbor, and we had a lot of fun. And he was "gray." I was a teenager at the time, and I thought, "Oh, he's getting ready to die." And he died of a massive heart attack that night. I'm not saying I'm special . . . It's just that if you're observant, sometimes, you can see things . . . that anybody can see. It's just that they don't pay attention to it. So, anyway, that's why I knew that day at ten, that something unusual was going on with my sister. Because she had a glow--a light blue glow. John: Now, you all took a metal detector down to that tree . . . Laura: Yeah, and I found a very unusual rock down there. I brought it here today to show to you. It has kind of an unusual shape to it . . (Gave rock to the hypnotist.) I guess you could call this some comic relief, maybe. (Laugh). John: Are there any other things you'd like to mention? Laura: I'm going to tell you the truth. I don't want to see aliens, like they (mother and sister) all see. I don't want to see the gray bodies. If I look at 'em, I'm gonna make 'em pretty. I'm gonna give 'em hair . . . But, when you would ask me to stare at their eyes, under hypnosis, it changes. And then, when I'd glance away, I'd see what I want to see, again. One other thing, about the dream Mom and I shared recently. One Saturday, about 3:00 in the morning, my husband started talking in his sleep, and he said, "You decidin' who to put in the hamster wall tonight?" I jumped up, and said, "Where are you?" He replied, "I'm in a cellar." He said there were a lot of holes in it, and it was honeycombed. He started waking up then, and realized where he was. His description reminded me, you know, of that "Intruders" movie, because of the scene with the man in the tube. And then again, maybe it's just Saturday night hysteria. (Laugh). HYPNOSIS SESSION August 23, 1992 John: (The hypnotist had decided to explore the airplane event, so the time- frame had been regressed to the 1980's.) . . . Drift back through time . . . What do you notice about the car, and what do you see? Laura: The car's blue. The front seats are bench cloth. I don't really hear any sound. It's not cold. It's spring. The windows are rolled down. There's a mobile home park on the right side. There's one house, and then a whole bunch of trailers--bunch of mailboxes. And big trees. John: What do you notice, as you're driving along? Laura: It looks like a plane, but it's blurry. It's over the trees. It's not making any noise. It's bigger than both widths of the road. It looks like it's spinning. Like a fan . . . like a boomerang. It's moving so fast, I can't slow it down. It's white, and shiny. There's something kinda orange--like a fire--under the bottom. It's a circle. John: Can you see what happens next? Laura: It made all sorts of weird movements. (Gestured with hands) . . Up and over, then down, and then up. It's more of a bell-shape, actually. The top, when it turns this way, has got like a black dot on it. The bottom has the orange circle. It looked like volcanic rock on the bottom. John: Okay. Does anyone say anything, or what happens next? Laura: We were curious. My older son's hanging out the back window, watching. I told him to get back inside. It looked like a bell. John: How did it change from a boomerang to a bell? Laura: It was spinning. John: What's the very next thing you notice? Laura: I pulled down around the corner and got out of the car. I was in the driveway of this house. Mother got out, too. John: And what do you see now that you look at it again? Laura: It went underneath the power line. The whole thing turned orange for a minute, and I could hardly see it. Then it went under the lines. John: Notice what happens next . . . Laura: We're talking about going to the airport. It had gotten really far away. Then it landed, and I thought it was an airplane again. My younger son thought it was a helicopter. He's on the other side of my older son. --To Be Continued - Jacket Notes "As each human voice from the UFO abduction syndrome is offered for public consideration, I am impressed by the similar patterns of events from case to case. Lynne Bishop's story, like so many others, involves orange, glowing discs, small spheres of white light, night paralysis, her body transported literally through walls, physical examinations, body marks and rashes, animal mutilations, telepathic communication, encounters with non- human beings that include small "gray" and tall "ant-like" entities, humanoids, glowing "angel- like" beings, and Bigfoot-type creatures. The reason for all this, in the alien intelligence's own words: "This is how we breed." The increasing number of human testimonies that insist an alien life form is harvesting genetic material from our planate should give us all pause. Who - or what - is interacting with our planet? And what are the implications for our past, present and future?" Linda Moulton Howe, TV Producer and Author of An Alien Harvest and Glimpses of Other Realities "I found A Fearful Symmetry to be a fascinating look at how the alien experience can affect the lives of an entire family, often without their conscious knowledge that such events are taking place. There is much here that correlates with other testimonies...but there are also details which seem unique." Lucius Farish, Editor, UFO Newsclipping Service "A Fearful Symmetry, by Lynne Bishop, is a unique and compelling account of alien abductions that have intruded into the lives of an entire family for many years. While such stories are not new, Ms. Bishop's account is especially convincing because it includes the testimony of not only her own experiences, but also events involving several members of her family, recalled consciously as well as through the memory- enhancing aid of regressive hypnosis. The story is extremely well-written, insightful, and honest. Ms. Bishop's fearlessness in pursuing the truth behind her bizarre experiences is a lesson in courage for anyone who has been forced to deal with the alien presence, and her determination to be more than a passive victim, to find ways to alter the experiences, sets a new standard for other abductees to emulate." Karla Turner, Ph.D., Author of Into The Fringe, Taken, and Masquerade of Angels --- Lyrics to the ballad by Dana Ray band The Ballad of the Greys Lyrics ------------------------------ Please Lord if I'm abducted, don't let it be the Greys, the short little guys with the big black eyes from a galaxy far away; I've heard the horror stories, being taken in the dead of night, laid out on a table like a Christmas turkey, I'm afraid I'd die from fright. They can paralyse you with their eyes and levitate you out of bed, pull you right up through the ceiling and start messing with your head; Now if they would just stop at that I wouldn't mind too much, but I've heard they'll probe you up and down and you won't like where they touch. The witnesses say they're a humourous bunch and by that I'm quite surprised, do they watch all the reruns of I Love Lucy and The Best of Saturday Night Live? I don't wanna be a live experiment; father children in a place unknown, but they'll splice your genes and make grotesque things; leave my tadpole guys alone. Please Lord if I'm abducted, don't let it be the greys, the short little guys with the big black eyes from a galaxy far away; I've heard the horror stories, being taken in the dead of night, laid out on a table like a Christmas turkey, I'm afraid I'd die from fright. When Eisenhower signed the treaty, he never thought they'd stay, maybe hang around long enough to mutilate some cattle and they'd be on their way; We built them underground bases and they're feelin' right at home, like that Dreamland in Nevada where the antelope and aliens roam. And Art Bell knows what's going on, they probably give him rides for free; for all we know he's one of them, that's why he's on radio... and not ... TV.... (think about it). Please Lord if I'm abducted, don't let it be the greys, the short little guys with the big black eyes from a galaxy far away; I've heard the horror stories, being taken in the dead of night, laid out on a table like a Christmas turkey, I'm afraid I'd die from fright. Laid out on a table like a Christmas turkey, don't let me die tonight! ..(nanoo-nanoo my foot!) --------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM UFO NETWORK STATEMENT uk.ufo.nw statement: The articles or text appearing within these pages are not necessarily the views or opinions of United Kingdom UFO Network. REPORTS Please forward all reports to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk WWW Visit us on the World Wide Web at http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/ BACK ISSUES & FILES For information on receiving back issues and other files send mail with REQUEST INFO in the subject area to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk IRC - (INTERNET RELAY CHAT) The meetings take place at 11pm (2300hrs) each and every Saturday night. Times will vary depending on your location in the world. If you would like to know the time in your part of the world send a mail to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk In the subject section put: IRC TIME INFO In the message of your mail please put: a) Your Country b) Your location c) Nearest major City Connecting to our weekly UFO meetings on the IRC (internet relay chat) is now easier than ever. If you are using at least one of the following web browers: Netscape 3 ++ MS Internet Explorer 4 ++ Simply visit one of the below url's (world wide web) addresses. When the 'ultrachat' page has loaded you will see a large grey filled box somewhere on the screen. It may then take a few more seconds for the java script to load and run. The grey area will then turn white and you will be asked to enter a nickname. Your own name or a nickname will suffice here. Once you press return you will be presented with various bits of information scrolling up the screen. After a few seconds you will be connected to the uk.ufo.nw #UFO channel. Down the right hand side of the screen you will see a list of the people currently on channel. At the bottom of the screen is where you type your messages. The large upper left section of the screen is were you read and follow the proceedings of the meetings. Don't be shy. We are all a friendly bunch. Give it a go. You'll soon get the hang of it. We'll be happy to offer any assistance that you may need. http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/ultrachat.html http://www.maygale.org/07/eyesonly http://www.geocities/Area51/Cavern/2646 http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ultrachat.htm http://www.ultranet.org/webchat/ufo.html http://web.ukonline.co.uk/colin.light/ultrachat.htm http://web.ukonline.co.uk/phil.light http://www.ufo.grid9.net/ufo.html http://www.us.ultranet.org/webchat/ufo.html http://www.no.ultranet.org/webchat/ufo.html http://crowman.demon.co.uk/ultrachat.html If you are using one of the dedicated IRC programs such as the excellent MIRC available free from: http://www.mirc.co.uk/index.html enter one of the below irc server addresses into your program. The nearer the server to your location the faster the connection. If one fails then try another. London.UK.EU.UltraNET.Org Belgrade.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Kalemegdan.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Singidunum.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Bor.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Zemun.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Gloucester.UK.EU.UltraNET.Org Uppsala.SE.EU.UltraNET.Org Johnson-City.TN.US.UltraNet.Org Haifa.IL.AS.UltraNET.Org Mons.BE.EU.ultraNET.Org Neuilly.FR.EU.UltraNET.Org Hofors.SE.EU.UltraNET.Org Bergen.NO.EU.UltraNET.Org Once you are connected to a server join channel: #UFO The uk.ufo.nw #UFO channel is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Visit the channel at any time. There is usually someone there to talk to. For those of you needing help connecting to our IRC meetings send your questions to: ufo-irc-advice@crowman.demon.co.uk If you want to be a little more adventurous and perhaps use one of the dedicated IRC programs such as the excellent MIRC visit the below urls for advice: http://www.crowman.demon.co.uk/ultranet.htm http://web.ukonline.co.uk/phil.light/irchelp.htm SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The UK.UFO.NW free fortnightly e-zine covering UFO reports and information from the UK and around the world is now available by subscribing to our new List Server. Send mail to: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu In the main body of the mail put: subscribe ufo fn ln note: in place of fn put your first name. in place of ln put your last name. For example: subscribe ufo John Smith A confirm mail will then be sent to you which you need to reply to within 48 hours to be put on the e-zine mailing list. If you have problems you may also subscribe by sending mail to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk In the subject section of your mail type: SUBSCRIBE
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:16:00 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 03:56:27 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:04:39 -0500 >While of course I'm on Jerry Clark's side in his dispute with my >other friend the Duke, there's one point on which I must -- with >great sadness -- dissent: <snip> >In New York, depending on where you go to the movies, the price >can be as high as $9.50. >Sony's theaters are the worst offenders. Which makes me wonder >whether Sony ( a devious corporation if ever there was one) is >plugged into deep UFO secrets, and overcharges us at the movies >to syphon money toward the maintainance of captive aliens..... >hey, why not? I don't want to hear about Sony Music chief Tommy >Mottola's alleged mob ties. This is MUCH better! >Greg Sandow Greg, I understand the above is tongue in cheek, but suppose all of us who think there must be a less than literal interpretation of abduction accounts were to concede abject defeat (not to mention intellectual poverty, perverse rhetorical tactics, and CIA/Sony connections, etc), what then? Let's assume Budd et al aren't asking leading questions one, but are only soliciting the objective truth. What then? Obviously, the godlike aliens, with their ability to scoop out human brain pans and determine (in)visibility at will, are in charge here, AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT. The aliens have won, they've taken over. It doesn't matter, and never will, in the ultimate scheme of things, that Menzel or Sagan, or you or I, J. Clark or the Duke, ever lived. Or that mainstream science as a whole never paid no mind. We're whupped, done, beaten, finished, dude, that's the end of it. We're high-grade cattle for the Zeti Reticulans, so why are we even bothering to discuss this stuff? If true, or only half true, I think everyone on this list owes the Air Force a hearty round of applause (and apology) for having covered up the truth as long as they have. I mean, if you had your choice between a planet in panic, but still ripe for the plucking, or a plucked planet that went about its daily business, which would you choose? At least in our ignorant bliss (of the fact that some 4 million Americans have already been abducted by Budd's last count, a number growing daily), some of us are still able to raise a family and hold down a job. Don't know about you, but there's not a day goes by but what I don't personally wake up every morning and first off thank the Air Force for a job well done. If Sony gets to siphon a few bucks off the top of the cost of coverup, that's fine with me. If movies like "Starship Troopers" and "Independence Day" are merely someone's idea of gradually introducing us to reality, that's fine, too, although I am curious as to why we Earthlings keep winning in the face of such omnipotent odds. Homo sapiens spin doctors, I can only presume. So we concede! You've won. We're all wrong and you're all right. Alien abductors with godlike powers, I mean, advanced technology, are here, "here, there, and everywhere," and peons like us are absolutely powerless to halt them -- despite what crazed patriots like Corso contend. You could be next! I just hope if you're abducted before I am that you don't turn Quisling on us. Remember: all that the diplomatic treaty with the aliens, signed in 1954 by President Eisenhower (after serious consultation with the members of MJ-12), requires is that you surrender your sperrm and social security number. *You don't have to collaborate.* Your privacy and other rights are protected by galactic treaty. Abductions are allowed only on weekends, between the hours of 1900 and 0300. If you feel your planetary rights have been violated, contact the nearest Secretary General of the United Nations. If he's been abducted, too, you're in deep do-do. How can you tell? If he denies being abducted, then he obviously has, and just doesn't want to go public with the admission. At the same time, if he says he *has* been abducted, then you'll know you're still on the right track. Since you can't lose either way, it's best to assume you have both been abducted repeatedly since childhood, at which time you were introduced to your present significant other, whom you would only encounter, thanks to alien intervention in the affairs of humans, many years later. If the details are vague and need to be recovered under hypnosis by a disinterested UFO hypnotist/researcher later, it may well be that you are suffering from episodes of missing time. In light of the above, I think it's rather churlish of you to complain about current movie ticket prices in the Big Apple. Given the alternative, I'd say it's a bargain at twice the price. And I'd go for the bucket of buttered popcorn and 24oz soda -- the so-called "caloric killer" -- while I was at it. Hey, enjoy life while you can! Tomorrow you may be abducted. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Left at East Gate Lecture - Peter Robbins From: JGBOUCK@aol.com [James Bouck Jr.] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:02:36 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:03:29 -0500 Subject: Left at East Gate Lecture - Peter Robbins Peter Robbins, the co-author of the book LEFT AT EAST GATE will be lecturing in Albany, N. Y. on Friday, Nov. 21, 1997. He will be at the Ramada Inn, on Western Ave, across from the Univ. at Albany. The talk will start at 7:00 p.m. He will lecture and present slides about the events that occurred to Larry Warren during and after his discharge from the military. $7.00 admission. The lecture is being presented by the Capital Region of New York Mutual UFO Network.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:04:47 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:09:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:56:23 -0600 >From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Michael wrote: >>From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> >>Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony >>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 >Hi Scott. >Yes. He did describe them as delta shaped, similar to what today we >would describe as the B-2. >I have an audio tape of his initial conversation with the reporters >at the airport. Michael, As you may be aware, with John Powell's permission I placed a copy of the audio file on my web site, at URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/saucers.htm For the record, the transcript of that interview is as follows: NEWSCASTER: The nation, every newscaster, and every newspaper across the nation has made headlines out of it, and this afternoon we are honored, indeed, to have here in our studio this man, Kenneth Arnold, who, we believe, may be able to give us a first-hand account and give you the same on what happened. Kenneth, first of all if you'll move up here to the microphone just a little closer, we'll ask you to just tell in your own fashion, as you told us last night in your hotel room, and again this morning, what you were doing there and how this entire thing started. Go ahead, Kenneth. KENNETH ARNOLD: Well, about 2:15 I took off from Chehalis, Washington, en route to Yakima, and, of course, every time that any of us fly over the country near Mt. Rainier, we spend an hour or two in search of the Marine plane that's never been found that they believe is in the snow someplace southwest of that particular area. That area is located at about, it's elevation is about 10,000 foot, and I had made one sweep in close to Mt. Rainier and down one of the canyons and was dragging it for any types of objects that might prove to be the Marine ship, uh, and as I come out of the canyon there, was about 15 minutes, I was approximately 25 to 28 miles from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I noticed to the left of me a chain which looked to me like the tail of a Chinese kite, kind of weaving and going at a terrific speed across the face of Mt. Rainier. I, at first, thought they were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of new jet planes in formation. Well, as the plane come to the edge of Mt. Rainier flying at about 160 degrees south, I thought I would clock them because it was such a clear day, and I didn't know where their destination was, but due to the fact that I had Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams to clock them by, I just thought I'd see just how fast they were going, since among pilots we argue about speed so much. And, they seemed to flip and flash in the sun, just like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an angle from the sun that seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar looking things in such a way that it almost blinded you when you looked at them through your plexiglass windshield. Well, uh, I uh, it was about one minute to three when I started clocking them on my sweep second hand clock, and as I kept looking at them, I kept looking for their tails, and they didn't have any tail. I thought, well, maybe something's wrong with my eyes and I turned the plane around and opened the window, and looked out the window, and sure enough, I couldn't find any tails on 'em. And, uh, the whole, our observation of these particular ships, didn't last more than about two and a half minutes and I could see them only plainly when they seemed to tip their wing, or whatever it was, and the sun flashed on them. They looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear. Now, I thought, well, that maybe they're jet planes with just the tails painted green or brown or something, and I didn't think too much of it, but kept on watching them. They didn't fly in a conventional formation that's taught in our army, they seemed to kind of weave in and out right above the mountaintops, and I would say that they even went down into the canyons in several instances, oh, probably a hundred feet, but I could see them against the snow, of course, on Mt. Rainier and against the snow on Mt. Adams as they were flashing, and against a high ridge that happens to lay in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams. But when I observed the tail end of the last one passing Mt. Adams, and I was at an angle near Mt. Rainier from it, but I looked at my watch and it showed one minute and 42 seconds. Well, I felt that was pretty fast and I didn't stop to think what the distance was between the two mountains. Well, I landed at Yakima, Washington, and Al Baxter was there to greet me and he said ...[unintelligible]... and, he told me, I guess I better change my brand, but he kind of gave me a mysterious sort of a look that maybe I had seen something, he didn't know, and well, I just kind of forgot it then, until I got down to Pendleton and I began looking at my map and taking measurements on it and the best calculation I could figure out, now even in spite of error, would be around 1200 miles an hour, because making the distance from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams, in, we'll say approximately two minutes, it's almost, well, it'd be around 25 miles per minute. Now allowing for air, we can give them three minutes or four minutes to make it, and they're still going more than 800 miles an hour, and to my knowledge, there isn't anything that I've read about, outside of some of the German rockets, that would go that fast. These were flying in more or less a level, constant altitude. They weren't going up and they weren't going down. They were just simply flying straight and level and I, I laughed ...[unintelligible]..., they sure must have had a tailwind. But it didn't seem to help me much. But to the best of my knowledge, and the best of my description, that is what I actually saw, and, uh, like I told the Associated Press, I'll, I'd be glad to confirm it with my hands on a Bible because I did see it, and whether it has anything to do with our army or our intelligence or whether it has to do with some foreign country, I don't know. But I did see it and I did clock it and I just happened to be in a beautiful position to do it and it's just as much a mystery to me as it is to everyone else who's been calling me the last 24 hours, wondering what it was. NEWSCASTER: Well, Kenneth, thank you very much. I know that you've certainly been busy these last 24 hours, 'cause I've spent some of the time with you myself, and I know that the press associations, both Associated Press and our press, the United Press, has been right after you every minute. The Associated and the United Press, all over the nation, have been after this story. It's been on every newscast, over the air, and in every newspaper I know of. The United Press in Portland has made several telephone calls here at Pendleton to me, and to you this morning, and from New York I understand, they are after this story, and that we may have an answer ...[unintelligible]... because, if it is some new type of army or navy secret missile, there would probably a story come out on it from the army or navy asking, saying that it is a new secret plane and that will be all there is to it, and they will hush up the story, or perhaps that we will finally get a definite answer to it. I understand the United Press is checking on it out of New York now with the Army, and also with the Navy, and we hope to have some concrete answer before nightfall. We certainly want to thank you, Kenneth for coming into our studio. We feel very pleased that this news which is making nationwide news across the country, we are able to give our listeners over KWRC a first-hand report direct from you, of what you saw. And we urge our listeners to keep tuned to this station, because anytime this afternoon or this evening, and we get something on it on our United Press teletype, which is in direct communications with new York, Chicago, Portland, in fact, every United Press bureau across the nation, why, we'll have it on the air". [End] As a general contribution to discussions - It's an important interview in many respects and not having seen this for a while, but having just re-read 'Resolving Arnold - Parts 1 & 2', by Martin Kottmeyer, I note Arnold's comments, "I, at first, thought they were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of new jet planes in formation". Kottmeyer writes: "Returning to Arnold's report: 'They flew like many times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were linked together'. That is what they certainly seem like. Geese do fly in chains. A number of nine makes sense. The arrangement of the leader being higher than the others, unlike military formations, is sensible for geese who take advantage of the downdraft turbulence of others in the formation for easier flying. Geese chains do undulate like kite tails. They do present a basically flat side profile when seen edge-on. From above they have a bilateral symmetry like the heel drawn by Arnold. In his Congress paper he however emphatically denies this idea, '-- but they were not geese!' He does not explain the reasoning". I wonder if Kottmeyer has ever seen this interview and realises that Arnold appears to dismiss the explanation based on his estimation of the objects' speed. If Arnold's air-speed calculations were wrong, which is of course conceivable and at best they were subjective, there are key aspects of Arnold's descriptions which otherwise correlate. However, Kottmeyer also notes that 9200 feet is a rather high altitude for geese to be flying and is doubtful whether an experienced pilot such as Arnold would misidentify a flock of geese. Perhaps the most important point is Arnold's initial confirmation that the objects, "looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear". Kottmeyer's articles can be read at the following URL's: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n06/resolving-arnold-part-1.html http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n07/resolving-arnold-part-2.html In the second part, he helpfully reproduces Arnold's original drawing for the Air Force files. This matches what Arnold describes in the interview. Some years later, Arnold's story featured in "The Coming of the Saucers", by Ray Palmer (and Arnold?) and although I haven't seen this, I understand it includes a photograph of Arnold showing a sketch of a boomerang-shaped object, with the caption, "This is a photo of a model of the strange disk Arnold saw over the Cascades, June 1947". This differs significantly from Arnold's original drawing and a copy of the photograph, along with some further material on the case, can be found on my web site at the above mentioned URL. That material includes "The Complete Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis", by Bruce Maccabee, available on-line with Bruce's permission. So, why the considerable discrepancy between Arnold's sketches? I have never seen this explained. A further article on the Arnold case is "The Mystery of the Ken Arnold Story", by Kathleen Andersen and this is also on-line at URL: http://www.pdsnorth.com/~mufonwa/arnold.html Kathleen claims that, "Arnold left out one important bit of data: one of the 9 craft was different from the rest. He thought it would diminish the story". Perhaps Kathleen is the best person to ask and I'll do so if necessary, but is there known evidence to substantiate this? Whatever the reasons for the disconcerting anomalies in Arnold's sketches, the public's perception was based not on any descriptions, but as we know only too well, by a misconstrued comment he made about the objects' flight characteristics, Arnold confirming in 'The Coming of the Saucers': "As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton, Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water". So far as I know, it was a reporter named Bill Begrette who first described that Arnold had seen "flying saucers". And the rest, as they say, is misery. ;) Incidentally, on Kottmeyer's belief that 9200 feet is an unlikely altitude for geese to be flying, perhaps worth considering, for ease of reference, the information at URL: http://lucky.innet.com/~brad/geese.html which states: "An Eagle may rise at least to the height of 17,000 feet, for it is there just visible. Flocks of Storks and Geese may mount still higher...". And that "AIP bird hazards" at URL: http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/aerodrme/birdstke/info/images/geese/ge spring.gif [this URL has wrapped around] shows the "spring migration route" for geese indicates a hazard "UP TO 12,000 FEET". It may not therefore be so unlikely that a flock of geese is the explanation for Arnold's sighting. Maybe it wasn't, but if we can't trust the variance in the evidence, how can we trust his overall judgement? Kottmeyer and Andersen also note this wasn't to prove the last time Kenneth Arnold saw a flock of 'UFOs'. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:02:44 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:11:10 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? Regarding... >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:09:05 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Henny wrote: >I retract my suggestion that you did not do any elementary research. Henny, Thank you. I had merely noted that, "the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap was _officially_ explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter and no pilot ever witnessed an actual object", to which you replied: "The people who were involved in this investigation would either hav been insulted or would have rolled over the floor over this explanation. Ground clutter! The official explanation was 'unknown craft'." Having provided some material which confirms the background to the BAF's subsequent conclusions, that was my sole intention. As the overall evidence is open to interpretation, I neither endorse or dispute those conclusions. I would only wish to add that your subsequent comment, in reply to Peter Brookesmith, stating there exists, "over 2,500 visual sightings, 25 videofilms and one photograph that shows a triangular craft with three lights", refers to evidence which is equally open to interpretation. In a 1991 report provided to the ParaNet network, by Jean Manfroid of the Liege University and the Institute of Astrophysics, Manfroid and his colleagues wrote: "We were also asked to examine several video tapes received by the national TV station. Again, Venus was almost always the culprit. These tapes were, as a rule, affected by very bad images, the automatic focusing being fooled by surrounding objects, or by trying to catch a point source at infinity... Nice effects were obtained with extra-focal images of the aperture stop, pulsating disks etc. We were often surprised by the descriptions given by the people who took the videos: they cited distances of 30 or 50 meters, they spoke of hanging globes, moving rapidly, following their cars etc... though their recordings showed much more benign events. Invariably, all those people were looking at the sky for the first time. This raises some doubts on the validity of occasional witnesses. Some of these accounts, as well as others, were relayed by the media. Video tapes of aircrafts at night, showing only their lights were visible. The snowball effect rapidly developed. Witnesses appeared, reporting triangles in the sky, while frustrated astronomers, albeit logging many more hours of observations (with sophisticated equipment), continued to see satellites, meteorites, aircrafts (at times as triangles of light spots)". The full report can be found on various web sites, one being at URL: http://www.ufobbs.com/txt2/1555.ufo I'm not so sure there were 2500 reports during that period, but whatever, it's well documented that many of them described a wide range of aerial phenomena. 2500 reports and 25 video tapes of a triangular object, there unfortunately was not. The Petit-Rechain photograph, presumably the one you refer to, does not necessarily portray a "craft" and although it seems to be regarded as authentic, how can we ever be sure it isn't a hoax? Nevertheless, taking it at face value, there's a lesser known computer enhancement of the photograph and some further related material on my web site at URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/triangle.htm The topic has diversified into a specific discussion on the '89-90 Belgian incidents and interesting though that is, it's not a path I have time to follow other than superficially at the moment and I doubt it leads to a new vista. The point I addressed was whether any evidence exists to support the contention that some governments now openly embrace the ET hypothesis, specifically, that ET visitations are a matter of concern to them. If there is no such evidence, which I have yet to see provided, then perhaps we can accept that the 'ET hypothesis' isn't in fact being recognised and acknowledged, as suggested. The Belgian case is an indication that some governments, or elements thereof, can be objective and candid about the possibilities, but it doesn't go beyond that. There simply isn't the accepted evidence to do so. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 "Catch 'em in the act" research From: jpeterson@polaristel.net [Candy Peterson] Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 23:57:49 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 04:14:54 -0500 Subject: "Catch 'em in the act" research Hello all, I'm a field investigator and researcher with Minnesota MUFON. We're compiling a list of known attempts to authenticate the source(s) -- ET or otherwise -- of UFO/alien abductions. There are many anecdotal accounts of camera malfunction and various forms of interference. The commonly held opinion is that "they" simply can't be caught in the act by our relatively primitive recording devices. We're collecting the data for analysis to see what can be learned from the failed attempts as well as from any margin of verification success. I have a list in progress, but I'm looking for additional published as well as unpublished documentation about these efforts to capture objective evidence of contact. Ideally, this would include as many informational details as possible, including: Technical descriptions of the equipment used (cameras, motion detectors, security systems, etc.) Dates & general locations Types of equipment failures (battery, film, disconnection, etc.) Specific interference or non-cooperation by the abduction experiencer Results of the attempts, including any change in the abduction frequency or detectable impact on the abductors' behavior Ufologist or other contact names/addresses, but the names of experiencers can certainly be withheld if desired. Please assist us in gathering this important data which we will compile and post to the Minnesota MUFON web site. Send pertinent source information, contact addresses, or unpublished documentation to me. Thanks for any assistance in this serious effort! --Candy Peterson, jpeterson@polaristel.net ----------------------------------- Minnesota MUFON http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/ -----------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:42:48 -0700 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:18:55 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:55:27 -0600 (CST) > Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:50:36 -0500 > Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback > >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:04:36 -0500 (EST) > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) > >Subject: Discovery channel special. > Tom King writes re the UFO's Over Phoenix documentary: > > The computer work which overlays the Mike Krysten video near the > > shows end is way off. I can't believe someone on the list hasn't > > pointed this out yet. > > Look just over the upper hill thats closest to the camera in the > > left part of the screen there is a tree. In the actual video the > > "loner" object on the left side is always seen, to the right and > > part way up the tree. > > These other people have it far over on the left of the tree. It > > appears they have resampled the lights to far, and placed in the > > wrong spot! This could have been done purposely to support the > > flare theories. > It looked to me that since the tree was in the foreground (relative > to the mountains and the lights) the relative positions of the tree > and the "loner" light would be strongly affected by the exact > position of the camera. They said only that the daylight video was > taken from approximately the same position as the night time video, > not from _exactly_ the same position. So I don't see how the tree > being in a slightly different position in the foreground shows that > their analysis was "way off". > -George Fergus Misalignment of the image overlays does, to some degree, invalidate the research and therefore the conclusions. This does not suggest that the conclusions are wrong but it does suggest the conclusions were drawn upon erroneus data. I flipped through the sequece in the recording of the Discovery special I made and noticed that the overlays appeared to be off as Tom suggests. A more accurate daytime video that reporduces all of the characteristics of Krysten's March 13 footage would be required. If we are to put stock in this model the image alignment must be precise. Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Strange Aircraft? From: Mike Smith <mickey@anix340.dev.anix.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:50:41 +0000 (GMT) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:53:06 -0500 Subject: Strange Aircraft? Hi All, Been looking up for a long time now and never seen nothing [Don't you just love those double negatives]. I live and work in an area where air traffic is quite common. Were on a main trans atlantic route and quite close to British Aerospace. So we get a lot of commercial and military type traffic. Fighters occaisionally buzz my office at just above the roof tops. [At least that's what it seems like when they go over] So against this background I have to report that I saw something strange last night. Don't know what kind of aircraft it was and I was wondering if someone could help me. It was a large Black/Dark triangular/delta shaped aircraft. It appeared to be taking the commercial transatlantic route. It had a very large and brilliant light on the front. It looked like it glowing golfball being pushed along in front of the dark triangular body of the aircraft. The object left a cone-trail but this was choppy. Not doughnuts on a rope but start/stop/start/stop. There were other contrails in evidence. These were normal, though I have no way of telling if they were at the same altitude and therefore subject to the same conditions as those belonging to the object. It wasn't Concorde. I've seen this quite often because it was built here and it's a frequent transatlantic visitor. So there we go something large and delta shaped, with a very bright nose mounted light, flying in a commercial air corridor. Sadly no fantastic areobatics, no tremendous speeds and no black helicopters. Just something that looked strange and out of place. Any Ideas? Regards, Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Smith Anix Computers Ltd "Death isn't the Handicap it used to be" Third Technician, Dave Lister Jupiter Mining Corporation -------------------------------------------------------------------------- mickey@anix.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:47:26 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:48:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:34:11 +0100 >From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:00:20 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Belgian Radar-Visual [was: ET Hypothesis: >> Government Concern?] >>>Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 17:07:02 +0100 >>>From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> >>>Subject: Belgian Radar-Visual. (was: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>As I said earlier, it was inevitable for a new bogus explanation >>to arise. >>Furthermore, inspired by this case I am assembling a collection >>of Rules of Ufology, that will eventually be included in Bogus Book, >>so that it can serve as a sort of survival handbook for the >>ufologist. >>Hall of Fame of Bogus Explanations for the Belgium case: >>'Ghost', 'Zombie' - Eduardo Russo=B7 >>Bogus because: 25 videos and one photograph exist. Object >>played cat and mouse game with F16 pursuers. >I be your pardon but, though honored to be included in your Hall >of Fame, I doubt that I should, since: >a) item 11 above is but the same as item 10 Ah! Well, in an earlier post someone said that atmospheric diffraction concerned visual observations. Now, having cleared this up, would you please explain what this phenomenon actually is. How does a typical ghost/atmospheric diffraction behave in terms of altitude, speed, acceleration, heading? Do radar operators often confuse it for an aircraft? >b) I am not its author, merely reporting it (mmmh! the >messenger-shooting habit is becoming more and more common here >'round, isn't it?) OK, then please give me the name of the author. Credit where credit is due. >But, for sake of argument, let's say I give it some merit. May I >answer your objection by a question: are you meaning "25 videos >and one photograph exist" of THAT specific object on THAT >specific night, at THAT SAME specific time as the ground >observations AND the radar targets (well! I might have lost >something made known AFTER I last read SOBEPS reports), or are >you more generally referring to pictures and videos of OTHER >sightings of the Belgian wave (like the Alfarano one of a landing >plane)? No, there were 25 people waiting in the middle of the night with camcorders for the object to make simultaneous contact with ground and air radar and at that point someone said 'yes' and they all pushed the button. No, of course not, it concerns the whole flap. >IMHO that would be quite a different matter. Yes, it would give room for the mass hallucination bogus theory. Don't tell me, 6 tapes were doctored, 5 tapes were a flight of geese, 4 tapes were Venus, 3 other tapes were Jupiter, 6 tapes were atmospheric diffraction, 1 one was a private aircraft, 2 might have been something, but we're not sure, so we don't have proof. Right? >I remain waiting for you to clear us such detail, before even >discussing that other detail of the UFO that played cat and mouse >game with F16 pursuers, something of which plenty of useful and >instructive examples exist in UFO literature. I guess that would become bogus theory 13 (The Duke was number 12 with his miscalibrated radar). Are you sure you want to get an unlucky number, Eduardo? But seriously, first answer the question about the properties of atmospheric diffraction. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH &c From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:30:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:59:22 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:22:56 -0500 >As I may have remarked here before, it's funny that I keep >rushing to Budd Hopkins's defense. In private -- to his face, >that is -- I'm more likely to criticize him. >However, some of the stuff I read here is simply out to lunch: >> From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] >> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:23:21 -0500 (EST) >> To: updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Re: ETH &c >> Yes, Hopkins does make the same fundamental error as Mack- his >> beliefs clearly influence how he reports and studies abduction >> accounts, to the point of leading his subjects. But don't take >> my word for it, read Bullard's The Sympathetic Ear, pages 66-67, >> where he clearly describes Hopkins' status as the Typhoid Mary of >> the hybrid baby motif. Even one of Bullard's respondents >> recognized this fact. While Bullard concludes Hopkins' obvious >> influence on such an important element in the abduction narrative >> is relatively unimportant in evaluating the source of abduction >> claims, I think reasonable people can disagree. >Jeff, would you care to provide transcripts of Budd's sessions >with abductees, in which you can show us how he leads them? >Perhaps I have an advantage on you here, since I've sat in on >some of these sessions, and haven't noticed any such thing. But >there are plenty of samples in print, notably, just for instance >-- and lengthily -- in "Connections," a book by the two abductees >who call themselves Beth and Anna. I didn't notice any leading in >those transcripts, but then, maybe you think I've been >contaminated with typhoid myself. >Your move. >Greg Sandow Greg, I couldn't agree more. While I disagree with many of Budd's conclusions, I can't fault his research, and my impression is that he bends over backwards not to lead his subjects. Besides, having learned to hypnotize people back in college, I know just how hard it is to lead hypnotic subjects. I think most people have gotten their ideas about hypnosis and how it works from TV and bad movies and know very little about the reality of it. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: UFOs Over Phoenix: Dilettoso color analysis From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:42:32 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:29:46 -0500 Subject: Re: UFOs Over Phoenix: Dilettoso color analysis >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:47:43 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: UFOs Over Phoenix: Dilettoso color analysis >I have been trying to figure out Jim Dilettoso's color analysis, >as presented in the Discovery Channel documentary. It was not >very clear to me, but I presume that someone here on the list >knows more about it. My basic problem is with video color >analysis of an object whose color in the video is clearly wrong. >According to all the witnesses, the 10pm lights were amber or >orange. But on the videos, particularly the Mike Krysten video >that is commonly shown, the lights appear white. I presume that >this is not because everybody's white balance was way off, but >because the lights were so bright that they exceeded the maximum >brightness capability of the camera. When this happens, the >"white clip" circuit in the camera would be activated and would >produce a constant white output, instead of the real brightness >and color of the incoming light. >So then Jim Dilettoso analyzes the video and finds that for these >lights the red, green and blue portions of the spectrum all line >up exactly, and this is different from the spectral signature of >normal lights, including flares. The brightness of the lights >also doesn't vary, as one would expect if they were flares. But >isn't this spectral signature and lack of brightness variation >exactly what you would expect for a pure white produced >internally within the video camera by the white clip circuitry? >-George Fergus George, I know I'll be attacked for saying so, but I have never seen the slightest indication from the material I have see that Dilettoso knows anything about photo or video analysis. Someone recently sent me a photo which Dilettoso and co. had "analyzed". On it was a small "UFO" over a lake. Dilettoso had told the owner of the photo that it was lens flare after doing his snake oil show computer stuff. I took the negative into my darkroom, ran the enlarger all the way up, and made a print. The "UFO" was very clearly a bird!!! It did not require any computer equipment or any other fancy gear to do a real analysis in this case. With the exception of Bruce Maccabee and a very few others, I have been uniformly disgusted with the so-called photographic analysts paraded around the UFO field. They show only a rudimentary technical knowledge of photography and video, if they show any at all. Bob Shell
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: "Catch 'em in the act" research From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:48:48 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:31:54 -0500 Subject: Re: "Catch 'em in the act" research >From: jpeterson@polaristel.net [Candy Peterson] >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 23:57:49 PST >Subject: "Catch 'em in the act" research >To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net> >Hello all, >I'm a field investigator and researcher with Minnesota MUFON. >We're compiling a list of known attempts to authenticate >the source(s) -- ET or otherwise -- of UFO/alien abductions. >There are many anecdotal accounts of camera malfunction and >various forms of interference. The commonly held opinion is >that "they" simply can't be caught in the act by our relatively >primitive recording devices. Candy, I think just the opposite may be true. It is, perhaps, the sophistication of our recording devices that is the problem. Nearly all modern cameras use electronic systems to control their operation. Such systems are vulnerable to disruption by strong EMF. In earlier days with completely mechanical cameras, I don't think this was a problem. I have suggested for some time that it may well be impossible to get close range images of UFOs with modern still cameras or video cameras. I have suggested that serious UFO investigators should be equipped with completely mechanical cameras. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:22:34 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:41:52 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c This is for all but most especially for Peter Brookesmith (aka Peregrine Mendoza) >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:29:27 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >The general >rule, irritatingly conservative as it is, remains in place: if >you want to argue that UFOs are ET, it's up to you to prove it, >not for the doubters to disprove it. The door is wide open here. At first I thought this was bloody simple because I thought that it would be very easy to explain just exactly what the Extra Terrestial Hypothesis is, but unfortuanately I misread it, I had thought he meant explain exactly what the ETH is. Before we can go any further I will have to explain exactly what it is that I understand the ETH to be. I believe the ETH to be quite simple: Some of the Unidentified Flying Objects that are sighted by witnesses could be vehicles from another planet. Quite simple, nothing more prosaic is needed, all the other paraphenalia surrounding the ETH is only associative not directly ETH, (IMHO). That stated we can now move on. What is an unidentified flying object (UFO)? The late Dr J. Allen Hynek, who spent 40 years studying the enigma, would respond to such a question by posing another: "Unidenitified to whom?" ('UFO: the Complete Sightings' catalogue, by Peter Brookesmith) It is the UFO's that remain unidentified which intrigue ufologists and puzzle the public. They may represent as little as five percent of UFO reports, ('UFO The Government Files', by Peter Brookesmith) ((two excellent books even if I do dissagree with most of his conclusions)) Quite simply not every report of a UFO remains a mystery. Of all the UFO reports as Peter correctly points out 95 percent are explainable, ie, conventional aircraft, blimps, birds, rare weather conditions, kites and even dare I say it, "earth lights". However it is the unexplained UFO's that we are all interested in. Of this five percent of UFO's let me put it to you that *some* could be experimental/secret technology. So lets knock off another 1 percent just for that. We are now down to a conservative 4 percent of all sightings that just will not be explained away. We are therefore left with three basic choices. 1) The witness is lying. A) In which case what about the multiple witness sightings that are reported?? 2) There is not enough available information to elimnate the object as an unidentified. A) You still left with a witness who says he/she saw something. 3) There was indeed something there, we just don't know what it was. There are many ideas of what that object might be, but where did it come from is perhaps the most intrigueing. The Atlantis and Inner Earth theories are two other explanations but they tend to hold less water (please forgive the pun) than the most popular by far, the Extra Terrestial Hypothesis. F.D. Drake, a United States astrophysicist devised an equation to prove mathematically that there must be other life in the universe. His equation mathematically suggests the relationship of the number of stars like earth's, the number of stars with planetary systems, the number of planets in each system having conditions suitable for the origin of life, the number of those planets on which life could actually develope, the number of those planets on which intelligent life could evolve, the number of those intelligent populations that could develope civilisations capable of interstellar travel. So we have a mathematical formula that *proves* that there must be life out there, and a high probability that some of them have the capability of interstellar travel. Now we are at the point where we must either accept that there is life out there or stuff it, there is no life out there. If you are one of those who will not accept that there is life out there then you have no credence in the ETH. If you are one of those who believes that there is indeed life out there then please read on. Is it unreasonable to suggest that this intelligent other life, which has achived interstellar travel, has traveled to our lovely planet earth? Stan Friedman has already shown us that we do not need to exceed the speed of light to visit other stars and/or solar systems. One reason they might have for coming here is: We have been broadcasting for many years our radio and TV signals into outer space, might they not be coming to investigate the source of those signals?? That is only one suggestion and of course, there is much evidence that our visitors have been visiting earth a lot longer than that. So my understanding of the ETH: "Some of the Unidentified Flying Objects that are sighted by witnesses could indeed be vehicles from another planet" has credibility. Its only a matter of weather you agree with me or not. Finally Peter BUT as to hardcore physical proof to substantiate the ETH, I must bow down to you, and apologise, for I have none personally. But is it not a *reasonable* hypothesis?? Sean Jones A man humbled by the fact that he cannot lay his hand on the nearest alien artifact or delta wing spacecraft.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:33:22 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:26:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:04:47 -0500 > From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Regarding... > >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:56:23 -0600 > >From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony (snip) > Kottmeyer writes: > "Returning to Arnold's report: 'They flew like many times I have > observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they > were linked together'. That is what they certainly seem like. Geese > do fly in chains. A number of nine makes sense. The arrangement of the > leader being higher than the others, unlike military formations, is > sensible for geese who take advantage of the downdraft turbulence of > others in the formation for easier flying. Geese chains do undulate > like kite tails. They do present a basically flat side profile when > seen edge-on. > >From above they have a bilateral symmetry like the heel drawn by > Arnold. In his Congress paper he however emphatically denies this > idea, '-- but they were not geese!' > He does not explain the reasoning". When this "explanation" by Kottmeyer was brought to my attention, I initially considered writing something about it. Then I decided it was a waste of time, since the "explanation" was as ludicrous as something Donald Menzel would have put forth. But, OK, here it is, lying on the table, so I'll offer a few comments: 1) When was the last time you noticed a specular reflection from a goose or a swan - especially when said goose or swan was backed by either clear sky or a snowfield? The answer - birds do not generate specular reflections. 2) When was the last time a goose or swan in flight gave the impression of being 20 times longer than thick? The answer - Neither geese nor swans have this ratio, even with necks extended. 3) The shape of the objects as shown in the original drawing must be regarded as definitive. A description can only go so far in suggesting size, shape and proportion, and a picture created immediately after the incident must be considered more reliable than one created considerably later. The original drawing does not show something which looks like a swan or goose, or like swan or goose wings, which are invariable held straight to the side like aircraft wings. 4) Arnold was clearly able to identify a nearby aircraft (which was at a significantly higher altitude and at 15 miles distance). Thus, there is no reason to expect him to fail to identify another aircraft. And since he also thought of the "goose" analogy for the flight pattern, one can expect that he spent nearly two minutes looking at something for which he had already held the hypothesis of being an aircraft or a bird, and still was unable to identify it. As Arnold points out: "Even though two minutes seems like a very short time to one on the ground, in the air in two minutes time, a pilot can observe a great many things, and anything within his sight of vision probably as many as fifty or sixty times". The style of argumentation reflected in every one of Kottmeyer's "explanations" is to seize upon a single characteristic of a report, construct a hypothesis based on that single aspect, discard or distort any testimony inconvenient to the explanation, and declare the case solved. That is hardly scientific. If one is allowed to say that the witness misperceived this, that, and the other thing, and therefore one can pick any actual perception in place, this is fantasizing, not analysis. Let's give credibility to explanations which account for all of the witness testimony and the actual facts of reality. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:32:26 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:22:55 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:16:00 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:04:39 -0500 > Greg, > I understand the above is tongue in cheek, but suppose all of us > who think there must be a less than literal interpretation of > abduction accounts were to concede abject defeat (not to mention > intellectual poverty, perverse rhetorical tactics, and CIA/Sony > connections, etc), what then? Let's assume Budd et al aren't > asking leading questions one, but are only soliciting the > objective truth. What then? > Obviously, the godlike aliens, with their ability to scoop out > human brain pans and determine (in)visibility at will, are in > charge here, AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT. The > aliens have won, they've taken over. It doesn't matter, and never > will, in the ultimate scheme of things, that Menzel or Sagan, or > you or I, J. Clark or the Duke, ever lived. Or that mainstream > science as a whole never paid no mind. We're whupped, done, > beaten, finished, dude, that's the end of it. We're high-grade > cattle for the Zeti Reticulans, so why are we even bothering to > discuss this stuff? > If true, or only half true, I think everyone on this list owes > the Air Force a hearty round of applause (and apology) for having > covered up the truth as long as they have. I mean, if you had > your choice between a planet in panic, but still ripe for the > plucking, or a plucked planet that went about its daily business, > which would you choose? At least in our ignorant bliss (of the > fact that some 4 million Americans have already been abducted by > Budd's last count, a number growing daily), some of us are still > able to raise a family and hold down a job. > Don't know about you, but there's not a day goes by but what I > don't personally wake up every morning and first off thank the > Air Force for a job well done. If Sony gets to siphon a few bucks > off the top of the cost of coverup, that's fine with me. If > movies like "Starship Troopers" and "Independence Day" are merely > someone's idea of gradually introducing us to reality, that's > fine, too, although I am curious as to why we Earthlings keep > winning in the face of such omnipotent odds. Homo sapiens spin > doctors, I can only presume. > So we concede! You've won. We're all wrong and you're all right. > Alien abductors with godlike powers, I mean, advanced technology, > are here, "here, there, and everywhere," and peons like us are > absolutely powerless to halt them -- despite what crazed patriots > like Corso contend. You could be next! I just hope if you're > abducted before I am that you don't turn Quisling on us. > Remember: all that the diplomatic treaty with the aliens, signed > in 1954 by President Eisenhower (after serious consultation with > the members of MJ-12), requires is that you surrender your sperrm > and social security number. *You don't have to collaborate.* Your > privacy and other rights are protected by galactic treaty. > Abductions are allowed only on weekends, between the hours of > 1900 and 0300. > If you feel your planetary rights have been violated, contact the > nearest Secretary General of the United Nations. If he's been > abducted, too, you're in deep do-do. How can you tell? If he > denies being abducted, then he obviously has, and just doesn't > want to go public with the admission. At the same time, if he > says he *has* been abducted, then you'll know you're still on the > right track. Since you can't lose either way, it's best to assume > you have both been abducted repeatedly since childhood, at which > time you were introduced to your present significant other, whom > you would only encounter, thanks to alien intervention in the > affairs of humans, many years later. If the details are vague and > need to be recovered under hypnosis by a disinterested UFO > hypnotist/researcher later, it may well be that you are suffering > from episodes of missing time. > In light of the above, I think it's rather churlish of you to > complain about current movie ticket prices in the Big Apple. > Given the alternative, I'd say it's a bargain at twice the price. > And I'd go for the bucket of buttered popcorn and 24oz soda -- > the so-called "caloric killer" -- while I was at it. Hey, enjoy > life while you can! Tomorrow you may be abducted. > Dennis Dennis, Greg, and list, Beneath all the sarcasm below, Dennis touches on a real point: the unsettling consequences of what a real abduction phenomenon would be mean for human beings. Who but the reckless and thought- less would want such a thing to be true? No wonder the resistance, not just intellectual but emotional (as we have seen in recent exchanges), to the idea. Of course everything Dennis says is equally applicable to the reality of intelligent, technologically superior ET life as envisioned even by UFOphobic SETIphiles. Is it any wonder, on a level of sheer existential terror, that they find it imperative to keep ETs safely out there in deep space and far, far from us, and to do everything in their power to discourage serious scientific consideration of the UFO phenomenon? Greg had it exactly right: The Frank Drakes of this world are frightened idiots. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:49:14 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:53:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] >>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:47:27 -0600 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations > Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:42 -0500 > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > Subject: Your Posts to UpDates > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> (SNIP previous message dates) > > >Bruce: > > >Our discussion has prompted me to review your calculations on > > >photo 19. I would like your permission to have the document > > >scanned to be uploaded here or at another (UFO dedicatd) site for > > >review. >> > The.... original paper you sent to Walt Andrus. The one >> > where you place the camera height ("perfectly")at 4.1', the >> > "UFO" dimensions at 24x17 with the ring measurement at 14.86, >> > at a distance of 370'. >> Are you saying you want to scan the handwritten notes I sent? >> Complete with diagrams and calculations? Be my guest. >> If you do post these notes with the sketches then I can post my >> paper "Reanalysis of Photo 19 Supports Walters' Story." >Why would you have to wait till I posted your calculations to >post your article on the "reanalysis"? Just put it out there. The paper has a diagram included which I can't post (no scanner). If you post the hand written notes then the diagram will be available to interested people. Also, (gulp) I recently had a hard disk crash (sniff) and unless I can find an old saved version of the paper I'll have to (sob) retype it! >> Of course it will be necessary to note that the specific >>measurements (SNIP_) >> on the blowup sketch of the UFO must be multiplied by 1.045 >> (e.g., 4 mm becomes 4.2 mm, 3 mm becomes 3.14 mm, etc.) This >> changed the distances calculated in the handwritten notes you >.> have somewhat. > I am aware of that. I have adjusted the calculations. >> Also, in order to carry out those calculations I used a >> range of heights for the camera, as estimated from photographic >> measurements and a crude road survey. I settled on 4.1ft as a >> "best fit"to the available data. These data consisted of road measurements combined with measurements on the photo. >I am aware of that also. The only problem with 4.1 is that the >steering wheel on that truck is at least 5 feet from ground. The measurements of interest are the height of the bottom of the window and the height of the windshield wiper.. The camera was close enough to the bottom of the window so that the camera could "view" the road as seen between the image of the windshield wiper and the image of the front of the truck hood.. From my own experiments with a truck this meant the camera was only a few inches above the bottom of the window. This is on a F150 truck. (Not F150XLT which one person measured). And, by my measurement on a truck similar to Ed's the bottom of the window was 49" above ground and the windshield wiper at a location a few inches to the right of the steering wheel was about 52" and the top of the steering wheel was about 54" above the ground. >> Many months later an actual road survey was done which basically >> confirmed the crude survey. >I thought there was a problem with that survey. Wasnt it the one >Ware had done where the sighting line was incorrect? Or was this >the one Walters did for you personally? A professional surveyor did it. He made measurements about a sighting line that wasn't quite correct. However, because he made measurements to the left and right of his chosen sighting line he did cover the area of interest. I was able to estimate heights along the estimated actual sighting line by interpolating between the surveyor's measurements. >> Furthermore, months later I was able to get actual measurements >> from a Ford 150 truck such as Ed had in January 1988 (date of >> Photo 19) and from these measurements I determined that the >> camera height was probably closer to 4.5 ft (but not as high as 5 >> ft or more, as had been suggested by someone else). >Ya, I had nothing else to do either so I too measured (too many, >that's more than one) Ford 150 pickup trucks and I couldnt find >one where the top of the steering wheel was below five feet. Ya, Ed measured his own truck back in 1988 when we were studying the slope of the hood. He found 4'1" to the bottom of the window. As I said above, the bottom of the window, which I measured as 49" on a similar truck,is important, as is the height of the windshield wiper, which I measured as about 52" at a location to the right of the steering wheel.. I could have accepted Ed's measurements as "gospel" but instead I did my own measurements. I discovered that Ed had told the truth about his measurements (i.e., my measurements agreed with his) Since the photo includes an image of the road just below the image of the windshield wiper and just above the image of the front of the hood, the camera must have been above but close to the altitude of the bottom of the window. The "amusing" thing here is that the height of the camera was estimated in my original work from measurements made on photo 19...measurements which had NOTHING to do with the image of the UFO,... combined with measurements Ed made of where the estimated sighting line crossed the road. I arrived at 4'1" as a "best fit" to the available data. Months later, after a professional survey had been done and I had actually measured heights on a F150, I revised my estimated height upward by 0.4". As readers will see when you post my original calculations, the 4.1' estimate was based on photo measurements of millimeter-sized dimensions with accuracies of a fraction of a millimeter, combined with distance measurements along the road of many tens to hundreds of feet, accurate to a few feet (since the exact sighting line could not be determined) and the result (calculated camera height) was off by only 0.4 inches or so. ><BIG snip> (Here Barbara deleted the discussion of the shape of the reflection image which was the reason for the calculations Barbara has mentioned.) >I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Rex. I dont think I >should respond for him on this issue. >> the calculated size would be larger. I knew from the stereo >> camera photos of May 1 that the diameter of the power ring in >> that sighting calculated to be about 15 ft. If I assumed the >What? You assumed. (Gee, when those of us who dont subscribe >to GB ASSUME that makes US stupid and wrong.) You have put a >lot of assumptions out as fact. The stereo photos were only as good >as Ed. He admitted that he did not take the pictures on both >cameras simultaneously. And some were out of alignment. Yes, I make assumptions and so do others. Some assumptions are necessary,valuable, and correct. Not all desired data are vailable. Hence assumptions must be made. Sometimes new data obviate the assumptions for force a revision of the assumptions. And some assumptions people make are "stupid and wrong." Regarding the stereo photos, the ones of importance here were taken on May 1 when Ed used the "SRS" camera. Ed did not "admit that he did not take the pictures on both cameras simultaneously" when he took the May 1 photos. He did make this "admission" when he took stereo photos several months earlier in March. I advised him to practice operating the shutters of the two cameras simultaneously. He did practice. Also, he rebuilt the SRS camera after the March 20 photos and what he used on May 1 was much more rigid. His May 1 stereo photo pair (one picture from each model 600 Polaroid camera; the cameras were on a rigid support 2' apart.) shows lights on a bridge of known distance. These lights were used to calibrate the cameras and thereby put them "into alignment." Hence the parallax calculation for the two UFOs that appear in the May 1 photos is quite accurate...but not perfect: distance = 475 ft (+/-) 25 ft for the larger UFO (about 150 ft above water) and distance = 132 ft (+/-) 2 ft for the smaller UFO (about 120 ft above water). Both of these UFOs were over the Santa Rosa Sound. NOTE ACCURACY: 25 ft/475 ft = 0.052 --- about 5% accuracy). >>(If I assumed the) UFO in photo 19 were the same size as the >> UFO in the May 1 >> stereo photos, then that would mean it was about 370 ft away. NOTE: 370 ft corresponds to the initally calculated distance if the bottom ring were 15 ft in diameter. >.With your adjustment of 4.5% I figured 354'. When I wrote to you >you agreed. Do you still agree? As you are aware from my letter of July 18, 1991, the distance of 354' was based on the estimate of the bottom ring being 14.8' wide, said measurement coming from the May 1 photos. The 14.8' is an estimate because the distance to the May 1 UFO could not be calculated with perfect accuracy (5% accuracy; see above). When this dimension was combined with the revised measurement of the image size on photo 19 (bottom ring image width 4.6 mm) and the measured effective focal length of the camera (110 mm) the distance to the bottom ring was calculated at 14.8'/(4.6/110) = 354'. So, yes, I agree that 354' would be the distance, based on the assumption of 14.8' diameter bottom ring. No doubt you recall that you had pointed out that my assumption of about a 24 ft width of the top section, if treated as an exact dimension, would result in a distance to the top section that was less than the distance to the bottom with a result that the UFO would be tilted toward the camera (top closer than the bottom). To this I responded that if one allowed that "about 24'" could be interpreted as 24.5 ft the center of the top of the UFO would be nearly over the center of the bottom. If the distance were a bit bigger than 24.5 ftt the UFO would be slightly tipped away from the camera as it appears in the photo. (NOTE: the top section of the UFO in the May 1 photos was not bright enough to make an image and hence the May 1 photos did not provide a measurement of the width of the upper section.) <Snip> >> >> And, incidently, whil you're beating on Photo 19, I wonder if you >> >> have any comments on a similarly important photo, #1, >> >Dont go there. >> Why not? Perhaps it doesn't obey your Too Damn Perfect (TDP) >> principle because part of the image is obscured by the tree? >No, because I've seen other analysis where it has been looked at >digitally and the "UFO" isn't even behind the tree. At face value >it looks like it is but when looked at digitally it is obvious >.that a product of the chemicals on the film is a sort of "filling >in" process. "...looked at digitally....obvious that a product of the chemicals on the film is a sort of "filling in" process" Is that so? A number of photographers have looked at the originals and none has mentioned "chemicals on the film" as explaining the overlap. The following professional photographers in the Gulf Breeze area looked at the photos in late 1987 and early 1988: Curt Shields, Marie Price, Alan Audelman, Christopher Stark. Then the first 5 photos were examined by Robert Nathan. Then I and other MUFON investigators examined the photos. Mark Carlotto did a digital analysis of photo 1 in order to determine whether or not there was any evidence of rephotography (photograph a paste-up) or any other explanation for the apparent blockage by the tree. Bob Oechsler, working with a professional photographer spent many hours examining the originals and making prints at varying exposure levels. They didn't spot any chemical explanation for photo 1. The most detailed analysis was done by Jeff Sainio who also used digitally aided analysis. His analysis has been published by MUFON. None of these people found any evidence that chemicals "filled in"....whatever that means. Perhaps you can enlighten us? >While we are on photo 1... What was wrong with "A Believer's" >photos? You do remember "A Believer" dont you? >GB Sentinel. Thursday November 3, 1988. Photo of "Ed type" UFO >accompanies article. Headline: New UFO Photos Received at >Sentinel. Story: Another anonymous photographer dropped photos >in the Sentinel's night deposit this week with a letter signed, >"A Believer". As has become our practice we will send the photos (SNIP) >The object made no noise and moved moved like no other aircraft >I've seen. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with >my own eyes. Sorry but because of my position, I must remain >anonymous. >Thursday November 24, 1988. Photograph in Sentinel with caption: >After the publication of the UFO photos from "A Believer" a few >weeks ago, The Sentinel received four more polaroid photos from >him. We sent the first four to Dr. Bruce Maccabee who said >Tuesday he has looked at the photos but can't begin a formal >investigation without knowing precisely when and where they were >taken. End Caption. >The interesting thing about this photo is that the second >one(11/24/88) that is reproduced in the Sentinel shows an "Ed >type" UFO partially obscured by trees. In fact, just glancing at >this photograph from "AB" it would be easy to mistake it for one >of Ed Walters, perhaps even photo number 1. >Correct me if I am wrong (and Im sure you will) but wasn't one of >your arguments FOR the validity of Walters photographs the fact >that photo number 1 shows Ed's UFO behind a tree? Didn't you say t>he sheer difficulty of accomplishing this rules out a hoax? >But here we very clearly have an "Ed Type" UFO photographed >behind a tree with a Polaroid...just like Ed's. When I asked you >about this recently, you told me that you did not pursue "A >Believer" because you thought the photographs were hoaxed. Why did I think they were hoaxed? Duane Cook, editor of the sentinel at the time, didn't publish the whole story. So, a la radio commentator, Paul Harvey, here's "THE REST OF THE STORY." Duane told me that a couple of weeks after the "Believer" photos were published Duane got a phone call. The person on the line identified himself as "A Believer" and he wanted to know why his photos hadn't been determined to be real and what was being done with them, anyway. I don't know how the conversation went, but the key point is that Duane told "Believer" that the photos simply showing a UFO against a uniform sky background were not convincing. It would have been much better if the photos had shown the UFO partially blocked by a tree. You see, by this time (a year after Ed's first photos) Duane understood the photographic arguments about Ed's photos and, in particular, the significance of the tree image overlapping the UFO image. Well! It is said that a word to the wise is sufficient.!!! Within a week Duane had four new photos from :"Believer". But this time....GUESS WHAT!!! They showed a UFO partially blocked at the left edge by a TREE!!! Well!! Naturally I was UNDERwhelmed!! If Believer had presented these photos originally the investigation might have been interesting. BUT regardless of when the photos were presented, there was one big gaping hole in the story: we requested that Believer reveal himself so that a confidential investigation could be carried out. But we never heard from him again. This meant that no investigation could be carried out. OK YOU ASK!!!! WHAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ED AND BELIEVER??? After all they both show UFO images blocked by tree images. >Correct me if I am wrong (and Im sure you will) but wasn't one of >your arguments FOR the validity of Walters photographs the fact >that photo number 1 shows Ed's UFO behind a tree? Didn't you say >the sheer difficulty of accomplishing this rules out a hoax? Yes, indeed. Under the circumstances that Ed took his photos it would be too hard to do. BUT...what were the circumstances surrounding "Believer's" photos? We don't know. Since we couldn't go to the site of the photos we couldn't determine, for example, that Believer wasn't photographing through a window!!! Having a window available makes a number of different hoax techniques possible. We also don't know anything about "Believer's photo capabilities, knowledge and equipment. I strongly suspect a certain photog who worked with the TV station on GB UFO documentaries. But whether he is the person or not the point is that I can't rule out professional trick photography being in the "Believer" photos. I do rule that out with Ed's. For example, we know for a fact that Ed's photo 1 was not taken through a window! In fact, the only known ways of hoaxing photo 1 that would be marginally compatible with Ed's camera have been published (except this "chemical means" you have referred to). I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ED'S PHOTOS COULDN'T BE HOAXED. What I have said is that I have found no evidence that ED or his friends couldn't have hoaxed them. (NOTE: If Stephen Spielberg had brought me pictures like Ed's with a nice story..I would have asked if he had been talking with George Lucas recently!) >How can Walters' UFO be "real" and "A Believer" (a knock off for >Ed's photo 1) be a hoax? Shouldn't the same standards apply for >both photgraphs? If Ed's is real then so is "A Believer's" and if >"A Believer's" is a hoax then shouldn't Ed's be a haox too? I'll reiterate: we don't know the photographic circumstances of the Believer photos. They appear to be outdoor scenes, but we don't know for certain that they weren't done in a photo lab. One analyst working with WEAR TV stated that to create photo 1 he'd have to bring the background "into the studio". Is that what he.... oops, I mean, "Believer," did? So, what's the difference? Aside from certain "oddities" of the A Believer photos that don't show up in Ed's photos, the biggest difference is that with Ed we had a witness, a scene, the camera, the capability of reenactment......etc. With Believer we have photos and that's all. A PHOTO A UFO DOES NOT MAKE. But Believer did not know this, I guess. It is my opinion that this was a set-up for a photographic sting. The "rumormill" provided info years later that the photographer was not happy that his photos got such short shrift. <Snip > >> >I think you're getting paranoid. I asked a question about photo >> >19. I thought it would be fun to toss the calculations out for (SNIP) >>> You can totally understand? Barbara, that has been your >>> problem since 1991: uou don't "totally understand.. >>> As for me being paranoid, I think I gave a quite good >>> summary of the argument over the road reflection in my >>> discussion above. What you have offered (or threatened?) to >>> upload will provide mathematical support for my discussion. >>We'll see. Why dont you scan it in? Anyone out there with a >>scanner, want to load it in? Bruce will you send a copy to >>whoever volunteers (I'm kind busy preparing to move to an even >>colder part of the country. >>BRRRRR. Looks like this email address will be invalid in a short >>while.) >>You mean you brought this subject up with the offer of uploading the >>paper and now you are leaving it up to someone else? >>> But speaking of paranoid, are you now abandoning what you >>> put forward as the "conclusive" legal argument and are now >>> appealing to physical analysis (which "could be wrong") to prove >>> that Ed's photos are TDP? >Hardly. If you are so damn sure Im wrong...just call up Ed >Walters in Pennsacola Florida and ask him why he owns the >copyright to the Believer Bill and Jane photos and ask him how he >came to have it. Thats all. Prove me wrong...dont just keep >skirting the issue. As I have said before, I did call him up. He says his lawyer says there is no problem. >> >After all, what if someone without a stake in this case found >> >your reasoning and math to be flawed...then what? >> I would hope the readers here would have a better understanding >> of what was going on in all those calculations than you did. >I understood your calculations just fine. And by the way, your >insults are more degrading to you than to me. ><Snip> Just another free ad for his book. HERE'S ANOTHER FREE AD..... read my chapters on analysis of photos 1 and 11 in UFOS ARE REAL, HERE'S THE PROOF. Proves not simple double exposure. (I note no mention of a "chemical" explanation for photo 11). NOTE TO INTERESTED READERS: Barbara brought the Ed Walters photos up for discussion over a month ago by holding out the "hope" that she had discovered conclusive evidence that Ed Walters faked the Bill and Jane photos, and, by logical extension, all of the photos. WHAT THINK YOU? After all this discussion, has she proved her point? And, how about her TDP principle (Too Damn Perfect). Should that be adopted as a major factor in the rejection of UFO photos?
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH &c From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:53:27 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:02:38 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c My friend the stubborn Texas sasquatch has just made one of my points for me. > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:16:00 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > I understand the above [my joke about Sony movie theaters putting > part of their excessive ticket revenues into secret government UFO > stuff] is tongue in cheek, but suppose all of us > who think there must be a less than literal interpretation of > abduction accounts were to concede abject defeat (not to mention > intellectual poverty, perverse rhetorical tactics, and CIA/Sony > connections, etc), what then? Let's assume Budd et al aren't > asking leading questions one, but are only soliciting the > objective truth. What then? > Obviously, the godlike aliens, with their ability to scoop out > human brain pans and determine (in)visibility at will, are in > charge here, AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT IT. The > aliens have won, they've taken over. It doesn't matter, and never > will, in the ultimate scheme of things, that Menzel or Sagan, or > you or I, J. Clark or the Duke, ever lived. Or that mainstream > science as a whole never paid no mind. We're whupped, done, > beaten, finished, dude, that's the end of it. We're high-grade > cattle for the Zeti Reticulans, so why are we even bothering to > discuss this stuff? <snippity snip> > So we concede! You've won. We're all wrong and you're all right. > Alien abductors with godlike powers, I mean, advanced technology, > are here, "here, there, and everywhere," and peons like us are > absolutely powerless to halt them -- despite what crazed patriots > like Corso contend. You could be next! Absolutely right, Dennis. I'll take you seriously, and agree completely. And, see...this is what I meant in an earlier post you ridiculed, when I said that our culture is in a tizzy over possible alien visits, and that not even UFO believers have faced the implications of what they believe. Everybody goes on living their lives, even though the aliens are in a position to make drastic changes here. David Jacobs, on a dark day, is one of the few researchers I know who feels the full emotional thrust of this. For the rest of us, it's far too unknown and intense. I'm not saying we SHOULD turn our hearts and lives upside down, because possibly we're in for a giant alien shock. Since we don't know what's going to happen (assuming, of course, that it's all real), going on with our daily routine is, for nearly everyone, the only possible choice. There's even a possibility that nothing would happen -- the aliens will leave, or just keep up their present, comparatively low-level activity, leaving us mostly to our own devices. And if that's the case, people who sell their worldy goods and start prophecying from a mountain top will have wasted their lives. We just don't know where we stand. I'm glad, though, that you clarified this. If the aliens really are doing all that Hopkins, et al, assert, then human history -- as we've known it up to now -- may soon be over. How we face the implications of that is something I'm in no position to figure out. But on some deep level, I imagine that everyone, on all sides of the UFO fence, senses this possibility....and, very likely, is quaking. Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:35:12 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:57:00 -0500 Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:42:48 -0700 >From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >To: Updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback >> From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:55:27 -0600 (CST) >> Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:50:36 -0500 >> Subject: Re: DISCOVERY CHANNEL feedback <snip> >> It looked to me that since the tree was in the foreground (relative >> to the mountains and the lights) the relative positions of the tree >> and the "loner" light would be strongly affected by the exact >> position of the camera. They said only that the daylight video was >> taken from approximately the same position as the night time video, >> not from _exactly_ the same position. So I don't see how the tree >> being in a slightly different position in the foreground shows that >> their analysis was "way off". >> -George Fergus >Misalignment of the image overlays does, to some degree, >invalidate the research and therefore the conclusions. This does >not suggest that the conclusions are wrong but it does suggest >the conclusions were drawn upon erroneus data. I flipped through >the sequece in the recording of the Discovery special I made and >noticed that the overlays appeared to be off as Tom suggests. A >more accurate daytime video that reporduces all of the >characteristics of Krysten's March 13 footage would be required. >If we are to put stock in this model the image alignment must be >precise. Unfortunately, the program's allegations and "conclusions" will be accepted on faith by most of those who viewed it. Those of us who frequent this "list" are far more aware of the differences of opinions than most of the viewing public, and unless there was to be a follow up program in the same time slot to counter the information portrayed, there is little or no way to reach those who viewed the original with clarifications that may well be important. We can debate this matter, and refute the errant conclusions all we want to. But, the general public (which isn't a part of this discussion) will never have the benefit of getting the story from all points of view. I think that while we can view commercial programs as interesting, it is important that we not assume that they are going to help provide a clear picture of this genre to the public at large. Each producer will usually strive to make a "point" in his program, and the manner in which he edits the interviews and organizes them in the program will promote that view of the "truth". This isn't to say that some information provided by these programs isn't valuable, which is why researchers need to continue working with them to provide whatever balance is possible. But let's not forget that the "search for truth through investigation" is not necessarily a goal that these programs strive for. Profit and self-promotion are far more important. I would add that I believe that ABC, NBC, and CBS are probably worse than the cable networks in slanting their coverage of this genre. With the exception of a CBS special that aired a few years ago, I find that the networks tend to go to the first "voice of reason" they can find and accept that person's explanation as gospel. One might ask how many people they approach before they find the "voice of reason" they're looking for. Just a few thoughts. Steve
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:16:28 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:12:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:41:43 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark on Abductions 2/2 > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 17:11:05 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Clark on Abductions 2/2 > <Mucho snippo> > >Which reminds me. As I recall, on part one of > >his posting, Duke asserted that nobody besides > >Sandy Larson had ever reported the bizarre detail > >of brain removal. Not so. It figures in other, > >extremely obscure abduction claims. Of course: > >Ah! They got it from Sandy Larson. But of course > >if nobody else had reported it ... well, you get the > >drift. > <More snippo> > >Jerry Clark > Let's forget labels for a minute like agnostic, advocate, > psychosociologist, critical, skeptical, etc. When someone says > "aliens took my brain out, rewired it, and put it back in without > so much as a trace," in MHO it seems that a lot of ground needs > to be thoroughly covered and dealt with in a rigorous fashion > before one arrives at a literal interpretation, ie, that alien > beings really *are* capable of such magical (if not downright > divine) feats. I refer Dennis to the entry "Larson Abduction Case," High Strangeness, pages 282-86, for a full account of why, like so many abduction cases, this one is at once puzzling, suggestive, and problematic and why it is not possible to state much beyond that with any degree of confidence. Here is what I say in my concluding remarks concerning the episode: "The Larson story also anticipates the abduction phenomenon's most bizarre and prolbematical elements. If it is hard enough to believe that alien beings are kidnapping human beings (or, worse, taking them to other planets), it is virtually impossible to credit that physical bodies can pass through walls or that such occurrences can take place on city streets or interstate highways and not be independently observed even if they happen in the middle of the night. Nearly as improbably, tales of temporary brain removals have figured in some subsequent accounts. "In common with other abduction claims, this one is filled with the sorts of troubling ambiguities that would frustrate investigators looking for positive answers." It would be profoundly unwise, at this very early stage of inquiry, to pretend that we know answers. Of course human beings, and ufologists and debunkers are such, can't stand ambiguity, so they need to claim positive answers where none exist, or to pretend that all the knowledge we need to negotiate our way through the world is already, or very nearly, available to us. So we get stuck with literalist explanations and weak supporting evidence or feeble reductionist wheezes. That's why I am an agnostic about all this, folks. Call me crazy, but I think we have a whole lot more to know before we can start making sense of the abduction phenomenon, not to mention other kinds of anomalous experiential phenomena. > If I read my Hufford right, for example, it seems to me he's > arguing for an old Hag experience -- not for the existence of an > actual Hag who sneaks into peoples' bedrooms at night. It seems > quite clear that there is an abduction experience, but why, if > we're going to be agnostics, accept descriptions of same as a > reflection of physical reality in the absence of corroborating > evidence. In fact, Hufford is largely agnostic on the identity of the Old Hag itself. He explicitly remarks that aspects of the experience seem beyond, in his delicate phrase, "current knowledge." Hufford is harshly critical of those who have argued otherwise -- in other words, have tried to force-fit the experience, against the insistent testimony of experiencers, into some category of psychological disturbance or psychophysiology. > In fact, it would be quite interesting to see what would happen > if one were to hypnotise a couple of hundred of Old Hag > experiencers. Here is what Hufford, who is intensely interested in the abduction phenomenon and both unsympathetic to its debunkers and critical of its more vocal advocates, has to say (from Alien Discussions, p. 351): "Scrupulous phenomenological investigation has clearly established that paralysis episodes with all of the same complex content are found all over the world and have been since ancient times. The connection between paralysis episodes and other anomalies, ranging from near death experiences to hauntings, are sharp, numerous and currently unexplained. There is every reason to believe that the prevalence and incidence of the paralysis episodes has been stable for centuries, probably millennia. If the paralysis attacks, as described by abductees, are directly linked to abductions, there is every reason to believe that the abduction phenomenon has great historical depth and is associated in complex ways with other classes of anomalous experience. If they are not linked directly to abduction events, then current abduction data, clinical impressions and abduction theory are loaded with noise." I highly recommend Hufford's paper both for its clear-headed critique and for its pragmatic suggestions about how abduction research ought to be conducted. If followed, Hufford's recommendations would remove us all from the stale believers-versus-bashers stalemate. Maybe it would even remove sarcasm and ridicule from the discussion. Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Clark, psychosocial or paraphysical approach? From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:17:18 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:24:02 -0500 Subject: Clark, psychosocial or paraphysical approach? >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:27:32 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c >Remember, there was a >time when I adhered to psychosocial speculations which I now >consider nonsense (I have never been forgiven for that heresy in >some quarters.) In fact, my and Loren Coleman's 1975 book was >the first book-length treatment of this particular approach. Hello Jerry! I remember your 1975 book (which I did like at that time, when - me too - I was fascinated by the paraphysical mumbo-jumbo =E0 la John Keel) but I cannot understand why you are putting that kind of approach together with the psycho-sociological reasoning. Let me explain my viewpoint. Since the late '60s and well into the mid-70's the so-called "new ufology" flourished in the USA as opposed to the more classical ETH. John Keel (Operations Trojan Horse) and Jacques Vallee (Passport to Magonia) were its main champions, though along slightly different approaches: Keel seemed to favor a sort of intrusions from parallel universes or the like, intentionally camouflaged according to the cultural "frame of reference" of the moment (aliens in the present-day space age); Vallee looked like more oriented toward a cultural adaptation by ourselves of a sort of numinous (thence instrinsically ineffable) experience with the Otherworld. Then-younger Jerome Clark teamed with cryptozoologist Loren Coleman and wrote a book (The Unidentified) taking it all ot its farthest limits, trying to incorporate all sort of Fortean phenomena under a common umbrella of parapsychologically-oriented Jungian concepts akin to the "collective unconscious" materializing somehow in our physical world. "Paraphysical hypotheses" was the common description of all those (and other) authors, since they all postulated UFO and strange phenomena were originating from some "other" reality parallel to our physical world and sometime interferring with it. Such "stewpot ufology" (as somebody called it) died by auto-consumption in the late '70s: Vallee gradually changed to more complex (though always stimulating) structures (be it the intelligence community use of UFOs and ufologists for psychological warfare or the physical effects of energy packets); Keel's though became more and more un-understandable (though always pleasant to read in his prose) in each new book of his; Clark reversed his approach and came back to ETH; and so on. In the meantime, here in old Europe, two similar yet very different approaches were developing: - the "humanistic ufology" of the UK MUFOB/Magonia editorial team (mainly John Rimmer and Peter Rogerson), giving more attention to human (cultural) reactions to UFOs than to the physical aspect (from 1970 onwards); - the "parapsychological approach" by a growing number of French ufologists (mainly the "Ouranos" team, plus authors like Pierre Vieroudy, Jean Giraud a.k.a. GABRIEL group, and Jean-Jacques Jaillat), taking their initial inspiration from the "second" Vallee (Passport to Magonia) but also from the evolution toward a "second-degree ETH" by the late Aime Michel (say 1975-1979). The "socio-psychological" hypothesis was a very different affair. It was born in France, in 1977, with the first book by Michel Monnerie (What if UFOs did not exist?), which was a REACTION against the parapsychological attitude as well as against the classical ETH. On the "ideological" side, It correctly recognized that the parapsychological deformations of ufology were but "superstructures" superimposed upon the UFO phenomenon, but it also (wrongly) concluded that under them there was no "structure" (no real UFO phenomenon) left; on the concrete side, it posed real and valid questions as of investigation methodology, perception and memory studies, and contamination of the real phenomena by the will-to-believe of most ET-proponents. It gained a growing attention in France and French-speaking countries (converts included well-known investigators like Dominique Caudron, Jacques Brucker and Gerard Barthel), and flourished in the 1978-1981 years (I can remember dozens of articles and learned debates, plus whole special issues devoted to the "nouveaux ufologues" by such French journals as LDLN, Ovni-presence and Inforespace, not to mention a score of local groups' bulletins), then died because the ufology environment divided itself into two opposing camps in a sort of "religion war": such radicalization took the "sociopsychologists" more and more toward the French equivalent to CSICOP, thus sterilizing them as "anti-UFOlogists" and the debate was closed. There followed indeed a vital "post-monnerist" legacy (John Rimmer called it "post-modern ufology") mostly around the Paris group of Thierry Pinvidic, Jacques Scornaux, Claude Mauge', Pierre Lagrange, which tried to save the positive aspects of that approach without spousing its radical reductionism, but in the long run they did not succeed. Now I'm asking you the question: what the heck has such (strictly reductionist) psychosocial or sociopyschological approach (mostly limited to French-speaking countries in the '80s) to do with the (wildly speculative, mostly USA-oriented) paraphysical hypotheses of the '70s? Let me ask it otherwise: when you write "there was a time when I adhered to psychosocial speculations which I now consider nonsense", are you meaning that you were ever OK with a CSICOP-like reductionism? I guess you never meant that. Thus I wonder why mix the two, unless you just choose consider all anti-ETH approach in the same and one bag (and it would be highly unfair for me to hint that). A second possibility may also be guessed: that while you did (and do) know well the paraphysical issues as well as the "humanist ufology" of those cunning British bad guys, you may have been less documented about those non-English-speaking heretics. I dare to suggest that because the bibliography you quoted on that specific subject in your masterful Encyclopedia first volume (UFOs in the '80s) was sadly lacking as of French sources, and my rusty memory keeps on telling me you once admitted (to Pierre Lagrange at the 1987 MUFON Symposium?) that you couldn't (can't?) read French. Well, I'd better stop the guessing and remain waiting for your own voice on the above. Thanks for your attention. Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici CISU, Casella postale 82, 10100 Torino - tel 011-3290279 - fax 011-545033 http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo e-mail: edoardo.russo@torino.alpcom.it
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:52:40 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:11:22 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:16:00 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c <almost all snipped for brevity> > Hey, enjoy >life while you can! Tomorrow you may be abducted. >Dennis Sometimes Dennis I just can't make you out. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 'Phoenix Lights' Info from Phoenix Fox TV10 From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 11 Nov 1997 19:38:51 UT Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:28:32 -0500 Subject: 'Phoenix Lights' Info from Phoenix Fox TV10 Date: Tue Nov 11 11:46:18 1997 From: skywatch@wic.net Subject: Unknown Subject Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:33:12 -0700 Subject: Reply: Skywatch: Phoenix lights info from Phoenix Fox TV Reply-to: skywatch@rodin.wic.net ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:04:58 +0000 To: skywatch@rodin.wic.net From: aggart@ctaz.com (john and april aggas) Subject: Phoenix lights info from Phoenix Fox TV >Forwarded message: >From: satmike@goodnet.com (MIKE FORTSON) >To: starmanbh@Aol.Com >Date: 97-11-09 11:06:03 EST > Bill, >I think you'll find the story that Channel 10 put together for tonight >interesting. Their test will contradict the lights falling behind the >mountains. Tonight 9:00 pm channel 10. They will show the lights in >front of the mountains! Two nights ago, Phoenix Fox TV, Ch 10 did another story on the Phoenix lights. This time, Troy Hayden, the TV anchor, using original footage of the lights, went to the home of the man who video taped the lights and, using the man's video camera, taped from the same location as the original video was shot but during daylight! They then superimposed the two films and it clearly showed the lights were below the mountains in the background....disproving the theory that they were flares dropped on a test range many miles away and disappearing behind the mountains! At least Fox TV is helping to keep the thing 'alive and kicking' in the face of the coverup conspiracy. "...to have joy, one must share it.... happiness was born a twin..." Old Indian saying John and April
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: "Catch 'em in the act" research From: jpeterson@polaristel.net [Candy Peterson] Date: Tue, 11 Nov 97 11:22:14 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:49:53 -0500 Subject: Re: "Catch 'em in the act" research >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:48:48 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: "Catch 'em in the act" research >>From: jpeterson@polaristel.net [Candy Peterson] >>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 23:57:49 PST >>Subject: "Catch 'em in the act" research >>To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net> >>I'm a field investigator and researcher with Minnesota MUFON. >>We're compiling a list of known attempts to authenticate >>the source(s) -- ET or otherwise -- of UFO/alien abductions. >>There are many anecdotal accounts of camera malfunction and >>various forms of interference. The commonly held opinion is >>that "they" simply can't be caught in the act by our relatively >>primitive recording devices. >Candy, >I think just the opposite may be true. It is, perhaps, the >sophistication of our recording devices that is the problem. >Nearly all modern cameras use electronic systems to control >their operation. Such systems are vulnerable to disruption by >strong EMF. In earlier days with completely mechanical >cameras, I don't think this was a problem. >I have suggested for some time that it may well be impossible >to get close range images of UFOs with modern still cameras or >video cameras. I have suggested that serious UFO investigators >should be equipped with completely mechanical cameras. Thanks, Bob. Those pesky EM effects have been known for a long time, so there is reason to think that inventive people worldwide have tried to record the visitations/abductions in many different ways. At Minnesota MUFON we're searching for the data of any attempts to record the abduction phenomena, whether through the use of wind-up cameras, modern recording equipment of various kinds, home-made passive detectors, even watchdogs or human witnesses. The list of potential methods is endless, considering human ingenuity in the face of this mystery. What is important is to see what we can learn from analysis of the attempts, whether they ended in failure, defeat, or some measure of success. Please contribute documentation to this ongoing scientific effort. Thanks! Candy Peterson jpeterson@polaristel.net --------------------------------- Minnesota MUFON http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/ ---------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:40:26 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:09:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:47:26 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual [everything snipped except:] >I guess that would become bogus theory 13 (The Duke was number >12 with his miscalibrated radar). Are you sure you want to get >an unlucky number, Eduardo? Not content with putting words into the mouths of Wim van Utrecht and Eduardo Russo, Henny? Been taking reading lessons from the Canby Clairvoyant? Please quote me saying any radar involved in the "Belgian Triangle(s)" event(s) was miscalibrated. I have a feeling that if truth ever prevails over your imagination, Eduardo Russo will be a long way from copping an unlucky number. Yours &c Portwine D. Marinade Jaded Rou=E9
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: KAnder6444@aol.com [Kathleen Andersen] Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:47:34 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:06:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:04:47 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> <snip> >"Kathleen claims that, "Arnold left out one important bit of data >One of the 9 craft was different from the rest". James, Errol and all, I've been away on some research the past month (ironically some about Kenneth Arnold) but did notice some messages and had to reply as it is one of my favorite subjects. I am a lucky person to live here in Seattle and spend as much time as possible up at Mt. Rainier. Greg Long is also living here now and he has recently completed a new book on Kenneth Arnold. For those who are not familiar, Greg was the last person to interview Arnold before his death. Just coincidentally, I was at Greg's house last Thursday and he gave me the opportunity to read thru Ken's personal scrape books. This provided me with an insight of not only who Kenneth Arnold was but of the UFO activity that was so prevelent in the news at that time. I can't tell you what a thrill it was to be able to do this. Greg and I talked about the original report and story. The description only changed slightly with the additional of the 9th craft which was different. I am sure in an exciting moment when it happened, more precise details would come into play after one had time to go over it. He did become quite fascinated with the subject and saved many news clippings of other incidents and sightings around the world that were happening in the years that followed. Anyone who has spent time at Mt. Rainier will know that it is a very interesting mountain. The Native Americans who live in this area have many tales and myths about our great volcano. Of interest, a comment Arnold made to Greg before his death he stated: "It is my impression that everyone, no matter what part they play in this existence that seems to go on into infinity, has a special purpose or a special task or a special reason for being what they are and for doing the things they do. I don't say that we are placed here by a divine Providence to accomplish a great mission. Nothing so egotistical. Perhaps it is purely a personal reason: merely to add to our own experience, our mental growth, our ability to become a functional part in a whole of society which may be more vast than we dream". You have to like this guy!! Kathleen Andersen Seattle, Washington Kander6444@aol.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: Saucer Error Error From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:56:43 +1000 (GMT+1000) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:25:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:25:36 -0800 >> 15.11 Hrs "Mantell here. Now I've got it! It's a disc, >> enormously large. Hard to say, could be 80 yards in diameter. >> Upper surface has a ring and a dome. Turning fantastically fast, >> apparently around a central vertical axis..." > Actually, Lawrie, I wonder where you obtained this information, > since none of it, so far as I know, has ever been documented by > any official researchers..... I got it from a book written in German and later published in London. The author's acknowledgements reads like a who's who of the best ufologists in the field. He seems to have obtained a transcript from somewhere. In those days it was routine for many radio operators to take notes. In the interest of consensus I guess I'd better not say any more about the subject. > I don't recall any reference which claimed the aircraft skin was > peppered with small holes. That information was posted on the internet in 1995 on the UFO-L <UFO-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU list run by Paul Carleton. > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:32:38 PST > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > ..... Nearly everything Lawrie writes here is false. Sorry I wasted your time. > ...... I am not, of course, accusing him of making it up > himself, just of passing on some of the vast legendry surrounding > this non-UFO case. I hold liars in contempt too. I have no reason to believe the stuff is wrong. The book is well presented with lots of detail. > The Mantell case is complicated by the appearance of what apparently > was a UFO over southwestern Ohio several hours after the crash. The type of craft Mantell didn't really see was seen by many others during that time period. I expect they were all weather balloons, inversion layers or swamp gas. > .....The object Mantell died chasing, however, was a > Skyhook balloon launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. ATIC said there were no skyhooks in the vicinity at the time. I also wonder why an experienced pilot could not tell a ufo from a weather balloon nor knew so little about anoxia. Occam is crying out to tell us something here. Kind regards to you all. Lawrie "but they *do* move" Williams_________
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:54:41 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:53:30 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:02:44 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Regarding... >>Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:09:05 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Henny, >I had merely noted that, "the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap >was _officially_ explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter >and no pilot ever witnessed an actual object", to which you replied: >"The people who were involved in this investigation would either hav >been insulted or would have rolled over the floor over this >explanation. Ground clutter! The official explanation was 'unknown >craft'." >Having provided some material which confirms the background to the >BAF's subsequent conclusions, that was my sole intention. As the >overall evidence is open to interpretation, I neither endorse or >dispute those conclusions. The question is still not resolved where this information came from. As fas as I know, the RBAF has done only one investigation. I have asked you to provide the date of a possible second and you don't provide it. SOBEPS (ie Christophe Meessen) has been involved in this discussion here and he doesn't mention it either. I seriously doubt the existence of a second RBAF report. Another reason why I doubt it is because SOBEPS acknowledges the explanation 'ground clutter' for some radar traces, but not for all of them. So are you sure the RBAF has said that ground clutter was all there was and that this is not a misunderstanding? >I would only wish to add that your subsequent comment, in reply to >Peter Brookesmith, stating there exists, "over 2,500 visual sightings, >25 videofilms and one photograph that shows a triangular craft with >three lights", refers to evidence which is equally open to >interpretation. Considering the nature of debunkers everything is open to interpretation, even the laws of physics. >In a 1991 report provided to the ParaNet network, by Jean Manfroid of >the Liege University and the Institute of Astrophysics, Manfroid and >his colleagues wrote: >"We were also asked to examine several video tapes received by the >national TV station. Again, Venus was almost always the culprit. >These tapes were, as a rule, affected by very bad images, the >automatic focusing being fooled by surrounding objects, or by trying >to catch a point source at infinity... Nice effects were obtained with >extra-focal images of the aperture stop, pulsating disks etc. We were >often surprised by the descriptions given by the people who took the >videos: they cited distances of 30 or 50 meters, they spoke of hanging >globes, moving rapidly, following their cars etc... though their >recordings showed much more benign events. Invariably, all those >people were looking at the sky for the first time. This raises some >doubts on the validity of occasional witnesses. >Some of these accounts, as well as others, were relayed by the media. >Video tapes of aircrafts at night, showing only their lights were >visible. The snowball effect rapidly developed. Witnesses appeared, >reporting triangles in the sky, while frustrated astronomers, albeit >logging many more hours of observations (with sophisticated >equipment), continued to see satellites, meteorites, aircrafts (at >times as triangles of light spots)". Well, I don't know what these astronomers have seen, but I remember clearly a videotape that was shown on Dutch tv when the flap was going on. It was not Venus and not an aircraft. (Expect multiple queries about how I can be so sure, you don't have proof, etc, blah-blah). >The full report can be found on various web sites, one being at URL: >http://www.ufobbs.com/txt2/1555.ufo >I'm not so sure there were 2500 reports during that period, but >whatever, it's well documented that many of them described a wide >range of aerial phenomena. >2500 reports and 25 video tapes of a triangular object, there >unfortunately was not. That could easily be. The objects appeared as a show of light to the naked eye, like a moving plasma. In the photograph the triangle was visible because certain colors and lines had been enhanced. What does come out is triangle with classic lighting configuration. It is exactly the same lighting configuration as that on the triangle that can be found in the current issue of UFO Magazine (UK), that shows an object in the town of, yes, Americana, Brazil. >The Petit-Rechain photograph, presumably the one you refer to, does >not necessarily portray a "craft" and although it seems to be regarded >as authentic, how can we ever be sure it isn't a hoax? >Nevertheless, taking it at face value, there's a lesser known computer >enhancement of the photograph and some further related material on my >web site at URL: >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/triangle.htm I will take a look at it when I have time. The photo I have clearly shows a triangle. >The topic has diversified into a specific discussion on the '89-90 >Belgian incidents and interesting though that is, it's not a path I >have time to follow other than superficially at the moment and I doubt >it leads to a new vista. >The point I addressed was whether any evidence exists to support the >contention that some governments now openly embrace the ET hypothesis, It would seem that Chile does. In the past other governments have stated that they take the ETH very seriously, although 'embrace' would go too far and was not the topic of discussion. Among those: France, USA, Soviet Union, Belgium. >specifically, that ET visitations are a matter of concern to them. Not openly, no. >If there is no such evidence, which I have yet to see provided, then >perhaps we can accept that the 'ET hypothesis' isn't in fact being >recognised and acknowledged, as suggested. Not openly, no. >The Belgian case is an indication that some governments, or elements >thereof, can be objective and candid about the possibilities, but it >doesn't go beyond that. There simply isn't the accepted evidence to >do so. The evidence is there, but it is not openly accepted. What the Belgian case also shows is that, whatever the amount of painstakingly collected evidence, government officials are prone to accept the first bogus explanation that they get under their noses, in this case LoFlyte. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Photo Hoax on Discovery Show From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 11 Nov 1997 23:01:53 UT Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:07:20 -0500 Subject: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show ------------------(Forward)-------------------- Date: Tue Nov 11 15:39:15 1997 To: William.Hamilton From: satmike@goodnet.com Subject: Fwd: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show From: authority@webtv.net Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:25:40 -0700 To: satmike@goodnet.com, mrdavoman@webtv.net Subject: Fwd: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show Doc in Phoenix From: authority@webtv.net Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:20:20 -0700 To: blackvault@mylist.net Subject: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show On a final segment of the Discovery Channel's show "Anatomy of a Sighting", which discussed the flyover of Arizona on March 13th, a photo expert used an overlay of a daylight photo superimposed on the night video taken by a Phoenix resident. This overlay presentation was to show that the lights in the video were flares dropped behind a mountain. On a local Phoenix TV station, Fox Channel 10, at 9PM on Sunday Nov. 9th, it was shown that the overlay used on the Discovery show was bogus, a fake representation of what was seen. For those in the Phoenix area, more on this fraud will be shown on the 9PM news show on Fox Channel 10 tonight, Nov. 11th, at 9PM. Flares that have a maximum burn time of six minutes, released in small parachutes, and emit smoke, continue to be offered by debunkers as an explanation for the March 13th event. The event lasted from 8:15PM to 10PM covering almost 200 miles. Those who rationalize that the incidents were the result of secret stealth new toys of the USAF, should be asked: Stealth with lights ON? Absolutely noiseless? Slowing to speeds of only 35MPH? Altitudes of only hundreds of feet? About the final question -- The entire corridor used as a flight path by the object or objects sighted, is on a line from north to south. Just 10 miles west, all along the flight path corridor, is thousands of square miles of desolate desert. Would a pilot or pilots of secret or experimental USAF craft choose a flight path over a population area of two million people? NO WAY. Doc in Phoenix
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 11 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:08:44 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 21:23:57 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:22:34 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c Regarding the Drake equation, anyone interested please look up the archives for 1/97 where the relevancy and lack of relevancy of the Drake equation to ufology was discussed in detail. Sean Jones makes the same mistakes that appear to be continually made by those that are looking for validation of their ETH belief systems. > Drake, a United States astrophysicist devised an equation to > prove mathematically that there must be other life in the > universe. That is absolute poppycock! Nowhere has Frank Drake ever presented his now famous relationships, nor have they ever been discussed in the scientific community has "proof" or "mathematical proof" of anything. They are simply a WAG. For those that may be acronym impaired, a WAG is a Wild-Ass Guess, nothing more and nothing less. > His equation mathematically suggests the relationship > of the number of stars like earth's, the number of stars with > planetary systems, the number of planets in each system having > conditions suitable for the origin of life, the number of those > planets on which life could actually develope, the number of > those planets on which intelligent life could evolve, the number > of those intelligent populations that could develope > civilisations capable of interstellar travel. Again, the above is incorrect. No where does the Drake equation address as Sean Jones states: the "number of those intelligent populations that could develop civilisations capable of interstellar travel." Drake tried only to address those possible civilizations that had achieved a technological level high enough to be able to *communicate*, i.e. send and receive communications over interstellar distances. No where does any of the relationships expressed in the Drake equation address interstellar travel. No matter how hard ufologists hope to find some kind of support for ET being here today sharing time and space with us on our Earth from the Drake equation, that support simply does not exist. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Ufologists' continuous misrepresentations over the Drake "equation" if fundamentally critical in showing that ufology is more of a belief system than any kind of science. > So we have a > mathematical formula that *proves* that there must be life out > there, and a high probability that some of them have the > capability of interstellar travel. No we don't. No proof. The Drake equation is not proof of anything and it never even makes any kind of correlation regarding "interstellar travel, thus any inferences predicated on the Drake equation are wrong from the beginning. A simple way of looking at the Drake "equation" is that it hopes to address what may well be out there, and not what may be here. There is no linkage expressed or implied between what may be out there and what may be out here. Let me try to draw an example. Suppose we develop an "equation" that could help us to guess the number of killer whales that populate the oceans and then someone comes along and tries to draw inferences from that, that it is reasonable to speculate that killer whales may pop in and out of our swimming pools. It is ridiculous to try to draw the inference based on the initial quantified speculation of how many killer whales exist in the oceans. But in essence, that is what ufology tries to do everytime someone "discovers" the Drake "equation" and attempts to use it to support their belief in the ETH. > Now we are at the point where we must either accept that there is > life out there or stuff it, there is no life out there. If you > are one of those who will not accept that there is life out there > then you have no credence in the ETH. Wrong. There is no dichotamy here. One can believe that intelligent life exists "out there", and yet fail to see where there exists any compelling evidence for intelligent life "here". In essence that was Sagan's position and the predominant position within the scientific community. The two belief systems are not mutually exclusive and ET intelligent life "out there" does not imply ET intelligent life "here". > Is it unreasonable to suggest that this intelligent other life, > which has achived interstellar travel, has traveled to our lovely > planet earth? Based on what? Your false assertion that the Drake "equation" proves that ET has achieved interstellar travel? Or that it even "implies" it? I must say that not only is it unreasonable, but also demonstrably false based on your inaccurate initial premises. > Stan Friedman has already shown us that we do not > need to exceed the speed of light to visit other stars and/or > solar systems. Somebody give him a medal. > So my understanding of the ETH: "Some of the Unidentified Flying > Objects that are sighted by witnesses could indeed be vehicles > from another planet" has credibility. Its only a matter of > weather you agree with me or not. Well, if your understanding of the ETH has any credibility or not, it certainly is not predicated on your understanding of the Drake equation. As a matter of fact, your argument for the ETH based on your misunderstanding of the Drake equation probably does more to weaken it, than to suggest any real credibility. > BUT as to hardcore physical proof to substantiate the ETH, I must > bow down to you, and apologise, for I have none personally. That is the major problem with the ETH. And no matter how hard believers in the ETH wish for our world to relax its standards for what comprises compelling evidence, critical thinking, discernment, and ultimately proof, those standards are the only thing that gives us the confidence to separate real knowledge from pseudo-knowledge and/or faith. > But is it not a *reasonable* hypothesis?? Asking the wrong question. It is not relevant whether the ETH is reasonable or not. What is relevant is whether or not we will ever devise the methodology to where we can take this hypothesis into the realm of real knowledge, or not? After fifty years, we haven't made any progress whatsoever with this hypothesis. Each day that slips by, the ETH falls deeper and deeper into the realm of an unsupportable belief system based solely on the faith of its believers. At the rate it is going, it is pre-destined to be the fodder of future cults and religions and not of science. Nobody from the outside of ufology will lift a hand in trying to reverse that trend. Ufology will have to do it all on its own. That means learning the basics of critical thinking, discernment, logic and what constitutes proof and then PRACTICING IT! Ed Stewart ps. discussing belief systems is inherently a total waste of time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone, There is Something | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. Going On! ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. --------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ETH &c From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:32:40 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 07:56:58 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c Joy to the list and all its boys and girls: >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:22:56 -0500 >Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:49:56 -0500 >Subject: Re: ETH &c >Jeff, would you care to provide transcripts of Budd's sessions >with abductees, in which you can show us how he leads them? Here's a couple that are immediately to hand: >From Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind (pp.344-45&347) Hopkins is hypnotizing "Alice" to discuss an incident they have touched on before: ********************************************************************* "You're driving along, and various things happen on this trip," Budd tells her. "There are various interruptions, things that were unexpected. We know at one point there's a police officer. So there are some things that happened." ... "As you drive along, everything looks kind of typical, but maybe at some point you notice that something seems a little different. See if you notice anything different. It could be any number of things..." ... "One," Budd says. "You're driving along...something's going to interrupt the monotony...Two, right on the edge now...three!" There is silence, and then Alice whispers, "It's like a crown of light..." ... "Your body remembers exactly what it felt," Budd says gently. "You're lying there, and you're cold, and you don't have anything on. This is what we're going to do. We're going to start with your feet and we're going to move up from your feet and we're going to move up from your feet systematically through your whole body and see what your body's memories are. ... Starting with your feet. What do your feet feel? Concentrate your attention down there; let's see if your feet feel different in anyway. If they feel any of those things or if the feel normal." Budd gradually focuses Alice's attention away from her feet to her ankles, to her calves, her knees, her thighs. ***************************************************************** There is also this session with "Nicole" described in Schnabel's Dark White (p. 240-41): ***************************************************************** "Nicole came back and Budd suggested that she go through these [black & white] pictures of various people and tell him which ones looked more like the man in the blue striped pyjamas and which ones looked less like him. That way we would have a better idea of what he really did look like. It was the same sort of thing the police did when they were trying to sketch a suspect. Nicole apparently didn't recognize any of the men - not Perez de Cuellar, not even Michael Caine - and Budd didn't tell her who they were. She went through the pile, and for most of them she said no, he didn't look like that, but for three of them, Phil Gramm, Lloyd Bentsen, and Jimmy Hoffa - she said yes, he did look sort of like that. Perez de Cuellar languished in the No pile. Budd wasn't going to give up so easily, however. He took the best six photos, in which group Perez de Cuellar was included, and ran them by her again, for each one covering up this or that part, or asking her to suggest changes to make him more like the man in the blue striped pyjamas. Nicole looked at the six photos again, but she still liked Bentsen and Gramm and Hoffa. Perez de Cuellar was too chubby, too florid-faced. However, Nicole did like Perez de Cuellar's hair, and his eyebrows. In fact, the more she looked at Perez de Cuellar's photograph, the more she liked it. Eventually, after several more rounds of evaluation and re-evaluation, it came down to Perez de Cuellar and Lloyd Bentsen. Budd asked Nicole to score each one's resemblance to the man in the blue striped pyjamas on a scale of 0- 10. She gave Perez de Cuellar an 8, and Bentsen only a 7. Then Budd took out a color photograph of Perez de Cuellar which has appeared in Vanity Fair. It was a frontal shot which reduced his apparent girth. Now Perez de Cuellar rated a 10. Budd had won. ***************************************************************** Both sessions show Hopkins using leading techniques, especially the Nicole session where it achieves Hopkins', presumably, desired end - Perez de Cuellar's picture goes from the discard pile to the one showing the man in the blue striped pajamas. The Alice session also shows leading techniques, though more subtle than the Nicole incident. The questions Hopkins asks provide pressure to confabulate. Notice the way they are worded "there are some things that happened," "something's going to interrupt the monotony," "your body remembers exactly what it felt." The questions suggest their own right answer, and it's not it's a boring drive, nothing happened and I don't feel squat. In other words, leading questions. Maybe something indeed did happen, but the detailed questioning that assumes something happened clouds the picture. You may protest that these are not blatantly leading questions, such as everyone's favorite what color is the alien's hair, but that is actually the point. Researchers in hypnosis have found that subtly leading questions, those that press for more and more detail, are perhaps the most dangerous when hypnotic, or other socially constructed suggestive situations, are involved - precisely because the subject will not notice the leading character and will not be as likely to "reality test" the response. The pressing question, on the other hand, leads the subject to dig up more and more detail to please the hypnotist, heightening the risk of confabulation, and thus confabulation in the direction the investigator is going. For those interested, Nicholas Spanos' Multiple Personalities & False Memories, is a relatively easy to access, detailed discussion of the above problems. I'd also suggest Elizabeth Loftus' book on Eyewitness Testimony, which includes a description of a study in which significantly more false positive responses (in a non-hypnotic setting) were obtained by changing a question from "Did you see *a* ...," to "Did you see *the* ..." - a subtle example of leading indeed. >Your move. >Greg Sandow I believe I've answered the point, and even managed to remain polite. And if you disagree with me about what is and is not leading, fine. I'll freely admit there is no hard and fast rule, and I won't assume you're ignorant or "out to lunch" just because you disagree with me on where to draw the line. (Well ... on second thought, if you don't see at least some leading in the Nicole session...) The important point is that scientists doing research into hypnosis and memory reconstruction have found serious problems with the techniques that are being utilized by abduction researchers. They will, therefore, be leery of what is produced using those techniques, and will shy away from getting involved in the investigation. My argument is simple, eliminate the problematic elements, and what's left is more likely (though not inevitably) to attract serious attention. Jeff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:48:10 +0200 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:13:55 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:08:44 -0800 >From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject:Re:UFO UpDate:ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >After fifty years, we haven't made any progress whatsoever >with this hypothesis. Each day that slips by, the ETH >falls deeper and deeper into the realm of an unsupportable >belief system based solely on the faith of its believers. >At the rate it is going, it is pre-destined to be the >fodder of future cults and religions and not of science. >Nobody from the outside of ufology will lift a hand in >trying to reverse that trend. Ufology will have to do it >all on its own. >That means learning the basics of critical thinking, >discernment, logic and what constitutes proof and then >PRACTICING IT! Well said! I don't really want to say this, but at least dead-horse flogging isn't a punishable offence <G!>: Ed has it right: ufology is destined to wallow in a pool (mud-hole?) of its own making. With all due respect to people who have been involved in the field for many years, I would like to posit that ufology (ie: the study of the UFO phenomenon and RELATED subjects) has descended to the point where scientific study has become a secondary issue, and where more time is spent with verbal/mail sparring between people who seem to think that they HAVE to defend a stance or point of view. Apart from that, there seems to be a disproportionate number of people concentrating on benefitting financially from the whole issue. Now that's not to say it's WRONG, but where's the focus? Where are the white papers, the public- domain reports? What real scientific value is being left for the next generation of ufologists? What each non-scientific publication is doing is relegating ufology further into the realms of tabloid sensationalism. I don't care how valid the case study is: if a lay person picks up such a book, and reads about an alleged incident which has no scientific proof or evidence, then the immediate question asked is either "What substance was this guy abusing", or else "Another one for the nut house". Now there are going to be arguments that dressing up a case study to make it more palatable for the general public is necessary so that publishers will bite. Again I ask: is the focus on money or on a necessary paper that will be used by the more serious researcher? Do we need high-volume print runs, or a small limited-budget report that ADDS VALUE? Now, I don't want to blow his horn, but an old friend of mine, Jan Lamprecht, is busy with a SERIOUS, WELL RESEARCHED book on the Hollow Earth Hypothesis: he intends only to have a small print run, and couldn't give a damn about volume sales. He wants to provide something OF VALUE, with the hope that somebody can take the ball and run with it, whether it is "serious" scientists or some rich explorer type with money to burn. And that's something ufology can try: publish something that gets the right people interested. Maybe then the right equipment and resources will be made available to people who are interested in nailing this phenomenon! Nuff said. Back into lurk mode. Regards Charl Naude Tel. +27 12 311-2311 Fax +27 12 311-2311 Cell. +27 83 447 7980 eMail naudec@intekom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:39:25 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:19:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show >From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com >Date: 11 Nov 1997 23:01:53 UT >Subject: Fwd: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show >To: updates@globalserve.net >------------------(Forward)-------------------- >Date: Tue Nov 11 15:39:15 1997 >To: William.Hamilton >From: satmike@goodnet.com >Subject: Fwd: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show >From: authority@webtv.net >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:25:40 -0700 >To: satmike@goodnet.com, mrdavoman@webtv.net >Subject: Fwd: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show >Doc in Phoenix >From: authority@webtv.net >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:20:20 -0700 >To: blackvault@mylist.net >Subject: Photo Hoax on Discovery Show >On a final segment of the Discovery Channel's show "Anatomy of a >Sighting", which discussed the flyover of Arizona on March 13th, >a photo expert used an overlay of a daylight photo superimposed >on the night video taken by a Phoenix resident. >This overlay presentation was to show that the lights in the >video were flares dropped behind a mountain. On a local Phoenix >TV station, Fox Channel 10, at 9PM on Sunday Nov. 9th, it was >shown that the overlay used on the Discovery show was bogus, a >fake representation of what was seen. Hi Doc, hi All, The much maligned Jim Dilletoso (not sure sp?) made an overlay analysis months ago that drew nothing more than sniping from the 'debunkers.' Now that channel ten and others are beginning to 'confirm' Dilletoso's earlier findings give a little credit where credit is due. I was so impressed by the video footage that Tom King had shared with me shortly after the sighting, that I spent hours pouring over it and taking it apart in my computer. The stuff held up, I'm a graphic artist with 16 years of publication experience. I am familiar with every 'creating' technique that can be applied to film or to a digital image. When something in an image is manipulated the 'artist' leaves behind 'evidence' of his having -been there. Seams, altered pixels, hues, values, and other much more obvious stuff as well. Tommy's video held up under the closest scruitiny, (he originally sent me about three hours worth of daylight, night time, clear day, cloudy day, you name it footage of 'hamburger bun' shaped 'metallic' -craft- to study.) Not a stitch of it showed -any- signs of tampering. (That I could find) After I saw the March 13,th footage I began to think of it as a monumental and blatant -demonstration- on the part of 'the occupants' of that thing that hung in the sky over Phoenix. I also got to know Tom and Jason DeGraf, and Mike DeVarennes personally and I consider them friends. These are straightforward honest guys who are trying to alert the rest of us about 'what's in our skies'! Everyone I know or have met who claims to have seen a UFO relates to it as having been a 'pivotal' experience in their lives. To a person, the experience left a very deep impression and as -they will tell you - it was an 'unforgettable' one as well. We are, each of us in our own way, running up and down mainstreet yelling, "They've landed! The aliens are here!" I'm still waiting for the dust to settle and the 'reality' of the event to sink in with people. IMHO, it was tantamount to a "landing on the White House lawn" as far as I'm concerned. The appearance of a 'thing' like that over a major American city is significant. People better stop screwing around and start paying some attention. As for me, it would take a lot of 'serious evidence' to the contrary to convince me that it wasn't "UFO"! Noises from one mans blowhole. John Velez, *"I'm not a UFO believer, I'm a UFO knower!" (stolen from RS <G>) John Velez jvif@spacelab.net Search for other documents from or mentioning: jvif | william.hamilton
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:47:51 +0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:22:03 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:08:44 -0800 >From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:22:34 +0000 >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >> Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c snippety snip snip >Ed Stewart >ps. discussing belief systems is inherently a total waste of time. WHY? >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone, >There is Something | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. > Going On! ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, >Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. >--------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man ------- Hi Ed I was going to answer each individual points as they came, but you are obviously a bit riled at what I wrote so I'll do you the honour of giving it to you straight. What I really wanted to say was : Its pretty bloody arrogant of us as a human race to say that we are the only life in the whole universe, and its even more arrogant to say that we are the most intelligent life in the universe. So therefore why is the ETH an unreasonalble theory. So my quoting the Drake equation was merely to provide "an argument", nothing more, nothing less. I am not a scientist, nor have I EVER claimed to be one, so I do not need "real knowledge"(as you put it) to know that it it possible. I also believe in God but nowhere will you find any physical proof that he exists either. If I made any mistakes in the Drake equation it is because I am running on memory, the last time I saw that equation explained was about eighteen months to two years ago, so if I made a basic mistake in that his equation only went as far as "interstellar communication" then sorry but I made a mistake. Pray tell are you "one of those" who will not believe in anything until you have physical proof in your own hands that whatever it is is in existence? A blind man does not need to know that a swan is white when everybody tells him it is so. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:40:29 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:14:26 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:48:10 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c -Reply >>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:08:44 -0800 >>From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject:Re:UFO UpDate:ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>After fifty years, we haven't made any progress whatsoever >>with this hypothesis. Each day that slips by, the ETH >>falls deeper and deeper into the realm of an unsupportable >>belief system based solely on the faith of its believers. >>At the rate it is going, it is pre-destined to be the >>fodder of future cults and religions and not of science. I can see the mess of things that you are talking about. And it is forty years plus, since the first Roswell incident announcements. There aren't any alien ashtrays on display. And if there were any alien ashtrays on display, someone would come along and try to pass a law that made it illegal for aliens to smoke. So, I have to ask, where's the beef? Well, it keeps going on that there are people who keep saying they did this and that, people who saw this or that. And it won't stop. Worse, I am one of those people who won't quit saying that there is something up there. All I can say is that I am convinced of the reality of my experiences. If you want to listen, then I will say what I have to say. If you don't want to hear what I have to say, then I will simply not tell you anything. It isn't much different for any abductee or contactee. They all have their own stories to tell. They all see things from their own individual perspectives. They all make mistakes in remembering things. Etc. etc. as I keep wishing my nightly wish on that slow Do you not see that all of these people cying "Wolf" have one thing in common? Whatever all of these people had experiences with is definitely non-human. They don't have a representative in the United Nations, so we shouldn't recognize them? So, what is this? Is it the twilight Zone? I don't have any proof that there are alien ashtrays. It is not up to me to prove anything, especially if there are really alien ashtrays. What I have is merely a story that does not fit. You can fit it any way you like to anywhere you like. If it makes some bit of sense to you, then it works for you. But, from my point of view, I think I know what I did and where I went. I think I know a bit about what happened. If you care to listen, you will only know what I know. It still amounts to nothing. No ashtray, and a no-smoking sign. Look at what the aliens have affected. Look at the awareness of 'Spaceship Earth' in light of the fact that so many languages and cultures exist on Earth. Look at the effects aliens have had already on humanity as a species. You sit and gloat infront of a stupid bit of technology called a computer. Think of the difference that would have made to the troubles of the Romans. But you are no different than the Romans for not learning the lessons available here. Every time a piece of evidence is brought out to the public eye, it is accepted or not. Neither stories nor photographs seem to pass the test of examination. So, what else is offered up as proof? Would it not go the way to the 'humus' pile for the slightest of excuse? Does this not offer up the choice for anyone to make their own decisions about the reality of aliens? Why is there this kind of choice in the first place? Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 MUFON 'Articles' Needed From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:26:57 +0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:56:03 -0500 Subject: MUFON 'Articles' Needed Hi Errol, Hi All I am after a copy of each of these MUFON magazines/articles. MUFON Symposia of 1985 and 1989 Could anyone please contact me as to where I could obtain a copy of each. Thank you. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesi From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:01:07 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:38:30 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesi OK, Dennis....I'm starting to understand. > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:32 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: > I never said or suggested that Friedman wasn't entitled to make > any argument of which he was enamored. What I suggested was that > Friedman's own passionate advocacy of the ETH might have resulted > in his being something less than an impartial observer (and > reporter) of the UFO scene. If you want to accept Friedman's > books, including his inclusion of Gerald Anderson's long > discredited Roswell testimony, as reflective of UFO reality and > the ETH, then I certainly don't want to stand in your way. (And > obviously couldn't even if I wanted to.) I think that, here and elsewhere, you're suggesting that the ETH -- or overenthusiastic belief in it -- can somehow soften our brains, and compromise our objectivity. Believe the ETH too uncritically, and next thing you know, you can't tell whether Gerald Anderson is lying. I guess that's also what you mean when you say: >I meant to > originally point out that the ETH, in and of itself, is fine as > long as it's constrained or confined to just that -- one theory > among several. It's when it gets out of hand, simply by its > original assumption or adoption, and then is used to account for > everything else associated with UFOs, but as yet unproved > (advanced alien technology=magic, for example), that I objected > to. Is this illogical on my part, or am I missing something? I > didn't think so. This isn't an unreasonable point. It's possible, in any area of life or thought, to adopt some unconventional idea, and then -- pleased with yourself, exhilirated by the adventure of it all, and by your new sense of freedom -- lose all judgement. I suppose that peoplel in past generations (like my own parents, alas) who started as fervent social reformers, and ended up believing in Stalin's communism, are perfect examples of this. That said, I still want to ask what, exactly, the danger is here -- believing in the ETH in the first place, or checking your common sense at the door afterwards? Take my parents. There simply isn't any direct line from their original belief in social justice to their embrace of Stalin. Some other element has to come into play, something that made them vulnerable to communist lies. After all, plenty of people in their generation were active in left-wing causes without becoming communists. Likewise, I'd think, for the ETH. You point to mistakes Stan Friedman makes. But are they really due to his passion for the ETH? Richard Hall, I'd think, is also an advocate of the ETH, as is Jerry Clark. But you'll hardly find two more cautious ufologists anywhere. And if now you want to point to Stan's air of certainty about alien visitors, and the vivid way he puts his arguments, that's just Stan. Maybe you can find, right there, a personality trait that then leads him to be too enthusiastic about MJ-12. But that's not the fault of the ETH itself. At most, it's a warning to the rest of us to be cautious. You, though, seem to go further than that. You seem to think that as soon as anyone announces support for the ETH, he or she ought to issue cautious statements in virtually the same breath, just in case....well, in case of what? In case anyone suspects that all ETH proponents automatically believe that aliens like strawberry ice cream? Excuse me, Dennis. I'll take my chances. Anyone who hangs out in ufological circles, or publishes on UFOs, or even writes e-mail on this list, will eventually paint a full picture of their views. As I'm sure everyone here knows, I'm willing to accept the reality of abductions (though I'm well aware that it hasn't been proved). I don't feel I have to rush, every time I say that, to assure everyone that I don't believe in poor Corso's stuff. Eventually, as people read my posts, they'll find out where I stand. And as for people outside the UFO world, we'll just have to take our chances. The deck there -- at least with scientists -- has been stacked against us for so long that our journey has to go steeply uphill. Of course, if I found myself in a group of scientists, talking about UFOs, I'd need to sketch out a summary of exactly what I was asking them to consider (or, to put it in Alice in Wonderland terms, how many impossible things -- impossible to them, anyway -- I was asking them to believe before breakfast). But I hardly think such a caution applies to a post here. Which is how all this started. I posted what I thought was a monumentally innocent message, saying that, on its face, the ETH was completely reasonable as one reaction to reported UFO sightings. You then burst out, with great vehemence, saying "yes, BUT!" And the "but" turns out to be that some people who think the ETH is reasonable also think that aliens listen to Tibetan music. What that has to do with my post completely escapes me, unless you're saying, as I suggested, that somehow belief in the ETH might rot our minds. As things stand, I feel like I'm being asked to sign some sort of loyalty oath. My support of the ETH (which, by the way, I put in the very mildest terms) is just NOT valid, you seem to be saying, unless I also raise my right hand and swear that Col. Corso doesn't know how many fingers the aliens have. That's why I brought up the Farrakhan analogy. Whenever Farrakhan does something particularly ghastly, African-Americans who dare to step out in the political arena are asked to denounce him. They're all but explicitly told that their support of affirmative action, let's say, is tainted and suspect unless they'll go out of their way to publicly label Farrakhan an anti-semite. They, in their innocence, may never have thought their activism had anything to do with that. And, strangely, white people are never subject to the same test. If David Duke, a racist and member of the Ku Klux Klan, runs for the senate in Louisiana, white politicians in New York would be outraged if African-Americans demanded they denounce the man -- or, specifically, that they MUST go out of their way to denounce him before they can be considered legitimate. Dennis -- how would you feel, if I tried to put you in that position. "Read Mike Davis," you keep telling me. "Fine," I might answer. "But first -- swear that you don't believe Phil Klass's nonsense about Soccoro, or Frank Drake's total abandonment of science in his comments on interstellar travel." Wouldn't you be...well, surprised, at the very least? More in another message. Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:02:58 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:52:12 -0500 Subject: Media Influence on Abduction Reports Recently we've had one of our little teacup tempests about TV influence on the Hill case. Or in other words about Martin Kottmeyer's theory...that an Outer Limits episode, featuring an alien with wraparound eyes "that speak," furnished Betty and Barney Hill with the model of the aliens they claimed had abducted them. The more I think about this -- and about the debate we had -- the sadder I get. Betty Hill, as we know, denied that she and her husband had ever seen the Outer Limits. To which some of our skeptics replied: "But how do we know for SURE that they didn't? How do we know what else they might have seen on TV?" As I remarked at the time, Kottmeyer's theory then becomes a classic example of a non-falsifiable (and therefore damnably non-scientific) proposition. If there's no way to prove the Hills never saw the episode in question, then Kottmeyer can always claim he might be right. We've got to do better than that. Besides, there's yet another problem with Kottmeyer's way of thinking. It's based -- to put it mildly -- on some rather loose concepts of how TV gets in people's heads. In fact, it's based on no concept at all. Here's how it seems to work. The Outer Limits alien, Kottmeyer tells us, had wraparound eyes, and its eyes appeared to speak. (Or were said to speak.) The Hills described aliens with more or less wraparound eyes, and said the eyes were compelling, hypnotic, communicative. Given no more than that, we immediately have people saying the odds are 100,000 to one against such a similarity appearing by chance. But, gosh....how do we know such a thing? I'll grant that some very detailed similarities would obviously be damning. Suppose a TV episode showed us an alien with pockmarked green skin that liked to eat cupcakes, and said it came from a planet of the star Sirius. Now suppose some abductee reported exactly that alien, cupcakes, Sirius, and all. I don't think we'd have to think very hard to make the connection. But wraparound eyes that speak? We're talking about some VERY broad points here, with details that (at least as I see it) could have come from all kinds of places in our culture. I'd need to see precise similarities of concept and language before I was convinced we had evidence of TV influence here. Most of all, though, we need to know what we're talking about when we say things are similar. We need something approaching an objective measure of "similarity." We need some common understanding of what we mean when we say things are too much alike to be similar only by chance. Otherwise we'll be hurling accusations back and forth without knowing what we're really talking about. And even though I can twit Kottmeyer's defenders here for setting up a situation in which they just can't lose, I have to concede that they have a point. There's no way to prove, in any one case, that somebody wasn't exposed to any media source anybody wants to propose. So we need to get beyond individual cases. We need to develop a larger understanding of how media may have helped create the standard abduction account, and then find ways to prove the theory true or false. In particular, let me propose two things that need to be done, before this discussion will make any kind of scientific sense. 1. We need a control. We need to look at some known case where images spread from science fiction (or from something else in the media) into some form of popular consciousness. We need a test case nobody will argue with, to show us how this phenomenon of media influence actually works. Then we'll have something approaching solid ground to stand on, when we look for media influence in abduction reports. 2. We need some falsifiable hypotheses. Up to now, any discussion of media influence on abduction reports has been, from any systematic point of view, just laughable. Kottmeyer says there was something on TV sort of like the Hills' aliens! Gosh! Robert Shaeffer (at the MIT abduction conference) trots out a really old Buck Rogers comic strip, showing aliens examining a captive human on a table! Wow! Get real, folks. This isn't science. At best, these are tentative suggestions. What we need is something far more thorough, and far more responsible. The people who believe there's been media influence on the standard abduction account should make some predictions about things that would be true, if what they're saying is right. You know...the way Einstein's relativity theory predicted that light would bend in a strong gravitational field. Lo and behold...light DID bend, thus providing evidence that Einstein's theory might be true. What predictions would the media-influence theorists care to make about abductees and abduction accounts, so that their theories can be tested? What predictions would those who think the stories are genuine care to make? The two numbered points on my wish list have to be used together. For example, here's something I'm fond of saying. I like to compare the prevalent description of aliens (going right back to the first reports of UFO "occupants") to the visions of aliens in popular science fiction. UFO aliens were, right from the start, almost universally described as "little men." Science fiction aliens, however, are much more varied than that. They can be blobs, bug-eyed monsters, creatures with tentacles, robots, you name it. Therefore, I like to say, the descriptions of "little men" don't come from the media. But am I right? Now that I'm examining this whole business as critically as I can, I have to question my view. It still feels like common sense to me, but sometimes science demonstrates that what we thnk is common sense is actually wrong. What's missing, in my thinking, is an overview of media influence. I've imagined that UFO data borrowed from the media would have to include a good sampling of the media data the influence supposedly comes from, but does it? Maybe there are examples out there of only one detail plucked out of a media context and turned into a compelling fantasy, minus many of the details it had in its original incarnation. What I'm proposing here are ground rules for the scientific study of media influence on abductions -- and an end to petty debate on a subject that, at present, we haven't even begun to define. Greg Sandow.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:49:56 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:53:45 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Replying to more of Dennis's points..... > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 00:29:32 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: > Greg, again we appreciate the problem, but this won't wash. In > case you haven't noticed, Pritchard's name appears quite > prominently as one of the editors of (and contributors to) "Alien > Discussions." He was also featured and interviewed in C. D. B. > Bryan's big book (if I have the name right) about abductions. His > involvement in UFO research, in other words, is hardly any media > secret, let alone one closely guarded from his MIT colleagues. I > appreciate your description of the situation, but it just isn't > the case. Sorry. Go argue with Pritchard. I picked him as my example precisely because his name HAS gotten around. When I first spoke to him, he not only begged me not to use his name, but told me as a condition of the interview that I couldn't. He said that it was fine to let his name be used within the UFO community, but that -- at the time of the MIT conference, I believe -- he'd been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, and gotten in serious trouble. He probably regreats being in Courty Bryan's book, but there's nothing he can do about it, since he allowed Bryan to come to the conference as a journalist in the first place. Obviously Pritchard has to fish or cut bait -- if he's deeply worried about his reputation, he should back out of UFOs altogether. But the sentiments I've passed on from him are genuine. While we're on this subject, let's not forget McDonald, who was UFO-baited when he testified before Congress on a completely unrelated subject. People opposed to his views on developing civilian supersonic planes ridiculed him because (in their words) he believed in "little green men." Public advocacy of UFOs isn't good for a scientist's professional health. Nor is this even news. You can read the same thing in Hynek and Vallee. The "invisible college," remember? That's why it was invisible...because the scientists with a genuine interest in UFOs didn't want their interest known. > This is a nice bit of effluvium, Greg, but are you seriously > suggesting that ufologists can't squarely confront the "whole > issue of alien visits [which] has our culture in a tizzy"? > They've been actively promoting it for something like a half > century, and you say they can't get quite squared away about it? > What kind of logic is this? Did it ever occur to you that one > reason why society might be in such a tizzy is because ufologists > have extrapolated the original ETH beyond all bounds of decency > and common sense? I've addressed this in another post, and I apologize for not being clearer when I originally made the point. The idea actually comes from James Oberg, who once told me (and I imagine he's said this in print as well) that, as our world begins to explore space, we're a ssailed by fantasies of hope and fear about what lies out there. Or, in other words, we're assailed by belief in UFOs. That was his skeptical point. He impressed me with it, though I preferred to apply it to skeptics as well. Of course many ufologists have trumpeted the idea of alien visits. What few of them have done is consider the implications. When I first met people in this field, I'd ask them what they FELT about aliens being here. I found the answers extraordinary. "It doesn't mean much to me. I've been used to the thought since I read science fiction in high school." (Kevin Randle) "I never explored my feelings about this until I was at the MIT conference, and confronted the possibility of abductions." (Richard Hall. I'm paraphrasing these remarks, by the way.) And so on. The UFO business hasn't done a good job facing the implications of alien visits, for all the widespread talk about "the most significant event in history." Turning to the skeptical side for a moment, what about Klass's mantra, about how he'd be thrilled to have aliens land in his back yard, becuase it would turn into the biggest story he'd ever written? Utter bilge. Aliens land and all it means to him is a journalistic coup. Pure denial, in my view. Often I meet people who, learning of my interest in UFOs, want to hear about it. When I get to abductions, there are always a few people who say "Don't tell me about that. The whole idea is too scary." When that happens, I feel I've met an honest person, or, more specifically, someone deeply in touch with their emotions -- a phrase which, in my view, wouldn't describe many of us in the UFO community (including myself). > I'm a working writer and so are you. But if neither of us has > anything else better to do with our time, I'll gladly accept your > "challenge to compare Stan's work on [MJ-12] with SETI astronomer > Frank Drake," having already admitted previously on this post > that I'm no particular fan of Drake's work and conclusions. > Let me also add that you're comparing apples and oranges here. > But if you really and seriously want to adopt the voice of > Friedman's "apostle of sweet reason" as your own, then so be it. Stan is, comparatively speaking, an apostle of reason. At least he's concerned with facts, and with testable hypotheses. When he plunges into the archives to determine the truth of MJ-12, he asks himself questions that actually have answers. "Did Eisenhower recieve other briefings around the time of the alleged presentation on MJ-12?" "Are there names, dates, and checkable facts in the MJ-12 documents that nobody could have known at the time the material surfaced?" You may hate his conclusions, or think he does sloppy work, but at least he's concerned with testable reality. Others can follow him into the piles of dusty papers, and come to conclusions of their own. Nor does he insist that the reality of MJ-12 is absolutely proved. He considers his research a work in progress. Compare Drake. Drake (see the book he co-authored with Dava Sobel) asks questions of mammoth, in fact cosmic import. Having postulated the existence of civilizations a billion years ahead of us, he asks whether interstellar travel is possible -- or in other words whether these advanced races can visit each other (or visit us). Many of us would counsel caution in the face of such a question. But Drake throws caution out the window. He delcares with complete unshakable conviction that interstellar visits aren't possible. What's his evidence? Well, the usual stuff -- there's no way to exceed the speed of light, and, even to approach it, the amount of power required is prohibitive. These arguments are based on real data. Our science, in its present state, supports those two propositions. But what about science a billion years more advanced than ours? Drake doesn't even ask himself that question. A more sensitive SETI scientist, Paul Davies, consi dering the same question, takes time to make a fairly obvious observation. If you believe that vastly advanced aliens would face the same interstellar obstacles that we face, he says, you're assuming that we, even in this early stage of our technological development, have discovered laws of nature so basic that even in a billion years of evolution we won't find a way around them. Well, maybe. Drake and Davies are entitled to believe this, if they like. But how would they prove it? They can't. Nobody can. So this assumption of Drake's -- and therefore the idea about interstellar travel that rests on it -- isn't a scientific proposition. It can't be proved or disproved. It's a matter of faith. Again, I don't mind if Drake holds this faith. But he puts forward his belief as science, which it emphatically is not. Scientific propositions have to be testable. How do you test this one? How could you prove it wrong? Having gotten this far, Drake takes yet another step, which proves beyond any doubt how subjective (and therefore non-scientific) his thinking is. He notes an objection from a colleague. This other scientist, he writes, believes that the power requirements for near-lightspeed travel can be overcome. After all, as our own civilization progresses, we find ourselves with vastly more power available to us than we used to have. Why not assume that this trend will continue into the future? Here's Drake's answer. Fine, maybe we'll have more power -- but what happens when we get into interstellar space? Maybe we'll all be fried by cosmic rays! At least in his initial arguments against interstellar travel, he had solid data to fall back on. We don't know any way to exceed the speed of light; that's absolutely rock-solid science. Here, however, he's speculating. He has NO data on the danger from cosmic rays. He's reaching far beyond the facts, flagrantly making things up, in order -- this is my opinion, anyway -- to support a conclusion he's going to hold on to, no matter what opposing arguments anyone makes. And even if you don't support my interpretation of his odd behavior here, you have to agree that his proposition about the danger of cosmic rays in interstellar space is, again, unverifiable, at least at our present state of knowledge. Again, Drake has abandoned science. Of course he's entitled to his views, and is free to believe that interstellar travel is impossible no matter what technology anybody has. But he ought at least to admit that he's theorizing, and the tone of his writing doesn't allow that possibility. He talks in tones of absolute certainty, about things neither he nor any of his colleagues can possibly be sure of -- and that, according to me, makes him a far less reasonable man than Stan Friedman. And to end of a comic note.... >Then I've got some theories I would like to promote about > the origins of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto Numero Uno, one of > which is that the latter was actually present at, and survived, > the battle of the Alamo. Poor Tchaikovsky...he was a nervous sort, and I think the gunfire would have upset him. But here's a true anecdote. Tchaikovsky was gay. So was Saint-Saens, the French composer. Once when Saint-Saens visited Moscow, the two of them dressed up as ballerinas, and danced a pas de deux. Not that I'm saying all gay men like to dress as women. But the point here is that this charming incident was hushed up for generations, because the classical music world took the same view of unorthodox behavior by great composers that the scientific world takes of UFOs. Pure prejudice, either way....and look at the great stories prejudice makes you miss! Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Saucer Error Error From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:45:42 PST Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:55:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:56:43 +1000 (GMT+1000) > To: ufo-l@mb.protree.com, updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error. > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:25:36 -0800 > That information was posted on the internet in 1995 on the UFO-L > <UFO-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU list run by Paul Carleton. > > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > > Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:32:38 PST > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error > > ...... I am not, of course, accusing him of making it up > > himself, just of passing on some of the vast legendry surrounding > > this non-UFO case. > I hold liars in contempt too. I have no reason to believe the > stuff is wrong. The book is well presented with lots of detail. The lesson here is that just because something is in print, that doesn't make it true. The UFO literature has to be read carefully, because a lot of what gets published about the subject is either distorted or flatly false. The Mantell incident is among the most unreliably reported episodes in UFO history. > The type of craft Mantell didn't really see was seen by many > others during that time period. I expect they were all weather > balloons, inversion layers or swamp gas. No. They saw a Skyhook balloon. Skyhooks at the time were part of a classified Navy experiment. The witnesses would not have known about them, but many recognized a balloon when they saw one, and at least two separate observers, one in Kentucky, the other in Tennessee, confirmed the identification through telescopes. Even those witnesses who were puzzled by what they saw described a balloon and balloonlike movement. (Which, by the way, puts a nice dent in the complacent debunking argument which holds that witnesses can be counted on to misdescribe what they see.) > > > .....The object Mantell died chasing, however, was a > > Skyhook balloon launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. > ATIC said there were no skyhooks in the vicinity at the time. I > also wonder why an experienced pilot could not tell a ufo from a > weather balloon nor knew so little about anoxia. Occam is crying > out to tell us something here. Skyhook was a Navy, not an Air Force, operation, and the Project Sign (ATIC) officers of the time knew nothing of it. Read Ruppelt's account of the Air Force investigation, not the science-fictional version you're drawing on, for a credible reconstruction (if an incomplete one; Ruppelt deduced that the Skyhood was launched from southwestern Ohio; we now know it came from Minnesota). Thus the absurd Venus explanation. Particularly in the early days of the UFO era, many pilots mistook balloonsfor UFOs -- for example, Lt. Gorman in the famous October 1948 Fargo, North Dakota, case. Besides, Skyhook was a much larger than normal balloon. As Mantell accurately characterized it just before his tragic death, it looked like "a metallic object ... of tremendous size." For a treatment of all aspects of the Mantell incident, see my The UFO Book, pages 351-56. Best, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Clark, psychosocial or paraphysical approach? From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:32:40 PST Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:10:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark, psychosocial or paraphysical approach? > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:17:18 +0100 > From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> > Subject: Clark, psychosocial or paraphysical approach? > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:27:32 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > >Remember, there was a > >time when I adhered to psychosocial speculations which I now > >consider nonsense (I have never been forgiven for that heresy in > >some quarters.) In fact, my and Loren Coleman's 1975 book was > >the first book-length treatment of this particular approach. > Hello Jerry! > I remember your 1975 book (which I did like at that time, when - > me too - I was fascinated by the paraphysical mumbo-jumbo =E0 la > John Keel) but I cannot understand why you are putting that kind > of approach together with the psycho-sociological reasoning. > Edoardo, Thank you for a most interesting and illuminating posting. I'll append my responses to the appropriate paragraphs below. > Since the late '60s and well into the mid-70's the so-called "new > ufology" flourished in the USA as opposed to the more classical > ETH. John Keel (Operations Trojan Horse) and Jacques Vallee > (Passport to Magonia) were its main champions, though along > slightly different approaches: Keel seemed to favor a sort of > intrusions from parallel universes or the like, intentionally > camouflaged according to the cultural "frame of reference" of the > moment (aliens in the present-day space age); Vallee looked like > more oriented toward a cultural adaptation by ourselves of a sort > of numinous (thence instrinsically ineffable) experience with the > Otherworld. Well summarized. > Then-younger Jerome Clark teamed with cryptozoologist > Loren Coleman and wrote a book (The Unidentified) taking it all > ot its farthest limits, trying to incorporate all sort of Fortean > phenomena under a common umbrella of parapsychologically-oriented > Jungian concepts akin to the "collective unconscious" > materializing somehow in our physical world. "Paraphysical > hypotheses" was the common description of all those (and other) > authors, since they all postulated UFO and strange phenomena were > originating from some "other" reality parallel to our physical > world and sometime interferring with it. I apologize for continually referring readers of this list to things I've written, but I've published so much over the years that I've covered just about everything better than I could do with a few words here. So please don't hold it against me when I refer readers seeking a full account to pages 429-44 and to 492-504 of The UFO Book, where I treat, respectively, paranormal theories and psychosocial theories about the UFO phenomenon. In the English-speaking countries, as I demonstrate in these essays, the two overlapped. The latter grew out of the former. Even today such theorists as Stillings, Ring, Grosso, and Rojcewicz can be accurately character as holding both paranormal and psychosocial views. More on this anon. > In the meantime, here in old Europe, two similar yet very > different approaches were developing: > - the "humanistic ufology" of the UK MUFOB/Magonia editorial team > (mainly John Rimmer and Peter Rogerson), giving more attention to > human (cultural) reactions to UFOs than to the physical aspect > (from 1970 onwards); The significance of the Clark-Coleman The Unidentified (written in 1974, published the following year) is that it was the first book by ufologists to argue that UFO phenomena are not the products of external intelligences but of internally generated mental states influenced by individual and cultural psyche. In those days I was quite close to the MUFOB crowd. Peter Rogerson and I had a warm correspondence going for several years during this period. The Unidentified is still spoken of fondly there and by other psychosociologically inclined ufologists. Though Edoardo's summary is accurate enough as it goes, the parapsychological stuff in The Unidentified strikes me as a secondary consideration, merely an attempt -- albeit a terribly naive one, I think -- to deal with the question of physical evidence and multiple participation in UFO experiences. Today even a Jim Schnabel draws on generally comparable parapsychological mechanisms, and his writings are seen, rightly in my opinion, as mostly psychosociologically oriented. > > - the "parapsychological approach" by a growing number of French > ufologists (mainly the "Ouranos" team, plus authors like Pierre > Vieroudy, Jean Giraud a.k.a. GABRIEL group, and Jean-Jacques > Jaillat), taking their initial inspiration from the "second" > Vallee (Passport to Magonia) but also from the evolution toward a > "second-degree ETH" by the late Aime Michel (say 1975-1979). > The "socio-psychological" hypothesis was a very different affair. > It was born in France, in 1977, with the first book by Michel > Monnerie (What if UFOs did not exist?), which was a REACTION > against the parapsychological attitude as well as against the > classical ETH. On the "ideological" side, It correctly > recognized that the parapsychological deformations of ufology > were but "superstructures" superimposed upon the UFO phenomenon, > but it also (wrongly) concluded that under them there was no > "structure" (no real UFO phenomenon) left; on the concrete side, > it posed real and valid questions as of investigation > methodology, perception and memory studies, and contamination of > the real phenomena by the will-to-believe of most ET-proponents. > It gained a growing attention in France and French-speaking > countries (converts included well-known investigators like > Dominique Caudron, Jacques Brucker and Gerard Barthel), and > flourished in the 1978-1981 years (I can remember dozens of > articles and learned debates, plus whole special issues devoted > to the "nouveaux ufologues" by such French journals as LDLN, > Ovni-presence and Inforespace, not to mention a score of local > groups' bulletins), then died because the ufology environment > divided itself into two opposing camps in a sort of "religion > war": such radicalization took the "sociopsychologists" more and > more toward the French equivalent to CSICOP, thus sterilizing > them as "anti-UFOlogists" and the debate was closed. There > followed indeed a vital "post-monnerist" legacy (John Rimmer > called it "post-modern ufology") mostly around the Paris group of > Thierry Pinvidic, Jacques Scornaux, Claude Mauge', Pierre > Lagrange, which tried to save the positive aspects of that > approach without spousing its radical reductionism, but in the > long run they did not succeed. > > Now I'm asking you the question: what the heck has such (strictly > reductionist) psychosocial or sociopyschological approach (mostly > limited to French-speaking countries in the '80s) to do with the > (wildly speculative, mostly USA-oriented) paraphysical hypotheses > of the '70s? I appreciate this very interesting account. In the English-speaking countries the sorts of distinctions you recount in French ufology were not made. In the 1970s just about every anti-ETH theorist in ufology took for granted that parapsychological mechanisms were linked to subjective mental states in which experients dreamed or envisioned dramatic encounters with ETs, monsters, or whatever. The progression was something like this: Keel brings the paranormal into the discussion. Vallee carries both the paranormal and social processes into the discussion. Both men argue that external (but not ET) intelligences are responsible for UFOs. In the early 1970s MUFOB (now Magonia) accepts the paranormal, or at least the parapsychological part (ESP, psychokinesis), but rejects external intelligences. In 1975 The Unidentified rejects external intell phenomenon, and keeps ESP and PK. By the 1980s Magonia has dropped parapsychology and now holds that exotic UFO experiences are more or less explainable by conventional psychology and social processes. By 1980 I have dropped both views, convincedthat such speculation is strained, naive, just plain wrong, and not up to the job of explaining the most puzzling UFO cases, physical evidence, and so on. I now hold a largely agnostic, process- oriented approach to ufology. In other words, by the time the English-speaking psychosocial hypothesis has assumed its present form, I am no longer part of it. But I did play a role in its creation, not only in The Unidentified but in FSR articles in the mid- to late 1960s. > Let me ask it otherwise: when you write "there was a time when I > adhered to psychosocial speculations which I now consider > nonsense", are you meaning that you were ever OK with a > CSICOP-like reductionism? No. And the psychosocial school was, and to a degree still is, unsympathetic to CSICOP-style reductionism, on the grounds that it's too simplistic and dismissive. In France, from what I gather from what you and others have told me, psychosocial theorists were essentially debunkers. > I guess you never meant that. Thus I wonder why mix the two, > unless you just choose consider all anti-ETH approach in the same > and one bag (and it would be highly unfair for me to hint that). See above. Let me reiterate: the history in English-speaking ufology was different from the one you're describing in French ufology. > A second possibility may also be guessed: that while you did (and > do) know well the paraphysical issues as well as the "humanist > ufology" of those cunning British bad guys, you may have been > less documented about those non-English-speaking heretics. I dare > to suggest that because the bibliography you quoted on that > specific subject in your masterful Encyclopedia first volume > (UFOs in the '80s) was sadly lacking as of French sources, and my > rusty memory keeps on telling me you once admitted (to Pierre > Lagrange at the 1987 MUFON Symposium?) that you couldn't (can't?) > read French. What "cunning British bad guys?" Peter Rogerson, John Rimmer, et al., are neither cunning nor bad (they are British, though). I had a great time with them in England last year. I've subscribed to Magonia for years and always enjoy reading it. Though we agree on not much, John wrote an admirably fair-minded review of my High Strangeness last year. It's not a question of "admitting" I don't read or speak French. I've never pretended that I did. Here as elsewhere the language barrier inhibits our understanding of what the other guy is doing, and that's why guys like you -- who are well conversant in more than one language -- need to keep informing us of what we wouldn't know otherwise. > Thanks for your attention. And thanks again for a most welcome and informative posting. Best regards, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Alfred's Odd Ode #198 From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:49:46 -0600 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:12:22 -0500 Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #198 Apology to MW #198 (For November 12, 1997) Say what you want on those gals from Earth First! Say that they're coddled and crazy, and cursed! Say they're wrong minded, in anger immersed! Say it's a good thing they're gassed and dispersed! But, I know what I've been hearing from the rigid right elite. The right's been heavy handed, out of balance, un-petite. I know the women sat there, on that floor at shiny feet, Out of bounds, and in the grist mill -- but _you_ try to be discrete! Say that they're commies, or lezbo, the worst! Say they need boinking from men with that thirst! Say girlish faces are pouty and pursed! Say that they've gone off the deep end, headfirst! But, what if it's true we're destroying the world in a selfish, mad conceit? What if it's true that the timber man's view's short sighted -- incomplete? What if it's true that congress is skewed -- with the *meter man* replete? What if it's true that the girls do just *sitting* to counter the actions of cheats? Say environ-nazi is where they've been submersed! Say with foreign enemies they're spiced and interspersed!! Say they don't want dialogue, that they're foreign reimbursed! Say they're young and don't know better, or they need their poles reversed! But, these girls are showing courage that is thought out and concrete. It is rooted in good science, and it stands up hard -- complete. The world is in trouble, still we rape and sore mistreat=85 We consume with blind insanity, we dishonor and deplete. Say the liberal fringe is guilty! It's them these girls reversed. Say their liberal teacher was the way they were coerced. Say it's in their genes -- so plain the shallow end disbursed. Say it's in their breeding, then, they have this godless thirst. But, Riggs deserves a back hand for his scurrilous deceit. Littletree deserves my thanks for _being_ *indiscreet*. She shows a courage I don't have, she refuses her retreat! Those girls have gone some distance with "The MAN" -- the bravest feat! Lehmberg@snowhill.com Yeah =85 the rhymes irritated me to, but they seemed appropriate -- like poking at the belly of the beast on the exact same spot with your finger. Eat me, beast! Prove that you will, or could at the least. The tie in? The watchers watch in revulsion as we environmentally shit in bed, and push it down with complacent feet. Oh, and guess who's 'da "feet" in the preceding charmless metaphor! These young women of Earth First show a rare courage as they stand for common sense, good science, and respect. That scurrilous republican representative Frank Riggs directs his BROWNSHIRT BULLY-BOYS to smear chemicals in the eyes of the rational, and the sane! I'm sure he would have done the same with his own mother or daughter -- Eh? Alicia Littletree presented herself in a calm, competent, intelligent, and educated manner on MS-NBC. Rep. RIGGS, on the other hand, whined about law and order the same way HITLER did in the 30's. Look at it this way -- if the congressman is _right_, only the rich will get richer -- cliched, but wholly accurate! If he is _wrong_ -- as virtually every one of my college professors says he MUST be (The rare hold outs are predictably republican) -- then we risk extinction and global catastrophe! I'm going with the girls -- they have the long alien view, are deserving of the prudent benefit of a COLOSSAL doubt, and frankly make more ethical sense (measured in orders of magnitude) than their violence escalating opponents in a partisan republican camp. -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake for a kind of sitting. =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1= =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1= =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1 Government or Social Harassment REPORT - Presently, "ZERO" Personal HARASSMENT; however, the harassment index is infinite for each of us. Consider the dismissal of the perpetually hyper rich.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:07:57 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:14:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 15:40:26 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:47:26 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >[everything snipped except:] >Not content with putting words into the mouths of Wim van Utrecht >and Eduardo Russo, Henny? Been taking reading lessons from the >Canby Clairvoyant? Please quote me saying any radar involved in >the "Belgian Triangle(s)" event(s) was miscalibrated. Duke, here you go: >Presumably these speeds were measured by calibrating the radar >tapes in some way. The highest speed otherwise recorded was, as >previously noted, 690kt [794mph/1278km/h] at 00.32 hrs. Don >Ledger remarks that radar traces are meaningless. They sure can >be. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ETH &c From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:12:13 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:19:07 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c A rueful hello to all and sundry >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST >Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500 >Subject: Re: ETH &c >If people have a hard time distinguishing between the >potentially most important case and the currently best- >documented case, perhaps they should examine their >souls, and possibly their IQs as well. Nice to see you refraining from using that evil old skeptics' trick of ad hominem attacks. Always a pleasure to deal with a man of firm principles. Even those with high IQs and pure souls may find it hard to see the distinction since, at the time, you described Roswell as the most important AND the best documented. >Over time I have changed my mind, for which my >critics love to attack me. Of course, if I never changed my >mind, they'd accuse me of rigid dogmatism. No Jerry, you changing your mind is not a problem. In fact I will here state that I respect anybody who changes their mind in the face of new evidence. My problem with what you said to the Duke was how you tried to downplay the strength of your support for Roswell and your attack on me for having the audacity to make the point using your own words. >Again, guy, you are nowhere near the point. No, the point was you claimed I didn't understand the point, I merely showed that I did. >Hopkins and Jacobs (not to mention other abduction investigators) >continue to report that abductees with whom they work experience ATPs. >This is an extraordinary claim for which they ought to produce >relevant medical evidence. Again, we agree on this basic point. The difference is I think their failure to provide such evidence means they haven't done the work necessary to even raise the claim. In other words, a false hypothesis. >I have already answered you on this. See above. Perhaps >now you can start doing something useful, such as collecting >papers written by scientists, political pundits, social critics, >and others over the years and documenting how they've >changed their minds, been wrong, or otherwise failed to be >dogmatically consistent over time. You've got your work >cut out for you, buddy. As do you in finding out exactly what my reading history is. As I said above, you changing your mind isn't the problem. In fact, you might even trot out Winston Churchill's famous quote on the subject, especially given your fascination with age. The problem is you take stands of absolute certitude, and then when new investigation does cause you to change your mind, you backpedal and try to deny that you were ever so far out on the limb in the first place. Humility anyone? >How old are you, Jeff? Old enough and secure enough in my own professional life to not feel the need to denigrate others' intelligence to feel better about myself. You also missed the point. Your unqualified identification of my prose, which you've probably never seen before, was just another (very minor) example of your habit of reaching absolute conclusions too quickly. Your response just reinforces the point. And now that Jerry has fallen into childish insults and name calling, I will bow out of this stimulating exchange. But Jerry, please feel free to attack again. I'm sure you'll want the last ad hominem word. Malgre tout, Regards Jeff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Saucer Error Error From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:12:21 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:34:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/11/97 10:25 PM: > From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:56:43 +1000 (GMT+1000) > To: ufo-l@mb.protree.com, updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error. > > .....The object Mantell died chasing, however, was a > > Skyhook balloon launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. > ATIC said there were no skyhooks in the vicinity at the time. I > also wonder why an experienced pilot could not tell a ufo from a > weather balloon nor knew so little about anoxia. Occam is crying > out to tell us something here. The report from ATIC is on page 46 of Steiger's "Project Blue Book"; however, that report states the balloon was released from Clinton County Airport, OH. The report is signed J.C. Harvell, Col, ASAF, Chief, Equipment laboratory. It is undated. Naturally, that the object was a balloon of a type secret at the time, travelling at high altitude, and thus infrequently observable, led to Mantell's inability to identify it. Further, we have the testimony that it was not obtrusively visible, since the wingmen could not see it. Mantell apparently, in his focus on the chase, did not pay sufficient attention to his altitude until after the effects of anoxia had affected his judgement. Photos of the crash are present in the same book. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:15:18 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:36:13 -0500 Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:02:44 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern? >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Dear James Easton, You stated the following: >I had merely noted that, "the F-16 radar data from the Belgium flap >was _officially_ explained by the Belgian Air force as ground clutter >and no pilot ever witnessed an actual object" (...) <snip> >Having provided some material which confirms the background to the >BAF's subsequent conclusions, that was my sole intention. As the >overall evidence is open to interpretation, I neither endorse or >dispute those conclusions. I have the first BAF official report which I forwarded on this List. You seem to be referring to a second (and last?) BAF report. Could you be more specific as to the date and the authors of the latter? Do you know where I could get a copy of it? Thanks in advance, Serge Salvaille
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:27:44 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:32:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:49:14 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] >>>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:47:27 -0600 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Bruce Maccabee's photo 19 calculations >> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:42 -0500 >> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >> Subject: Your Posts to UpDates >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >(SNIP previous message dates) Hello Bruce, hi All, You ask, >WHAT THINK YOU? After all this discussion, has she proved her >point? No. >And, how about her TDP principle (Too Damn Perfect). Should that >be adopted as a major factor in the rejection of UFO photos? No. John Velez John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Post Office Plans Pathfinder Stamp From: RSchatte@aol.com Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:35:11 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:13:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Post Office Plans Pathfinder Stamp --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Post Office Plans Pathfinder Stamp Date: 97-11-12 14:32:19 EST From: AOL News .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Mars Pathfinder, whose mission to the red planet riveted Americans' attention this summer, will be commemorated on a postage stamp. Pathfinder attracted a worldwide television audience as it parachuted to the surface July 4. It began returning data and pictures and provided thousands of pictures and other data until it sent its last set of scientific findings Sept. 27. The lander sent out its last signal Oct. 7. ``As one of the most significant achievements in the history of America's space program, it is fitting that the Pathfinder mission be honored on a U.S. postage stamp,'' Postmaster General Marvin Runyon said. The $3-stamp will be issued Dec. 10 at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. It depicts the Sojourner rover at rest on Pathfinder with a panoramic view and is based on one of the first images sent back from Mars. AP-NY-11-12-97 1356EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: 'Phoenix Lights' Info from Phoenix Fox TV10 From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:04:45 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:24:28 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Phoenix Lights' Info from Phoenix Fox TV10 > From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com > Date: 11 Nov 1997 19:38:51 UT > Subject: Unknown Subject > To: updates@globalserve.net > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:04:58 +0000 > To: skywatch@rodin.wic.net > From: aggart@ctaz.com (john and april aggas) > Subject: Phoenix lights info from Phoenix Fox TV > Two nights ago, Phoenix Fox TV, Ch 10 did another story on the > Phoenix lights. This time, Troy Hayden, the TV anchor, using > original footage of the lights, went to the home of the man who > video taped the lights and, using the man's video camera, taped > from the same location as the original video was shot but during > daylight! They then superimposed the two films and it clearly > showed the lights were below the mountains in the > background....disproving the theory that they were flares dropped > on a test range many miles away and disappearing behind the > mountains! Kudos to Fox TV 10 in Phoenix for making their own independent investigation, and perhaps even more importantly, for doing it right and eliminating all doubt. I must admit that even with all its problems I liked the flares theory. It seemed to me to be the best explanation for the odd behavior of the 10pm lights, turning on one by one and then five minutes later turning off one by one. (A better explanation than a hovering alien craft testing its rockets, or whatever.) Now, the only way that a flares hypothesis for the 10pm lights can still be maintained, is for the flares to have been dropped either among or in front of the Estrella mountains themselves. As I understand it, there are not enough landmarks in the different videos for it to be possible to triangulate the position of the lights precisely enough to be able to go there and search for ground traces?? The lights being below the peaks also opens up the possibility that they were actually on the ground on the high slopes of the mountains when they were observed, and that this is the reason why they exhibited no apparent horizontal or vertical motion, and why no parachutes were observed above them even through a telescope. However, it seems to me quite unlikely that in this uneven terrain they would all end up in a straight line, height wise. So I discount the notion that the lights were either dropped onto, or deployed from, the ground high up in the mountains. -George Fergus Search for other documents from or mentioning: fergus |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:17:33 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:32:33 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:47:51 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c Sean Jones keeps enlightening the list with his ufological wisdom: > What I really wanted to say was : Its pretty bloody arrogant of > us as a human race to say that we are the only life in the whole > universe, I am not aware of anyone that argues that position. > and its even more arrogant to say that we are the most > intelligent life in the universe. And I am not aware of anyone that argues that position either. Your two above statements are nothing more than strawman arguments not predicated on any actual position with overtones of an appeal to the gallery, i.e. logical fallacies. > So therefore why is ... So, there is no therefore. Period. > So my quoting the Drake equation was merely > to provide "an argument", nothing more, nothing less. You did not quote the Drake equation. You misconstructed it, twisted it, and made it into something that it never was, nor meant to ever be. In your ufological wisdom you may well see what you presented as an "argument", but it wasn't an argument. It was a misconstruction based on strawman arguments, appeals to the gallery, irrelavent statements and a total disregard for any semblance of logic. > I am not a scientist, nor have I EVER claimed to be one, so I do > not need "real knowledge"(as you put it) to know that it it > possible. You just need your emotions, your gut feelings and your belief system to think that you know what is possible. You are driven by faith. May well be that is where Ufology belongs, as a faith driven belief system and ultimately an ET related religion! I happen to be someone that still thinks differently, that there may well be room for science in ufology and that there is no room in ufology for faith. I may well be wrong. Time will tell. One thing appears to be certain. Those that are the most interested, are going to the ones influencing what ufology will ultimately become: a science with all its shortcomings such as patience, methodical slowness, critical data analysis, independent verifications with peer review, linkage in data and argument constructions with an ultimate foundation to be built on real knowledge; or a religion with all its attractions such as miracles, pomp and glory, no critical data analysis, no independent verifications, total acceptance on whatever the high priests present as data with an ultimate foundation to be built on absolute faith. > Pray tell are you "one of those" who will not believe in anything > until you have physical proof in your own hands that whatever it > is is in existence? What I believe in or not is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that I am not prepared to make a leap in faith when it comes to UFOs representing an ETI presence on this Earth. And from what I have been able to gather, those that have made that leap in faith are unable to defend their belief system on any specific compelling evidence. That is why this quagmire exists today, fifty years after the "Modern Wave" allegedly began. > A blind man does not need to know that a swan > is white when everybody tells him it is so. A blind man does not need to know that a bird has poopoo'ed on his head, even if no one tells him so. Ed Stewart ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone, There is Something | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. Going On! ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. --------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:17:05 +0100 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:39:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual Hello Henny, >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:47:26 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:34:11 +0100 >>From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>a) item 11 above is but the same as item 10 >Ah! Well, in an earlier post someone said that atmospheric >diffraction concerned visual observations. Indeed. Atmospheric diffraction (be it due to termperature inversion or humidity gradients) may concern both visual observations and radar returns, since it may reflect both visible light and radar beams. What's wrong with that? >cleared this up, would you please explain what this >phenomenon actually is. How does a typical ghost/atmospheric >diffraction behave in terms of altitude, speed, acceleration, >heading? Do radar operators often confuse it for an aircraft? Good Heaven! Do you mean that you know NOTHING about the 40+ years literature existing about UFOs and radar? Are you asking me to do YOUR homework on that? Well so, if you like. I'd suggest you to find and read AT LEAST the following items, before continuing to pontificate over something you apparently are not well versed in: - G.D. Thayer, "Optical and Radar Analysis of Field Cases", pp. 115-175; R. H. Blackmere et al., "Radar and the Observation of UFOs", pp. 655-716; both papers in Daniel Gillmor (ed.), "Scientific Study of Unidenified Flying Objects", Bantam, New York 1969 [lenghty and scholar treatment of "angels" and other anomalous propagation effects on radar, both theoretical and applied to specific UFO radar cases. The most complete treatment of the subject yet]. - Martin Lawrence Shough, "Radar and the UFOs", in Hilary Evans & John Spencer (eds.), "UFOs 1947-1987", Fortean Tomes, London 1987, pp. 211-229 [a rather complete ufological-oriented overview of radar nature, capabilities and limitations, problems of anomalous propagation, ghost reflections, radio interference, inversion reflections, previous literature on UFOs and radar, plus several detailed examples of famous radar UFO cases and a bibliography]. - Auguste Meessen, "La detection radar", in Michel Bougard et al., "Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un dossier exceptionnel", SOBEPS, Bruxelles 1991, pp. 351-396 [a thorough analysis of that specific radar-visual case, with all pertaining data, possible explanations and evaluation; most instructive and THE relevant source for any subsequent discussion]. (And I could also add Allan Hendry's "The UFO Handbook", C. Sagan & T. Page's "UFOs: A Scientific Debate", some papers by prof. James McDonald, plus D. Menzel's "World of Flying Saucers", to name but the best known sources devoting at least a chapter to radar and UFOs.) >>b) I am not its author, merely reporting it (mmmh! the >>messenger-shooting habit is becoming more and more common here >>'round, isn't it?) >OK, then please give me the name of the author. Credit where >credit is due. If you mean as of the Belgian 30-31 March, 1990 case, the name of Prof. Auguste Meessen should suffice. If you mean as of radar UFOs in general, we should dig it out from an old issue of "Science" in 1952. For your knowledge, the "radar angels" or "ghosts" have indeed been the subject of a lot of scientific literature in the '50s and '60s, because of obvious defense implications, let UFOs aside; BTW, new generation radars have reduced the ENORMOUS number of that kind of returns since the '70s, but they're still relatively frequent today, as any radar operator will tell you, if you bother to ask). >> are you meaning "25 videos >>and one photograph exist" of THAT specific object on THAT >>specific night, at THAT SAME specific time as the ground >>observations AND the radar targets (well! I might have lost >>something made known AFTER I last read SOBEPS reports), or are >>you more generally referring to pictures and videos of OTHER >>sightings of the Belgian wave (like the Alfarano one of a landing >>plane)? >No, there were 25 people waiting in the middle of the night >with camcorders for the object to make simultaneous contact >with ground and air radar and at that point someone said 'yes' >and they all pushed the button. No, of course not, >it concerns the whole flap. Your supposed irony is out of place. Had you read the SOBEPS reports, you'd know there WERE dozens of people out in those night with videos and cameras, skywatching for the elusive UFOs: some of those 25 videos you mention (but seem not to have seen, as I have) were precisely taken by those volunteers, several SOBEPS members and other ufologists among them (including Joel Mesnard, editor of the French UFO Journal LDLN, who taped a light on March 14). As for still pictures, there was more than the one you numbered, because SOBEPS did get more than 50 during the whole flap (and you'll find some analysis in the quoted book about the wave, as well and in its second volume and in the SOBEPS journal "Inforespace"). >>IMHO that would be quite a different matter. >Yes, it would give room for the mass hallucination bogus theory. I never heard of mass hallucinations on video or photo. Where did you dream that from? >Don't tell me, 6 tapes were doctored, 5 tapes were a flight of >geese, 4 tapes were Venus, 3 other tapes were Jupiter, 6 tapes >were atmospheric diffraction, 1 one was a private aircraft, 2 >might have been something, but we're not sure, so we don't have >proof. Right? Yawn! Am I discussing with somebody already convinced that EVERY and EACH reported UFO sighting HAS to be an alien spacecraft? If so, please tell me and I'll stop at once. I've long lost any interest in religious quarrels. If that's not the case, can I just remind you that the everyday homework of us field investigators is exactly filtering the 10% UFO signal out from a 90% of IFO noise? Each case must stand or fall on its own data. And - unfortunate as it may be - some of those 30 (not 25) Belgian videos WERE of planes, Jupiter and the rest of the much-too-well-known parade of typical IFO cases. Its' not me who claim that (I were not there to collect and evaluate Belgian data) but my esteemed colleagues at SOBEPS (Patrick Ferryn's analysis was published you may guess where). >I guess that would become bogus theory 13 (The Duke was number 12 >with his miscalibrated radar). Are you sure you want to get an >unlucky number, Eduardo? Oh dear! If I had been aware of being called names, I wouldn't have been standing in this mine-field for the last twenty years, would I? Since I've already been called nearly everything, from "the most serious Italian ufologist" to "a CIA dupe", I think I might well bear another one by a Henny van der Pluijm (if nothing else, I would be in good company!). BTW, 13 is held to be a lucky number, here in Italy. And superstition is not a part of my weltanschaung, anyway. Best regards. Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici - casella postale 82 - 10100 Torino -Italia tel. (011) 3290279 - fax (011) 545033 - http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Music from 'CE3' 'E.T.', 'Star Trek' & 'Alien' From: RSchatte@aol.com [Rebecca Schatte] Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:34:28 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:11:44 -0500 Subject: Music from 'CE3' 'E.T.', 'Star Trek' & 'Alien' Featuring Award Winning Music from 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', 'E.T.', 'Star Trek' & 'Alien' LOS ANGELES, Nov. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- They can be cute like "E.T."or as monstrous as body snatchers, but one thing's for sure, there's never been an extraterrestrial without his own distinctive theme music. Heroic, suspenseful, 14 of the best touch down on Hip-O Records' new collection, 'Alien Encounters' (HIPD-40049), landing in stores on stardate 10219.7 or, for mere mortals, on October 21, 1997. Many of the finest composers of contemporary film and television music are represented on Alien Encounters. The opening track, 'Theme from Close Encounters of the Third Kind', is one of three John Williams' compositions included. Nominated for an Oscar, Williams lost the Academy Award that year -- to himself for his 'Star Wars' music, but his 'Close Encounters' theme still won the Grammy Awards for Best Instrumental Composition and Best Album for Original Score Written for a Motion Picture. Walter Murphy performs Williams' Oscar-nominated and double Grammy winning 'Theme from `Superman', while The City of Prague Philharmonic performs his 'Theme from 'E.T. -- The Extra Terrestrial', winner of three Grammys. The same orchestra also performs Jerry Goldsmith's 'Theme from Star Trek: The Motion Picture' another Oscar nominee, and The Royal Scottish National Orchestra does Goldsmith's 'Main Title from Alien'. Ennio Morricone, one of the most prolific and acclaimed composers performs his 'Bestiality' from 'The Thing'. Jazz keyboardist Denny Zeitlin also performs his own composition, 'Theme from `Invasion of the Body Snatchers' while Oscar winner Jack Nitzsche does 'Lifting Ship', which he wrote for 'Starman'. Purists sometimes argue that the Golden Age of the genre was the 1950s. They won't be disappointed with 'Visitors from Space' from the Ray Bradbury film, 'It Came From Outer Space', (originally released in 3-D), or with the main title themes from 'Not Of This Earth' and 'This Island Earth'. Among the TV themes on Alien Encounters are the Main and End titles from 'One Step Beyond', 'Theme from The Outer Limits' and 'Theme from Battlestar Galactica'. Alien Encounters might be one time when you want to buy two copies -- one for home and one for your shelter!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 'Chat' with Author Alan F. Alford From: "Yvonne Hedenland" <VONNI_H@classic.msn.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 97 00:20:37 UT Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:29:58 -0500 Subject: 'Chat' with Author Alan F. Alford join MSN's UFO Forum Sunday November 16th, 11am PT, in a special Live chat with Author Alan Alford. In early 1997, Mr. Alford published his first book "Gods of the New Millennium" which even skeptics will find worthwhile for its pinpointing of unsolved mysteries that mainsteam historians and archeologists prefer to evade rather than address. This chat is available at http://forums.msn.com/UFO The Briefing Room chat can also be accessed by any IRC client. The chat server name is publicchat.msn.com and the room or channel name is #briefing.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:03:47 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:32:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:07:57 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Duke, here you go: >>Presumably these speeds were measured by calibrating the radar >>tapes in some way. The highest speed otherwise recorded was, as >>previously noted, 690kt [794mph/1278km/h] at 00.32 hrs. Don >>Ledger remarks that radar traces are meaningless. They sure can >>be. My understanding of the language is that "to miscalibrate" is to calibrate incorrectly. That is not implied in what I wrote. I merely suggested a source of & means of calculating the UFO's speed(s). You then kindly provided a complete record of the radar traces, which showed that 1010kt was the highest apparent speed of a UFO recorded on radar. My figure for the top speed was incorrect, because my information was incomplete. So how do you read "miscalibration" into this? I did remark on one Harrier group's problems with radar in the Falklands action. This was the result of badly TUNED radar, so that it wasn't picking up what it should have done (especially in downward-looking mode), which in turn made any calibrations meaningless and useless, and the inexperience & ineffective training of that carrier's pilots. Which was merely by way of saying that what you see occurring on a radar screen is not necessarily what is actually happening out there in the real world. This is not news to people who use radar. This is one reason why transponders came into vogue. I hereby apply, with gritted teeth, to have my non-hypothesis removed from your funny little list. Especially as you still haven't noticed my deliberate mistake. Yrs &c Pigskin D. Maserati Road Hog
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12 CSICOP and Phoenix Lights From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:24:54 -0700 Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:36:14 -0500 Subject: CSICOP and Phoenix Lights In a recent radio interview Kendrick Frazier editor of CSICOP's recent debunking achievment THE UFO INVASION fielded a question from the radio show host about the recent Phoenix lights. He seemed to indicate that CSICOP is opting to go with the testimony of Arizona resident Mitch Stanley. Those that saw the Discovery special may recall him as the 21 year old amatuer astronomer that identified the Event #1 triangular light formation as small independant aircraft through his 10" telescope. Frazier said that Skeptical Enquirer will be running this article next month. Listening to Frazier's interview it's easy to see how the media is placed in a "no win" situation with the UFO subject. People in the the UFO research community are constantly bashing the media for it's treatment of the subject. Frazier was also bashing the media's treatment of the subject from a completely different standpoint saying the media and news is always telling us "aliens are here" etc. Sadly many skeptics often take a rather malignant view of the media the same way many proponents do. Frazier did make one very apparent false statement when speaking about Stanley and CSICOP's position which was that media and newspapers ignored this witness. Upon hearing this I realized this was incorrect because I had read an article about Stanley in the Phoenix New Times. Frazier was probably unaware of this. Article is online at: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996/062697/news2.html Frazier's interview can be heard with Real Audio here: http://www.annonline.com/cevents/RAMhurl.cgi?pnm=audio.annonline.com:7070&date=9 71009 Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:29:02 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:38:03 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:40:29 -0800 > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> <SNIP> > Well, it keeps going on that there are people who keep saying > they did this and that, people who saw this or that. And it won't > stop. Worse, I am one of those people who won't quit saying that > there is something up there. All I can say is that I am convinced > of the reality of my experiences. If you want to listen, then I > will say what I have to say. If you don't want to hear what I > have to say, then I will simply not tell you anything. It isn't > much different for any abductee or contactee. They all have their > own stories to tell. They all see things from their own > individual perspectives. They all make mistakes in remembering > things. Etc. as I keep wishing my nightly wish on that slow Don't let the few on this list who don't want to hear your story spoil your perception of possibly many others who do. I, for one, am more interested in the recent and current personal firsthand experiences of those on this list than in the endless debate of 50 year-old stories. Don't get me wrong - I think the debate is useful and necessary - especially for those who have not had their own firsthand experiences, or who do not trust their own friends' experiences. They also serve many useful purposes such as helping to keep both the liars and the truly misguided at a distance. Personally, I am more interested in the here and now, in trying to get a better feel for some of the commonalties of the contacts, in trying to get a better understanding of where this phenomenon might be heading, and in preparing myself for a possible total shift in the way we may have to think about our Universe. On a battlefield, sometimes you just have to rely on your best intuition - you don't always have the luxury of engaging in a traditional scientific investigation that might take more than 50 years to complete. > Do you not see that all of these people cying "Wolf" have one > thing in common? Whatever all of these people had experiences > with is definitely non-human. They don't have a representative > in the United Nations, so we shouldn't recognize them? > So, what is this? Is it the twilight Zone? I don't have any proof > that there are alien ashtrays. It is not up to me to prove > anything, especially if there are really alien ashtrays. What I > have is merely a story that does not fit. You can fit it any way > you like to anywhere you like. If it makes some bit of sense to > you, then it works for you. But, from my point of view, I think > I know what I did and where I went. I think I know a bit about > what happened. If you care to listen, you will only know what I > know. It still amounts to nothing. No ashtray, and a no-smoking > sign. And why even bother trying to prove it? I am becoming more and more convinced that it is almost impossible to prove anything. Discussions on this list has shown that all of the following are not acceptable as even indicating the veracity of an experience: personal accounts, numerous witnesses, photographs, video recordings, radar recordings, reports by officials, X-rays, government documents, government photographs/video recordings, official correspondence, and even sightings over the White House. My question is: what would constitute the ultimate proof? My fear is that if we wait for the ultimate proof we may be too late to do anything about it. Certainly by now there is enough indication that something is going on to warrant a listening rather than an attacking attitude. However, let's not jump too quickly to any conclusions until we have done a lot of listening. For example, just because the experiences involve "non-human" beings, it doesn't follow that the visitors are necessarily extraterrestrial. <SNIP> > Every time a piece of evidence is brought out to the public eye, > it is accepted or not. Neither stories nor photographs seem to > pass the test of examination. So, what else is offered up as > proof? Would it not go the way to the 'humus' pile for the > slightest of excuse? Does this not offer up the choice for > anyone to make their own decisions about the reality of aliens? > Why is there this kind of choice in the first place? > Take care for now, > Cathy Johnson Good questions. But the more information we have, the better will be our ability to make a choice. And for this reason, we need more encouragement for those with a legitimate story to tell to come forward without the further abuse of being torn to shreds by those who demand ultimate proof. John K.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:49:56 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:25:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: media influence on abduction reports > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:02:58 -0500 Greg - I'm not sure quite how to fit this into your comments, though there is some directly relevant stuff later. First, it seems to me that there is a breakdown of "types of cultural influence" on UFO reports that is important to delineate: 1) The abstraction - until the concept of "flying saucer" or UFO comes into existence, there are no UFO reports. There are 15 minute meteors flying in curves, and airships with giant spotlights. So, in a sense, the existence of the UFO report depends on the development and dissemination of a concept. We've all seen these cases - the old ones where the witness says - "I just thought it was some kind of (whatever)... until I heard about flying saucers." 2) The perceptual interpretation - when someone looks at something for the first time, they try to match it with things they know about. We all have familiarity with the "escalation of hypothesis", and we know that it is one of the hallmarks of witness credibility. Witnesses who don't want to see UFOs, or alien spaceships, who instead think first of the police parked in the street, or a plane about to crash, or a fire in the woods. Though skeptics pay little or no attention to it, this is one of the most important cultural issues in UFO reports. We do a great disservice to the witnesses who are courageous enough to report what they have seen when these reassuring interpretations are stripped away from them by forgetting that the most credible among them didn't want to see anything strange, and are somehow permanently marked by what they've seen. That's a cultural influence, too. 3) The missing terms... and the unspeakable. The witnesses do their best to describe what they've seen, but the truth is, they find it very difficult. It's difficult because they don't have any common referents. They've never seen anything like this. So they are reduced to the same kind of fumbling efforts as we are in trying to describe fire to someone who has never seen it, or to explain a computer to an aborigine in terms that will be useful. The absence of referents is what makes the experience frightening, difficult, inconsistent between witnesses, and sometimes even incoherent. If you don't think this is a cultural influence on the reporting of UFO incidents, just try to think of explaining a ride through the city of New York to a 14th century horseman. And try to imagine what three different horsemen at the same place at the same time would report when they returned home. So all of the above is for the honest witness not caught up in some flying saucer hysteria, the witness who has no psychological problems, the witness who does not claim a special relationship with the phenomenon, the witness who does not say they were singled out for a mission, or picked on as a victim of repeated torments by alien abductors. Need a control for whether they were affected by the media? Have they committed an act of violence? No? But there's so much violence on TV.... if the media has such influence on them to make them see what isn't there, and report it against the scorn and ridicule of the rest of society - why haven't they followed that same influence to engage in violence and murder? But they haven't, because they are responsible people capable of self control and they are likely to be able to distinguish between Rigel and a structured object that passes within a few hundred feet of them, interferes with their vehicle, and emits strange beings. They see it once, they report it once, and that's the end of it. They sink back into obscurity except among those of us who spend the time to track down and collect these strange experiences, hoping to glean one gram of radium out of pounds of useless ore. Now the existence of point (1) - the concept - means that we are now going to have people who think they have seen instances of the phenomenon the concept represents, and they are going to report it. Why? Another set of cultural influences, perhaps: duty, fear, curiosity... and sometimes, they will be wrong. They will have seen something odd, but it isn't a UFO. But because they are fairly good at describing it, we can often figure out what it is, even when they can't. The existence of point (2), on the other hand, has a different effect, and probably something of an opposite one. If it looks like an aircraft, or not that different from one, why report it? Or if it might be a meteor, but there was something a little odd, why report it? And point (3) means people avoid talking about it. How can they explain it to anyone? And, of course, when they do, people ask what they were drinking, or smoking, or how much sleep they had or whether they are crazy. If they hold responsible jobs, they typically keep quiet, and if they have the temerity to come forward, rather than being hailed for their courage, they will face a barrage of criticism, and an inspection of their private life which makes the media rectal probe given to a political candidate look like a seduction. Maybe like Spaur, or Greenhaw, they will be run out of their jobs and their lives will be destroyed. > We've got to do better than that. Besides, there's yet another > problem with Kottmeyer's way of thinking. It's based -- to put it > mildly -- on some rather loose concepts of how TV gets in people's > heads. In fact, it's based on no concept at all. > Here's how it seems to work. The Outer Limits alien, Kottmeyer tells > us, had wraparound eyes, and its eyes appeared to speak. (Or were > said to speak.) The Hills described aliens with more or less > wraparound eyes, and said the eyes were compelling, hypnotic, > communicative. Given no more than that, we immediately have people > saying the odds are 100,000 to one against such a similarity > appearing by chance. But the Kottmeyers of the world can't accept either 1, 2, or 3, above. Instead they treat us to scenarios like: "Kenneth Arnold was flying near Mount Ranier one day when he saw some swans flying along. For no particular reason, even though he had probably seen birds hundreds of times from his aircraft, today he thought the swans were aircraft emitting bright flashes of light. He didn't correctly percieve their shape, color, reflectivity, distance, or speed, despite carefully observing them for over two minutes both with and without the window in place, and using the time at his disposal to measure their progress and speed. Even though he thought they flew like geese, he somehow never twigged to the fact that he was actually looking at geese. But that wasn't enough. Moved by some incomprehensible urge, he told people what he saw, and his account found its way into the press, where it made many other individuals suddenly incapable of telling the difference between birds, aircraft, and odd disk-shaped metallic objects for the next 50 years." or "Betty and Barney Hill were driving home from a vacation in New Hampshire, when, for no particular reason, they started to interpret every star, satellite, and planetary body as an object which seemed to be following their progress. Perhaps it was the promo for "The Outer Limits" which set them thinking that the light was actually space aliens, since, before long, this formerly stable couple, who had previously resisted the pressure of society against their very relationship, has been reduced to TOTAL TERROR about NOTHING AT ALL. In fact, perhaps because they were tired, they became hysterical, and when Barney stepped out of the car with binoculars, both he and his wife hallucinated that the airplane, star, or whatever, had swooped down out of the sky to a distance of a few hundred feet and had become a large, structured craft-like object with windows and a crew. They jumped in the car and drove away, still in terror over nothing. Then, somehow, they relaxed. In fact they nearly fell asleep, because more than an hour passed before they noticed anything again. The psychological upset was sufficient to have placed shiny disks on the trunk of their car, scuffed the top of Barney's shoes,and caused Barney to develop a circle of warts around his groin. Then, the tension initiated by this "Outer Limits" promo was such that these formerly reliable people became less and less able to cope with their internal fear, and they, at last, sought psychological help. Unfortunately, the psychologist hadn't seen the promo, and he didn't know what damage it had done (or had he? - we can't prove it one way or the other), so he plumped for the mundane explanation that, despite the fact that neither Hill had much in the way of directly shared account under hypnosis, and despite the fact that the hypnotic testimony about the sighting was consistent with the conscious testimony, and that much of the shared portions of the account were consistent, that Barney had somehow absorbed Betty's dreams about the abduction." Yes, I know, some witnesses lie. Some mispercieve. That's what field investigation is for. That's why IFO until proven UFO has to be the rule. But as you say, let's stick with a little of what is known about perceptual and cognitive psych, and maybe some of the more reliable bits of sociology. > 1. We need a control. We need to look at some known case where images > spread from science fiction (or from something else in the media) > into some form of popular consciousness. We need a test case nobody > will argue with, to show us how this phenomenon of media influence > actually works. Then we'll have something approaching solid ground to > stand on, when we look for media influence in abduction reports. Actually, we may be able to attain the same end by charting what endlessly repeated media material hasn't found its way into popular consciousness. Let's start with UFOs. If UFOs are driven by the media, then why don't they all match the cliche appearance of the objects shown in "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" - arguably the most popular of the 50's movies on the subject? Where do the cigars and spheres and ellipses come from? Why do "real UFOs" have the extremely common feature of "rim portholes" which has seldom, if ever, been part of the media portrayal of UFOs? Why was Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" broadcast not followed by a UFO wave? Why have their been few or no cases of kids being dragged out of the doggie door, or toys moving around on their own during a UFO sighting? It was in Close Encounters, wasn't it? CE was perhaps the most popular portrayal of our subject of all time, wasn't it? Ah, I see, it was those obscure SF magazines, read by 2% of the population in the '30s, which started the rumors, which finally found their way to our time as the UFO phenomenon we know. > 2. We need some falsifiable hypotheses. Up to now, any discussion of > media influence on abduction reports has been, from any systematic > point of view, just laughable. Kottmeyer says there was something on > TV sort of like the Hills' aliens! Gosh! Robert Shaeffer (at the MIT > abduction conference) trots out a really old Buck Rogers comic strip, > showing aliens examining a captive human on a table! Wow! Let's also remember that there are some things that are predictable that do actually happen. For instance, science fiction predicted air travel, and submarines, and... wow, we have them. It is not unreasonable to expect that smart people (i.e. SF writers) might be able to predict, if only by coincidence, some part of the real UFO experience. There certainly is a lot about the UFO experience that they failed to anticipate. Greg, I agree with you that we can't completely reject the idea of media or cultural influences on the UFO problem, including, and perhaps especially, abductions. You know I'm not sold on a lot of the abduction material, but I won't discount it all. Like you, I'm waiting to see what comes out of it. As for UFOs, or an account like the Hill case, when we have good witnesses (reliable, stable people with a history of credibility) telling us the things they've seen, and backing it up with photos and physical evidence, we are far beyond the simplistic ideas of data corruption by media influence. As I know you know. As many of us know, or we wouldn't spend a minute on it. Working on the garden or painting the house is easier and a lot more culturally acceptable. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:44:00 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:40:29 -0800 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Well, it keeps going on that there are people who keep saying >they did this and that, people who saw this or that. And it won't >stop. Worse, I am one of those people who won't quit saying that >there is something up there. All I can say is that I am convinced >of the reality of my experiences. If you want to listen, then I >will say what I have to say. If you don't want to hear what I >have to say, then I will simply not tell you anything. It isn't >much different for any abductee or contactee. They all have their >own stories to tell. They all see things from their own >individual perspectives. They all make mistakes in remembering >things. Cathy I have no problem whatsoever with people who have had some experience, whether a sighting or abduction. How could I, and who am I to judge. HOWEVER: I have a problem with people who continually bitch about the fact that UFO "research" isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. Perhaps they should look at that statement. Apart from some questionable US government reports (Condon, Blue Book, whatever), where are the scientific papers? All we get are pseudo-scientific popular fiction novels: "My brain was removed by little green men". Now very possibly, although statistically highly improbably, 4 million US citizens have been abducted. OK. But surely out of all these cases, there is ONE with sufficient evidence. Out of all the sightings in the US, surely there is ONE that has all the evidence required for it to be considered interisting by main-stream scientists. I dunno. Maybe I'm just naive in thinking that this is possible. Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:01:33 +0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:42:13 -0500 Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? Errol Interesting article that came through Jan Lamprecht's Hollow Earth list: pbs@iafrica.com Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:38:03 +0200 From: "Jan Lamprecht" <UFO-1@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za> To: pbs@iafrica.com,...@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za, CIS.List@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** Correen, I haven't had a chance to read this, but I did read and account of the Phoenix sighting and to my mind there's no question that these were secret USAF planes pretending to be UFOs. Regards, Jan ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:51:12 -0500 (CDT) From: kutchak@ix.netcom.com To: pbs@iafrica.com Subject: Fwd: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** ------Begin forward message------------------------- Hummmmmm...Another point of view. Coreen ====================================================== Subj: Skywatch: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51 Date: 97-07-17 10:02:02 EDT From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) From: DNIHOA@email.usps.gov Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:21:34 -0400 Hello All, I found this information at: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phoenix.html I recommend that everyone check it out. I am just posting a small portion of it. You really need to read ALL of it to appreciate Robert's research! --DK ============================================================ THE PHOENIX LIGHTS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION JULY 7, 1997 In April of 1997, a young man with whom I had worked with for several years lost his life in gathering some of the material which you will read. I offer this in his memory. I have found in the course of my brief career on the UFO /New Age circuit that there is a dogma fervently adhered to by this community. To take a position contrary to the `Community Church' is to be heretical and blasphemous. I am a believer in UFOs. My books and reports all reflect my position. In October of 1996, I presented a paper at a Mesa, AZ, UFO conference criticizing the UFO/New Age community's contradictory positions and its need to examine UFO events more carefully. Not only was I personally attacked by some of the members of the UFO/New Age community but I was accused, by one of the better known `researcher-lecturers', of being part of the `UFO cover-up'! This is not only a blatant distortion of the truth but it is also a clear and highly dramatic example of the unwillingness of the `UFO community' to accept any constructive criticism or challenge to its self-image of `Truth-Seekers'.. The following report suggests that the `Phoenix Lights' are not the result of UFO activity but a carefully orchestrated effort to distract the public from the truth of the activities in the Four Corners area. In short, it is a dis-information event. The conclusions which I offer are consistent with the data that has surfaced to date. With the release of this report, I will once again be branded a participant in the `cover-up'. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am, in fact, trying to point out that we must be very careful in our UFO claims. I offer you the following report in the hopes that it will assist you in your research on the phenomena of the `Phoenix Lights'. As always, I ask that you not accept any of the conclusions offered in this report. I shall stand on the research and quite frankly I wish that I was wrong. Robert Morning Sky =========================================================== ...and this FROM: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phnx7.html EYEWITNESS REPORT For the last two years, I have been the only investigator looking into the unusual phenomena occurring in the Canyonlands of Utah. On April 16th, this year, I personally guided a group of 24 people on a trip to the Canyonlands of Utah, a site approximately 30 air-miles south of the small town of Moab. During the last two years, we have witnessed `dancing lights' in the sky overhead, glowing mountain tops, strange electrical storms with clearly unnatural windgusts, mechanical thunder, electro-magnetic anomalies, `visitors' in the night and extraordinary visual phenomena. While on this particular trip, we witnessed trucks carrying liquid nitrogen, liquid helium and liquid carbon dioxide moving south from Moab on highway 191. Between Tuba City, Kayenta and the Four Corners area, heavy construction equipment (12 foot tall tires), and military convoys were in the area. In addition, while on our hike into the Canyonlands itself, we noticed heavier than normal air traffic overhead. Something was going on that week-end. THE NEW AREA `51' The June 1997 issue of Popular Mechanics reveals that the Air Force has nearly abandoned its `once most secret test site', Area 51. The new site of the `secret test site' is quoted on page 59 as being `south of Utah Route 70 and east of Green River'. This places the new `Area 51' (actually revealed as Area 6413) less than 40 air-miles from our base-camp site. FROM: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phnx8.html CONFIDENTIAL REPORT #2 An Air Force officer at Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, AZ, has advised that there have been an increased number of `precision flying' training exercises on A-10's in the southern Arizona area. He advises that some A-10's seem to have been structurally altered for some unknown reason. He was only able to confirm a panel of what seemed to be high-power lights affixed to the wings of the `A-10s'. No other details are available. FROM: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phnx9.html THE PHOENIX LIGHTS HOAX Something serious is happening, or has happened, in the Four Corners area. UFO magazines and watches on the Inter-net have reported an increased number of sightings of lights and UFOs in that region. Reports have also been surfacing that military vehicles, including very large heavy construction vehicles have been transported into the area. Trucks carrying liquid carbon dioxide, liquid nitrogen, and liquid helium were seen on the roads in the area. Local papers have received reports of missing hikers in the area, as well as continued closure of Parks areas like Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde and Canyon-lands. The list is endless and can be easily checked. I repeat, something has happened, or is happening, in the Four Corners area of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. I suggest that the military, the Air Force, and someone else (?), need a distraction to take attention away from the area. A-10 aircraft (based at Davis Monthan?) appear to have been altered to accommodate bright lights on external surfaces. It is possible that other changes to the basic A-10 structure may have been made, including `stealth' and `silent running' re-design. Precision flying training activity has increased dramatically. At least seven A-10 square-winged planes, easily maneuverable for flying in precision V-formation, equipped with unusually bright lights, with transponders off, and engines re-designed for silent running have apparently been prepared. In the time frame between March 10th and March 14th, these specially equipped A-10s were dispatched on a mission to draw attention to themselves and away from the Four Corners area. Local media reported the event causing Phoenix residents to watch the western Arizona skies for the next few nights. Luke Air Force Base officials were very likely instructed that a `special', if not a `top secret', operation was being conducted over the skies of Phoenix. Air Force denials, obvious lies, deliberate directing of phone calls to a UFO Hot-line and well placed disinformation phone calls served to keep the public's attention on the staged UFO event. Luke Air Force Base officials believed they were protecting a `secret operation'. Within days, and with no substantive leads for investigators, the mystery and the interest waned to near insignificant levels. Three months later, claims by UFO researchers and individuals with the ability to manipulate the media, once again revived the `Phoenix Lights' story. Their purpose appears to be private gain. Those who are behind the `Phoenix Lights' are wittingly, or unwittingly, provided with additional cover for the present day events and future ones. Conclusion: UFOs are real, but the `Phoenix Lights' phenomena is a deliberate dis-information event intended to draw attention away from the Four Corners area. FROM: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phnx11.html This report is quoted from the `Phoenix New Times', June 26 - July 2 issue, 1997, page 8: THE GREAT UFO COVER-UP There is no doubt that something real passed over Phoenix on the night of March 13. Hundreds of people reported what they saw passing slowly in the sky. Two New Times writers were among the witnesses. David Holthouse and Michael Kiefer were in separate parts of the Valley that night, but their reports are remarkably consistent: Each saw a V-shape of five lights moving slowly from north to south. The lights were bright and yellow-white, and seemed very high in the sky. No sound accompanied them. Holthouse says he perceived that something connected the lights in a boomerang shape; Kiefer disagrees, saying they didn't seem connected. Interest in the light show has exploded lately, perhaps fueled by its nearness to the 50th anniversary of an incident near Roswell, New Mexico, which continues to be the most celebrated in UFO history. The notoriety of the lights of March 13 has been propelled by the likes of Phoenix City Councilwoman Frances Emma Barwood, who called for a city investigation into them. Barwood continues to press for more investigation. But New Times has learned that Barwood herself ignored the claims of a witness who might be the most important of all. Mitch Stanley, 21, spends several nights a week in his backyard with a 10-inch telescope, exploring the night sky. He's owned the telescope for about a year, and has learned the sky well. With its 10-inch mirror, the telescope gathers 1,500 times as much light as the human eye. And with the eyepiece Stanley was using on the night of March 13, the telescope gave him 60 times the resolving power of his naked eye. That night Mitch and his mother, Linda, were in the backyard and noticed the lights coming from the north. Since the lights seemed to be moving so slowly, Mitch attempted to capture them in the scope. He succeeded, and the leading three lights fit in the field of vision. Linda asked what they were. `Planes,' Mitch said. It was plain to see, he says. What looked like individual lights to the naked eye actually split into two under the resolving power of the telescope. The lights were located on the undersides of squarish wings, Mitch says. And the planes themselves seemed small, like light private planes. Stanley watched them for about a minute and then turned away. It was the last thing the amateur astronomer wanted to look at. `They were just planes, I didn't want to look at them,' Stanley says when he's asked why he didn't stare at them longer. He is certain about what he saw: `They were planes. There's no way I could have mistaken that.' He was so certain, his mother didn't bother to look in the scope herself. And she thought nothing of it until the next morning when she heard radio reports that hundreds of people had thought they had seen something extraterrestrial. That day at work, she told her fellow Honeywell employee and amateur astronomer Jack Jones what her son Mitch had seen in the telescope. When Barwood made her appeal and the story began to appear in local newspapers, Jones attempted to let people know of Stanley's sighting. He called Richard de Uriarte, reader advocate at the Arizona Republic, as well as Barwood, directly. To both, Jones said that a local amateur astronomer had examined the lights through a large telescope and had seen that they were airplanes. Jones says both promised to have someone call back who would take down his story and contact Mitch Stanley. Neither one did. `They really don't want to know,' Linda Stanley says. `Here was a person who had seen it and [Barwood] never bothered to contact us at all'. Barwood counters, however, that she did pass on Jones' call to Village Labs, a Tempe firm which has been the focus of many media treatments for its pronouncements that the lights were not possibly terrestrial in origin. Jones says he never received a call from Village Labs. De Uriarte recalls receiving a call from Jones, but says he didn't pass the information along to news editors, and that he apparently had lost Jones' phone number. Air traffic controller Bill Grava was on duty on March 13 at Sky Harbor International Airport. He, too, saw the lights, but not until they were on the southern horizon, slowly disappearing behind South Mountain. He confirms that the object or objects did not register on radar as they passed overhead, a fact seconded by Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force Base. But both admitted that that doesn't rule out the possibility of a group of airplanes. Cotton says that the radar used by air traffic controllers reads signals emitted by transponders in the airplanes themselves.Normally, in a formation of seven planes, only the lead plane would turn on its transponder so air traffic controllers could track it. If the lead plane's transponder was turned off, however, the seven planes could have passed by without detection. Grava says that depending on the planes' altitude, that may have been perfectly legal. (Altitude and speed estimates follow, I leave this to your pursuit.) Mitch Stanley's sighting jibes well with witness reports that the config-uration of the lights changed over time. In Prescott, for example, witnesses claim that one of the lights trailed the rest. Such evidence supports the claim that the lights were separate objects rather than one large craft. Pilots consulted by New Times say that a group of planes flying in formation at night suggests military aircraft. The squarish wings as opposed to the swept, triangular variety, suggest A-10s or T-37 fighter-trainers. Among the rumors making the rounds in commercial aviation: that the group was the Canadian Snowbirds, a group of T-37s which flies at air shows. A spokesman for the Snowbirds says their season does not begin until April, however, and that the troupe was not in Arizona in March. New Times has contacted numerous military bases in the Southwest, but none claims the planes. All witnesses seem in agreement on one thing: the unusual brightness of the lights. Flight controller Grava says that's the only reason he is reluctant to accept the explanation that it was a group of airplanes that flew over Arizona March 13. Until a group comes forward to claim the flight, however, the planes' unusual lights and apparent lack of transponder signals suggest the possibility of a calculated hoax. FROM: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phnx13.html ...AND FINALLY. On the evening of March 13, did the public actually see a flight of A-10s disguised to look like UFOs or did the public actually see one of the newer triangular winged stealth aircraft described above? Or Did the public see both the A-10s and a triangular stealth craft? While the debate could be continued for years, what is significant in this case is that either one or both these two possibilities can explain the phenomena witnessed by the residents of Southern Arizona. I leave you with the following tables in the hopes that it will assist you in making your assessment of the events. It is important that I once again stress that my data and my conclusions should not be accepted blindly. It is vital that you research the events that have surrounded the `Phoenix Lights' phenomena for yourself. It is also vital that you not accept blindly those who say that the `Phoenix Lights' are definitely a UFO phenomena with `mysterious connections'. I suggest that the data supports a much more down-to-earth explanation. I repeat my suggested conclusion: UFOs are real, but the `Phoenix Lights' phenomena is a staged and deliberate disinformation event intended to draw attention away from the Four Corners area. Best wishes, Robert Morning Sky A final note... Though we may never know what Captain Button may have intended by his mysterious flight, we cannot ignore the possibility that he was trying to draw attention to something he knew was happening in the Four Corners area. It is not entirely impossible that Captain Button paid the ultimate price for trying to advise the world about the `Four Corners Secret'.. Again, though this might sound far-fetched, in this incredible scenario we might just have a true hero hidden in the deceitful mists of disinformation. ------End forward message--------------------------- ======================================================== I am IT - Which is greater than I. (Corinne Collins) ========================================================= Search for other documents from or mentioning: louwje | pbs | ufo-1 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:39:57 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:04:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: UFO UpDate: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 5:52 PM > From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: media influence on abduction reports > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:02:58 -0500 > The two numbered points on my wish list have to be used together. For > example, here's something I'm fond of saying. I like to compare the > prevalent description of aliens (going right back to the first > reports of UFO "occupants") to the visions of aliens in popular > science fiction. UFO aliens were, right from the start, almost > universally described as "little men." Science fiction aliens, > however, are much more varied than that. They can be blobs, bug-eyed > monsters, creatures with tentacles, robots, you name it. Although I agree with most of what you've written here, I think you are excluding a lot of UFO occupant reports which describe beings as blobs, bug-eyed monsters, robots (perhaps rightly excluding creatures with tentacles), etc. The majority of reports describe small, large skulled creatures, but there are also a wide variety of other beings in the annuls of UFO history. I'm not really disputing anything you have written here, but I just thought I'd point this out. If you want some particular examples, I can list them in another message. ScottR.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:15:18 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:54:45 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:49:56 -0500 > Of course many ufologists have trumpeted the idea of alien visits. > What few of them have done is consider the implications. When I first > met people in this field, I'd ask them what they FELT about aliens > being here. I found the answers extraordinary. "It doesn't mean much > to me. I've been used to the thought since I read science fiction in > high school." (Kevin Randle) "I never explored my feelings about this > until I was at the MIT conference, and confronted the possibility of > abductions." (Richard Hall. I'm paraphrasing these remarks, by the > way.) When I recently had a minor sighting which turned out to be unidentified after fairly significant investigation, I found myself squarely facing this question, perhaps in an odd way, which I'll share for what it's worth. I started investigating because it was a bit odd, and I wanted the practice. I really kept expecting some one of the people I was contacting to say - yes, that was flight such and such, or whatever. And when the answers started coming back negative, I felt an odd sort of shiver. You see, I was really sure I had seen a formation of airplanes, and people kept coming back to me and saying they had nothing in the air, that no ultralight pilot in his right mind would be doing what I reported, and I started to confront what I felt about it. And, in a way, it was perhaps a more realistic interpretation than I might have had if I had witnessed a close encounter. I started to realize that if what I had seen was a UFO, then that night, a quarter mile or so away had been something which was alien. And it did not care in the least about my presence. It was going about its business, doing whatever it wanted, flying in the airspace of a reasonably sized international airport with aplomb. It didn't come down and seek me out. It didn't slow down. It just went past. Now, I'm a rational person, and I can separate speculation from reality, so I decided to engage in a little speculation to see how I felt. I imagined that what I had seen was, in fact alien. That it was flying from somewhere to somewhere. I asked myself how I would feel if it were eventually, after carrying out some survey, to return to some hidden orbital station, where the occupants would meet and talk and plan. And they would have no specific thought of me or anyone else. If they thought about us, it would be in the same way I thought about the birds visiting my bird feeder, or the spider that I stopped to briefly scrutinize as it hung from the side of the house looking at its prey. And when I thought about this, I realized that it was disturbing, not in the sense of an actual fear, but... disturbing. I realized that I could study this subject partly because I could keep some of the more powerful implications at bay. Like a pathologist at an autopsy who doesn't think of his own death every time, or a doctor who keeps his patients close and distant both at once, and doesn't think of cancer in his own body, or as I had once when I carried a climber who had fallen twenty feet onto rocks at the base, avoiding letting that seep into my own experience as a possible outcome. And as I thought about some of this, I had a better understanding of some of the more extreme characters in ufology. Maybe they were people who couldn't keep this to one side; who were unable to remain professionally detached. Sure, some of those were just attention-seekers, or eccentric characters, but some of them were probably people who just couldn't keep the subject at a distance. As for being used to the idea... yeah, sure. I read plenty of climbing literature and saw plenty of photos. And then I ended up on a platform the size of a tray two hundred feet up, and believe me, the feelings were not the same as those when I was sitting home and reading. They won't be if these things land in my back yard, either. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:19:10 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:32:21 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:17:33 -0800 >From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> Pray tell are you "one of those" who will not believe in anything >> until you have physical proof in your own hands that whatever it >> is is in existence? >What I believe in or not is not relevant to this discussion. What >is relevant is that I am not prepared to make a leap in faith >when it comes to UFOs representing an ETI presence on this Earth. >And from what I have been able to gather, those that have made >that leap in faith are unable to defend their belief system on >any specific compelling evidence. That is why this quagmire >exists today, fifty years after the "Modern Wave" allegedly >began. Ed Science dictates this and science dictates that. Explain to me how science explains the feeling of LOVE. It can't! Yet we ALL know that exists. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: Re-Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:09:00 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:21:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Re-Media Influence on Abduction Reports >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: media influence on abduction reports >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:02:58 -0500 Hi Greg, Hi Errol, Hi All I thought that I would like to add my tuppence worth here, if you don't mind. I know nothing of the Betty and Barny Hill case except what I have read. I never met them, spoke to them or in any other way had any contact with them, so this is purely my idea. >Recently we've had one of our little teacup tempests about TV >influence on the Hill case. Or in other words about Martin >Kottmeyer's theory...that an Outer Limits episode, featuring an alien >with wraparound eyes "that speak," furnished Betty and Barney Hill >with the model of the aliens they claimed had abducted them. Is it possible to use the converse side of this? Could it not have been the writer/producer or whoever who was responsible for this particular episode to have "seen for himself" (or herself for all you women out there) an alien with "wraparound eyes that spoke" which gave that person the idea in the first place? That would mean that person could have equally seen the same type of alien that the Hills saw. In which case Kottmeyers theory is completely out the window. >Greg Sandow. Just my tuppence worth Greg, however I do agree with your idea that a serious look into to abductions to see if any media influence has had an effect is a good one. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | gsandow |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:14:39 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:31:14 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:17:33 -0800 > From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:47:51 +0000 > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > You just need your emotions, your gut feelings and your belief > system to think that you know what is possible. You are driven by > faith. May well be that is where Ufology belongs, as a faith > driven belief system and ultimately an ET related religion! Ed, I'm just curious, having seen you use the phrase "belief system" repeatedly. Every time I see the phrase, used by you or anyone else, I wonder what is the difference, meaningfully speaking, between "belief system" and "belief." Check it out by using "belief" in a sentence next time some strange compulsion is driving you, unnecessarily, to make two words out of one. "Belief system" is one of those dumb cant phrases sort of like "life style," when in 999 cases out of 1000 a mere "life" would do. Of course, reading your remarks, I can't help being reminded of the classic presumptive error expressed as "What I know I know, and what you know you only believe." What "belief system" typically means in rhetorical exercises is "somebody's opinion I don't agree with." Cheers, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: Re: ETH &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:26:29 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:31:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Re: ETH &c > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:19:07 -0500 > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH &c > From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King] > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:12:13 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: ETH &c > A rueful hello to all and sundry > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST > >Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500 > >Subject: Re: ETH &c > >If people have a hard time distinguishing between the > >potentially most important case and the currently best- > >documented case, perhaps they should examine their > >souls, and possibly their IQs as well. > Nice to see you refraining from using that evil old skeptics' > trick of ad hominem attacks. Always a pleasure to deal with a > man of firm principles. Even those with high IQs and pure souls > may find it hard to see the distinction since, at the time, you > described Roswell as the most important AND the best documented. My word. Relax, guy. If that's your idea of an "ad hominem attack," maybe you aren't reading enough of the debunking literature or, I'm beginning to suspect, your own. > >Over time I have changed my mind, for which my > >critics love to attack me. Of course, if I never changed my > >mind, they'd accuse me of rigid dogmatism. > No Jerry, you changing your mind is not a problem. In fact I > will here state that I respect anybody who changes their mind in > the face of new evidence. My problem with what you said to the > Duke was how you tried to downplay the strength of your support > for Roswell and your attack on me for having the audacity to make > the point using your own words. Need I repeat myself here, Jeff? Please reread my previous posting. > >Again, guy, you are nowhere near the point. > No, the point was you claimed I didn't understand the point, I > merely showed that I did. Yawn. > >Hopkins and Jacobs (not to mention other abduction investigators) > >continue to report that abductees with whom they work experience ATPs. > >This is an extraordinary claim for which they ought to produce > >relevant medical evidence. > Again, we agree on this basic point. The difference is I think > their failure to provide such evidence means they haven't done > the work necessary to even raise the claim. In other words, a > false hypothesis. It certainly seems that way. Now, Jeff, since we're getting indignant here about false hypotheses, I'd be interested in seeing your criticisms, in this space, of false hypotheses about abduction proposed by skeptics and debunkers. Or do your attacks go only one way? > >I have already answered you on this. See above. Perhaps > >now you can start doing something useful, such as collecting > >papers written by scientists, political pundits, social critics, > >and others over the years and documenting how they've > >changed their minds, been wrong, or otherwise failed to be > >dogmatically consistent over time. You've got your work > >cut out for you, buddy. > As do you in finding out exactly what my reading history is. I wasn't asking about your reading history, a subject in which I have little if any interest, unless of course it turns out we are interested in the same things. What I was suggesting was a reading project. As for taking "stands of absolute certitude," I am as a general principle far more cautious and nuanced in my thinking than I see any evidence you are capable of. That's what I love about you guys. You and your pals go ballastic when I define myself as agnostic and defend that position as the only defensible one at this stage of our inquiries. Then in the next breath I'm accused of rigid dogmatism. And then you whine about somebody else's inconsistencies. >As > I said above, you changing your mind isn't the problem. In fact, > you might even trot out Winston Churchill's famous quote on the > subject, especially given your fascination with age. The problem > is you take stands of absolute certitude, and then when new > investigation does cause you to change your mind, you backpedal > and try to deny that you were ever so far out on the limb in the > first place. Humility anyone? You might try some, Jeff. I see no evidence of it in anything you've written to date. Bye, bye. Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 13 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:11:46 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:07:03 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:01:07 -0500 >OK, Dennis....I'm starting to understand. <snip> >I think that, here and elsewhere, you're suggesting that the ETH >-- or overenthusiastic belief in it -- can somehow soften our >brains, and compromise our objectivity. Believe the ETH too >uncritically, and next thing you know, you can't tell whether >Gerald Anderson is lying. I think we would both agree that ufology suffers from a public relations problem. We could spread the blame around, but a good deal of it still rests at the feet of ufology itself, for its active promotion, not just of ETH as a viable hypothesis, but as a given which encompasses and "explains" a whole raft of phenomenon (from crop circles to cattle mutilations, even chupacabras) that may or may not have anything remotely to do with UFOs. But that's the public perception of us, nonetheless. Is it dangerous? The answer is, who knows -- yet. I remember when Vallee's Messengers of Deception came out, that even mainstream ufology didn't know what to make of it -- and arguably still doesn't. In other words we don't know if it's true, or how true, simply because the events warned of haven't come to pass. Except maybe on a microscale, if you count Heaven's Gate. But who would have predicted an Art Bell even five years ago? Who, now, can predict what kind of influence he may have on individuals and society? It's a hard thing to wrap one's mind around. Is it possible, shortly before or after the Millennium, say, that a belief that alien invasion is imminent could cause a global stock market crash? Especially now that we have a medium (the WWW) capable of spreading a virus around the world in a matter of minutes? Again, who knows? But the point is, ufology doesn't take place in a vacuum anymore, if it ever did, and few people are taking (or tackling) the big picture. I suppose it's conceivable that we could even fall into the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Ufology is something that can be regarded across a wide spectrum, from a subject matter merely to be thought about, to a source of behavior and cause of action. One reason why I personally take such a conservative course is that I think it's prudent to err on the side of caution. I don't want some crazed militia type camping on my front door some day, or maybe ambushing me one day because he's become convinced that I'm part of the cover-up conspiracy. And of course a cover-up -- along with mistrust of government -- goes hand-in-hand with a strong ETH. In fact, I'm not even sure a "simple" ETH can be separated out of the matrix anymore. Friedman, for example, doesn't seem paticularly sold on abductions. And I doubt if Hopkins spends much time on cattle cuttings. And so on. Ultimately, however, the public perceives us as this huge tent or umbrella that encompasses god only knows what (or where it ends), but starts with the signature assumption that the aliens are among us, here and now, and seemingly in vast numbers. It's no wonder to me that most scientists don't want to be seen even in the immediate vicinity of the tent, let alone caught peeping under one of the flaps. Part of the problem is that there's no single ringmaster, or spokesperson, inside the tent, just a bunch of milling theories and assumptions, with fistfights breaking out in the corners, and a very small, calm peanut gallery. When the media wants to find a critic, they get pointed in the direction of Phil Klass, almost without fail. But who do they get pointed to when they want a UFO proponent? It can be anyone from John Mack to Courtney Brown to Philip Corso to Jim Marrs, depending on the hot topic of the day or whoever has the most recent book or video out on the subject. If Ruppelt had been at Roswell this past July for the 50th anniversary, I suspect he might have been absolutely shocked by what he had helped wrought. I simply don't see the fringe going away. If anything, we're just going to have to put up a bigger tent. And I'm not sure how much I'd want to be inside when one of the main poles, say, Roswell, broke. Actually, I think the Roswell pole did break this summer, but the repair crews were pretty quick. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:50:08 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:48:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >From: KAnder6444@aol.com [Kathleen Andersen] >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:47:34 -0500 (EST) >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Kathleen, >Just coincidentally, I was at Greg's house last Thursday and he gave >me the opportunity to read thru Ken's personal scrape books. This >provided me with an insight of not only who Kenneth Arnold was but >of the UFO activity that was so prevelent in the news at that time. >I can't tell you what a thrill it was to be able to do this. [...] >He did become quite fascinated with the subject and saved many news >clippings of other incidents and sightings around the world that were >happening in the years that followed. What interesting historical documents they must be. >Greg and I talked about the original report and story. The >description only changed slightly with the additional of the 9th >craft which was different. I'm still not exactly clear on this. Can you say when Arnold changed the description of the 9th object and if the "9th object" was the leading one in the group? Presumably the change is reflected in the later sketch of a crescent-shaped object? Thank you for the further insight, it's appreciated. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:49:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:16:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:33:22 -0800 Mark, >When this "explanation" by Kottmeyer was brought to my attention, I >initially considered writing something about it. Then I decided it >was a waste of time, since the "explanation" was as ludicrous as >something Donald Menzel would have put forth. >But, OK, here it is, lying on the table, so I'll offer a few >comments: >1) When was the last time you noticed a specular reflection from a >goose or a swan - especially when said goose or swan was backed >by either clear sky or a snowfield? As a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I do indulge in occasional bird watching and have observed both geese and swans on many occasions. Although I've never seen either qualify as reflective, during the summer I did notice some bright objects circling in the sky a mile or so from my house. Having set off the invasion siren, put on my tin hat and double checked through binoculars, it was discovered that the source was some black-headed gulls, which just happened to be catching the sunlight. It fooled me... I'm sure it can be quantified that, under certain conditions, many species of birds could be described as reflective. I'll look into this further, I know some folks in the Washington area who could offer an informed opinion on a couple of points here. We might never prove what Kenneth Arnold actually witnessed, but we can maybe prove that some possibilities are not in fact a "no way". >2) When was the last time a goose or swan in flight gave the >impression of being 20 times longer than thick? If I may quote from Bruce Maccabee's paper, "The Complete Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis": "His drawing suggests that the objects were nearly circular overall. He wrote on the sketch that "they seemed longer than wide, their thickness was about 1/20th of their width." His suggestion that their width (or length) was about twenty times greater than their thickness may be an exaggeration. The sketch he drew of how they appeared "on edge" has the dimensions 4 mm wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to 1/11. (It is typical for people to overestimate length to width ratios.)" Bruce merely pointing out that Arnold's estimates are subjective. Also perhaps now worth mentioning Bruce's further observations: "These statements about how they flew with respect to the mountain peaks are very important because they provide information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain peaks lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east of Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the altitude of the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be approximately at his altitude because they seemed to be "pretty much on the horizon to me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft, this implies that they were close to that altitude. (Arnold actually stated his letter that they were at 9,500 ft.) However, the mountain peaks south of Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000 ft high, with the higher ones being farther away (more to the east) from Arnold. Hence his statement that there were higher peaks on the far side of the pathway indicates that the objects were definitely lower than about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he stated that they went behind some (or at least one) of the lower, closer peaks. Geological survey maps show that mountain peaks which the objects could have disappeared behind have altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it appears that they were lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold overestimated their altitude". Again, Arnold's estimates are shown to be subjective and by reference to the survey maps, apparently grossly inaccurate. Mistaking the altitude of the objects by some 4000 feet, doesn't inspire confidence in any of Arnold's other observations or estimations. This also of course means the altitude of the objects would not preclude geese as a conceivable explanation. >3) The shape of the objects as shown in the original drawing >must be regarded as definitive. Can we apply this rationale to Roswell? :) >A description can only go so far in suggesting size, shape and >proportion, and a picture created immediately after the incident must >be considered more reliable than one created considerably later. I would agree. It's certainly a principle which applies to witness testimony. >The original drawing does not show something which looks like a swan >or goose, or like swan or goose wings, which are invariable held >straight to the side like aircraft wings. That subsequent sketch has however sprouted wings. On the basis that Arnold apparently didn't initially wish to complicate the story by revealing one object was dissimilar, it's a different issue and maybe more admissible as evidence. I would share considerable doubts about this sketch. For one thing, the detail shown surely wouldn't have been evident from the distance Arnold reports. The original outline sketches would be more in keeping with expected evidence. >As Arnold points out: "Even though two minutes seems like a very >short time to one on the ground, in the air in two minutes time, a >pilot can observe a great many things, and anything within his sight >of vision probably as many as fifty or sixty times". And apparently still make significant errors of judgement. I would recommend reading Bruce's paper for some further insight into Arnold's calculations. Not that I'm suggesting for a moment Bruce argues in favour of Arnold watching a flock of geese. At present, that's not my argument either, I would simply like to discuss whether there are grounds for accepting it as a possible explanation. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control & UFOs From: "Blair Cummins" <ufoblair@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:40:28 PST Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:00:33 -0500 Subject: Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control & UFOs Hello everyone - I recently obtained a copy of Chapter 13 of the 1994 Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control entitled "Enemy Attack and UFO Potential". It begins with, "In this chapter we will now turn our attention to the very real threat posed by Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), whether they exist or not." The document goes on to say, "We will see, as we continue our discussion in this chapter, that widespread blackouts, communication disruptions, and other potentially disastrous conditions have been linked directly to UFO sightings." The document discusses the 1942 "Los Angeles Air Raid" and other UFO incidents. To give you a better idea of what exactly the document discusses, I have listed the chapter subtitles below. I. THE UFO THREAT - A FACT a. UFO Discussion - Why Now? b. UFO Background Information c. UFOs - What Are They? d. UFO Classification System e. Shapes of UFOs f. History of UFOs g. UFO Organizations h. Why the Secrecy? i. UFO Missions II. ADVERSE POTENTIAL OF UFOs a. UFO Hazards b. Force Field Impact c. Communications Disruption d. Regional Power Blackouts e. Fireballs Over Syracuse - The Blackout Connection f. UFOs - The Panic Hazard g. Personal Hazards - Physiological III. UFOs - EMERGENCY ACTION I had heard of this manual several years ago, but I just got it several days ago. I must say that it is very interesting. A teacher at my high school who is also a UFO researcher was also very interested. Although the information in it will be nothing new to UFO researchers, it is impressive, especially when one considers that this is a fire official's disaster guide. The manual doesn't come out and say UFOs are real, but it is written as if it is known that they are. And somebody thought that UFOs are real enough to warrant inclusion in this manual. Blair Cummins ufoblair@hotmail.com The funniest quote from the manual: WARNING: "Near approaches of UFOs can be hazardous to human beings. Do not stand under a UFO that is hovering at low altitude. Do not touch or attempt to touch a UFO that has landed. In either case, the best thing to do is to get away from there very quickly and LET THE MILITARY TAKE OVER (my emphasis). There is a possibility of radiation danger and there are known cases where persons have been burned by rays emanating from UFOs. Don't take chances with UFOs!"
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Abduction Information Center Site On Line From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:38:19 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:12:25 -0500 Subject: Abduction Information Center Site On Line Website announcement. *Please distribute far and wide! Thanx, John ============================================== Hello All, Well, it's open! I finally have enough of the AIC (Abduction Information Center) website up to open the doors officially. http://www.crossfields.com/~aic/index.html Whenever I tackle anything 'big' I always make it a point to surround myself with the very best people I can find. That way no matter how much -my input- screws things up there will always be someone smarter around to help get things back on track! <G> I've had some invaluable help from many people. I want to single out Pat Parrinello in particular because not only is he providing the bandwidth we are using, (via his Crossfields Inc.) but he is also responsible for setting up and creating all of the cool 'interactive' stuff that's available at the AIC website. Without Pat, there would be no AIC. Thank you ~many times~ Mr Parrinello! <G> AIC The 'Abduction Information Center' has been set up to (hopefully) provide a 'sane' alternative to the myriad of 'poor content' or 'no content' websites dedicated to the subject of UFOs and abduction that are currently available on the Web. I have gone out of my way to collect and make available (for the 'experiencers' themselves) all of the very best information that I could find. Anytime anybody has contacted me over the last five years with questions or seeking advice or information, my response has been to give them as varied a diet of the very best data/information that is available. Once they've accumulated enough information -they can make up their own minds- and try to answer their own questions! It is my firm belief that (most) people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. We don't need any 'leaders' or any stinking badges either! <G> AIC was created to provide the raw material to facilitate rapid absorption of (quality) information for those who may be in need of it. At AIC I have put together a collection of information that I wish had been available -to me- when I first started looking into all of this. AIC also offers people a place to speak freely (unburden themselves) without fear of ridicule or rejection. AIC will I hope (one day) be a 'home base' a kind of 'safe haven' where people can explore their experiences in an environment that is secure and conducive to serious self-examination. Among many many others, AIC will feature (exclusively) transcripts of interviews with the late Karla Turner, (that were generously donated to AIC by Mike Lindemann of CNI News.) Intimate, relaxed and informative conversations with Karla that have never appeared anywhere else. Also ready for immediate download are articles and papers from top people in the field who are just too numerous to list here. There are still 'reams' of information just sitting on my hard drive awaiting editing and a webpage at AIC to live on. Important, please. The AIC website -is not intended for the general public- or, curiosity seekers. It -is- intended specifically for those that suspect or believe they are abductees/abduction experiencers. (Boy, I'll bet ~that~ comment insures a good turnout! <G>) All kidding aside, the website is intended for abduction experiencers only. Sorry to the rest. I set up the 'Intruders Foundation' website with the 'public' in mind, and on it there are many links to other 'public' sites. AIC is the completely interactive 'private' website (for abductees only). It had always been only a dream of mine. Until now, AIC was my 'missing piece'. Now there's both a public site, and a private site to meet the needs of the experiencers themselves. To all 'experiencers': Pat Parrinello and I are offering (via AIC) an oportunity for you to meet and interact with others in real time and in a safe and protected environment. We will also feature private monthly discussions with some of the very best research people and writers in the field. You will be able to interact and talk to them yourself, ask them questions, and explore their different views first hand. There is a chatroom, an interactive e-mail list and archive, and of course the 'Heart" of the website, an ever growing library of the very best material available on the subject of UFO abduction. We can't promise that we'll actually do anything for you but, we can tell you what we won't do! We promise that we -will not- try to sell you: a. ...particular points of view, or preferences of one view over another. b. ...pat answers, c. ...belief systems, d. ...dogma, religion, or philosophy (New Age or otherwise!) e. ...claims that -we- have cornered the market on the truth. This website was set up to service the unique needs of abductees. It is as rock solid and stable a place as I could make it. If you can use -any- of what we have to offer please feel free to stop by and check us out on the web. http://www.crossfields.com/~aic/index.html All others: I would ask those who are not 'experiencers' to please indulge our request for privacy. As stated earlier there are already a myriad of excellent UFO and abduction related websites that are readily accessable to the general public. This one is ours. <G> Wish us luck. Peace, John Velez, Webmaster - AIC & Intruders Foundation Online John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: Kerry Ferrand <kferrand@rocketmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 17:59:08 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:23:32 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:01:33 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** very very minor nitpick with the quoted article >Among the rumors making the rounds in commercial aviation: that the >group was the Canadian Snowbirds, a group of T-37s which flies at air >shows. A spokesman for the Snowbirds says their season does not begin >until April, however, and that the troupe was not in Arizona in March. >New Times has contacted numerous military bases in the Southwest, but >none claims the planes. The Snowbirds don't fly the T-37, they use the CT-114 "Tutor"...a different airplane with the same role..main visual diffrence being its "T-tail" configuration. Kerry
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Belgian Radar-Visua From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:41:07 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:26:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visua >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 21:03:47 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:07:57 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >>Duke, here you go: >>>Presumably these speeds were measured by calibrating the radar >>>tapes in some way. The highest speed otherwise recorded was, as >>>previously noted, 690kt [794mph/1278km/h] at 00.32 hrs. Don >>>Ledger remarks that radar traces are meaningless. They sure can >>>be. >My understanding of the language is that "to miscalibrate" is to >calibrate incorrectly. That is not implied in what I wrote. I merely >suggested a source of & means of calculating the UFO's speed(s). >You then kindly provided a complete record of the radar traces, >which showed that 1010kt was the highest apparent speed of a UFO >recorded on radar. My figure for the top speed was incorrect, >because my information was incomplete. >So how do you read "miscalibration" into this? >I did remark on one Harrier group's problems with radar in the >Falklands action. This was the result of badly TUNED radar, so that >it wasn't picking up what it should have done (especially in >downward-looking mode), which in turn made any calibrations >meaningless and useless, and the inexperience & ineffective training >of that carrier's pilots. Which was merely by way of saying that >what you see occurring on a radar screen is not necessarily what is >actually happening out there in the real world. This is not news to >people who use radar. This is one reason why transponders came into >vogue. >I hereby apply, with gritted teeth, to have my non-hypothesis >removed from your funny little list. Especially as you still haven't >noticed my deliberate mistake. Duke, I'm not interested in your deliberate mistake, I have moved on already. I now take it that instead of miscalibrated, what you really meant was mistuned and I will adjust entry 12 in my Hall of Fame accordingly. Besides that, after careful study I consider the information above just a smoke screen to worm your way out of my Hall of Fame. Therefore I am not removing your 'explanation' from it, because I would not want to do Ufology a huge disservice by compiling a list of bogus that is less than complete. However, out of the kindness of my heart and to save the House of Mendoza further embarassment through this case, I will change your name into 'Anonymous'. BTW, thank you for the interest in the real estate on the back side of the moon that I recently sold. As soon as a new auction is organized you will be the first to receive notice of same. Van der Pluijm & Partners Lunar Real Estate Developers __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:41:09 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:32:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:17:05 +0100 >From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>a) item 11 above is but the same as item 10 >>Ah! Well, in an earlier post someone said that atmospheric >>diffraction concerned visual observations. >Indeed. Atmospheric diffraction (be it due to termperature >inversion or humidity gradients) may concern both visual >observations and radar returns, since it may reflect both visible >light and radar beams. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that, what's wrong with that. I'll tell you what's wrong with that. The temperature inversion reported by James Easton appeared as a stationary triangular object with three lights at its tips. I have reported this three times before so you could have known this if you had read my posts with your eyes open. Now I take it that this same temperature inversion gave radar returns that perform three 70 degree turns within a matter of seconds, going supersonic in the process and breaking a radar lock. Is this the same type of temperature inversion or another type? Or was it temperature inversion for the triangle and zombies/ghosts/angels for the radar returns? >>cleared this up, would you please explain what this >>phenomenon actually is. How does a typical ghost/atmospheric >>diffraction behave in terms of altitude, speed, acceleration, >>heading? Do radar operators often confuse it for an aircraft? >Good Heaven! Do you mean that you know NOTHING about the 40+ >years literature existing about UFOs and radar? Are you asking me >to do YOUR homework on that? The temperature inversion 'explanation' is old hat, if you didn't know. The UFO community has been treated to this bogus since the early fifties and I am fully aware that most radar operators can distinguish between the ghosts/angels and radar returns from solid objects. I merely gave you the opportunity to provide one or two instances of these ghosts that showed radar traces that are similar to the ones recorded in the 22 sec. trace that I showed here a few times. So far you haven't done that. >Well so, if you like. I'd suggest you to find and read AT LEAST >the following items, before continuing to pontificate over >something you apparently are not well versed in: >- G.D. Thayer, "Optical and Radar Analysis of Field Cases", pp. >115-175; R. H. Blackmere et al., "Radar and the Observation of >UFOs", pp. 655-716; both papers in Daniel Gillmor (ed.), >"Scientific Study of Unidenified Flying Objects", Bantam, New >York 1969 [lenghty and scholar treatment of "angels" and other >anomalous propagation effects on radar, both theoretical and >applied to specific UFO radar cases. The most complete treatment >of the subject yet]. >- Martin Lawrence Shough, "Radar and the UFOs", in Hilary Evans & >John Spencer (eds.), "UFOs 1947-1987", Fortean Tomes, London >1987, pp. 211-229 [a rather complete ufological-oriented overview >of radar nature, capabilities and limitations, problems of >anomalous propagation, ghost reflections, radio interference, >inversion reflections, previous literature on UFOs and radar, >plus several detailed examples of famous radar UFO cases and a >bibliography]. >- Auguste Meessen, "La detection radar", in Michel Bougard et >al., "Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un dossier exceptionnel", >SOBEPS, Bruxelles 1991, pp. 351-396 [a thorough analysis of that >specific radar-visual case, with all pertaining data, possible >explanations and evaluation; most instructive and THE relevant >source for any subsequent discussion]. >(And I could also add Allan Hendry's "The UFO Handbook", C. Sagan >& T. Page's "UFOs: A Scientific Debate", some papers by prof. >James McDonald, plus D. Menzel's "World of Flying Saucers", to >name but the best known sources devoting at least a chapter to >radar and UFOs.) Eduardo, you don't really think I am going to read all this just to please a debunker like you, do you? I have been engaged in this discussion for weeks now and I have logged a total of 15 bogus explanations coming from the worldwide debunkers community. So far their batting average for explaining the Belgian flap has been 0 out of 15, so the odds are it's a total waste of time to read all this, especially when I see stuff from a liar like Menzel on this list. And even if I wanted to, I couldn't order these items because I expect most of them to be out of print anyway. Which brings me to my final request: instead of throwing a pile of books on the table as a diversion tactic, why don't you get specific and explain yourself? What do you think lists such as these are for in the first place? If you know how your ghosts/zombies/angels/whatever could have produced the radar traces that I presented, then prove to the world that you can do better than putting out the debunkers' party line and get specific. Here is your opportunity. I have asked you this before. Just say how and we might get somewhere. And if you don't do that in you next post, it's end of discussion. >>>b) I am not its author, merely reporting it (mmmh! the >>>messenger-shooting habit is becoming more and more common here >>>'round, isn't it?) >>OK, then please give me the name of the author. Credit where >>credit is due. >If you mean as of the Belgian 30-31 March, 1990 case, the name of >Prof. Auguste Meessen should suffice. August's son Christophe has reported here that not all traces were ghosts/angels. If you want to explain them as such, then you are the source. >If you mean as of radar UFOs in general, we should dig it out >from an old issue of "Science" in 1952. For your knowledge, the >"radar angels" or "ghosts" have indeed been the subject of a lot >of scientific literature in the '50s and '60s, because of obvious >defense implications, let UFOs aside; BTW, new generation radars >have reduced the ENORMOUS number of that kind of returns since >the '70s, but they're still relatively frequent today, as any >radar operator will tell you, if you bother to ask). Thank you for confirming that radar operators have known them for ages and know that their characteristics are entirely inconsistent with a fast accelerating signal that makes sharp turns and breaks a radar lock at altitudes varying between 0 and 10000 feet. >>No, there were 25 people waiting in the middle of the night >>with camcorders for the object to make simultaneous contact >>with ground and air radar and at that point someone said 'yes' >>and they all pushed the button. No, of course not, >>it concerns the whole flap. >Your supposed irony is out of place. Had you read the SOBEPS >reports, you'd know there WERE dozens of people out in those >night with videos and cameras, skywatching for the elusive UFOs: >some of those 25 videos you mention (but seem not to have seen, >as I have) were precisely taken by those volunteers, several >SOBEPS members and other ufologists among them (including Joel >Mesnard, editor of the French UFO Journal LDLN, who taped a light >on March 14). As for still pictures, there was more than the one >you numbered, because SOBEPS did get more than 50 during the >whole flap (and you'll find some analysis in the quoted book >about the wave, as well and in its second volume and in the >SOBEPS journal "Inforespace"). If you knew this, why did you ask in the first place? >>Don't tell me, 6 tapes were doctored, 5 tapes were a flight of >>geese, 4 tapes were Venus, 3 other tapes were Jupiter, 6 tapes >>were atmospheric diffraction, 1 one was a private aircraft, 2 >>might have been something, but we're not sure, so we don't have >>proof. Right? >Yawn! Am I discussing with somebody already convinced that EVERY >and EACH reported UFO sighting HAS to be an alien spacecraft? If >so, please tell me and I'll stop at once. I've long lost any >interest in religious quarrels. So have I. And of course I don't think what you suggest. This suggestion says a lot about you. Let me counter it by asking you a question. Is there any case in the history of UFO cases that you consider an 'unknown craft' or UFO? >If that's not the case, can I just remind you that the everyday >homework of us field investigators is exactly filtering the 10% >UFO signal out from a 90% of IFO noise? Each case must stand or >fall on its own data. And - unfortunate as it may be - some of >those 30 (not 25) Belgian videos WERE of planes, Jupiter and the >rest of the much-too-well-known parade of typical IFO cases. Its' >not me who claim that (I were not there to collect and evaluate >Belgian data) but my esteemed colleagues at SOBEPS (Patrick >Ferryn's analysis was published you may guess where). Fine. >>I guess that would become bogus theory 13 (The Duke was number 12 >>with his miscalibrated radar). Are you sure you want to get an >>unlucky number, Eduardo? >Oh dear! If I had been aware of being called names, I wouldn't >have been standing in this mine-field for the last twenty years, >would I? Since I've already been called nearly everything, from >"the most serious Italian ufologist" to "a CIA dupe", I think I >might well bear another one by a Henny van der Pluijm (if nothing >else, I would be in good company!). >BTW, 13 is held to be a lucky number, here in Italy. And >superstition is not a part of my weltanschaung, anyway. Fine, then you remain in slot number 13 of my Bogus Hall of Fame. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:44:08 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:37:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:04:47 -0500 From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Regarding... >Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:56:23 -0600 >From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Michael wrote: >>From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> >>Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony >>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 >>Hi Scott. >>Yes. He did describe them as delta shaped, similar to what today we >>would describe as the B-2. Arnold's sketch in the Blue Book file shows a semicircular front half and a sort of protruding V shape at the back >I have an audio tape of his initial conversation with the reporters >at the airport. <MAGNUM SNIP of Arnold interview> >As a general contribution to discussions - >It's an important interview in many respects and not having seen this >for a while, but having just re-read 'Resolving Arnold - Parts 1 & 2', >by Martin Kottmeyer, I note Arnold's comments, "I, at first, thought >they were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast >that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of new >jet planes in formation". >Kottmeyer writes: >"Returning to Arnold's report: 'They flew like many times I have >observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they >were linked together'. That is what they certainly seem like. Geese >do fly in chains. A number of nine makes sense. The arrangement of the >leader being higher than the others, unlike military formations, is >sensible for geese who take advantage of the downdraft turbulence of >others in the formation for easier flying. Geese chains do undulate >like kite tails. They do present a basically flat side profile when >seen edge-on. >From above they have a bilateral symmetry like the heel drawn by >Arnold. In his Congress paper he however emphatically denies this >idea, '-- but they were not geese!' >He does not explain the reasoning". >I wonder if Kottmeyer has ever seen this interview and realises that >Arnold appears to dismiss the explanation based on his estimation of >the objects' speed. If Arnold's air-speed calculations were wrong, >which is of course conceivable and at best they were subjective, there >are key aspects of Arnold's descriptions which otherwise correlate. >However, Kottmeyer also notes that 9200 feet is a rather high altitude >for geese to be flying and is doubtful whether an experienced pilot >such as Arnold would misidentify a flock of geese. >Perhaps the most important point is Arnold's initial confirmation >that the objects, "looked something like a pie plate that was cut in >half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear". >Kottmeyer's articles can be read at the following URL's: >http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n06/resolving-arnold-part-1.html >http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n07/resolving-arnold-part-2.html >In the second part, he helpfully reproduces Arnold's original drawing >for the Air Force files. >This matches what Arnold describes in the interview. <SNIP about other Arnold sources of info and geese flying at 12,000 ft> >It may not therefore be so unlikely that a flock of geese is the >explanation for Arnold's sighting. >Maybe it wasn't, but if we can't trust the variance in the evidence, >how can we trust his overall judgement? >Kottmeyer and Andersen also note this wasn't to prove the last time >Kenneth Arnold saw a flock of 'UFOs'. Several years ago I got into a letter-writing argument with Kottmeyer over the "goose hypothesis". Kottmeyer argued that the objects were geese flying high and fast and were a lot closer than Arnold estimated. Kottmeyer rejected Arnold's claim that the UFOs flew in and out of the mountain peaks south of Rainier. He came on strong, until I pointed out that Arnold said he turned his plane and opened the (left hand side) window. At this time Arnold was flying south, the same direction as the UFOS. Had they been geese Arnold would have overtaken and passed them. At any rate he wouldn't have been puzzled at their "high speed" even if they could fly as fast as 50 mph, as Kottmeyer suggested. (Arnold's plane was probably traveling 100 mph or faster but certainly much faster than 50 mph) Search for other documents from or mentioning: brumac | pulsar |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Comments on Mexico City Video of 08-06-97 - 2/2 From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:44:29 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:23:07 -0500 Subject: Comments on Mexico City Video of 08-06-97 - 2/2 [Part 2] 1b. The model must be some distance from the camera for the image to be in focus at full zoom (don't know this minimum focal distance). This places minimum size requirements on the field of view of the camera as compared to the location of the camera. That is, if this were videotaped in a room looking out through a window, the window must be big enough so that it does not appear in the video even when unzoomed. 1c. If a 3 dimensonal model it cannot be reflected in glass. One might imagine a small model, illuminated in some way so as to make a visible reflection in a glass window. Looking through the window the camera would "see" the background objects (buildings, sky) and a reflection of the model. If videoed with a hand-held camera the whole picture, background and model reflection, would jiggle together, as would happen with a real object at a great distance. The ufo model could be rotating and wobbling. By moving the model appropriately one could make it appear to move. However, it would be "difficult" to give it an "instantaneous" acceleration followed by a constant velocity. It could not simply be a small model rotating at the end of a string. It could be mounted on a rigid rod with appropriate rotation and wobble dynamics created by a mechanism. However, if the model is bright enough to have its reflection visible against the bright sky it would not seem to disappear behind the distant buildings. It's image would appear to be "in front of" the buildings. And last but certainly not least, the image of the reflection of a model in a window cannot be less bright than the background since background light coming through the window would add to the reflected light from the model. The fact that the UFO image is darker than the sky means this is not a simple "reflection on glass" hoax. 1d. Similar problems arise if one imagines reflecting the background on glass with a lighted model farther away than the glass. In this case one could make the model seem to move behind the building. Simply place a black paper cutout on the back side of the glass where the building image appears. Now when the model moves behind the building image the light from the model will not get through. However, when the model is silhouetted against the sky there will be no portion of the model image that is darker than the sky. 1e. A "masked reflection" would also be "difficult". In this case a cutout with the shape and size of the reflection of the model is placed beyond the glass to block background light from coming through the glass where the image of the model appears. Motion of the model would have to be accompanied by similar, perfectly registered, motion of the cutout. 1f. One big question is how to make a model UFO that is brighter than the dark building appear to move behind a building? Imagine being in the room where the video was taken, looking out through the window. One sees all the nearby and distant buildings. Then create a flat dark model cutout of the nearby buildings and set it up some distance, like several feet, from the window. The 2-D model building is therefore closer to the camera than the window and the camera is many feet from the window. However, the camera must be far enough away from the model building so that when videoed with full zoom the edges are still in good focus. (This sets size requirements on the room and window. See below.) Now take a small 3-D UFO model suspended in some way. Have it illuminated and painted or colored in such a way as to be somewhat darker than the sky brightness. Naturally this model must have black spots on its rim and must be rotating and wobbling in a steady manner. This, and the onset of motion acceleration) would require a support which is reasonably rigid. Perhaps a mechanism inside the model would create the rotation and wobble (wobble about 3 times as fast as the rotation) and another mechanism on the floor would drive the horizontal and vertical components of motion of the support once the "UFO" starts to move. In this case the model UFO could move behind the model buildings in a convincing manner. This method would require some effort at model building, including construction of a mechanized model UFO and support system, alignment of the model buildings with the real buildings as seen through the window (I assume there really are buildings at the locations indicated in the video!), and, finally, careful videography with appropriate lighting (not easy!) using a handheld camera. It might also be necessary to shoot the scene from a room with a large window and to use a special lens on the camera so that the unzoomed view does not show the edges of the window. As mentioned above, the distance from the camera to the (flat) model buildings must be large enough so that the edges are in good focus. This sets a minimum size requirement on the room that depends upon the zoom magnification. A reasonable guess is that to have the distant buildings in good focus and the presumed nearby model buildings also in good focus would require a distance from the camera to the models of 20-50 ft. this requirement, in turn, sets a size requirement on the window. It must be large enough so that the window edges do not appear in the picture at the beginning when unzoomed. 1g. An even more expensive and time consuming way is to "bring the whole scene into the studio." That is, create a model of the whole scene as viewed from the window under hazy conditions. This would be extremely complicated and sophisticated. A model of the scene could involve models of the nearby buildings and, as a background for the distant buildings, a large photograph of the real scene, like a "diorama." A UFO model would then be supported in some invisible way at a distance from the camera that is greater than the distance from the model buildings and then of course, it would be "easy" to make it move behind the model buildings. The UFO model would have to be supported in a manner such as described in 1f above in order to make it move, rotate and wobble without introducing a swinging motion characteristic of a model suspended on a string. If the model were supported by a transparent rod, for example, a mechanism could be devised to make the model rotate and wobble as seen. A lightweight model on a rigid rod would accelerate quickly with little wobble or vibration. This might also necessitate some special optics (lenses) for the camera to make the zoom compatible with the likely short distance (5 - 20 feet from the camera to the diorama). An actual haze effect could be synthesized by using as a background a large photo taken on a clear day and then blowing water vapor or fog into the model scene to create the reduction of contrast inherent with haze. However, to make this convincing several model buildings at different distances would be created within the diorama. But this would require sophisticated model building, a mechanical operating system for the model and its motion, considerable time and considerable expense. So far, the bottom line on the hoax possibility using a model is that it probably could be done, but would require a considerable effort and expense. 2a. How about the possibility of an electronic construction? In this case one imagines a video of the background scene with the UFO image added in electronically. Because the image jiggles right along with the images of the buildings, this hand-held jiggle must be somehow deduced by the software frame by frame and then added to the frame-by-frame location of the UFO image. 2b Alternatively one might imagine that the scene was shot with a tripod mounted camera showing the more of the scene than actually appears in the video. This sampling of the scene was at high resolution (many pixels). The scene was a single, stationary frame. This single large frame was copied many times (about 700). Then the UFO image was added frame-by-frame. About 700 frames were created which show the UFO image first stationary and then moving frame by frame to the right and upward at a constant speed. On a frame by frame basis the UFO image was partially "erased" in a ste-by-step manner as it "moved behind" the image of the first building, and then it was "created" as it seemed to appear from behind the building. After the series of frames with the UFO had been created, then the dynamics of the camera vibration and panning were simulated. One can imagine this was done by making a frame-by-frame mapping of the first (700) frames onto a second series of about 700 frames. Each of the second series of frames was a subset of the first, i.e., a smaller frame size (fewer pixels). Initially in the unzoomed section the new frames were about the same size as the orignal frames. However, the zoom was creased by using "pixel magnification" and this justifies using high pixel resolution in the first set of frames. The center of each new frame is a "semi-random" location relative to the center of the original frame in such a way that the centers of the new frames wander about the original frame center to synthesize camera vibration. Once the UFO image starts to move in the original frames, the mean center point of the second series of frames also begins to move in a "random walk" manner characteristic of a hand-held panning camera. One can imagine that by using a method such as just outlined the video wwas constructed. Naturally this would require very sophisticated computer based image construction...Hollywood level, probably. COMMENT ON HOAX HYPOTHESIS: there may be other techniques not mentioned above. However, it would seem that if this was a hoax then it was extremely well done. Of course, no method except the full scale UFO hoax with a real object thousands of feet from the camera would create bonafide witnesses. Hence if there are witnesses and it can be proven that they have no relationship to the video, then this can be labelled a real event! The video might be able to stand on its own even in the absence of witnesses. However, it is difficult to imagine something as obvious as a 25-50 ft UFO flying close to city buildings would be noticed by only the videographer. RELATION BETWEEN ROTATION AND WOBBLE: The continuous dynamic motion of the UFO is intriguing. If a hoax the constancy of the motion implies some motor driven mechanism that keeps the rotation and wobbling steady. However, if not a hoax.... Assume the UFO can be modelled as a rotating solid disc of some mass m. The aver age or mean axis of rotation is assumed to be (nearly) vertical. However the ins tantaneous axis (the spin axis at any particular instant) does not appear to be vertical. If you imagine the spin axis as a line, this line appears to make an a ngle with the (assumed) vertical mean axis. This angle may be (seems to be) cons tant. As time goes on this line sweeps out - or lies "on" - a cone shaped surfac e in space, with the apex of the cone at the center of the disc. (Note: The eart h has a "wobble" or precession such that the instantaneous spin axis of the eart h rotates about the average spin axis every 26,000 years (about).) If the wobble is actually a uniform precession of the spin axis, as with a gyroscope or any spinning body, then there must be a torque (twisting force) acting on the disc in a direction always perpendicular to the spin axis (if not perpendicular, the torque would change the spin rate as well as the precession rate). There is a "simple" (nothing is simple!) approximate relation between the torque, the precession rate and the spin angular momentum: T = PM, where P is the angular rate of precession (in radians per second; 2 pi radians = 360 degrees), T is the applied torque and M is the angular memomentum about the spin axis. For a uniformly thick disc of mass m, M = (1/2)msr^2 where s is the spin rate (in radians per second) and r is the radius. In this case s is about 1 rad/sec and P is approximately 3 rad/sec. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing what the effective mass of the UFO might be. Nor is there any indication of what the torque might be. If we knew either or these we could calculate the other and, perhaps, learn something interesting. This torque might be a result of a huge magnetic field associated with the UFO being acted upon by the magnetic field of the earth, although considering that the spin axis is nearly vertical it would seem that only the vertical component of the earth's field would be involved. It might also be a torque applied by the UFO to itself in some way to maintain the orientation of the UFO relative to the local earth surface as the earth spins. TO BE REVISED AS INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:44:37 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:03:10 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:01:33 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** -Forwarded >Interesting article that came through >Jan Lamprecht's Hollow Earth list: >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:38:03 +0200 >From: "Jan Lamprecht" <UFO-1@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za> >To: pbs@iafrica.com,...@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za, > CIS.List@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za >Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** >Correen, >I haven't had a chance to read this, but I did read and account of >the Phoenix sighting and to my mind there's no question that these >were secret USAF planes pretending to be UFOs. >Regards, >Jan >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:51:12 -0500 (CDT) >From: kutchak@ix.netcom.com >To: pbs@iafrica.com >Subject: Fwd: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** >------Begin forward message------------------------- > Hummmmmm...Another point of view. > Coreen >====================================================== >Subj: Skywatch: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51 >Date: 97-07-17 10:02:02 EDT >From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) >From: DNIHOA@email.usps.gov >Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51 >Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:21:34 -0400 > Hello All, > I found this information at: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phoenix.html I > recommend that everyone check it out. I am just posting a small portion > of it. You really need to read ALL of it to appreciate Robert's > research! > --DK > ============================================================ Hi DK, Robert Morningsky, All, Mr Morningsky writes, > THE PHOENIX LIGHTS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION JULY 7, 1997 > I am a believer in UFOs. My books and reports all reflect my > position. In October of 1996, I presented a paper at a Mesa, AZ, UFO > conference criticizing the UFO/New Age community's contradictory > positions and its need to examine UFO events more carefully. Not only > was I personally attacked by some of the members of the UFO/New Age > community but I was accused, by one of the better known > `researcher-lecturers', of being part of the `UFO cover-up'! I'm sorry, but this one knocked me out of my chair laughing! It can't be -anyone else- but "He who shall remain unnamed!" (Herr Doktor strikes again!) Cue Theramin sci-fi sound track.- Oooooeeeeaahhhhooooo! > An Air Force officer at Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, AZ, has > advised that there have been an increased number of `precision flying' > training exercises on A-10's in the southern Arizona area. He advises > that some A-10's seem to have been structurally altered for some > unknown reason. He was only able to confirm a panel of what seemed to > be high-power lights affixed to the wings of the `A-10s'. No other > details are available. With all of the video that is available it should be easy to measure between the lights to see if it accomodates the wingspan of an A-10. But it still won't explain how an airplane like the A-10 can 'hover.' I was under the impression that A-10's were 'big jobs' with wide wingspans. If I'm mistaken,...(never mind!) 'Emily Littella' Hey man, (if) the military -is- involved then it's time for another American Revolution folks. I don't want to live in Nazi AMERIKA. Turns out that the 'Fuhrers 1000 Year Reich' may still have a shot at seeing the light of day! John Velez, Love All, trust few. John Velez jvif@spacelab.net Search for other documents from or mentioning: jvif | louwje | ufo-1 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: jpeterson@polaristel.net [Candy Peterson] Date: Thu, 13 Nov 97 16:19:45 PST Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:08:47 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:29:02 -0800 >From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c Thanks to all the insightful writers of this thread. ><SNIP> (consideration of older ufological cases) > Personally, I am >more interested in the here and now, in trying to get a better >feel for some of the commonalties of the contacts, in trying to >get a better understanding of where this phenomenon might be >heading, and in preparing myself for a possible total shift in >the way we may have to think about our Universe. On a >battlefield, sometimes you just have to rely on your best >intuition - you don't always have the luxury of engaging in a >traditional scientific investigation that might take more than 50 >years to complete. An advice columnist, in reply to her reader's lament that college would take _4_long_years_ to complete, said "four years from now, would you rather be four years older with a college degree or without one?" If we had consistently conducted open scientific ufological research from "the beginning," would we be more likely to have developed a better understanding of the phenomenon by today, or not? As largely unpaid hobbyists, we do the best investigating we can (in the spare time remaining after reading UFO e-lists. >;) The tragedy of experiencers singularly fighting their own battles is that we have even fewer opportunities to openly compare information. It's a tough field with an intractable subject; as scary to people on all sides of the issue, not unlike the Inquisition. (!) We have a tendency to divide and conquer within our _own_ ranks, nevermind the mocking of the media, the seeming indifference of governments and so on. We can't even agree if the UFO phenomena/problems are entirely physical, psychological, spiritual, temporal, or other. So much effort is spent haggling over our "blind" individual perceptions, we don't even know if we're examining the different parts of one metaphorical elephant or a complex stew. We just muddle along as best we can, according to our own perspectives. <snip> >My question is: what would constitute the ultimate proof? My fear >is that if we wait for the ultimate proof we may be too late to >do anything about it. Certainly by now there is enough indication >that something is going on to warrant a listening rather than an >attacking attitude. However, let's not jump too quickly to any >conclusions until we have done a lot of listening. For example, >just because the experiences involve "non-human" beings, it >doesn't follow that the visitors are necessarily >extraterrestrial. Minnesota MUFON is trying to discover specific clues about the nature or abilities of the visitor/abductor force(s). I've asked this list for leads on published or personal experiences in trying to record abduction attempts (with any kind of cameras, etc.) So far, there have been no reply postings to the list.* This could be due to any number of reasons, including: No or few such recording attempts have ever been undertaken. Small e-list membership or readership. Lack of trust, time, name recognition or personal gain. It's a long process to gather data, and ufology is certainly young, as sciences go. Until such time as "they" might make themselves incontrovertibly obvious, we'll just continue to gather and sort through the data, not to mention wrestling among ourselves. >> <snipped questions about what constitutes proof.> >Good questions. But the more information we have, the better will >be our ability to make a choice. And for this reason, we need >more encouragement for those with a legitimate story to tell to >come forward without the further abuse of being torn to shreds by >those who demand ultimate proof. >John K. MUFON's Abduction Transcription Project is an example of good science, collecting ufological data from experiencers who have sought therapeutic help. Anonymity is preserved while we glean what we can from nearly a thousand therapeutic transcripts from all over North America. No shredding, no abuse. If you or someone you know has tried to record "alien abductors", please contribute the pertinent information to me or Minnesota MUFON. This isn't about exhaustive lifelong case histories. We just want the details of the attempts to catch 'em in the act by means of any recording devices whatsoever. Let's see if we can cooperate to confirm or dispel what currently amounts to hearsay/urban legends about our supposed inability to objectively detect the "alien abductors". If we can narrow down some of the anecdotal reports floating around, we might begin to discover the specifics about which devices "they" can manipulate, and which they can't. If "they" are omnipotent it may not matter at all what we do, but if "they" aren't, shouldn't we do our best to find that out? Thanks, Candy Peterson jpeterson@polaristel.net ----------------------------------------- Minnesota MUFON http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/ ----------------------------------------- *Thanks to Scott Carr for his e-mail response to our research request. Check out his web page: <http://www.erols.com/sardonica> "The Flying Saucer Gazette." Search for other documents from or mentioning: jpeterson |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:49:44 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:12:41 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > [...] > I have no problem whatsoever with people who have had some > experience, whether a sighting or abduction. How could I, > and who am I to judge. > HOWEVER: I have a problem with people who continually > bitch about the fact that UFO "research" isn't taken > seriously by the scientific community. Perhaps they > should look at that statement. Apart from some > questionable US government reports (Condon, Blue > Book, whatever), where are the scientific papers? > All we get are pseudo-scientific popular fiction > novels: "My brain was removed by little green men". > [...] Jakes, The problem is that there is no branch of mainstream science that inquires about UFOs, and therefore no appropriate scientific journal to which to submit a paper on the topic. This is no accident, of course, but is due to the ridicule factor that developed from the early 1950s on, which in turn is due to.... . The closest thing we have to it is the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which however, only rarely takes UFO papers, and is not generally known to mainstream science. Then there's the Journal of UFO Studies, but it is even lesser known within science. But then, with no branch of mainstream science existing (in the U.S.) that deals with the UFO phenomenon, it is not surprising that mainstream science is unaware of such journals. There are a few journals that have included occasional papers considering the possibility of spaceflight to other solar systems, or the possibility of life thereupon, etc. -- astronomical related journals usually -- but they rarely accept any paper that in any way suggests that UFO aliens could be aware of us on Earth. I got one such paper into the Quart. J. Roy. Astronomical Soc. back in 1986, but to do so I dared not mention the word UFO. A peculiarity of the review process of my paper was that, after the paper's potential acceptance, they didn't send me the reviewers' reports with suggested changes, and didn't even ask for changes. The first I heard that it was accepted, about a year later, was when the galley proofs arrived in the mail. Quite likely the reviewer who was responsible for it getting accepted didn't want anyone even guessing who he was, outside of the editor. There was a paper in _Science_, U.S.'s most prestigious science journal, by Kuiper & Morris in 1977 called "Searching for Extraterrestrial Civilizations" which was quite good as far as it went. But the only way they could slip in a reference to UFOs was in one sentence that went into an appendix. There they were discussing the possibility that ETs (they never used the ET abbreviation unless it was within SETI) could visit Earth perhaps for mining purposes or for extracting some other resource, and how they could do that without us being aware. They could do this, the authors said, "with no more attention from us than a UFO article or a missing person's report." That's about as close as you can come to discussing UFOs in a mainstream science journal, unless it is in a mocking tone. So if you submit a UFO article to a mainstream science journal, you'll in all likelihood not even have it reviewed but just sent straight back to you by the journal editor; or he may not even reply to you. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:41:42 +0200 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:16:05 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:14:39 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:17:33 -0800 > From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:47:51 +0000 > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > You just need your emotions, your gut feelings and your belief > system to think that you know what is possible. You are driven by > faith. May well be that is where Ufology belongs, as a faith > driven belief system and ultimately an ET related religion! >Ed, >I'm just curious, having seen you use the phrase "belief system" >repeatedly. Every time I see the phrase, used by you or anyone >else, I wonder what is the difference, meaningfully speaking, >between "belief system" and "belief." Check it out by using >"belief" in a sentence next time some strange compulsion is >driving you, unnecessarily, to make two words out of one. >"Belief system" is one of those dumb cant phrases sort of like >"life style," when in 999 cases out of 1000 a mere "life" would >do. >Of course, reading your remarks, I can't help being reminded of >the classic presumptive error expressed as "What I know I know, >and what you know you only believe." What "belief system" >typically means in rhetorical exercises is "somebody's opinion I >don't agree with." >Cheers, >Jerry Clark Well said, Jerry, And maybe that's what I'm getting at in my convoluted, non-literary way: Until we have enough data to KNOW that UFOs and aliens and abductions are REAL, it all still remains an exercise in FAITH and BELIEF. FAITH because a lot of people have to trust their senses and their brains' interpretation of events BELIEF because a lot of people tend to believe (and usually quite rightly so) the things they have faith in. I mean, I don't have a problem walking around in a 50 story skyscraper, because I believe it won't fall: I have faith and trust that I am correct in my perception. That's because I have seen that these buildings don't fall over everywhere. But what if one does, and I'm inside, and I miraculously survive? My faith and belief will be shattered, because I now KNOW differently. Same with the ETH: until we KNOW, we can NEVER be sure what we are dealing with, or how, or when, or why, or any of these other questions that must bug the hell out of experiencers and abductees all over the world. You owe it to yourselves. It must be done. We need to get to the bottom of this, or else we can truly lay claim to the newest religion, with all the weird connotations that brings with it. Enough bleating from this sheep... Search for other documents from or mentioning: louwje | clark | egs |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:37:07 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:20:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: media influence on abduction reports >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:02:58 -0500 >Recently we've had one of our little teacup tempests about TV >influence on the Hill case. Or in other words about Martin >Kottmeyer's theory...that an Outer Limits episode, featuring an alien >with wraparound eyes "that speak," furnished Betty and Barney Hill >with the model of the aliens they claimed had abducted them. >The more I think about this -- and about the debate we had -- the >sadder I get. Betty Hill, as we know, denied that she and her husband >had ever seen the Outer Limits. To which some of our skeptics >replied: "But how do we know for SURE that they didn't? How do we >know what else they might have seen on TV?" I am so sure that it is a coincidence that the Outer Limits show aired when it did in relation to the occurrence of the Hill case. It takes years to write the story, plot the characters, cast the set and tape, edit and get the show on tape to the television broadcasting station. I have no idea of all of the preparations that had to take place for the Outer Limits show to air. But, I do know that the show was developed independently of the Hill case. Is there any way to check up on the preparations of the Outer Limits television show? Are any of the people associated with its production still around to give us any idea of how long before airing that the original story was developed into the product that was shown? Perhaps this has already been done if there was such a skeptical point about it. Consider what is being said here, anyways. If I have happened to see a television show, like Babylon 5, for example, and watched it once. Does this imply that if I go out and have an experience with a starship, even years later, that if my description of it resembles in any way the characteristics of the starships depicted on Babylon 5, that my entire experience will be discounted? If so, then I shudder to think about all of the fiction I have seen or read. This also eliminates me as a first hand source of information about my own experience with that supposed starship. Or further, from any testimony of any of my personal experiences during my life. In reality, where can we draw the line about the outside influences upon our own personal translations of experiences that somehow exceed the boundaries of normalcy? <------ Big snip ------> >What I'm proposing here are ground rules for the scientific study of >media influence on abductions -- and an end to petty debate on a >subject that, at present, we haven't even begun to define. I appreciate your great intent of setting ground rules. But, I know that you have little idea of the complexities that will evolve to produce a remote possibility of what you intend. Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 23:37:03 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:18:13 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:29:02 -0800 >From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] >> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:40:29 -0800 >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Dear John, Thank you for your encouragement in answering as you did. >Don't let the few on this list who don't want to hear your story >spoil your perception of possibly many others who do. I, for one, >am more interested in the recent and current personal firsthand >experiences of those on this list than in the endless debate of >50 year-old stories. Those old stories are something that just won't go away. When there is no satisfiable explanation for either a sighting or an experience, we shouldn't just dismiss them. They are held up as reminders to everyone, including governments, that the responsibility of upholding the truth rests upon everyone. We cannot forget this obligation, especially when the tennants of our perceptions have been challenged as such limitations to the definitions necessary in ufology. Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:52:17 +0000 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:36:18 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:11:46 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesi >Friedman, for example, doesn't seem paticularly sold on >abductions. And I doubt if Hopkins spends much time on cattle >cuttings. And so on. Ultimately, however, the public perceives us >as this huge tent or umbrella that encompasses god only knows >what (or where it ends), but starts with the signature assumption >that the aliens are among us, here and now, and seemingly in vast >numbers. >It's no wonder to me that most scientists don't want to be seen >even in the immediate vicinity of the tent, let alone caught >peeping under one of the flaps. >Part of the problem is that there's no single ringmaster, or >spokesperson, inside the tent, just a bunch of milling theories >and assumptions, with fistfights breaking out in the corners, and >a very small, calm peanut gallery. When the media wants to find a >critic, they get pointed in the direction of Phil Klass, almost >without fail. But who do they get pointed to when they want a UFO >proponent? It can be anyone from John Mack to Courtney Brown to >Philip Corso to Jim Marrs, depending on the hot topic of the day >or whoever has the most recent book or video out on the subject. >If Ruppelt had been at Roswell this past July for the 50th >anniversary, I suspect he might have been absolutely shocked by >what he had helped wrought. >Dennis Dennis I read with care what you said today and I believe there is a first step in co-ordinating a ufological 'unified front'. As it is at the moment anyone can read a few books and then call himself/herself a ufologist. Should there not be some recognisable 'qualification' or certificate, or something that would say to others this person *IS* a ufologist? Scientists have degrees to Proffersors to seperate the early learner to the emminently qualified. Could we not as a whole community agree on a course or something to seperate the 'read a few books' ufologist to the 'twenty-odd years in ufology' ufologist? Just my tuppence worth. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:11:21 +0000 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:37:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:49:56 -0800 >That's why IFO until proven UFO has to be the rule. >------ >Mark Cashman Mark I understand your precept, but I'm afraid I have to disagree, slightly. :-) A UFO report is a report of something unexplained. As the investigator I try to find and explanation. If I then cannot find an explanation though one source or another then it is a bonafide UFO. I do not start with the precept that it is a IFU unless I cannot find an explanation. Its a UFO report and unless I find and explanation thats all it is, a report of a UFO. Somehwere in between I hope, I start with no precept that it is a UFO or IFO until I have concluded my investigation. In some certain cases an investigation sometimes is ongoing, and in this case it is "a UFO until/unless found out otherwise". Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 14 Nov 1997 15:26:21 UT Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:41:35 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:01:33 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** -Forwarded >Errol >Interesting article that came through >Jan Lamprecht's Hollow Earth list: >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:38:03 +0200 >From: "Jan Lamprecht" <UFO-1@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za> >To: pbs@iafrica.com,...@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za, > CIS.List@qit-ul-0104.telkom.co.za >Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** >Correen, >I haven't had a chance to read this, but I did read and account of >the Phoenix sighting and to my mind there's no question that these >were secret USAF planes pretending to be UFOs. >Regards, >Jan > Hummmmmm...Another point of view. > Coreen ====================================================== >Subj: Skywatch: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51 >Date: 97-07-17 10:02:02 EDT >From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) >From: DNIHOA@email.usps.gov >Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51 >Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:21:34 -0400 > Hello All, > I found this information at: http://www.xroads.com/~rms/phoenix.html >I recommend that everyone check it out. I am just posting a small >portion of it. You really need to read ALL of it to appreciate Robert's > research! These statements from Robert Morningsky have been around for a while. I do not know of any investigators in Phoenix, with MUFON or Skywatch, that found the answer to the sightings to be A-10 airplanes. The reports are not explained by airplanes. We have not yet seen a demonstration of an A-10 hovering or whisper quiet. Explanations are like opinions - everyone has got one. It is a far different story to conduct a methodical investigation of the facts and come up with a reasonable hypothesis or even have the courage to say that the objects remain unidentified. As an example several witnesses on the east side of the valley observed a huge black triangle (not the boomerang) that blocked out stars. It was a massive object with a span estimated by several witnesses to exceed 5,000 feet! In one case this could be estimated by certain crude measurements. This triangle hovered, cruised slowly, and accelerated along different points of its flight path. It was completely silent. It also dispensed amber orbs at one point. I leave it to the sincere UFO researcher to determine what these objects were -- at least 6 different types of UFOs were seen on March 13. The earliest reported sightings of 3 boomerangs took place at 5:30 PM. These boomerangs merged into a ball of light and vanished! What a trick for A-10s! We now have video footage of 2 of these boomerangs seen in the same area in 1992. Where did they come from? Space? Another dimension? Want to know how we can find out - perfect a tracking device and follow one of these critters home. Were these military craft? I don't think so. Why speculate? Let's find out. Sincerely, Bill Hamilton Exec Director Skywatch Int. Search for other documents from or mentioning: william.hamilton |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:46:02 +0100 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:44:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:09:00 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: media influence on abduction reports > >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 00:02:58 -0500 > Hi Greg, Hi Errol, Hi All > I thought that I would like to add my tuppence worth here, if you > don't mind. I know nothing of the Betty and Barny Hill case > except what I have read. I never met them, spoke to them or in > any other way had any contact with them, so this is purely my > idea. > >Recently we've had one of our little teacup tempests about TV > >influence on the Hill case. Or in other words about Martin > >Kottmeyer's theory...that an Outer Limits episode, featuring an alien > >with wraparound eyes "that speak," furnished Betty and Barney Hill > >with the model of the aliens they claimed had abducted them. > Is it possible to use the converse side of this? Could it not > have been the writer/producer or whoever who was responsible for > this particular episode to have "seen for himself" (or herself > for all you women out there) an alien with "wraparound eyes that > spoke" which gave that person the idea in the first place? That > would mean that person could have equally seen the same type of > alien that the Hills saw. In which case Kottmeyers theory is > completely out the window. > >Greg Sandow. > Just my tuppence worth Greg, however I do agree with your idea > that a serious look into to abductions to see if any media > influence has had an effect is a good one. Hello Greg, Sean, Errol and List, One of the scenarios I have come across, where it appears that there might have been an abduction [though in each case and without leading the possible recipient(s) have not gone so far as to say this happened] those affected have aluded to a bright orange yellow light streaming through venetian blinds in their bedroom with a smokey or misty substance associated with it. After I think I have exhausted all of the information related to this incident in each occurrance I ask each of them separately if they have seen Spielberg's CE 3rd Kind. Those of you have seen it will recall the scene where before the little boy is abducted where a terrific orange light is seen to be streaming through the venetian blinds in the living room with an associated mist. In two of the three cases my witnesses admit to seeing this movie while the third [couple] says they had no interest in that type of movie and did not see it. As is usual in this business, nothing ever goes easy. The question though is, have others on the list had witnesses relate this same type of occurance to them? Also, knowing it is possible that the CE3K movie scene influences this type of incident, is it not also possible that this is a regular occurance and that Spielberg used a real life experience in the movie that he had come across while writing the script. The ole' chicken or the egg puzzle. I should mention that one of the five witnesses [2 couples,one single] to relate this particular sceario is closely related to me and are not prone to making up stories and have had other puzzling incidents as well. They do not attribute any of their experiences to the ETH. They did see the movie. I am more of a nuts and bolts type researcher/investigator, but as others do, I'm sure, I happen onto the abduction side of the field by association. One of my best CE3K cases has a strong abduction side attached to it. I like to know if others are hearing of the same scenario. Best, Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Comments on Mexico City Video of 08-06-97 - 1/2 From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:44:29 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:23:03 -0500 Subject: Comments on Mexico City Video of 08-06-97 - 1/2 INITIAL COMMENTS ON MEXICO CITY VIDEO OF Aug. 6, 1997 PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ----***TO BE REVISED AS NECESSARY*** THIS IS BASED ON ANALYSIS OF A VIDEO COPY (originating source unknown) The copy includes the direct video, a 1.6x blowup negative video (sky is dark, UFO appears bright against sky) and a 7x blowup. The video begins with a "wide angle" shot and immediately zooms in. Once zoomed in it stays that way. The wide angle shot shows numerous nearby buildings. They appear dark against the sky background. What seem to be distant structures are faint in the haze, i.e., they have low contrast with the sky, as expected from atmospheric extinction. The atmospheric extinction coefficient could be estimated from assumed intrinsic brightness of the buildings if the distances were known. This coefficient is probably given in meteorological reports for the time (the "visibility" or "visibility distance"). This could be important in determining the intrinsic brightness of the UFO, assuming it is a real object at some distance. I do not know the distances of buildings in the pictures but something like thousands of feet to a mile or so seems more reasonable than, say, 3 to five miles. There are enough structures in the background so that using parallax one should be able to locate ths position of the videographer. The UFO is generally well centered. The camera jiggle is obvious and looks as one would expect for a hand held camera. The jiggle is much more noticeable after zoom. Once the UFO starts to move to the right the camera pans with it, jiggling as it goes. The UFO motion seems to be at about a constant rate and so is the pan motion. After the UFO disappears behind the second building the camera sighting direction continues to move to the right as if the videographer expects to see the UFO appear from behind the second building, which would be logical based on the previous continuous motion. The UFO is initially stationary but obviously tilting back and forth or wobbling at a constantrate. A 7x video blowup shows left-to-right motion of diffuse (edges not sharp) darker areas or dark spots which seem to be on the rim of the UFO. If these are fixed to the surface, then they suggest, but do not prove, rotational motion, counter-clockwise as seen from above. (The dark spots could be "moving" left to right on a non-rotating UFO, thereby giving the impression of motion just as changing light patterns in an electronic sign can give the impression of motion.) I would have to say that the way these appear at the left edge of the UFO and then move to the right is not exactly what I would expect if the spots were fixed with respect to the surface of the UFO. However, the "funny appearance" of the dark spots as they appear and move may be a result of the atmospheric haze (causing low contrast) plus the artifacts of electronic 7x zoom (these features would be very small, almost invisible, in the un-electronic zoomed images). there more be more clarity in the original video. Aside from the "funny appearance," the combination of the motion of the dark spots and the wobble certainly gives a good impression of rotation with wobble or "precession" (see below). An estimate of the rate of the assumed rotation, as based on the motion of the black spots, is 6 to 7 seconds per revolution (about 0.16 rev/sec or 1.0 rad/sec). In other words, it is not spinning rapidly. The wobble requires about 2 sec to complete a cycle (0.5 rev/sec or 3 rad/sec). After remaining stationary for several seconds the UFO then "instantaneously" accelerates (see below) to a constant velocity which takes it to the right on an upward sloping path. It seems to pass behind the upper left corner of one building and then, because of its upward trajectory it appears above the building. Frame by frame analysis of both the disappearance and the reappearance show consistent "cutting away" of the image, as if it were a real object moving slowly out of view behind the building and then reappearing from behind the building. After reappearance it continues its steady right hand upward motion and wobble. If moves toward a second, higher building. It disappears for good behind the second building. After the initial camera zoom the UFO image on a 14" diag monitor is about 25 mm wide and about 7 mm high. Since I don't know the effective focal length of the camera lens I can only hazard a guess that the angular size might be on the order of 1/2 to 1 degree. Just before it disappears the second and final time the UFO image length is 20 mm. This suggests that it was about 25% farther from the camera when it went out of sight. The first nearby building that the UFO goes "behind" - or appears to go behind - has some square windows 5 mm on a side on the monitor. Hence the UFO initially appears to be about 5 times larger than these windows. If, for example, the window were 5 ft wide, then the UFO was more than 25 ft in diameter (assumed round, but there is no proof of this - no "top view" or "bottom view"). assuming it was as it appears, farther away than the building. All further dimensions are scaled according to this assumption, lacking any further information. The UFO was apparently farther away than the building, perhaps as much as twice as far, but not very much farther because it would have been barely visible in the the smog/haze. The UFO image has areas that are darker than the sky background, an important factor discussed below. If the UFO were miles away it would "fade into" the haze and the dark areas would not be as obvious as they are. If the UFO were twice as far as the building, then it would be about 50 ft in diameter, assuming as before that the square windows are 5 ft wide. I have studied the UFO acceleration by plotting the position of the right end of the UFO image relative to the building it (seems to ) disappear behind. For several seconds the spacing is constant with fluctuations (83-85 mm on the monitor). Fluctuations in the spacing are a result of the continual wobble of the UFO combined with the frame-by-frame fluctuations in the image shape and "edge fuzziness", a phenomenon caused most likely by electronic noise in the video camera. Then, suddenly, there is motion to the right (toward the building). The abrupt change from stationary to moving is noticeable to the naked eye when running the video forward (in time). The UFO image is seen to suddenly start moving to the right, what seems to be an "inertia-less" (instantaneous) onset of motion, with what appears to be a constant velocity. When viewed in reverse, the UFO is moving constantly to the left and appears to suddenly stop, as if hitting an invisible brick wall. (Crash dummies inside?) The left edge of the building is sufficiently sharply focused in the 1.6X blowup video negative (sky dark) to allow reasonably accurate (to within 1 mm on the monitor) measurements of the spacing between the left end of the UFO image and the image of the edge of the building. This method allows for measurement of the UFO motion irrespective of the camera jiggle, i.e., by using the building as a reference the camera jiggle is essentially removed. (It still has the effect of smearing the edges of the images slightly.) A graph of spacing vs frame number shows the following odd result: in one (or less than 1) or at most 2 frames the UFO achieves its full foward speed. There appears to be no swinging as one would expect for a model hanging on a string. Also, the rotation and wobble (precession) do not appear to be affected by the onset of motion. (More precise analysis using the original video may turn up some slight changes in the rotation and wobble.) Using the estimate of the UFO being 25 ft in diameter, the steady speed to the right corresponds to about 16.9 ft/sec or about 11.5 mph. This would be doubled if the UFO were twice as far away (and changed in proportion to the assumed UFO size and distance scale). If it achieved this 16.9 ft/sec speed in 1 frame, 1/30 sec, then it achieved an acceleration of about 16 "g's" (16 times the 32 ft/sec^2 acceleration of gravity). If in two frames, then 8 g's. This sort of acceleration would be enough to cause wobble in any model hanging on a string. This acceleration, since it seems to cause no effect to the "normal" wobble and rotation of the UFO must be acting through its "center of mass" (else, there would a torque or twisting motion that would change the wobble in some way). If the UFO weighed 1 pound and accelerated in 1/30 sec, then the force applied would be 16 pounds. If it weighed 1 ton (2,000 lbs) the accelerating force would be the equivalent of the weight of 16 tons. NOTE: THESE SPECIFIC NUMBERS ARE ONLY ROUGH ESTIMATES TO GET "IN THE BALLPARK". THE ACTUAL VALUES DEPEND UPON DIMENSIONS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY ONLY GUESSED AT. CONSIDERING THE HOAX HYPOTHESIS: In general there are three possibilities: a hoax, a misidentification or the "real thing" (a True UFO - unexplainable as conventional a phenomenon). The possibility of a misidentification seems unlikely because of the shape. Even if one could prove that there was a 25 - 50 foot blimp with a gondola on top that was hovering and rocking so that the front and rear ends alternately went up and down (but not rotating) and having dark areas moving long the side near toward the camera, this would not explain the "instantaneous" acceleration. That leaves only the hoax or the real thing. Factors to be considered and their relevance to the hoax hypothesis are: 1. The presumed hoax must either use a model of some sort or it is an electronic construction 1a. If a model, then it is not likely a full sized model at a great distance (thousands of feet, beyond the buildings) from the camera (rotating, wobbling, accelerating), but more likely a small model within a room where the video was shot. Therefore reject the full sized model hypothesis. (However, it is to be noted that this is the only method that could potentially create witnesses to the "UFO" who were not associated with the hoax.)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:44:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:24:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:49:42 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >If I may quote from Bruce Maccabee's paper, "The Complete >Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis": >"His drawing suggests that the objects were nearly circular >overall. He wrote on the sketch that "they seemed longer than >wide, their thickness was about 1/20th of their width." His >suggestion that their width (or length) was about twenty times >.greater than their thickness may be an exaggeration. The sketch . >he drew of how they appeared "on edge" has the dimensions 4 mm >wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to >1/11. (It is typical for people to overestimate length to width >ratios.)" >Bruce merely pointing out that Arnold's estimates are >subjective. I appreciate James' use of my research to support his arguments. However, I was not "merely pointing out" that Arnold wasn't perfect. Imperfection of visual estimates is a "given." What I was trying to do was make the best estimate of length to width ratio based on all of Arnold's information. >Also perhaps now worth mentioning Bruce's further observations: >"These statements about how they flew with respect to the >mountain peaks are very important because they provide >information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain peaks >lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from Mt. >.Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east of . >Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the altitude of >the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be approximately at his >altitude because they seemed to be "pretty much on the horizon to >me." Since he was flying at 9,200 ft, this implies that they were >close to that altitude. (Arnold actually stated his letter that t>hey were at 9,500 ft.) However, the mountain peaks south of >Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000 ft high, with the higher >ones being farther away (more to the east) from Arnold. Hence his >statement that there were higher peaks on the far side of the >pathway indicates that the objects were definitely lower than >about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he stated that they went behind some >(or at least one) of the lower, closer peaks. Geological survey >maps show that mountain peaks which the objects could have >disappeared behind have altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it >appears that they were lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold >overestimated their altitude". >Again, Arnold's estimates are shown to be subjective and by >reference to the survey maps, apparently grossly inaccurate. >Mistaking the altitude of the objects by some 4000 feet, doesn't i>nspire confidence in any of Arnold's other observations or >estimations. WHOA THERE! Losing confidence in Arnold's observations? Arnold's actual statement, quoted in my article, is" "I would estimate their elevation could have varied a thousand feet one way or another up or down, but they were pretty much on the horizon to me which would indicate they were near the same elevation as I was." In other words, because they appeared to be "on the horizon" Arnold deduced that they were at his altitude give or take 1000 ft. The question would be, how wrong was he? James emphasizes the 4000 ft height difference and implies that Arnold was so far off (9200 or 9500ft vs 5500ft) that his observations can't be trusted. But James should have asked himself the same question I did, namely, just how far off is this in terms of Arnold's means of measurement? His only means of measurement was by observing whether the sighting line to the objects went upward or downward and by how much. (Apparently he did not know, at the time of the sighting or when he wrote his report to the Air Force, what the actual altitudes of the mountains are.) He concluded that the sighting line was nearly level, i.e., it didn't seem to go upward or downward. How big was his error in estimating the angle of the sighting line? The objects were 20 miles away. An error of 4000 ft in 20 miles is the ratio 0.0379 radians which corresponds to 2 degrees. It is difficult to estimate the horizon from an airplane. To be within 2 degrees of the actual value is good accuracy. To me, this is evidence in favor of Arnold's accuracy! >This also of course means the altitude of the objects would not >preclude geese as a conceivable explanation. Yes, geese flying around the mountain tops 20 MILES AWAY! But if you keep the same sighting line toward the mountain tops and imagine moving the geese close enough to Arnold's plane so that they could be seen with some clarity you would automatically raise their altitude. For example, geese at 1 mile from the plane (9,200 ft) would be at an altitude of about 9,100 ft. <snip> >>As Arnold points out: "Even though two minutes seems like a very >>short time to one on the ground, in the air in two minutes time, a >>pilot can observe a great many things, and anything within his sight >>of vision probably as many as fifty or sixty times". >And apparently still make significant errors of judgement. WHOA THERE! Sounds like a skeptic trying to put the worst foot forward, or to shine the "light of darkness" on a witness' testimony. It is obvious from Arnold's report that he did a number of "tests" during his sighting time, such as comparing the angular size of the UFOs with the angular size of a distant aircraft using a cowling tool as a reference. Sure, he wasn't perfect, but he was probably as good as could be hoped under the conditions of the sighting. >I would recommend reading Bruce's paper for some further insight >into Arnold's calculations. Thank you, so would I. >Not that I'm suggesting for a moment Bruce argues in favour of >Arnold watching a flock of geese. You got that right! >At present, that's not my argument either, I would simply like to >discuss whether there are grounds for accepting it as a possible >explanation. Grounds...... or quicksand?
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:55:51 -0600 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:26:19 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 18:44:37 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? >With all of the video that is available it should be easy to >measure between the lights to see if it accomodates the wingspan >of an A-10. But it still won't explain how an airplane like the >A-10 can 'hover.' >I was under the impression that A-10's were 'big jobs' with wide >wingspans. If I'm mistaken,...(never mind!) 'Emily Littella' >John Velez, Love All, trust few. It's not a matter of making the planes fit, radar says they were not there in the 1st place. Noone saw them either as the lights came on. If you checked out the Phoenix Fox tv report, they debunked the earlier Discovery Channel video analysis by repeating it more accurately and no way were the lights behind the mountains. If you triangulate the positions of all the videos and their aimed directions, it puts the lights at 5-7 miles out of Phoenix, not the 30-40 claimed by the "flare" theorists. As far as I'm concerned, the "flare" theory is debunked and therefore moot. Let's concentrated on the "V" shaped objects that flew overhead 1 1/2 hours earlier. They haven't even been addressed by the media. ypical. If you don't have an answer, just ignore the question. Joel Henry ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:53:54 +0100 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:39:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:49:42 -0500 > From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Regarding... > >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:33:22 -0800 > Mark, > >When this "explanation" by Kottmeyer was brought to my attention, I > >initially considered writing something about it. Then I decided it > >was a waste of time, since the "explanation" was as ludicrous as > >something Donald Menzel would have put forth. > >But, OK, here it is, lying on the table, so I'll offer a few > >comments: > >1) When was the last time you noticed a specular reflection from a > >goose or a swan - especially when said goose or swan was backed > >by either clear sky or a snowfield? > As a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I > do indulge in occasional bird watching and have observed both > geese and swans on many occasions. Although I've never seen > either qualify as reflective, during the summer I did notice some > bright objects circling in the sky a mile or so from my house. > Having set off the invasion siren, put on my tin hat and double > checked through binoculars, it was discovered that the source was > some black-headed gulls, which just happened to be catching the > sunlight. > It fooled me... > I'm sure it can be quantified that, under certain conditions, > many species of birds could be described as reflective. Hello James and Mark and List, I'm sure that you are aware James that all waterfowl and seabirds have an oily protective coating on them which "waterproofs' their feathers. It gives the feathers a sheen if you will. I have on many occassions, while flying, seen ducks, geese and seagulls reflect sunlight. Particularly toward sundown with the sun at a low angle the bird in question will regflect in a really beautiful fashion,taking on a golden hue. In most cases I was above the flights in question. They flicker because of wing motion, but I always recognized them as flights of geese or ducks. Segulls to my knowledge, fly in flocks but not in formation. > I'll look into this further, I know some folks in the Washington > area who could offer an informed opinion on a couple of points > here. > We might never prove what Kenneth Arnold actually witnessed, but > we can maybe prove that some possibilities are not in fact a "no > way". > >2) When was the last time a goose or swan in flight gave the > >impression of being 20 times longer than thick? > If I may quote from Bruce Maccabee's paper, "The Complete > Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis": > "His drawing suggests that the objects were nearly circular > overall. He wrote on the sketch that "they seemed longer than > wide, their thickness was about 1/20th of their width." His > suggestion that their width (or length) was about twenty times > greater than their thickness may be an exaggeration. The sketch > he drew of how they appeared "on edge" has the dimensions 4 mm > wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to > 1/11. (It is typical for people to overestimate length to width > ratios.)" > Bruce merely pointing out that Arnold's estimates are > subjective. > Also perhaps now worth mentioning Bruce's further observations: > "These statements about how they flew with respect to the > mountain peaks are very important because they provide > information on the distance from Mr. Arnold. These mountain peaks > lie along a wide north-south line extending southward from Mt. > Rainier to Mt. Adams. These peaks were about 20 miles east of > Arnold at the time. These statements also provide the altitude of > the objects. To Arnold they appeared to be approximately at his > altitude because they seemed to be "pretty much on the horizon to > me." There is a very important point to consider here which Maccabee seems to have missed and most pilot don't even know, though they should, because of the way they are trained. Pilots are trained to pick a spot on the windscreen or just above the nose of the aircraft and use that as a reference point to the horizon then trim the aircraft to that point.The nose might be slightly low in relation to the flightline with the wing slightly above this line so as to maintain angle of attack. If every pilot picked a point on the horizon and then flew to it they would eevntually crash into the ground. Think about what Arnold said. The mountains (he would have meant peaks) were on the horizon, or background, the horizon being the background surface, a point probably thirty or forty miles behind the peaks. If you draw a line from his supposed altitude (remember this "altitide" because it comes up at the bottom of the next paragraph and I'll deal with it there) to the peaks and then to the horizon you are going to have a ramped line as opposed to a level line of sight. This is also considered by Maccabee in the paragraph following the one below. (See depressed angle) > Since he was flying at 9,200 ft, this implies that they were > close to that altitude. (Arnold actually stated his letter that > they were at 9,500 ft.) However, the mountain peaks south of > Rainier generally are 5,000 to 7,000 ft high, with the higher > ones being farther away (more to the east) from Arnold. Hence his > statement that there were higher peaks on the far side of the > pathway indicates that the objects were definitely lower than > about 7,000 ft. Furthermore, he stated that they went behind some > (or at least one) of the lower, closer peaks. Geological survey > maps show that mountain peaks which the objects could have > disappeared behind have altitudes of 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Hence it > appears that they were lower than 6,000 ft and that Arnold > overestimated their altitude". > Again, Arnold's estimates are shown to be subjective and by > reference to the survey maps, apparently grossly inaccurate. Pilots don't fly by survey maps, but VNC (Visual flight rules, Navigation, Charts) maps if you will. They are to scale, 1-500,000. In those days that was pretty much all that the private pilot flew by (no Laran C or GPS), using reference to the ground and I would say that Arnold was one hell of a fine pilot to find his way around in that maze of peaks and valleys using only maps. I flew over that area commercially only days ago at 40,000 feet and man that is a scary area to contemplate a forced landing. I have said this before, that Arnold would have known down to one or two miles where he was because not knowing and having limited fuel is a recipe for disaster. Grossly inaccurate don't wash here James. > Mistaking the altitude of the objects by some 4000 feet, doesn't > inspire confidence in any of Arnold's other observations or > estimations. I mentioned the ramp effect earlier, now I will tell you something else you might not be aware of. When Arnold took off from Chehalis, Washington he set his altimeter by bringing up the altitude of the airport he was departing. This would be the "station pressure" at that airport, and that airport only. You may have noticed from watching movies etc. that whenever a pilot calls into a tower or other attendanted locations that the persons on the ground always give the altimeter setting in inches of mercury. That is because the barometric pressure changes from locale to locale. This is important, because Arnold was flying without a radio (despite what the movie 'UFO' says) and so was reading his altimeter near Mineral, Washington with a setting from Chehalis because he had no way of updating his altimeter. Since Arnold took off in a relatively warm area in a valley at about 300-400 feet above sea level and then made his sighting at 45-50 miles away to the east and at altitude in a much cooler area, his altimeter could have been off by as much as a thousand feet or more. Arnold even said that his estimate of the objects altitude could have been out as much as 1,000 feet one way or the other. Factor in the possible faulty horizon, not flat but definitly mountainous and you would probably have a descrepency in altitudes. You can't know if you don't have the data at hand. > This also of course means the altitude of the objects would not > preclude geese as a conceivable explanation. My Canadian Airman's Information Publication -AIP- indicates that migrating Canada Geese have been encountered as high as 32,000 feet. (One wonders how do the little suckers breath way up there?) > >3) The shape of the objects as shown in the original drawing > >must be regarded as definitive. <snipped> > >A description can only go so far in suggesting size, shape and > >proportion, and a picture created immediately after the incident must > >be considered more reliable than one created considerably later. > I would agree. It's certainly a principle which applies to > witness testimony. > >The original drawing does not show something which looks like a swan > >or goose, or like swan or goose wings, which are invariable held > >straight to the side like aircraft wings. > That subsequent sketch has however sprouted wings. On the basis > that Arnold apparently didn't initially wish to complicate the > story by revealing one object was dissimilar, it's a different > issue and maybe more admissible as evidence. > I would share considerable doubts about this sketch. For one > thing, the detail shown surely wouldn't have been evident from > the distance Arnold reports. The original outline sketches would > be more in keeping with expected evidence. > >As Arnold points out: "Even though two minutes seems like a very > >short time to one on the ground, in the air in two minutes time, a > >pilot can observe a great many things, and anything within his sight > >of vision probably as many as fifty or sixty times". > And apparently still make significant errors of judgement. > I would recommend reading Bruce's paper for some further insight > into Arnold's calculations. > Not that I'm suggesting for a moment Bruce argues in favour of > Arnold watching a flock of geese. > At present, that's not my argument either, I would simply like to > discuss whether there are grounds for accepting it as a possible > explanation. > James. My guess is that birds as an explanation is way off the mark. At fifty miles, even if geese for example were mirror plated, their small size would make it extremely difficult to see them, and hardly enough to flash in the cabin if Arnold's Bellanca Cruiseaire. The size of 80 feet in diameter estimated by Maccabee would give a rough square footage of 400 square feet and it helps to have that square footage concentrated in a disc shape rather than strung out as in a wing. Gliders for example quite often have wing spans of 50-60 feet but are very narrow (high aspect ratio) and are very hard to see in the air even though they are usually white due to their construction of glass fibre. Just a few thoughts on the above. Regards, Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:36:33 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:16:33 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:01:33 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51????***** -Forwarded <snip> > THE GREAT UFO COVER-UP <snip> > Mitch Stanley, 21, spends several nights a week in his backyard with a > 10-inch telescope, exploring the night sky. He's owned the telescope > for about a year, and has learned the sky well. With its 10-inch <snip> > moving so slowly, Mitch attempted to capture them in the scope. He > succeeded, and the leading three lights fit in the field of vision. > Linda asked what they were. > > `Planes,' Mitch said. <snip> > Did the public see both the A-10s and a triangular stealth craft? <snip> Most amateur sized telescopes like Mitch's are designed to have field of views not much larger than 1/2 a degree. This is about the size of the full moon. Of course, when higher magnifications are used, the field of view through the telescope would be much smaller still. If the leading three lights fit in Mitch's telescope's field of vision and there were 5 to 7 lights in total that made up the "object", then this object would have a maximum size of a dime held at arms length. A few lights clustered this close together in the sky would not even attract the attention of most city folk where larger objects with many lights (airplanes) fly overhead frequently. Can we be sure Mitch saw the same large triangular object reported by many or a few A-10s doing their thing at another time? One other comment, if three A-10s could fit into Mitch's telescope field of view, they would be visible for about 2 seconds through his telescope (assuming the A-10s are no larger than 50 feet in size and are flying at only 50 miles and hour). Even if the A-10s are larger and fly much faster, I would be very surprised if Mitch could track them with his telescope long enough to seen the details he described after his short look. I think one should not place so much weight on Mitch's testimony (or his mother claimed Mitch said). Nikolaos Balaskas
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:56:36 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:19:22 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:11:46 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesi > >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> > >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:01:07 -0500 > >OK, Dennis....I'm starting to understand. > <snip> > >I think that, here and elsewhere, you're suggesting that the ETH > >-- or overenthusiastic belief in it -- can somehow soften our > >brains, and compromise our objectivity. Believe the ETH too > >uncritically, and next thing you know, you can't tell whether > >Gerald Anderson is lying. > I think we would both agree that ufology suffers from a public > relations problem. We could spread the blame around, but a good > deal of it still rests at the feet of ufology itself, for its > active promotion, not just of ETH as a viable hypothesis, but as > a given which encompasses and "explains" a whole raft of > phenomenon (from crop circles to cattle mutilations, even > chupacabras) that may or may not have anything remotely to do > with UFOs. But that's the public perception of us, nonetheless. > XXXX > Is it possible, shortly before or after the Millennium, say, that > a belief that alien invasion is imminent could cause a global > stock market crash? Especially now that we have a medium (the > WWW) capable of spreading a virus around the world in a matter of > minutes? > XXXX > Ufology is something that can be regarded across a wide spectrum, > from a subject matter merely to be thought about, to a source of > behavior and cause of action. One reason why I personally take > such a conservative course is that I think it's prudent to err on > the side of caution. I don't want some crazed militia type > camping on my front door some day, or maybe ambushing me one day > because he's become convinced that I'm part of the cover-up > conspiracy. > XXXX > It's no wonder to me that most scientists don't want to be seen > even in the immediate vicinity of the tent, let alone caught > peeping under one of the flaps. > XXXX > I simply don't see the fringe going away. If anything, we're just > going to have to put up a bigger tent. And I'm not sure how much > I'd want to be inside when one of the main poles, say, Roswell, > broke. > Actually, I think the Roswell pole did break this summer, but the > repair crews were pretty quick. > Dennis > The "XXXX"'s are snips... Dennis has done a good job of expressing his frustration with wide aspects of this UFO fascination. Still, I think his frustrations are misdirected. He complains about the fringe elements, the psychosocial babble, the constant infighting. He portrays the damage this does to any intelligent study of UFO reality. He wishes that our attempt to find some reasonable explanations for the experiences of some people could be lessened of the baggage of those elements that bring ridicule to the subject. Unfortunately, I think his hopes and expectations are unreasonable and unrealizable. By its very nature, the study of UFOs is a broad and public subject. It is the study of personal experiences with little supporting physical evidence from a broad and worldwide spectrum of people. And it is a subject uniquely devoid of common or casual public academic and scientific study. We can contrast this with quantum physics which is primarily an opaque subject deeply studied by only small number of cognoscente in unseen and unaffordable labs. Yet any view through the unmoderated physics newsgroups, both rigorous and alternative, reveals the same level of fringe and eccentric elements burdened by the same level of bulky catfighting. If, in these messages, you were to replace the word quantum with UFO, they would appear eerily familiar although they would be empty of the circus of exobiology. The problems addressed by Dennis seem to be strictly human problems. They are echoed these days in most all areas of casual human diversion and entertainment. And lets be honest, in the pulic forum, the study of UFOs is merely entertainment. This is not meant to be disparaging. This subject does not bear significantly on the livelyhood of the vast majority of those who discuss it. And for this, for them it is entertainment, recreational activity. How many people worldwide earn their principle income from the issue of UFOs, a thousand, a couple of thousand? As frustrating as these human foibles are for Dennis, his desired solution cannot be realized. It would be much more productive to expect most of us to hold our discussions and perceptions above the fringe and derisive elements with only a passing acknowledging that they are there. It is unfair to expect us to footnote every discussion with a dismissal of the unorthodox elements. Other issues are far more important. How can it be that an issue that is reported by over 3 percent of our population fails to be publically studied by some institutions or organizations? In the United States, why does the press keep this subject at the level of the circus sideshow, and minimize the reporting of international incidents? Sure, these questions can be easily discussed and dismissed. What is strange is that they persist. A couple of weeks ago, a syndicated TV news short was distributed showing night lights. Rather than being reported as UFOs with snickering and amusement, they were reported as earthlights and a fascinating new tool of earthquake study. Through a mere change in terminology, the tenor of the report reversed completely. Though I confess, I could think of no plasma mechanics that would allow four lights to float in a square formation when a tetrahedron would be expected. I am surprised that this report seen on many local news shows has not been discussed here sooner. Nevertheless, Dennis seems to be decrying a common human response to most issues. Can he ever find a resolution for this? If the most we can reasonably expect is individually focusing our discussions above the fringe elements, is Dennis only contributing to the problem he argues against? Bye... Ted..
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 BWW Media Alert 971114 From: "Bufo Calvin" <bufoc@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:43:26 PST Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:36:01 -0500 Subject: BWW Media Alert 971114 Bufo Calvin, P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BufoCalvin@aol.com Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert ALL RIGHT RESERVED (Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert for non-commercial purposes, provided attribution is made to http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. If you forward it, please make clear that you have done so.) November 14, 1997 I'm sending this a new way, so I could try and cram it in at work. Sorry it's as sparse as it is...I'm trying to work with this new schedule. Oh, and I may be on SIGHTINGS ON THE RADIO on Wednesday, but I don't know yet. ______________________ ______________________ Saturday at 7:00 AM (Pacific), on A&E, THE UNEXPLAINED will cover PSYCHIC DETECTIVES. Monday, the syndicated LEEZA will feature a pet psychic. Saturday at 2:30, TDC's ACC (see next entry) will run an episode on SPIRITS OF PLACE: HAUNTINGS AND GHOSTS. Sunday at 6:00 PM, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious Universe will run the UFOs ep. Thursday at 7:00 PM, THE UNEXPLAINED has what looks like an interesting episode on UFO cults. Wednesday, Ricki Lake has psychic Kim Allen. This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!" ____________________________ You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's WEIRD WORLD (which covers theories and happenings) the same way. Also, please let me know if there is something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the week before. _____________________________ **OPUS is the Organization for Paranormal Understanding and Support. I am an Executive Boardmember, and Director of the OPUS Educational Institute. OPUS encourages its officers and Network Associates to express their own opinions: however, it is important to note that I do not speak for OPUS in this piece or others presented under my own name. The new OPUS phone number is (510) 689-4198 ______________________________ Bufo's WEIRD WORLD BOOKS ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.htm l">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) I'm very excited about this! Some of you know, I ran a bookstore for years, and it has always been a love of mine. I get asked often to recommend books (I do write reviews for several publications) on these topics, and now I can do it and actually give you a source for them at the same time! This is being done in association with Amazon.com, which has an outstanding reputation for the five "S"s of internet shopping: selection, searchability, service, savings, and security. If there is any specific book you want (or topic in which you are interested), let me know and I will do the research and e-mail you a link you can use to check it out more (and order it if you want). I will be linking to books within the Media Alert, to make it more efficient for you. If you click on the link, you will be sent to that title on Amazon. You do =not= have to buy it at that point! You may, but the option is yours.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 X-33 Launch Facility Groundbreaking From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:04:29 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:32:35 -0500 Subject: X-33 Launch Facility Groundbreaking Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, DC November 14, 1997 (Phone: 202/358-1779) Fred Brown Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA (Phone: 805/258-2663) Dom Amatore Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL (Phone: 205/544-0031) Ron Lindeke Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Palmdale, CA (Phone: 805/572-4153) Ranney Adams USAF Research Laboratory, Propulsion Directorate Edwards Air Force Base, CA (Phone: 805/275-5465) RELEASE: 97-266 X-33 LAUNCH FACILITY GROUNDBREAKING HELD Representatives from NASA, the U.S. Air Force and industry today broke ground at the launch site for the X-33 Advanced Technology Demonstrator during a ceremony at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. The 25-acre launch site is located on the eastern portion of Edwards, a few hundred yards north of what is known as Haystack Butte. The beginning of construction for X-33 launch facilities marks another major milestone for the program -- milestones which have included, during the last two weeks, the successful completion of a critical design review for the vehicle and closing out of the environmental impact statement process for X-33. All 15 planned test flights of the X-33 will be launched from the Edwards facility beginning in July 1999. Landing sites are Michael Army Air Field at Dugway Proving Ground, UT, and Malmstrom Air Force Base, MT. Approximately 100 workers will construct the $30 million launch facility, with work scheduled to be completed in a year. Sverdrup Corp., St. Louis, MO, is overseeing construction of the facility. Site plans include a retractable vehicle shelter; a rotating vehicle launch mount; storage areas for the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen used for fuel, and helium and liquid nitrogen used in vehicle operations; a water storage tank for the sound suppression system; a concrete flame trench; and assorted site infrastructure. The vehicle's operations control center will be located in an existing test control room within Haystack Butte. NASA and the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works are conducting the X-33 program under a cooperative agreement. The X-33 is a subscale technology demonstration prototype of a commercial Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Lockheed Martin has labeled "VentureStar (tm)," which the company hopes to develop early in the next century. Through development and demonstration flights, the X-33 will provide the information needed for industry to decide by the year 2000 whether to proceed with the development of a full-scale, commercial RLV program. A full-scale, single-stage-to-orbit RLV could dramatically increase reliability and lower the cost of putting a pound of payload into space from $10,000 to $1,000. By reducing the cost associated with transporting payloads into Low Earth Orbit, a commercial RLV would create new opportunities for space access and significantly improve U.S. economic competitiveness in the worldwide launch marketplace. NASA will be a customer on, not the operator of, an industry-developed RLV. - end -
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:04:28 +0000 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:39:47 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 08:41:42 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>Cheers, >>Jerry Clark >Well said, Jerry, >And maybe that's what I'm getting at in my convoluted, >non-literary way: >Until we have enough data to KNOW that UFOs and aliens and >abductions are REAL, it all still remains an exercise in FAITH >and BELIEF. >FAITH because a lot of people have to trust their senses and >their brains' interpretation of events BELIEF because a lot of >people tend to believe (and usually quite rightly so) the things >they have faith in. >I mean, I don't have a problem walking around in a 50 story >skyscraper, because I believe it won't fall: I have faith and >trust that I am correct in my perception. That's because I have >seen that these buildings don't fall over everywhere. But what if >one does, and I'm inside, and I miraculously survive? My faith >and belief will be shattered, because I now KNOW differently. >Same with the ETH: until we KNOW, we can NEVER be sure what we >are dealing with, or how, or when, or why, or any of these other >questions that must bug the hell out of experiencers and >abductees all over the world. >You owe it to yourselves. It must be done. We need to get to the >bottom of this, or else we can truly lay claim to the newest >religion, with all the weird connotations that brings with it. Jerry, Jake I could have not said this half as good myself. Thank you both. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | louwje |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:11:33 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:37:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:41:07 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: l >I now take it that instead of miscalibrated, what you >really meant was mistuned and I will adjust entry 12 in my Hall >of Fame accordingly. Having witnessed your problems of comprehension over supersonic balloons that no one claimed existed, not to mention your confusing the dates on which they did not fly, I guess this should come as no surprise. But it's still wrong, because I'm not trying to explain away the radar images as the result of mistuning. Your attribution of bogusness is itself bogus. I *am* saying that that possibility needs to be eliminated before you can get anywhere near being sure that what appeared on the radar screens was an actual object. Even supposing I had attempted to dismiss the radar data as the product of mistuning, for mistuned radar - or even miscalibrated radar - to enter your Hall of Fame, you surely need to be certain that the F-16s' radar was neither. Have you established that beyond doubt? Has anyone? And if so, how? It's something I'd like to tick off my own list. You've still to show that what appeared on radar was actually out there in the sky, too, of course. But as long as you decline to do a little background reading on radar when it's offered you, I guess you won't find that too difficult. Incidentally, can you give me an instance of Menzel proving himself a liar? Note, I do not express an opinion on this. I'm just curious to know how you arrived at your own. Yrs &c Peasoup D. Mulligatawny Hot Dish
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:24:56 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:47:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:11:21 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:49:56 -0800 > >That's why IFO until proven UFO has to be the rule. > Mark I understand your precept, but I'm afraid I have to disagree, > slightly. :-) > A UFO report is a report of something unexplained. As the > investigator I try to find and explanation. If I then cannot find > an explanation though one source or another then it is a bonafide > UFO. I do not start with the precept that it is a IFU unless I > cannot find an explanation. Its a UFO report and unless I find > and explanation thats all it is, a report of a UFO. Somehwere > in between I hope, I start with no precept that it is a UFO or IFO > until I have concluded my investigation. In some certain cases > an investigation sometimes is ongoing, and in this case it is "a > UFO until/unless found out otherwise". Sean - I understand, and frequently have this debate with people. I suppose that is because I try to keep my terminology as precise as possible, and perhaps make more distinctions as a consequence. First, I adhere to a modified Hynek definition of UFO report: "UFO Report - a statement by a person or persons judged responsible and psychologically normal by commonly accepted standards, describing a personal visual or instrumentally aided perception of an object or light in the sky or on the ground and / or its assumed physical effects, that does not specify any known physical event, object, or process or any psychological event or process [even after examination by qualified persons]..." You'll notice the "even after examination" part. For that reason I call the report which may or may not be a UFO, an "initial report". Its value, prior to expert examination, is relatively low, since 70-90% of initial reports will turn out to be IFOs. In the process of determining whether or not to classify an initial report as an IFO or UFO, I find it valuable to take the stance that it will turn out to be an IFO. This keeps me focused on the salient features of the case which may lead to it being explained. And that is essential, because when we are trying to draw conclusions from any UFO case which we have not investigated, it is critical that it not later turn out to be an IFO, or every conclusion derived from it will be invalidated. (As an aside, I may note that I suspect this is one of the largest reasons for lack of progress in the scientific wing of the UFO community. There is a basic insecurity which every researcher must face, that a key case will be "IFOed" after work and reputation has gone into deriving conclusions from that case. And yet, if we must consider every case to be soft, then we will hang back and never develop any progressive "stand on the shoulders" sort of work. This is the reason that I admire the efforts of Dr, Maccabee, the more scientific efforts of Dr, Vallee (esp. with regard to energy level estimates), and the others who have staked out some terrain on which the rest of us may someday be able to build.) Back in the investigation, as in famous Sherlock Holmes quote, one must eliminate the _possible_ before accepting that what remains, no matter how improbable (i.e. UFO status) is indeed the truth. The case must literally _compel_ acceptance as a UFO in the face of a considerable and warranted focus by the investigator on proving it an IFO. When that happens, the resulting case can be considered (hopefully) as solid and usable UFO data. This does not mean that the investigator should be biased against the witness or the case. But realistically, the investigator must know going in that there is no more than a 30% chance that the case is a UFO case. With that perspective and drive, the investigator is less likely to pack up and go away when the surface of the case has been explored, leaving another time bomb for some trusting researcher to end up having explode in their hands. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:33:34 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:51:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:46:02 +0100 > From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Re-Media Influence on Abduction Reports > The question though is, have others on the list had witnesses > relate this same type of occurance to them? Also, knowing it is > possible that the CE3K movie scene influences this type of > incident, is it not also possible that this is a regular > occurance and that Spielberg used a real life experience in the > movie that he had come across while writing the script. The ole' > chicken or the egg puzzle. I never have read one way or the other, but I always assumed there was some relationship to the following case: 10/21/63 - Moreno, family, and employee; Trancas, Argentina; evening / early morning Report Summary ...Moreno was awakened... by a fifteen year old employee at his ranch... The boy told him that there had apparently been an accident at the railroad tracks... about a half mile from the main house. The area was illuminated and people could be seen moving around... Sr. Moreno... awakened his wife... they... [saw] a luminous oval-shaped object which was hovering just a few feet in the air over the railroad tracks. It was projecting a beam of light to the ground where human-looking figures could be seen moving to and fro in single file... Sra. [Moreno] spotted another object which was fairly close to the house, also hovering a few feet above the ground. It appeared to be about 25 feet in diameter and there was a dome-shaped structure on the top of it, as well as lighted apertures which appeared to be windows or ports around its circumference. Sra. Moreno got a flashlight and shined it toward the disk, whereupon it shot out a narrow, tubular beam of light toward the house... the de Morenos began a... check of the house... [and] discovered ... a total of five disks in the vicinity of the house - 3 stayed between 210 and 225 feet from the house, and the other two, including the nearest one which she had seen first, were within a few feet... One of these latter objects shined a white tubular light at the house and the other a reddish violet light of the same shape and size. Shortly after the light beams were projected at the house the [de Morenos] began to notice a strong smell of sulfur and a definite rise in temperature. It was not long before the interior of the house was suffocatingly hot... "Forty minutes had passed when... the object at the tracks [elevated] and moved away, followed by the five disks which had surrounded the house. Just before the two closest disks left, the light which was beamed at the house went out, and following the other[s]... where the two closest disks had hovered there remained a misty, smoke-like deposit for several minutes." (UFOs: The Whole Story, Lorenzen, 1969 Signet Books p 190) --- This is one of only a few cases with which I am familiar that meets this pattern. Another is a strange case from the Blue Book files which featured a boy and several close and seemingly harassing approaches toward the house by an unusual "axe-head" shaped object. I think that house-sieges are rare in the non-abduction literature. Car harassment is orders of magnitude more common. An interesting pattern, isn't it? ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 PROJECT-1947: 115 Years Ago Today... Astronomer From: John Stepkowski <legion@MIRA.NET> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 07:40:45 +1100 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:53:42 -0500 Subject: PROJECT-1947: 115 Years Ago Today... Astronomer >From the Press Associates Website (http://www.pa.press.net/news/otd.html) On this day in history - Fri, 14 Nov 1997 1882: The Royal Astronomer witnessed an Unidentified Flying Object from the Greenwich Royal Observatory. It was described as a "strange celestial visitor - a circular object glowing green". -- PROJECT 1947 | E-Mail: http://www.iufog.org/project1947/ | legion@werple.net.au
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 14 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:04:13 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:27:29 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:49:44 -0800 (PST) > From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > The problem is that there is no branch of mainstream science that > inquires about UFOs, and therefore no appropriate scientific > journal to which to submit a paper on the topic. This is no > accident, of course, but is due to the ridicule factor that > developed from the early 1950s on, which in turn is due to.... . Another problem, in my view, is that UFO studies are interdisciplinary and require more than "a physics perspective" or a "psychological perspective"... it requires cognitive and perceptual psychologists, physicists, engineers, plasma chemists, forensic analysts, and many other disciplines to cooperate. At the current level of specialization in the sciences, a general paper on UFOs would find it difficult to fit into the narrow scheme of many journals. But I suspect that one might be able to write narrowly tailored articles (I believe Bruce M. has done this) for narrow journals. Optics journals might take some papers where a UFO observation could be clearly related to an important optical topic. Plasma physics journals might be able to be interested in a paper which demonstrated known plasma phenomenon in one or more UFO observations... that sort of thing. Ultimately, our hope and effort should be directed toward maturing and increasing the readership of the home grown journals, especially those, like JUFOS, which keep away from non-UFO subjects. A copy of JSE with its articles on alternative medicine and other more outre subjects is unlikely to find it as easy to attain mainstream recognition, (here I suppose I differ with Jim) and perhaps rightly so. Specialization is required to do deep studies, and as has been noted here many times, one of the failings of UFOlogy has been in developing a central focus and boundary within which stable and progressive work can be done. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS: Filer's Files #45 From: George Filer <Majorstar@AOL.COM> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:13:16 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:12:32 -0500 Subject: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS: Filer's Files #45 Filer's Files #45 MUFON Skywatch Investigations From George A. Filer: MUFON Eastern Director, Nov. 13, 1997 Majorstar@aol.com (609) 654-0020 FAMOUS QUOTES: "I feel that the Air Force has not been giving out all the available information on the Unidentified Flying Objects. You cannot disregard so many unimpeachable sources." John W. McCormack, Speaker of the US House of Representatives,. January 1965. PENNSYLVANIA: On Friday, October 17, 1997, at 8:30 p.m., Danielle F. and her cousin, Tessa P., were waiting in a car for Tessa's father in their hometown of Boswell, Pennsylvania (population 1,480). Boswell is located on Route 601 about 70 miles (112 kilometers) east of Pittsburgh. "Tessa said, 'What's that?'" Danielle reported. "I looked up and said it might be an airplane. We saw a big blurry white light. We went inside and got the binoculars to take a better look." The UFO hovered at about 45 degrees above the horizon, Danielle reported, "The center of the object was white, and on the ends were two yellow lights. On the top of the object was one red light. The object was moving very fast while it was descending toward the (nearby) mountain. Tessa and I both agree that we never saw a plane move so fast. We don't know what it was, but we wondered if it could be a UFO." (Email Interview) Thanks to Joe Trainor, editor UFO Roundup #2-43, Masinaigan@aol.com. VIRGINIA On Saturday, November 1, 1997, at 11:25 p.m., Mike S. was driving with his girlfriend in Earlysville, located eight miles (12 kilometers) north of Charlottesville, Virginia (population 40,341), "and it was a very dark night," he reported, "I took my eyes off the road and looked in the direction she was pointing. There was definitely something in the sky about 15 to 25 feet above the tree line. I saw lights in the sky that were arranged in rings," Mike reported, "The lights were circular or almost octagonal, and they were dull and white. They were not like light bulbs or headlights. The lights outlined a disk-shaped object. I could tell that it was slowly spinning in a clockwise motion, and it repeatedly crossed over the road. It followed the road in front of me for about a mile to a mile and a half. I called my parents from my car phone and told them what I saw." After Mike got home, he and his father returnedto that stretch of road outside Earlysville. But the saucer was gone. When both men returned home at 11:50 p.m., Mike's mother telephoned the local police. They learned that an officer on patrol had reportedly seen "the exact same thing." (Many thanks to Tim Hagemeister of NACOMM and Joe Trainor, editor UFO Roundup #2-43) GEORGIA Case97/05/11: MUFON Field Investigator William Lester has finished his analysis of Jonesboro case concerning the sighting of a daylight disc. The witness is a 29 year old employed electrical lineman. He and his family were driving to church Sunday morning on May 11, 1997, when the wife noticed a glare from the left. When he turned to look to his immediate left, he saw a saucer shaped object with a highly reflective silver surface. The metal was similar to the top or bottom of an aluminum soda can. The object moved at an incredible speed from his left to right, from the northwest to the northeast at about 600 feet in altitude. No one else in the car had time to observe the fast moving object. Interestingly, both the witness's wife and her mother had recently observed a similar object in the area. The witness was sincere and has a good reputation. Checks were made with local authorities for balloons, aircraft and other possible explanations. The field investigator ruled out hoax, hallucination and other possible causes. The investigator is of the opinion that this sighting is indicative of genuine visual contact with an unknown aerial object. According to John Thompson, MUFON's State Director, the Marietta, the Georgia video taken by a Christian television station shows a white tube object in regular motion. In enhancement it shows a roundish object tumbling behind three dark Huey choppers fly from the NW to SE less than a mile from the TV cameraman. The video quality is very high and the video shot on a Sony DCR VX1000 1-10 zoom power. A Digital video (DV) format tape was used. The unknown object shown is clearly a structured object moving in the background. On Wednesday, Nov. 5th at around 6:30 p.m., 13 year-old Curtis F. heard a loud roaring noise near Augusta, Georgia. The noise grew to such an intensity that he thought a jet was about to crash. Curtis looking out his window saw a distant flying light. As he watched the unknown light broke apart. One triangle shaped portion with flashing red and white lights flew to the southeast. The other part also with lights flew off to the north. He could not ascertain its shape or the color of it's light. The larger object was observed for about a minute before it disappeared, the smaller for only five seconds. Both continued to travel horizontally at approximate jet speed. The initial UFO after splitting in two parts quit making any sound. Curtis' father while not seeing the UFO stands by what his son says. The boy bought a compass to determine the UFOs direction of flight, which suggests that besides being alert, he genuinely believes that he saw something unusual. Thanks to John Thompson, ISUR and the National UFO Reporting Center. GEORGIA TEST AIRCRAFT John Thompson. ISUR/MUFON reports that on October 31, 1997, Georgia WSB radio broadcast that the numerous UFO reports in Georgia were actually U shaped aircraft being tested out of Fort Benning. Editor's Note: It is quite likely some UFOs in our skies are unidentified military aircraft. The Army is known to be working on some remotely manned odd shaped vehicles. Unconfirmed reports indicate a saucer shaped craft was used in the Gulf War. In the early 1980's the Army was working on a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) called Aquila. It was "flying wing" shaped with a propeller in the rear. Testing could be accomplished at Eglin AFB, Florida or other southern bases. Below are listed some other possible aircraft that may be sighted. REMOTELY CONTROLLED FLYING TRIANGLES The November Popular Science Magazine article, "Fighters Without Pilots" discusses a new series of remotely controlled combat planes being designed that fly better than any pilot. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop aircraft corporations are developing uninhabited combat vehicles (UCAV). These combat drones are designed to conduct reconnaissance missions or to penetrate enemy defenses, conduct attacks ahead of aircraft flown by pilots. Generally, they appear as flat flying triangles without a tail or cockpit. They are 25 to 30 feet in length with a wingspan of 25 to 27 feet. They are only 5 to 6 feet thick and have excellent stealth characteristics against radar. British Aerospace is working on similar secret air craft at Warton, Lancashire. These drones can be built at a fraction of the cost of piloted aircraft. SILVERBUG* The Canadian/ US governments have released classified documents describing the development of the Avro Silverbug, a real disc aircraft. These secret documents dating from 1955, describe an actual development program of a 2,300 mph disc aircraft. The money, the design and even extra Pratt and Whitney J-78 (SR-71) engines were apparently used in the craft. The Harrier is also thought to have used some of the technology. The so-called Avrocar was probably a diversion. Evidence is accumulating that these discs became operational. You can purchase the entire 21 page file for $4.95. (I don't get anything by the way.) I'm convinced there has been a secret program to build of odd shaped recce vehicles that hide using the UFO designation and mystique. Consider that much of the alien data may be disinformation. I know from OSI agents that the F-117 was hid from the public for almost ten years and the Air Force covered up by implying they were UFOs. For more info: http://207.41.8/silverbug or http://www/orgasmic.com/silverbug/ ANTIGRAVITY Thanks for putting me on your Filer's Files receivers list. For your next edition you may want to comment on the December 1997 issue of Popular Mechanics. Pages 44 - 45 feature an article called "NASA's Antigravity Machine" (a must read article!). NASA will be conducting an experiment later this month into gravity manipulation and held a CLOSED DOOR conference of major Universities, weapons laboratories, defense contractors and corporate research communities. NASA is also near completion of an antigravity device too. The article also goes into some past history, that may seem familiar to those following the developments in the (top secret, rumored and unsubstantiated) electrogravitics field. Thanks to: Steve T. Aviation Week & Space Technology. November 3rd issue mentions work on "lenticular" air vehicle configurations. Professor Leik Myrabo, US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) propulsion vehicle is shaped like a cone with a ring around the rim. The energy of the laser is focused into a small annular gap between the ring and the body of the vehicle, causing the air to break down into plasma, producing thrust. Successive laser pulses produce repeated bursts of plasma from the annular gap, lifting the vehicle. It's just a remotely-powered rocket engine. Myrabo's NASA-sponsored publications called "Apollo Lightcraft" Full-scale vehicles would need many megawatts of laser power, but a small satellite booster may be feasible in a few years. Thanks to Joel Carpenter . IN CHINA, UFOs ARE SERIOUS RESEARCH SCIENCE The front page of the November 7, 1997, Wall Street Journal shows a drawing of an alien with large eyes next to Professor Sun Shile a Chinese scientist. He claims China is reverse engineering flying disks from photographs and personal observations of UFOs. The article states in part: "In the West, UFOs and alien abductions are the stuff of Hollywood pulp and supermarket tabloids. But in China, UFOs are a matter of great national importance. Prof. Sun's group, the Chinese UFO Research Association, receives government grants, and its members include some of the nation's most respected scientists and academics- even Communist Party officials. These enthusiasts aren't merely trying to prove the existence of UFOs: They are attempting to figure out what makes them fly and then harness that power for every day use in China. "UFOs are faster than any airplane or car, " Prof. Sun explains. "We hope to use the UFO phenomenon to resolve China's energy and efficiency problems." The Chinese may be developing their own antigravity technology based on UFO research. There are 5,000 members in their UFO organization, 80% have a college education or above. They have already test flown a wooden prototype with the dimensions of a King size bed. Beijing Institute has labeled their invention top secret and has banned them from showing even blue prints to outsiders. They are also working on magnetic fields that produces as much as a third more energy than it requires to run. The group studies the apparent motion and maneuver of UFOs from film and then work backward with physics to figure out how the UFOs operate. They imply it may not be long before China as its own. CHILE Antonio Huneeus, MUFON's International Director reports that on November 3, 1997, the Commanding General of the Chilean Air Force created a Committee of Investigation for UFOs called the "Commite de Investigaciones de Fenomenos Anomalos del Espacio" (CIFAE). All sightings and reports concerning UFOs will be collected by the CIFAE. I've heard of many sightings recently in the Punta Arenas region of southern Chile. I believe this is the same area where the abductions were being reported . My friend Rodrigo Fuenzalida, director of the Chilean UFO group AION, told me many times that most of the UFO activity in Chile had shifted to Punta Arenas in recent years. I do have some UFO footage taken in that area in the past. I can also speculate on a couple of things. Punta Arenas is located in Tierra del Fuego and is the most southern city in the world (that is, at the tip of South America facing Antarctica). As you probably know, this is the same area where the ozone hole has been reported since the last decade. Biological mutations on sheep (the main traditional industry in this area) have been well documented and blamed on the ozone hole. This could perhaps have an effect on: 1) Enhancing natural phenomena of the Aurora Australis or southern lights (counterpart of Aurora Borealis or northern lights) or some other "earth light" type phenomena. I believe this is what the French Space Agency was interested when they filmed in that area. I, too, heard that story but I never saw the footage. Perhaps it's something we could ask J.J. Velasco of the CNES-SEPRA program in France. 2) Enhancing other types of non-terrestrial energies, i.e. real UFOs. The UFO Committee (CIFAE) will allegedly be formed by both Chilean Air Force and AION personnel. Staff officers from "Direccion de Aeronautica" will be sent to France and perhaps other countries to get training on UFO issues. Also, allegedly there will be no censorship and AION will have complete access to all the military files, reports, images and films. In addition, a new Beta Chilean satellite will be put in orbit in 1998, with a mission to monitor UFO activity over Chile. Thanks to AION and Antonio Huneeus BLUE FLASHES Australia's Clare Williams states in a E-mail to Current Encounters: I was intrigued by the reports of blue flashes mentioned in Filer's Files. I investigated a similar incident here in Australia several years ago. A bright flash was visible for several hundred square miles. It caused the streetlights to go off and there were reports of electromagnetic interference and static on the radio. I have a theory that these flashes may be natural, very high energy upper atmospheric events and that the flashes are due to Cerenkov radiation. Dr. Richard F. Haines writes, "I think that the list of potential causes of the blue flash effect is long. It stretches from electro-chemical interactions in our atmosphere due to cosmic ray interaction to SDI-type high energy pumping either from the ground or from space. I don't know, but I suspect the latter is the case. In such case someone should be carefully monitoring, recording, and plotting the locations and times of each occurrence. Sorry but these comments are just "out of the thin air" Dick H. Bill Rose from England also sent an E-mail. George, you mentioned bright flashes in the night sky. This has been a topic of major interest to serious astronomers in recent years, and is now attributed to a new form of massively powerful lightning, which was discovered by chance. It can reach up to the edge of the Earth's atmosphere at about 60-70 miles altitude. The physics are not properly understood at present, but as I recall, the phenomena is known as "Sprites" and was first observed and photographed from either an SR-71 or the Shuttle. I've spoken with several astronomers about the recent El Paso daylight meteor, the general consensus of opinion is that it was a satellite of (probable) Russian origin which made a re-entry. It's not that uncommon an occurrence and as you know and there have been a number of incidents this year, like the Texas Spaceball, which was a component of a US booster stage and the Cosmos re-entry over Scotland. Thanks to Bill Rose. ABDUCTEE LETTER A unsigned letter from a woman who is convinced she is an abductee is very informative. She writes: My attitude towards extraterrestrials has changed. Gone was the gripping fear that I had carried since reading Jacobs's lurid book. Instead I noticed that a gentle live-and-let-live attitude had settled in. And I began feeling sorry for the extraterrestrials, as I considered the monumental Star Wars weapons crash program aimed at them that I had just seen this trip. I also reflected on my own research. Cases I had interviewed found the extraterrestrials to be, after the human got over her/his initial fright, usually caring, gentle while firm, and concerned for such values as ecology, social justice, childhood education, consciousness advancement, and a spiritual/metaphysical focus. USSR UFO HISTORY The following is a transcript of part of the feature "Science And Engineering in the Commonwealth", which was subjoined to Voice of Russia's news broadcast October 23 at 0900 UTC. Boris Blitsky is Voice Of Russia's science correspondent. Interviewer: ...But just now we have to turn to another subject, and we keep getting letters about unidentified flying objects, yes UFOs. So tell us first of all, Boris, when the first UFOs were spotted over Russia! Well, we all know that in the United States the first reports of flying saucers, as they were dubbed on that occasion, came in 1947, and that was when a group of rapidly moving, glistening objects were observed in the daytime near Mount Rainier, Washington. Now, what about Russia? Are UFOs a relatively new phenomenon here? Boris Blitsky: Oh, no! This is evident from recently declassified documents of the Russian Ministry of The Interior which inherited documents of the Russian Imperial Ministry of The Interior dating back to the beginning of the past century. Now, among those documents there is a very unusual report to the Tsar from his Third Department of The Chancellery, as the government's secret police was known in those days. It describes certain extraordinary light effects observed in the sky by the inhabitants, the police and military in the city of Orenburg on the night of December 26, 1830. The observations amount to what today we would call a typical UFO sighting. But surely this wasn't the only report of this kind in the archive of the Tsar's secret police, was it, Boris? B: No, it wasn't. There were others, too. A similar sighting was reported from the city of Ushtug (?) in Central Russia on January 30, 1844, and still other reports are dated 1846 and 1847. In short UFOs appear to have been sighted over Russia as far back as the first half of the past century. You can hear it in real audio at: http://audio.wrn.org/audio/1700.ram from the WRN (World Radio Network) Internet Audio Services (audio@wrn.org). The main site of which is at http://www.wrn.org/index1.html FRANCE: JETS PURSUE UFO Two NATO jet interceptors, described as "the F-16 type," chased a UFO over France's Eure-et- Loire department at 4 p.m. on Monday, October 27, 1997. Eyewitness Marie Franck reported, "I was at my country home in Sainville, a village 40 kilometers (24 miles) east of Chartres. I was in the garden when I heard a progressive rumbling originating from the north, behind the house. It was then that I saw, to the west of the village, at 45 degrees above the horizon and about 2,000 meters (6,600 feet or just over a mile--J.T.) away a flying tube without wings but with fire coming out of the stern, which moved in horizontal flight from the north-northeast to the south-southwest." Mme. Franck watched the UFO for "five seconds" before it disappeared "behind a neighboring rooftop." "Its speed was around 1,400 kilometers per hour," she reported. "I was astonished at not hearing a sonic boom, and I thought I might have been mistaken in my calculations." She estimated that the UFO traveled two kilometers during the five seconds. "At the same time, I got the idea that it might be a missile (perhaps nuclear?) and that it was going to explode in the distance," she added. "Sudden terror! My sole reflex was to hurl myself to the ground, all the while counting the seconds to estimate the distance from the object." "I was at 50 seconds when a new rumbling sound made its approach, but it was coming from the southeast. I then observed passing from south to north a military plane of the F-16 type, which made a very tight turn north of the village (Sainville) in order to get on the north-northeasterly trajectory of the object." A few seconds later, "a new rumbling" was heard, and a second F-16 appeared, flying in the same direction as the first. Mme. Franck gathered her children from the pavilion very quickly and brought them indoors to safety. Sainville is located on L'Autoroute A.10-E.05, the main highway between Paris and Orleans. The Armee de l'Air, France's Air Force, has a base at Chateaudrun, 55 kilometers south of Sainville. (Thanks to Marie Franck, OVNI, and Joe Trainor editor UFO Roundup #2-43. If you have a UFO news or comments, please, e-mail it to: Majorstar@aol.com.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:08:43 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:22:47 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:04:13 -0800 > > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:49:44 -0800 (PST) > > From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > The problem is that there is no branch of mainstream science that > > inquires about UFOs, and therefore no appropriate scientific > > journal to which to submit a paper on the topic. This is no > > accident, of course, but is due to the ridicule factor that > > developed from the early 1950s on, which in turn is due to.... . > Another problem, in my view, is that UFO studies are > interdisciplinary and require more than "a physics perspective" > or a "psychological perspective"... it requires cognitive and > perceptual psychologists, physicists, engineers, plasma chemists, > forensic analysts, and many other disciplines to cooperate. At > the current level of specialization in the sciences, a general > paper on UFOs would find it difficult to fit into the narrow > scheme of many journals. > But I suspect that one might be able to write narrowly tailored > articles (I believe Bruce M. has done this) for narrow journals. > Optics journals might take some papers where a UFO observation > could be clearly related to an important optical topic. Hello Mark, This reminds me that Bruce might have published his findings on a bright-light UFO involving a couple photos, taken in Aug. 1956 by a pilot flying over Alberta, in some peer-reviewed optical journal, but I've lost track. > Plasma > physics journals might be able to be interested in a paper which > demonstrated known plasma phenomenon in one or more UFO > observations... that sort of thing. > [...] And this reminds me that one Dr. Levengood published a couple articles on crop circles in some plant-pathology journal, but got away with it because he didn't ever mention UFOs and instead blamed it on "plasma vortices" that descend from the upper atmosphere, do their thing, and then exit the scene. A matter of terminology! But if the paper is narrowly tailored to one specific phenomenon or event and if you assiduously refrain from using any UFO terminology, you're right -- it's sometimes possible then to get a paper on it accepted within a mainstream scientific journal. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:37:53 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:32:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:11:33 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> >Subject: Belgian Radar-Visual >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >>Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:41:07 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: l >>I now take it that instead of miscalibrated, what you >>really meant was mistuned and I will adjust entry 12 in my Hall >>of Fame accordingly. >Having witnessed your problems of comprehension over supersonic >balloons that no one claimed existed, not to mention your >confusing the dates on which they did not fly, I guess this >should come as no surprise. But it's still wrong, because I'm not >trying to explain away the radar images as the result of >mistuning. Your attribution of bogusness is itself bogus. I *am* >saying that that possibility needs to be eliminated before you >can get anywhere near being sure that what appeared on the radar >screens was an actual object. >Even supposing I had attempted to dismiss the radar data as the >product of mistuning, for mistuned radar - or even miscalibrated >radar - to enter your Hall of Fame, you surely need to be certain >that the F-16s' radar was neither. Have you established that >beyond doubt? Has anyone? And if so, how? It's something I'd like >to tick off my own list. >You've still to show that what appeared on radar was actually out >there in the sky, too, of course. To his credit the Duke doesn't give up easily, but his memory seems to fail him when provided with data that challenge his beliefs. Now I am beginning to understand how he could have remained in blissful ingnorance of the build up of data that point to the reality of UFOs as unknown craft. It goes in one ear, out the other. Duke, referring to your comments above, remember the excerpt about simultaneous ground/air radar detection? Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the erratic signal? If not, look it up in the archives. End of discussion with the Duke, at least for this thread. I want to make a comment from here on the ET Hypothesis thread. Dennis has rightly pointed out that the fringe elements in Ufology are a danger to the image of the field and that this hampers research and progress. But I think this thread was an example of the other half of what is wrong with Ufology: that no matter how many times the facts are pointed out of a solid case, some people are capable of producing an infinite amount of bogus to attack the case. Not only that, when they run out of ideas to debunk, they start all over again with the same nonsense that was dismissed only a week ago. Surely there is an agenda behind this that has nothing to do with genuine research. Don't get me wrong, I don't think people like the Duke or Eduardo are government agents, far from it. But when the field is serious about making progress, would it be too much to ask to expose their way of operating as unproductive as well? John Koopmans remarked: "The discussions on this list show that the following kinds of data are not excepted as evidence: witnesses, photographs, video, government documents, radar traces", etc. John, of course these data qualify as evidence. It just doesn't satisfy the debunkers because they are the debunkers. They suffer from a condition that Bob Shell rightly coined 'Obsessive Compulsive Debunking Syndrome'. Let's just ignore them and move on. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:52:21 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:42:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:44:42 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Bruce wrote: >>Bruce merely pointing out that Arnold's estimates are subjective. >I appreciate James' use of my research to support his arguments. >However, I was not "merely pointing out" that Arnold wasn't perfect. >Imperfection of visual estimates is a "given." What I was trying to >do was make the best estimate of length to width ratio based on all >of Arnold's information. Bruce, My comment was an acknowledgement that you were not being critical of Arnold's ratio claim, simply noting it was open to debate. It was understood you were offering an alternative estimation. >>Mistaking the altitude of the objects by some 4000 feet, doesn't >>inspire confidence in any of Arnold's other observations or >>estimations. >WHOA THERE! Losing confidence in Arnold's observations? It's not suggested you were! Just a general comment on my part. >How big was his error in estimating the angle of the sighting line? >The objects were 20 miles away. An error of 4000 ft in 20 miles is >the ratio 0.0379 radians which corresponds to 2 degrees. It is >difficult to estimate the horizon from an airplane. To be within 2 >degrees of the actual value is good accuracy. To me, this is evidence >in favor of Arnold's accuracy! Your point is appreciated and helps to place the issues in perspective, that's what I'm always looking for. Nonetheless, a possible variance of 4000ft remains a significant ratio in a range of 0-9500ft. >>This also of course means the altitude of the objects would not >>preclude geese as a conceivable explanation. >Yes, geese flying around the mountain tops 20 MILES AWAY! But were the objects really 20 miles away? This is central to the case. In "Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again", Kottmeyer summarises the debate: "The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. [...] What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having "swerved in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem to put a lower limit to the distance if one could first determine which peaks they swung around and if they were broad enough to have a transit time to regard the observation as secure. Arnold was slightly more specific in later recountings of the event. In The Coming of the Saucers he said they momentarily disappeared "behind a jagged peak that juts out from Mount Rainier proper." In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says, "When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a projection on Mount Rainier in the snowfield."26 These are not exactly the same thing, but they give a fair indication of what to look for on the geological survey maps. Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's base. There is a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma which sticks out around the 10,000 foot level, but it is on the wrong side of the mountain to be seen from Arnold's flight path. It would be badly stretching things to suggest he got either his position or altitude that far wrong. Normally one prefers early accounts to later ones, but the Congress memoir may provide the clue to what happened here. When the object turned flatwise, the optical thickness likely dropped below the 1/2 minute resolution limit and briefly dropped from sight. The rough surface of the mountain provided opportunities for an illusory correlation of the disappearance to some feature of the mountain. The disappearance seemed to be caused by an intervening feature where none in fact existed. With no firm lower distance estimate, the way is opened for the objects being closer to Arnold than he had surmised". Can we accept this as a possibility, or is there some reason it's unacceptable? >For example, geese at 1 mile from the plane (9,200 ft) would be at >an altitude of about 9,100 ft. Which wouldn't seem to pose a problem with geese being a conceivable explanation. >>>As Arnold points out: "Even though two minutes seems like a very >>>short time to one on the ground, in the air in two minutes time, >>>a pilot can observe a great many things, and anything within his >>>sight of vision probably as many as fifty or sixty times". >>And apparently still make significant errors of judgement. >WHOA THERE! Sounds like a skeptic trying to put the worst foot >forward, or to shine the "light of darkness" on a witness' testimony. >It is obvious from Arnold's report that he did a number of "tests" >during his sighting time, such as comparing the angular size of the >UFOs with the angular size of a distant aircraft using a cowling tool >as a reference. Nothing terribly sceptical in my comment. Arnold notes that two minutes is sufficient time to make many observations, that does not preclude Arnold making judgemental errors. As you write in "The Complete Sighting..." paper: "Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? [...] So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had looked up the actual altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt Rainier he would have revised his statement". I was referring to those same errors. We're perhaps both a little harsh in calling them "errors", as you say, he probably achieved the best he could under the circumstances. Even if Arnold had observed a flock of geese and was correct in originally believing he recognised it as such, but was then deceived, that's no blemish on his character. >>Not that I'm suggesting for a moment Bruce argues in favour of >>Arnold watching a flock of geese. >You got that right! I hope you detected a wry smile behind my remark. >>At present, that's not my argument either, I would simply like to >>discuss whether there are grounds for accepting it as a possible >>explanation. >Grounds...... or quicksand? Depends on whether Arnold could have been mistaken about the distance of the object. If that's possible, so are a number of other things. The main reason I would give any credence to the misidentified flock of geese scenario, is Arnold's own initial observations. If it flies like a flock of geese, quite distinctive, then maybe it was. Alternatively, what else would have the characteristics of a flock of geese in flight? Basically, why couldn't it have been. Which leads into your comments from separate mail: >Several years ago I got into a letter-writing argument with Kottmeyer >over the "goose hypothesis". [...] >He came on strong, until I pointed out that Arnold said he turned his >plane and opened the (left hand side) window. At this time Arnold was >flying south, the same direction as the UFOS. Had they been geese >Arnold would have overtaken and passed them. At any rate he wouldn't >have been puzzled at their "high speed" even if they could fly as >fast as 50 mph, as Kottmeyer suggested. (Arnold's plane was probably >traveling 100 mph or faster but certainly much faster than 50 mph). Understood and noted. This all comes back to how reliable Arnold's overall judgement was during that brief encounter. If his calculations were perhaps out by some 50% on the length to width ratio, maybe by a relative 35% on the altitude of the objects, is it likely that his estimate of the objects' speed was similarly inaccurate under these difficult conditions? A question which Kottmeyer asks; if the objects were travelling at the speed Arnold indicates, how can we account for the apparent lack of a "sonic boom"? James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:33:28 -0600 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:47:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:44:08 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:04:47 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Regarding... >>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:56:23 -0600 >>From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Michael wrote: >>>From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> >>>Subject: kenneth arnold's testimony >>>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:26:43 -0500 >>>Hi Scott. >>>Yes. He did describe them as delta shaped, similar to what today we >>>would describe as the B-2. >Arnold's sketch in the Blue Book file shows a semicircular front >half and a sort of protruding V shape at the back Yes...I have pictures of it. But I still contend that using something similar in todays technology to describe it, the B-2 is the closest thing we have to it. If we could just round the ends of the B-2. <g> >>I have an audio tape of his initial conversation with the reporters >>at the airport. >>"Returning to Arnold's report: 'They flew like many times I have >>observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they >>were linked together'. That is what they certainly seem like. Geese >>do fly in chains. A number of nine makes sense. The arrangement of the >>leader being higher than the others, unlike military formations, is >>sensible for geese who take advantage of the downdraft turbulence of >>others in the formation for easier flying. Geese chains do undulate >>like kite tails. They do present a basically flat side profile when >>seen edge-on. >>From above they have a bilateral symmetry like the heel drawn by >>Arnold. In his Congress paper he however emphatically denies this >>idea, '-- but they were not geese!' >>He does not explain the reasoning". >>I wonder if Kottmeyer has ever seen this interview and realises that >>Arnold appears to dismiss the explanation based on his estimation of >>the objects' speed. If Arnold's air-speed calculations were wrong, >>which is of course conceivable and at best they were subjective, there >>are key aspects of Arnold's descriptions which otherwise correlate. >>However, Kottmeyer also notes that 9200 feet is a rather high altitude >>for geese to be flying and is doubtful whether an experienced pilot >>such as Arnold would misidentify a flock of geese. >>Perhaps the most important point is Arnold's initial confirmation >>that the objects, "looked something like a pie plate that was cut in >>half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear". >>Kottmeyer's articles can be read at the following URL's: >>http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n06/resolving-arnold-part-1.html >>http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05-n07/resolving-arnold-part-2.html >>In the second part, he helpfully reproduces Arnold's original drawing >>for the Air Force files. >>This matches what Arnold describes in the interview. ><SNIP about other Arnold sources of info and geese flying at >12,000 ft> >>It may not therefore be so unlikely that a flock of geese is the >>explanation for Arnold's sighting. >>Maybe it wasn't, but if we can't trust the variance in the evidence, >>how can we trust his overall judgement? >>Kottmeyer and Andersen also note this wasn't to prove the last time >>Kenneth Arnold saw a flock of 'UFOs'. >Several years ago I got into a letter-writing argument with >Kottmeyer over the "goose hypothesis". Kottmeyer argued that the >objects were geese flying high and fast and were a lot closer >than Arnold estimated. Kottmeyer rejected Arnold's claim that the >UFOs flew in and out of the mountain peaks south of Rainier. He >came on strong, until I pointed out that Arnold said he turned >his plane and opened the (left hand side) window. At this time >Arnold was flying south, the same direction as the UFOS. Had they >been geese Arnold would have overtaken and passed them. At any >rate he wouldn't have been puzzled at their "high speed" even if >they could fly as fast as 50 mph, as Kottmeyer suggested. >(Arnold's plane was probably traveling 100 mph or faster but >certainly much faster than 50 mph) I can't remember exactly how fast Arnold's plane was flying. I have read it in the past, but it has been so long ago, I've forgotten. I was thinking it was around 200 mph. I may very well be wrong. I really don't see any use in arguing the point of Arnold's experience. If he saw what he said, then he did. If he was mistaken, then he was. I think the thing we need to know is "what is happening now?" The past is the past. It has no real continuing relevance to the presence. It only serves as a "history." So much is happening now, that it would better serve us to put the past to rest, and concentrate on the present. We, as citizens have at our disposal technical equipmnet which they did not have 50 years ago. It puts in the hands of John Q. Citizen, better equipment than the Military forces of the 1940's and early 50's had to work with. WE can detect EMF with small hand held equipment. We have video cameras with Night Vision lens capability as well as infared film and video. We have portable microwave transmitters and receivers which can be bought and operated by the average person, if they desire to spend the money. We have Cell Phones and lap top computers.... In other words, we are so well equipped today, that with proper planning and organization, we can take a group of ten people and cover several hundred square miles of area, for the purpose of detecting, measuring, recording and possibly even encountering UFOs. This being the case, why are we so hung up on the past? I say, let it go! Let the old system with its promoters, pass into the past. Let us, put aside our differences and move into the present, as we watch moment by moment as the future becomes the now. Let us KNOW the reality before us NOW. Not at some imagined FUTURE, but NOW! REgards, Mike
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Mexico City - More Video Analysis From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:48:53 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:58:14 -0500 Subject: Mexico City - More Video Analysis MEXICO CITY VIDEO ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION PART TWO I have discovered new and significant information from my continued study of the video. Before I present it I would like to point out that I am working from a video copy made from a tape that was received over the "airwaves" by a person in Mexico City. Therefore it is not as clear as the original. In fact, the pictures in the just-published November issue of the MUFON Journal are clearer. Hence I many hope for yet further information when I get a "perfect" copy of the video. Those of you who subscribe to the MUFON Journal will see printed therein information that was circulated in the network over a month ago (Bill Hamilton's initial report of Oct 1 on UFO Updates and a report from UFO Roundup of Oct. 12). Further analysis of the video shows that the zoom factor is about 4. This is low for the typical videocamera. Probably the camera was partly zoomed before the first video images. I assume it was zoomed to maximum. This has bearing on the focal length and on the field of view and on the hoax hypotheses discussed in the first part of this analysis. The UFO appears on video for 23 seconds. The video continues for another 11 seconds after it disappears behind the second building. At the beginning of the video the UFO is stationary for about 8 seconds before moving to the right. Further checks of the wobble rate confirm that the wobble cycle is approximately 2.2 (+/- 0.2) sec/wobble, or about (1/2) wobble per second. A further check of the rotation rate confirms the roughly 0.16 cycles/sec. or about 6 sec per revolution cited previously. Bill Hamilton wrote that the rotation rate was once per second, but I don't think this is correct. The moving dark spots are what give the impression of rotation. I measured the number of frames it takes for a spot to move 0.2 times the length (diameter) of the (assumed circular) disc image. This motion was measured at the center of the disc image and so corresponds to an angle (relative to the center of the disc) of 0.2 radians (almost exactly). This measurement was difficult to make because the dark spots were so diffuse (could do better with a better copy of the video blowup). However, I found that it requires 5 to 7 frames for a spot to move 0.2 rad. Picking 6 frames as an average number, this means 0.2 rad per (6/30 sec) or 0.2 rad / (1/5 sec) = 1.0 rad/sec. But there are 2 pi = 6.28 (approximately) radians in a revolution, so it requires 6.28 second per revolution. The inverse of this is 0.16 revolutions per second, which is the value given in the first part of this analysis (but without justification). The UFO's horizontal motion relative to the left hand edge of the first building was discussed in the first part of this analysis. The velocity was found to be constant to a good degree of accuracy as long as the UFO was visible. After the UFO reappeared above the first building and traveled in a level trajectory toward the second it slowed down. Just before it disappeared it was going about 0.6 times as fast as the initial horizontal speed. The measurements suggest some slight oscillation in the speed, but higher resolution will be necessary to prove this. Careful measurements of the image size using the negative image format (sky dark) and adjusting the brightness so that the UFO is just "above" visible, I find that the initial length on this 1.6x blowup is 38 mm. While above the center of the first building it's length is about 40 mm, suggesting that it got closer. Then, just before disappearing its length is 33 mm long indicating that it moved away. A study of the image brightness has revealed significant information which is consistent with the above image size measurements. By setting brightness levels appropriately I determined that the image brightness is lowest (greatest contrast against the bright sky) when the UFO is over the first building. The image brightness is slightly higher (slightly less contrast) before the UFO moves behind the first building. Then, of particular significance, is the fact that as it moves toward the second building the contrast decreases (image brightens) continually until it disappears. The significance of the image brightness changing (image contrast changing) is based on the haze effect or atmospheric "extinction." The farther an object moves away into a bright sky background with haze, the brighter it appears, eventually at some distance reaching the brightness of the sky background, at which distance it "disappears" because there is no longer any contrast between it and the background. For example, a black sphere that moves away from the observer will grow smaller but it will also increase in brightness. The increase in brightness is a result of light scattered by haze particles or dust or air molecules into the path of the light from the sphere to the observer. In this case we have an object, the UFO, which is not as bright as the sky background. When first seen it has some brightness level and contrast to the sky and a size measurement of about 38 mm. Then a few seconds later it's brightness is lower (and contrast is greater) and the image size is greater, both of which are consistent with the UFO moving closer to the camera (about 5% closer). Then as it moves to the right the brightness increases as the size decreases (by about 18%) indicating the object started moving away from the camera before it disappeared behind the building. In fact, it appears to have initiated a curved path away from the camera just before it disappeared behind the building. One may imagine that, if this not a VERY clever hoax, the UFO never appeared on the right side of the second building because it had made a "left turn" (but not at East Gate) and disappeared in the distance. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS. SOME NUMBERS (maybe all numbers) QUOTED HERE MAY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE FUTURE. The only conclusion possible so far is that if this is a hoax...... then we should all turn left and disappear into the haze..... (where is that East Gate when we need it?)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Brazilian alien? From: "Tim Weir" <chilli-t@classic.msn.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 13:26:09 UT Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:09:08 -0500 Subject: Brazilian alien? I realise that this list is based mainly upon UFOs, however I was wondering if anyone could give me some information on the Brazilian alien which was chased by officials through a delapidated town and eventually killed in a zoo. The alien was green in colour and appeared to have 'horns'. I only know the very brief outline of the story but I would be most appreciative if someone could point me in the right direction (URLs, Books etc.) Thanks in advance, Tim Weir
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: 115 Years Ago Today... Astronomer Spots "UFO" From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:04:05 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:03:00 -0500 Subject: Re: 115 Years Ago Today... Astronomer Spots "UFO" >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 07:40:45 +1100 >From: John Stepkowski <legion@MIRA.NET> >Subject: 115 Years Ago Today... Astronomer Spots "UFO" >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > >From the Press Associates Website > (http://www.pa.press.net/news/otd.html) > On this day in history - Fri, 14 Nov 1997 Well well, Mr Stepkowski! You posted, > 1882: The Royal Astronomer > witnessed an Unidentified Flying > Object from the Greenwich Royal > Observatory. It was described as a > "strange celestial visitor - a circular > object glowing green". Johnny me lad, that's the same bugger I saw and reported to this list just this summer past. I have a piece of video of 'another' thingy that I took that same afternoon. the video is with someone at a University in Japan, I'm awaiting analysis results. Preliminaries are promising but I don't want to jump the gun. I'll wait until the individual conducting the analysis posts it. Yep, seen that green bugger! As I watched this thing fly by through my 7x50 binocs even in broad daylight it 'glowed' (emmenated) the wierdest almost electric green, the object was 'brighter' than the clear blue daylight sky! Amazing thing to see. * Note: Those who were part of the UpDates list last summer already have the illustration I made of the green glowing UFO. If you saved it, you can refer back to it. Write to me on the private side John, been a long time between drinks mate! John Velez John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:51:25 +0100 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:23:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:33:34 -0800 > > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:46:02 +0100 > > From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Re-Media Influence on Abduction Reports > > The question though is, have others on the list had witnesses > > relate this same type of occurance to them? Also, knowing it is > > possible that the CE3K movie scene influences this type of > > incident, is it not also possible that this is a regular > > occurance and that Spielberg used a real life experience in the > > movie that he had come across while writing the script. The ole' > > chicken or the egg puzzle. > I never have read one way or the other, but I always assumed > there was some relationship to the following case: > 10/21/63 - Moreno, family, and employee; Trancas, Argentina; > evening / early morning > Report Summary > ...Moreno was awakened... by a fifteen year old employee at his > ranch... The boy told him that there had apparently been an > accident at the railroad tracks... about a half mile from the > main house. The area was illuminated and people could be seen > moving around... > Sr. Moreno... awakened his wife... they... [saw] a luminous > oval-shaped object which was hovering just a few feet in the air > over the railroad tracks. It was projecting a beam of light to > the ground where human-looking figures could be seen moving to > and fro in single file... Sra. [Moreno] spotted another object > which was fairly close to the house, also hovering a few feet > above the ground. It appeared to be about 25 feet in diameter and > there was a dome-shaped structure on the top of it, as well as > lighted apertures which appeared to be windows or ports around > its circumference. > Sra. Moreno got a flashlight and shined it toward the disk, > whereupon it shot out a narrow, tubular beam of light toward the > house... the de Morenos began a... check of the house... [and] > discovered ... a total of five disks in the vicinity of the house > - 3 stayed between 210 and 225 feet from the house, and the other > two, including the nearest one which she had seen first, were > within a few feet... One of these latter objects shined a white > tubular light at the house and the other a reddish violet light > of the same shape and size. > Shortly after the light beams were projected at the house the [de > Morenos] began to notice a strong smell of sulfur and a definite > rise in temperature. It was not long before the interior of the > house was suffocatingly hot... "Forty minutes had passed when... > the object at the tracks [elevated] and moved away, followed by > the five disks which had surrounded the house. Just before the > two closest disks left, the light which was beamed at the house > went out, and following the other[s]... where the two closest > disks had hovered there remained a misty, smoke-like deposit for > several minutes." > (UFOs: The Whole Story, Lorenzen, 1969 Signet Books p 190) > --- > This is one of only a few cases with which I am familiar that > meets this pattern. Another is a strange case from the Blue Book > files which featured a boy and several close and seemingly > harassing approaches toward the house by an unusual "axe-head" > shaped object. > I think that house-sieges are rare in the non-abduction > literature. Car harassment is orders of magnitude more common. > An interesting pattern, isn't it? Hi Mark and List, Yes it is, but I think we can break these down even further to cases where "the mist" has been mentioned, as in the three cases I alluded to. Just recently I have been involved in trying to locate a landing site in dence wood,[spruce trees up 5 inches in diameter and 20-25 feet tall being crushed down to a height of 2-3 feet]. The person who reported this was originally alerted to this sight the previous evening when a brilliant blue/white light came on behind him while exiting the woods at dusk during hunting season. He turned, startled, to see where the light was coming from but could only see the glow, not its source. What he did see besides the light was a mist rolling through the trees coming from the direction of the light. He stated that the mist had not been evident before. The light went out after about twenty seconds. The witness is a retired Chief Engineer on destroyers in CDN navy, tough and hardnosed and does not embellish. I mention the latter because, again, mist in the trees with a lot of indirect lighting after dark is a favorite of the movie and television industry when they are trying to set up a spooky or other-worldly scene. On the other hand what he claims to have seen the following day in the area where he had seen the light and the considerable evidence of terrific heat at the site's perimeter, a natural byproduct of moist trees and earth would be steam forced outwards by pressure and convection. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:45:17 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 13:19:50 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] >>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:40:29 -0800 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Dear Jakes, I am sorry that you think I am continually bitching about abductions. You are right. There is a lot more than abductions to be concerned about on this list. >I have no problem whatsoever with people who have had some >experience, whether a sighting or abduction. How could I, >and who am I to judge. If you don't, don't worry. Others are doing it for you. >HOWEVER: I have a problem with people who continually >bitch about the fact that UFO "research" isn't taken >seriously by the scientific community. Perhaps they >should look at that statement. Apart from some >questionable US government reports (Condon, Blue >Book, whatever), where are the scientific papers? >All we get are pseudo-scientific popular fiction >novels: "My brain was removed by little green men". Above top secret. I would have to shoot you if I told you everything. What a lame excuse for this to be foisted in the face of a population as large as that in North America. The Russians have the same trouble as Americans when it comes to ufology. Don't you think they could compare notes at least? Afterall, the cold war is over. The McCarthy era is dead and buried. What other excuses? >Now very possibly, although statistically highly >improbably, 4 million US citizens have been >abducted. OK. Really? I didn't know the estimated number at all. I will keep it as a handy reference. Thankyou. >But surely out of all these cases, there is ONE >with sufficient evidence. There won't be if the government is actively suppressing the information concerning UFOs and their occupants. All we can get to see is that there about four million people who are crying wolf about something that the governments of the world won't even consider as a possibility. So, the four million people in North America are ignored, along with everyone else in the world who has had sightings or experiences. That's how it is. Whatever anyone may think about all of this, has nothing to do about what is actually going on. Who knows the real truth? Is it the people who had the original sightings or experiences? Or is it the government, who is so surgical in controlling all of the information about the whole picture? Who does know the truth of the matter? >Out of all the sightings in the US, surely there >is ONE that has all the evidence required for >it to be considered interesting by main-stream >scientists. Look at any case and judge the believability factor. Does it indicate that there are factors in the case that may or may not present information that would be socially, politically, or religously significant? And, if it does, then it should be kept quiet until all of the necessary social, political, and religous adjustments can be made. The War of the Worlds is really a fearful battle of present day beliefs and technologies struggling to adapt to survive the implications of the possibilities and ramifications of an alien presence. >I dunno. Maybe I'm just naive in thinking that >this is possible. What makes you think you are so different than anyone else here? Don't you think we all want answers to our questions? Well, it won't happen until the powers that be will decide otherwise. Consider that Freedom of Information Access documents are on the Internet. These refer to all kinds of secrets, even ones going back to the days of nuclear development. Any references to UFOs in them? Not a word. Lots of implications, lots of rumours only. I know it only makes me suspicious of the kind of information we are being fed. How would you feel if you thought you knew something and the government denied it to your face? Begin to know how I feel. Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:24:13 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 19:29:31 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/14/97 1:16 PM: > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:36:33 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) > From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The Phoenix Lights Hoax & The New AREA 51? > One other comment, if three A-10s could fit into Mitch's > telescope field of view, they would be visible for about 2 > seconds through his telescope (assuming the A-10s are no larger > than 50 feet in size and are flying at only 50 miles and hour). > Even if the A-10s are larger and fly much faster, I would be very > surprised if Mitch could track them with his telescope long > enough to seen the details he described after his short look. I > think one should not place so much weight on Mitch's testimony > (or his mother claimed Mitch said). The A-10 has a 57 foot wing span and is 54 feet long. Its nominal cruise speed is 397 mph. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:44:30 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:03:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:52:21 -0500 > From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > In "Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again", Kottmeyer summarises > the debate: > "The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses > near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the > event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. > [...] > What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has > been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having "swerved > in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem to put a > lower limit to the distance if one could first determine which > peaks they swung around and if they were broad enough to have a > transit time to regard the observation as secure. Arnold was > slightly more specific in later recountings of the event. In The > Coming of the Saucers he said they momentarily disappeared > "behind a jagged peak that juts out from Mount Rainier proper." > In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says, > "When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very > thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a projection > on Mount Rainier in the snowfield."26 These are not exactly the > same thing, but they give a fair indication of what to look for > on the geological survey maps. > Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet > plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some > feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat > little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier > and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak > which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's > base. There is a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma > which sticks out around the 10,000 foot level, but it is on the > wrong side of the mountain to be seen from Arnold's flight path. > It would be badly stretching things to suggest he got either his > position or altitude that far wrong. Unfortunately for Kottmeyer, the original account only states the following: "I observed the chain of these objects _passing_ (italics mine) another high, snow covered ridge in between Mt. Ranier and Mt. Adams... I could quite accurately determine their pathway due to the fact that there were several high peaks that were a little this side of them as well as higher peaks on the other side of their pathway... As the last unit of this formation _passed_ (italics mine) the southernnmost high snow-covered crest of Mt. Adams... by the time they reached Mt. Adams, they were out of range of my vision as far as determining shape or form...I am making a drawing... as to the shape I observed these objects to be as they _passed_ [italics mine] the snow covered ridges as well as Mt. Ranier." The ONLY passage where Arnold discusses the occultation of a feature by the objects is "Very shortly they approached Mt. Ranier, and I observed their outline against the snow quite plainly." In short, there is no basis in the original account for the assumption that the objects passed in front of or behind any feature other than the snowfields of Mt. Ranier. > The main reason I would give any credence to the misidentified > flock of geese scenario, is Arnold's own initial observations. If > it flies like a flock of geese, quite distinctive, then maybe it > was. Actually, the characteristic referred to was that they followed each other in a close knit chain which _appeared_ to be weaving back and forth in response to the features below. One must also keep in mind the "depressed horizon" of the aviator, as mentioned earlier, whch would allow this conclusion without the objects necessarily flying behind or in front of any specific feature. > Alternatively, what else would have the characteristics of a > flock of geese in flight? > Basically, why couldn't it have been. This is again the error of taking a single characteristic of a sighting and attempting to build an explanation on it. Unexplained by the "goose" hypothesis is 1) The shape and length / thickness ratio 2) The specular reflections 3) The weaving (geese sometimes chain in formation, but they do not weave to follow one another in a strongly connected fashionl they frequently break formation, and there is some level of chaos in their spacing) > A question which Kottmeyer asks; if the objects were travelling > at the speed Arnold indicates, how can we account for the > apparent lack of a "sonic boom"? This is a standard characteristic of almost every UFO. I am surprised that this is a question that you consider compelling. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:39:53 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 19:52:36 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:08:43 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c <snip> >> At the current level of specialization in the sciences, a general >> paper on UFOs would find it difficult to fit into the narrow >> scheme of many journals. >> But I suspect that one might be able to write narrowly tailored >> articles (I believe Bruce M. has done this) for narrow journals. >> Optics journals might take some papers where a UFO observation >> could be clearly related to an important optical topic. >Hello Mark, >And this reminds me that one Dr. Levengood published a couple >articles on crop circles in some plant-pathology journal, but got >away with it because he didn't ever mention UFOs and instead >blamed it on "plasma vortices" that descend from the upper >atmosphere, do their thing, and then exit the scene. A matter of >terminology! >But if the paper is narrowly tailored to one specific phenomenon >or event and if you assiduously refrain from using any UFO >terminology, you're right -- it's sometimes possible then to get >a paper on it accepted within a mainstream scientific journal. >Jim Deardorff The world isn't quite that simple, Jim. Science, and therefore science journals, dealy primarily with repeatable laboratory tests and analyses. Other scientists read the papers, and, if they're interested, repeat the results in their own laboratories. Science is not primarily interested in anecdotes. Thus there are scientific journals on vulcanology not because of poorly substantianted eyewitness accounts of volcanoes erupting, but because any scientists who wants to can witness one in action, acquire samples in the field, and haul them back to the lab. As you know, that rarely happens in ufology. Take the famous Linda Cortile case, for example, about which an entire book has been written. The only thing that can be considered even remotely of interest to science in that book is the presence of some sand samples which have allegedly been altered "somehow." Despite the cases's sensational claims, there's not much there to interest a scientist of any persuasion, or a science journal either. How is science even going to attempt to prove, for example, theat the Secretary General of the United Nations was abducted by a spaceship from another planet which then dove under the Hudson River? "Ah, yes, I see...and you acquired these samples _how_?" After stating where the samples were supposed to have come from, you'll probably be asked if you recognize that rectangular shape in the wall over there and how it works. "You see that little round thing on one side, about half way up? Well, you turn it to the right and then push. That will take you to the street, which is the wide, paved avenue with cars on it. Please pass along it in either direction until you are completely out of sight. And don't call us -- we'll call you. All in good time." Fact is, ufology itself suffers from much the same problem. If you look at the latest issue of the Journal of UFO Studies, the field's only referreed journal, for example, you'll see that only one of the major articles deals with what might be described as a UFO sighting or report. All the rest, along with the usual book reviews, are essentially historical or analytical in nature. By the same token, the last MUFON Symposium Proceedings published this summer contained 13 papers, only two of which could be considered a scientific analysis of anything, and one of those is an analysis of abduction accounts, not hard abduction evidence. The rest are all commentary or reflection. Now, suppose Paul Deveruex or Robert Baker wanted to submit a scientific article to JUFOS that attributed the abduction phenomenon to lucid dreams or sleep paralysis, respectively? How far along the peer review process do you think it would get before being rejected? Actually, depending on how well it was done, I'd hazard that it might stand a chance (in a slow year), but that it certainly wouldn't be a given. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Are 'We' Being 'Watched'? From: Eric Howarth <erich@bud.peinet.pe.ca> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:20:59 -0400 (AST) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:12:28 -0500 Subject: Are 'We' Being 'Watched'? Pentagon Trolls the Net/UFO Groups Targeted! "Pentagon Trolls The Net" By David Corn c1996 Internet users beware; Pentagon snoops are taking an interest in your cyber communications. Last summer, Charles Swett, a policy assistant in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, produced a report that assessed the intelligence value of the Internet for the Defense Department. His study discovered the obvious: By monitoring computer message traffic and alternative news sources from around the world, the military might catch "early warning of impending significant developments." Swett reports that the "Internet could also be used offensively as an additional medium in psychological operations campaigns and to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives." A striking aspect of his study is that there is one sort of Internet user who attracts a large amount of attention from Swett: cyber- smart lefties. The thirty-one-page, unclassified study is mostly cut and dry. Much of it describes what the Internet is and what can be found within its infinite confines. Swett lists various "fringe groups" that are exploiting the Internet: the white-supremacist National Alliance, the Michigan Militia, Earth First, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). He highlights MUFON--the Mutual UFO Network--which uses the Internet to disseminate information on "U.S. military operations that members believe relate to investigations and cover-ups of UFO-related incidents." MUFON computer messages, Swett notes, "contain details on MUFON's efforts to conduct surveillance of DoD installations." The report does not suggest that the computer communications of MUFON and these other groups should be targeted by the military--though X Filers will be forgiven for wondering if something sinister is afoot. What Swett apparently finds of greater interest than MUFON and the "fringe groups" is the online left. A significant portion of the report is devoted to the San Francisco-based Institute for Global Communications, which operates several computer networks, such as PeaceNet and EcoNet, that are used by progressive activists. I.G.C. demonstrates, he writes, "the breadth of DoD-relevant information available on the Internet." The paper refers to I.G.C. conferences that might be considered noteworthy by the Pentagon, including ones on anti-nuclear arms campaigns, the extreme right, social change, and "multicultural, multi-racial news." Swett cites I.G.C. as the home for "alternative news sources" that fill gaps in the mainstream media.(It might be good for Pentagon analysts to read I.G.C. dispatches from Holland's Peace Media Service.) Yet he seems to say that one can also track the left around the world by monitoring I.G.C.: "Although [I.G.C.] is clearly a left-wing political organization, without actually joining I.G.C. and reading its message traffic, it is difficult to assess the nature and extent of its members' actual real-world activities." Swett's paper presents the world of opportunity awaiting a cyber- shrewd military and intelligence establishment. The Pentagon and intelligence services will conduct "routine monitoring of messages originating in other countries" in the search for information on "developing security threats." That means overseas e-mail, like overseas phonecalls, will be intercepted by the electronic eavesdroppers of the National Security Agency or some other outfit. The data will be fed into filtering computers and then, if it contains any hot-button words, forwarded to the appropriate analyst. "Networks of human sources with access to the Internet could be developed in areas of security concern to the U.S." (But bureaucrats rest assured; "this approach"--using computer-assisted spies--"could never replace official DoD intelligence collection systems or services.") The Internet "can also serve counterintelligence purposes" by identifying threats to the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence activities. As an example, Swett refers to a message posted in a discussion group for "left-wing political activists" that repeated an A.P. article about an upcoming U.S. Army Special Operations Command training exercise at an empty Miami Beach hotel. Another growth area is the dirty tracks department. Noting that government officials, military officials, business people, and journalists all around the world are online, Swett envisions "Psychological Operations" campaigns in which U.S. propaganda could be rapidly disseminated to a wide audience. He adds, "The U.S. might be able to employ the Internet offensively to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives." Swett does not delve into details on how the Internet could serve such a mission. But he tosses out one possibility: communicating via the Internet with political and paramilitary groups abroad that Washington wants to assist while "limiting the direct political involvement of the United States." Imagine this: contras with computers. Swett does point to a few potential problems. The Internet is chockfull of chit-chat of no intelligence value. Retrieving useful nuggets will require monumental screening. He also predicts that one day video footage of military operations will be captured by inexpensive, hand-held digital video cameras operated by local individuals and then up-loaded to the Internet. Within minutes, millions of people around the world will see for themselves what has happened--which could lead to calls for action (or calls to terminate action) before government leaders have had a chance to react and formulate a position. Such a development, he observes, "will greatly add to the burden on military commanders, whose actions will be subjected to an unprecedented degree of scrutiny." And opponents of the Pentagon might try to exploit the Internet for their own devilish ends: "If it became widely known that DoD were monitoring Internet traffic for intelligence or counterintelligence purposes, individuals with personal agendas or political purposes in mind, or who enjoy playing pranks, would deliberately enter false or misleading messages." The study ends with a series of vague recommendations--all to be carried out "only in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of the law, and without violating the privacy of American citizens." The Swett paper is "refreshingly candid," says Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who placed a copy of the document on the FAS web site on government secrecy, where it is being downloaded about twenty times a day (at http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/sgp/). The I.G.C. staff is amused by Swett's interest. "We must be doing something right," notes George Gundrey, program coordinator of I.G.C.'s PeaceNet. "But it is interesting that all of his [I.G.C.] examples are the most left-wing items [on the network]." Swett's study is not the first of its kind. Under the rubric of "information warfare," other Pentagon outfits and military contractors have studied how to use computer networks to collect public information, disseminate propaganda, politically destabilize other governments, and plant computer viruses into the information systems of foes. (The latter task is particularly foolhardy. Deploying viruses into cyber-space--even if targeted against an enemy--would likely pose a danger to the United States, since this country is more networked than any other.) But Swett's office--the Pentagon's dirty tricks shop--is a newcomer to this scene, according to David Banisar, a policy analyst for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Banisar's group has been helping international human rights groups use encryption to protect their global e-mail, "so the spooks don't listen in" It is natural that the national security gang will try to infiltrate and use a communication medium like the Internet to its advantage. What is most troubling about Swett's paper is its preoccupation with left-of-center travelers in cyberspace and domestic political activities. In the appendix, Swett reproduces four examples of notable e-mail. One (written by progressive activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven) calls for 100 days of protest in response to the Republican's Contract with America, another announces plans for a demonstration at the 1996 G.O.P. convention in San Diego, the third relays to lefties information on the U.S. Army exercise at the Miami Beach hotel, and the last is a communiqu=82 from the Zapatistas of Mexico. Swett's use of these cyber dispatches can be explained one of two ways. Either the left has made much more progress in cyber-organizing than the right and "such fringe groups" as PETA, or Swett, true to institutional tradition, is overwrought about the use of the Internet by a certain parties. In any case, the would-be watchers in the defense establishment ought to be watched closely--especially if Swett's report reflects broader sentiment within the Pentagon. ******************************************************************** **** John Pike Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/ CyberStrategy Project http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/cp/ Intelligence Reform Project http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/irp/ Military Analysis Network http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/man/ Space Policy Project http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/spp/ ******************************************************************** **** From "Pentagon Trolls the Net" by David Corn, The Nation, 4 March 1996 The preceding was an article from The Nation magazine (March 4, 1996) that reports on a Pentagon study on how the military can exploit the Internet. The Pentagon paper suggests using the Internet for the routine interception of global e-mail, for covert operations and propaganda campaigns, and for tracking domestic political activity, particularly that of the left. The article was written by David Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation. If you have any comments or leads for follow-up stories, please contact him at 202-546-2239/ph 202-546-1415/fx dacor@aol.com To subscribe to The Nation, a magazine of politics and culture, call - 800-333-8536. Eric Howarth: erich@cycor.ca Life is 10% fate, 90% of what you make of fate
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:24:41 +0100 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:27:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:52:21 -0500 > From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Regarding... > >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 12:44:42 -0500 > >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Bruce wrote: > >>Bruce merely pointing out that Arnold's estimates are subjective. > >I appreciate James' use of my research to support his arguments. > >However, I was not "merely pointing out" that Arnold wasn't perfect. > >Imperfection of visual estimates is a "given." What I was trying to > >do was make the best estimate of length to width ratio based on all > >of Arnold's information. > Bruce, > My comment was an acknowledgement that you were not being > critical of Arnold's ratio claim, simply noting it was open to > debate. > It was understood you were offering an alternative estimation. > >>Mistaking the altitude of the objects by some 4000 feet, doesn't > >>inspire confidence in any of Arnold's other observations or > >>estimations. > >WHOA THERE! Losing confidence in Arnold's observations? > It's not suggested you were! Just a general comment on my part. > >How big was his error in estimating the angle of the sighting line? > >The objects were 20 miles away. An error of 4000 ft in 20 miles is > >the ratio 0.0379 radians which corresponds to 2 degrees. It is > >difficult to estimate the horizon from an airplane. To be within 2 > >degrees of the actual value is good accuracy. To me, this is evidence > >in favor of Arnold's accuracy! > Your point is appreciated and helps to place the issues in > perspective, that's what I'm always looking for. > Nonetheless, a possible variance of 4000ft remains a significant > ratio in a range of 0-9500ft. Hi James and list, Perhaps you missed or had not received my email concerning the discussion of altitude on yesterdays UFO Updates. If you have not read it than you missed the fact that Arnold's altimeter setting was the station pressure at Chehalis and not the true pressure fifty miles away in the mountains. Nor was it temperature corrected as private aircraft in '47 did not enjoy some of the expensive equipment available to the commercial and military aircraft. For instance, Arnold was not radio equipped. You cannot ignore this fact. It could have put Arnold's altitude out one way or another by 1,000 feet or more. Mountains further complicate estimates of altitude because of the varience in terrain. Also the ratio mentioned above [4,000 feet out of 9,500] is not out of 0-9500 feet but 0-11,500, 2,000 feet one way or the other. > >>This also of course means the altitude of the objects would not > >>preclude geese as a conceivable explanation. > >Yes, geese flying around the mountain tops 20 MILES AWAY! > But were the objects really 20 miles away? This is central to the > case. > In "Resolving Arnold - Part 2: Guess Again", Kottmeyer summarises > the debate: > "The absence of a large population of corroborative witnesses > near Mount Rainier seems sufficient grounds for wondering if the > event was much more localized than Arnold surmised. > [...] > What of distances closer than Mount Rainier's vicinity? It has > been pointed out that Arnold spoke of the objects having "swerved > in and out of the high mountain peaks." This would seem to put a > lower limit to the distance if one could first determine which > peaks they swung around and if they were broad enough to have a > transit time to regard the observation as secure. Arnold was > slightly more specific in later recountings of the event. In The > Coming of the Saucers he said they momentarily disappeared > "behind a jagged peak that juts out from Mount Rainier proper." > In his memoir for the First International UFO Congress he says, > "When they turned length-wise or flat-wise to me they were very > thin and they actually disappeared from sight behind a projection > on Mount Rainier in the snowfield."26 These are not exactly the > same thing, but they give a fair indication of what to look for > on the geological survey maps. > Arnold estimated the crafts were at an altitude of 9,200 feet > plus or minus 1,000. The task at hand is thus to locate some > feature extending above the 8,200 foot level. This yields a neat > little surprise. There are no such peaks between Mount Rainier > and Mount Adams. The closest thing I could find was Pyramid Peak > which stands only 6,937 feet tall in front of Mount Rainier's > base. I'd almost bet you dollars to donuts that Pyramid peak or another such mountain in front of and lower than Rainier was what Arnold saw rather than an outcropping. The number of airplanes that have smacked into mountains [in broad daylight with excellent viewing conditions] in front of other mountains because they blended into the background of the larger mountain behind is sinful. The US and Canadian airforces did a study back in the eighties using computer simulations of known mountain impacts by military fighters and bombers etc. (the recent B-1 bomber crash in mountainous terrain is an example) which was a real eyeopener for all pilots who saw it. A major contributing factor in these accidents was underestimating the height of the mountain in relation to a preceived horizon. The peak behind looked higher, so therefore it was. > There is a sharp little projection called Little Tacoma > which sticks out around the 10,000 foot level, but it is on the > wrong side of the mountain to be seen from Arnold's flight path. > It would be badly stretching things to suggest he got either his > position or altitude that far wrong. > Normally one prefers early accounts to later ones, but the > Congress memoir may provide the clue to what happened here. When > the object turned flatwise, the optical thickness likely dropped > below the 1/2 minute resolution limit and briefly dropped from > sight. The rough surface of the mountain provided opportunities > for an illusory correlation of the disappearance to some feature > of the mountain. The disappearance seemed to be caused by an > intervening feature where none in fact existed. With no firm > lower distance estimate, the way is opened for the objects being > closer to Arnold than he had surmised". > Can we accept this as a possibility, or is there some reason it's > unacceptable? > >For example, geese at 1 mile from the plane (9,200 ft) would be at > >an altitude of about 9,100 ft. > Which wouldn't seem to pose a problem with geese being a conceivable > explanation. > >>>As Arnold points out: "Even though two minutes seems like a very > >>>short time to one on the ground, in the air in two minutes time, > >>>a pilot can observe a great many things, and anything within his > >>>sight of vision probably as many as fifty or sixty times". > >>And apparently still make significant errors of judgement. > >WHOA THERE! Sounds like a skeptic trying to put the worst foot > >forward, or to shine the "light of darkness" on a witness' testimony. > >It is obvious from Arnold's report that he did a number of "tests" > >during his sighting time, such as comparing the angular size of the > >UFOs with the angular size of a distant aircraft using a cowling tool > >as a reference. Actually the fastener referred is not a tool unless for instance you would refer to a shirt button or a coat snap as a tool. The fastener referred to was a Dzus fastener [ pronounced like the greek God Zeus only with a D in front} It's a push in button that you twist into a spring loaded socket to hold a vibration prone panel cover, or in this case a cowl cover, in place. Some have just a screw slot while others have a butterfly head on them for easy twisting. The head on the type Arnold had on his aircraft cowling was slotted and was the size of a dime.' > Nothing terribly sceptical in my comment. > Arnold notes that two minutes is sufficient time to make many > observations, that does not preclude Arnold making judgemental > errors. Everybody makes mistakes of course, but pilots are used to making estimates of size and distance and speed. It's important to know if that dot on you wind screen, that is staying in the same place (a sure indication of a collision course), is going to hit you sooner or later. Later is better because you have more time to react. Incidentally, in the cool air of the mountains and it appears stable air, Arnold's airspeed (depending on favourable, cross or adverse winds) would have been about 120 mph indicated for that aircraft...or two miles a minute. Without knowing the winds, ground speed would be difficult to determine. > As you write in "The Complete Sighting..." paper: > "Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of > several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? > [...] > So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000 > ft in estimating the altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had > looked up the actual altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt > Rainier he would have revised his statement". You are assuming something here that is a laymans perception of flying fed by the BS in movies and TV. You don't just hop into your machine, fire it up then go happily off into mountainous terrain, or any terrain for that matter. He would have flight planned, unless he was crazy. Arnold would have had VN Charts indicating the heights and hundreds of other details of the mountains and terrain he was going to fly through. Since he flew these areas regularly on business he would have experience and knowledge on his side and in particular the height of the highest terrain marked on his chart. > I was referring to those same errors. > We're perhaps both a little harsh in calling them "errors", as > you say, he probably achieved the best he could under the > circumstances. > Even if Arnold had observed a flock of geese and was correct in > originally believing he recognised it as such, but was then > deceived, that's no blemish on his character. > >>Not that I'm suggesting for a moment Bruce argues in favour of > >>Arnold watching a flock of geese. > >You got that right! > I hope you detected a wry smile behind my remark. > >>At present, that's not my argument either, I would simply like to > >>discuss whether there are grounds for accepting it as a possible > >>explanation. > >Grounds...... or quicksand? > Depends on whether Arnold could have been mistaken about the > distance of the object. If that's possible, so are a number of > other things. > The main reason I would give any credence to the misidentified > flock of geese scenario, is Arnold's own initial observations. If > it flies like a flock of geese, quite distinctive, then maybe it > was. > Alternatively, what else would have the characteristics of a > flock of geese in flight? > Basically, why couldn't it have been. > Which leads into your comments from separate mail: > >Several years ago I got into a letter-writing argument with Kottmeyer > >over the "goose hypothesis". > [...] > >He came on strong, until I pointed out that Arnold said he turned his > >plane and opened the (left hand side) window. At this time Arnold was > >flying south, the same direction as the UFOS. Had they been geese > >Arnold would have overtaken and passed them. At any rate he wouldn't > >have been puzzled at their "high speed" even if they could fly as > >fast as 50 mph, as Kottmeyer suggested. (Arnold's plane was probably > >traveling 100 mph or faster but certainly much faster than 50 mph). > Understood and noted. > This all comes back to how reliable Arnold's overall judgement > was during that brief encounter. > If his calculations were perhaps out by some 50% on the length to > width ratio, maybe by a relative 35% on the altitude of the > objects, is it likely that his estimate of the objects' speed was > similarly inaccurate under these difficult conditions? > A question which Kottmeyer asks; if the objects were travelling > at the speed Arnold indicates, how can we account for the > apparent lack of a "sonic boom"? Come, come now. Let's not bring out that old chestnut. Since when was anyone concerned about sonic booms where UFOs are concerned? The books are filled with objects zipping about at speeds well in excess of Mach one with no sonic booms. In Paul R. Hills book "Uncoventional Flying Objects" he goes into great detail explaining from an engineering and physics point of view, why UFOs seem to enjoy "Silent Supersonic Operation" in Section XIII, pages 181-207. Don't let the math scare you. I've got more if you want to hear it. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Many Think Light in Seattle Sky Was UFO From: RSchatte@aol.com [Rebecca Schatte] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:55:39 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:24:43 -0500 Subject: Many Think Light in Seattle Sky Was UFO --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Many Think Light in Sky Was UFO Date: 97-11-15 13:09:21 EST From: AOL News .c The Associated Press SEATTLE (AP) - Some callers saw many lights in the night sky across the Northwest. Others said it was one broad streak of light. A few people even called a UFO group to report the sighting. ``It was the most bizarre thing I've ever seen,'' Dave Way of Keizer, Ore., told the Statesman Journal in Salem, Ore. ``It looked like something out of `Star Trek.''' What it was, was space junk, the body of an old Russian rocket burning up as it reentered the atmosphere, state and federal officials said. And whatever was left of it fell safely in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington, said Milt Maas at the National Weather Service in Spokane. The unofficial descriptions were more colorful. ``It looked like a huge bottle rocket moving slowly across the sky,'' June Akiyama, who was in Gig Harbor, told The News Tribune of Tacoma. Dale Goudie, information director of the Seattle-based UFO Reporting and Information Service, said he received 44 calls from people who said they saw eight objects streaking across the sky from 9:09 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. ``Some people said they weren't going in a linear path - that they were actually turning, which surprised me,'' Goudie said. Callers told KXRO radio in Aberdeen that they saw one intense streak of light. Others told radio stations and newspapers in Washington and British Columbia they saw six or seven lights, or even 25 to 30. Frank Frazee of Centralia said he and his family saw the lights moving across the sky. ``It looked like a falling star,'' said Frazee's daughter, Janessa, 18. ``It was fire-colored, orange-reddish with a head that was white. It was cool.'' AP-NY-11-15-97 1241EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Brazilian alien? From: "Philippe Piet van Putten" <abp1@uol.com.br> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:59:14 -0200 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:15:21 -0500 Subject: Brazilian alien? >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 13:26:09 UT >From: "Tim Weir" <chilli-t@classic.msn.com> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Brazilian alien >I realise that this list is based mainly upon UFOs, however I was >wondering if anyone could give me some information on the >Brazilian alien which was chased by officials through a >delapidated town and eventually killed in a zoo. In fact Tim, at least four unknown biological creatures were seen and captured by the Brazilian Army and Firecorps personell at Varginha (in the State of Minas Gerais) on january 20, 1996. One of the creatures was shot three times and killed. Mr. Vitorio Pacaccini is one of the first-hand investigators of the case and has authored a book on the incident. You can reach him at... pacman@cyberdock.com.br >The alien was green in colour and appeared to have 'horns'. In fact, they were brownish,not green. They were about 1.60 m tall and had three small horn-like structures over their heads. >I only know the very brief outline of the story but I would be >most appreciative if someone could point me in the right >direction (URLs, Books etc.) Allright ! Try to contact Mr. Pacaccini. His book is about to be released in the USA. >Thanks in advance, >Tim Weir I'm here to learn and to help. Best regards Philippe Piet van Putten Director - The Brazilian Academy of Parasciences (ABP) National Director - Picard UFO Research International (PUFORI) Editor - Fenomenos Aeroespaciais (Aerospatial Phenomena) E-mail: abp1@uol.com.br
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Alfred's Odd Ode #199 From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:42:18 -0600 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:56:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Alfred's Odd Ode #199 Apology to MW #199 (For November 15, 1997) Sure, live in a castle foundationed on dust, And live what you learned from your father. And along with him wallow the mires of opprobrium Though strength is found within you, even grander, even taller. Ignatius of Loyola said it best, with _his_ betrayal. This *leaning* cant of _now_ which you inhabit. "Black will be called white, if Mother Church so much as wish it," Begins descent for all the motes that buy it. The church, a hypo-critic, *suggests* your contribution. They riddle, and you're and pummeled black and blue. They don't believe themselves a one -- their strained pontifications, But they're waiting for the work that you can do! As you build the living world for the landed right elite=85 As you pay their share of taxes -- give them food=85 As you work to feed their meter, fill their pools, provide retreat=85 As you toil to keep their lifestyle in the groove=85 When are you respected for the fabric you help weave? When are you allowed the splendid water? When are you the one, at last, to get the sweet break or reprieve? And who are _you_ -- critiquing founding fathers? Well, I'll tell you who you are if you have the stones to listen! You=92re the one on site who's paying all the freight! You're the one's that's working weekends as you pull it all together. You're the one that's working hardest, and it's _you_ who's working late. You're the one that's here right now, and it's _you_ that does the weaving -- Of that you should, so frankly, rest assured! Cash in on that, believing! You're the one that's got real meaning, But for you they'd do your labors -- to be sure! So it's you who _loves_ your country when you _won't_ forgive her sins. It's you that shows respect when you _rebuke_ her. It's you now standing bowed enough for living all the stalls, Then finding out your culture's an abuser! Most of which you learned in school was nonsense and obscene. All your cherished mores made up and contrived. Every bit of pride you feel as real as silly smoke, As there're millions now in misery while you live and breath and thrive. It's you that holds the ace card in your skinny little fingers. It's you could have the wisdom of the free. It's you that knows the secret that begins and ends with you. It's the freedom you have gained when you can SEE! Lehmberg@snowhill.com Sure it can reach out and crush you like a bug -- but that's the point! If it takes the time to reach out to crush you like a bug, you _must_ , by *definition*, be of consequence, or it wouldn't bother. That's the power of _you_! What we need is a good dose of humanistic government based on classically liberal ideals we only _think_ we now have. Redistribute what will not cycle any other way! Respect our world! It's then we'll meet those new folks 'cross the river. There is a profound but ephemeral difference between shame and guilt. In that difference are found the reasons for all our hatreds, and all our fear. Institutions bank on that shame and guilt -- play them off one another, and enrich themselves while using _you_ like a cheap and easy grease. Through glazed eyes distracted by a specious non relevance made of whole cloth by the man, you dimly see the flickering of anomalous flying lights=85 -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake for wondering about the lights. =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1= =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1= =B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1=B1 Government or Social Harassment REPORT - Presently, "ZERO" Personal HARASSMENT; however, the harassment index is infinite for each of us. Consider the one one holding the ace card in skinny undeserving fingers.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:21:39 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:01:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:37:53 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Duke, referring to your comments above, remember the excerpt >about simultaneous ground/air radar detection? What I remember is this, from someone who has slightly better claim than you to be an authority on the case: >Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:44:47 +0100 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual Here some relevant paragraphs: >Now about the F16 radar echoes. This was intensively studied and >compared with previous studies. This event had ground visual >observations by different gendarmes (policemens) at different >location, ground radar echoes from civilian and military and of >course the F16 radar recordings. But even with all these >extraordinar conjuction of evidences, all of them could be >explained by conventional phenomenon. This does not mean there >was not an UFO, but it means that the question becomes >undecidable. >About radar evidences all we can say is that it is possible that >UFOs that may have flown over Belgium were not detectable by our >radars. But Henny persists: >Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been >witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the >erratic signal? Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I think not. I also recall that you refused to do some background reading on radar, lest the purity of your premature conclusions be contaminated by giving (unasked, as it happens) pleasure to one you caricature as a debunker. >no matter how many times the facts are pointed out of >a solid case, some people are capable of producing an >infinite amount of bogus to attack the case. More bogus bogussing. I think it must be a special skill. Possibly they teach it to specially selected liberal arts majors. Maybe it's genetic. Something tells me that Christophe Meessen is slightly nearer the facts than you. What I am attacking currently is your dozy logic, failure to eliminate legitimate potential prosaic explanations, and invention of bogus boguses, aka straw men. You seem to have forgotten that I long ago said that the evidence (so far, I should perhaps add) in this case doesn't allow one to say very much one way or the other about what caused the reports of 30-31 March 90. And this is debunking? And debunking to an agenda, besides? In that case, Jerry Clark has debunked the Linda case, Christophe Meessen and his dad are disinformation agents, and Billy Meier will be the next editor of "Aviation Week". Shame you couldn't stop long enough to justify your comment about Donald Menzel, though. Yours &c Peterrabbit D. McGregor Lettuce Leaf
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 15 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:41:46 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:05:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >From: "Scott Reed" <sreed@zoomnet.net> >To: <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:39:57 -0500 >Although I agree with most of what you've written here, I think >you are excluding a lot of UFO occupant reports which describe >beings as blobs, bug-eyed monsters, robots (perhaps rightly >excluding creatures with tentacles), etc. The majority of >reports describe small, large skulled creatures, but there are >also a wide variety of other beings in the annuls of UFO history. >I'm not really disputing anything you have written here, but I >just thought I'd point this out. If you want some particular >examples, I can list them in another message. >ScottR. This is a point that Russ Estes and I addressed in FACES OF THE VISITORS recently published by Simon and Schuster. It is a look at the descriptions of alien creatures provided by witnesses since 1947. There is a wide variety of them, not just the small, humanoid beings that we have become to accept. Some of those reported, especially from South America can be attributed to science fiction movies. KRandle www.crystalsky.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 Bill English? From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:55:06 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:24:08 -0500 Subject: Bill English? I am wondering if anyone knows what became of a man named Bill English? If so, can you provide a way to get in touch with him? Thanks BB
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 Warminister UFO - farl 1967 From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 03:01:47 +1000 (GMT+1000) Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:44:32 -0500 Subject: Warminister UFO - farl 1967 Warminster 1967/Ohio 1948 Warminster and it is autumn of 1967. 35 skywatchers pulled off the highway between the villages of Chittern and Shrewton and saw: ".... a huge object in a blue sky unsullied by cloud. Here was a prime example of a daytime UFO in all its magnificent might, silhouetted against an azure backcloth in the heavens. It was a sober grey in colour, resembling base gunmetal, until the sun shone on its circular structure, surmounted by a hemi- spherical dome or turret. Then it blazed with silvery brilliance, sparkled with gem-like magic. To our gaze, it was the size of a small moon.... ".... temporary absentees missed the dramatic disappearance of the slightly tilted aeroform. One moment, boldly and brazenly, it was there. The next, with no tell-tale fading of outlines, it was gone! Naturally we all concluded that it had moved off at such a prodigious rate that it had deceived our eyes.... Some three minutes passed...... ".....a shriek came from a female watcher. "Good God! Look what's happening. It can't be true." "We..... saw the same spectacular sky chariot materializing on the very same ble spot from which it had vanished. This beautiful and out-of-this-world scene almost beggars description in our limited terminology....... Imagine a bevy of industrious spiders busily billowing out the silvery strands of glistening gossamer that fashion their nests or cobwebs; or imagine shining silkworms churning out their choicely delicate threads of silk into lusterous coccoons. Speed up this enchanging natural process a million times and magnify these superb domestic insects in action accordingly, and it gives some clumsily-worded impression......... "Gradually,the silver-white filaments were interlacing, interweaving and interlocking, spinning speedily from side to side or bobbing up and down like shuttles on a weaver's loom. It took another three minutes or so before each intricate piece was launched back into the jigsaw, resolving themselves into the apparently metallic shape of the enormous flying sorcerer....." [ Arthur Shuttlewood "The Flying Saucerers" Sphere 1976 p 60-61 ] ----------------------------------------------------------- Posted in light of the Mantell discussion and the recent sightings in Ohio &tc. Lawrie Williams_____________ 1947 September 23 After a conference between personnel of the Air Insitute of Technology, Intelligence, T-2 Office, the Chief of the Engineering Division, & parts of Division T-3, Lt.Gen. Nathan F Twining reported on September 23 1947 that these "flying discs" were "real and not visionary and ficticious." They concluded that: "There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc.."circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domes on top..."
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 UFO Scotland website From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 02:01:44 +0000 Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:48:49 -0500 Subject: UFO Scotland website Hi Errol and list, Just a quick line to let the members know that my website "ufo Scotland" is now up and running and can be found at: http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger A special thank you to all the list members who assisted me in my research for the page. The kindness has been most impressive and I hope that this quality remains, among you all, long into the future. If any members should happen to come accross data from Scotland in the future, it would be most appreciated if you could forward it on to me at dledger@cableinet.co.uk Thank you for your time, Dave Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 Brazilian alien? From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 12:44:00 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:50:38 -0500 Subject: Brazilian alien? > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 13:26:09 UT > From: "Tim Weir" <chilli-t@classic.msn.com> > To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Brazilian alien > I realise that this list is based mainly upon UFOs, however I was > wondering if anyone could give me some information on the > Brazilian alien which was chased by officials through a > delapidated town and eventually killed in a zoo. > The alien was green in colour and appeared to have 'horns'. > I only know the very brief outline of the story but I would be > most appreciative if someone could point me in the right > direction (URLs, Books etc.) > Thanks in advance, > Tim Weir Tim, The material on this I've saved from Internet mails had the alien being brown, not green (not that I have anything against green-skinned aliens). But indeed with horns-like protuberances. I'll e-mail you a couple files on this. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 Light Show Over BC From: boliver@Direct.CA (Bill Oliver) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:19:16 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:52:08 -0500 Subject: Light Show Over BC Check out the latest reports from British Columbia. November 14th Light show,"Alaska Highway Encounter, Latest Sightings. You can find us at http://www.ufobc.org You can hear us soon on "Sightings On The Radio".
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:42:08 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:03:09 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:45:17 -0800 >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 >>From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c <snip> >>Now very possibly, although statistically highly >>improbably, 4 million US citizens have been >>abducted. OK. >Really? I didn't know the estimated number at all. I will keep it >as a handy reference. Thankyou. <snip> >Take care for now, >Cathy Johnson Dear Jakes, Cathy, List: There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, none, nada, zilch, that four million Americans have been abducted. There is not even a credible suggestion of same. It is a complete, total and utter fiction. (You see, now, Greg et al, why you ought to weigh in on the negative side on occasion.) That number comes from something known as the Roper Report, which is totally without any sort of substantiation whatsoever. It is a disservice to you personally to give it more than the time of day, and a greater disservice to the public at large to pass it around as if it had any meaning at all, let alone as if it were somehow proved. The number is a total charade and completely without foundation. If every ufologist in the world huffed and puffed to their hearts' content, and then huffed and puffed some more, they might be able to come up with a thousand abduction cases -- arguably half of which have never been investigated in any detail or depth whatsoever, if investigated at all. That is, they've simply been taken at face value. To argue, suggest, or believe otherwise is to seriously delude yourself. When it comes to the number four million, and the phrase "one in forty" in regard to abductions, be aware that they are one and the same, and equally and wholly without significance or meaning. Both are chimeras with a capital C, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who says otherwise probably listens to Art Bell in their underwear and is itching for a fight. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 16 Re: Many Think Light in Seattle Sky Was UFO From: TotlResrch@aol.com [Kal K. Korff] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:09:33 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 09:06:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Many Think Light in Seattle Sky Was UFO To: Updates@globalserve.net From: Kal K. Korff <TotlResrch@aol.com> Date: Sun, November 15, 1997 Re: Many Think Light in Seattle Sky Was UFO Dear List: Rebecca's posting is correct, the debris mentioned in question and sighted off the coast of Washintgon was from a Russian rocket. In fact, video footage of this decaying debris was shown later that same evening on the Northwest Cable News network throughout the states of Washington, Idaho and Oregon. In addition to this, there is also a meteor shower at present taking place, which will continue through Monday night, November 17th. Because of "El Nino" (according to the local press up here, who's to say for sure) the skies in the Seattle area have been unusually clear as of late, and it's been fairly warm with nary a drop of rain and a gorgeous full moon of recent. I have enjoyed these clear skies myself, and enjoyed personally witnessing some of these aerial displays as of late. Still, NO "ET" -- but I continue to be in awe of the beauty of Mother Nature nonetheless. Warmest Regards, Kal Korff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Compuserve UFO forum Marathon Week From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:36:10 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:52:32 -0500 Subject: Compuserve UFO forum Marathon Week UFO FORUM NEWS FLASH November 16, 1997 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> UFO MARATHON WEEK - STARTS NOW! UFO Synchronicities & Interconnectedness Special Guest - Forest Crawford Noon EST, 9PM PST, 5PM GMT Alternative Contact Conference Room [19] Forest Crawford, state director of Illionois MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) and the Illinois coordinator for the Center for Crop Circle Studies in the United States. Come discuss the research on synchronicities and correlations indicating an interconnectedness with different aspects of the UFO phenomenon. Tomorrow's Special Guest: BUDD HOPKINS! <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Below is the schedule of events. For more details on the individual conference guests and for information on how to enter the UFO FORUM LOGO CONTEST, please refer to UFOWK.TXT and LOGOWIN.TXT in the Forum Help/News/Nisa Library. Monday, Nov 17 - Abduction & Contact Co Rm 9PM EST, 6PM PST, 2AM(T)GMT - Budd Hopkins Tuesday, Nov 18 - Abduction & Contact Co Rm 9PM EST, 6PM PST, 2AM(W)GMT - Linda Cortile Wednesday, Nov 19 - Crashes/Roswell Co Rm 9PM EST, 6PM PST, 2AM(Th)GMT - Michael Hesemann Wednesday, Nov 19 - Alien Cultures Co Rm 10PM EST, 7PM PST, 3AM(Th)GMT - Patrick Huyghe Thursday, Nov 20 - Abduction & Contact Co Rm 9PM EST, 6PM PST, 2AM(F)GMT - John Velez Friday, Nov 21 - Alternative Contact Co Rm 9PM EST, 6PM PST, 2AM(S)GMT - Robert Stone Saturday, Nov 22 - CSETI:CE5/Starlight Co Rm 4PM EST, 1PM PST, 9PM GMT- Rick Butterfass Saturday, Nov 22 - CSETI:CE5/Starlight Co Rm 6PM EST, 3PM PST, 11PM GMT - Joe Burkes Saturday, Nov 22 - Science & UFOs Co Rm 8PM EST, 5PM PST, 1AM[Su] GMT - Dr. Bruce Maccabee Sunday, Nov 23 - Alternative Contact Co RM 2PM EST, 11AM PST, 7PM GMT - Lyssa Royal Sunday, Nov 23 - Investigators Co Rm 3PM EST, 12PM PST, 8PM GMT - Stanton Friedman Sunday, Nov 23 - UFO:Pop Culture Co Rm 7PM EST, 4PM PST, 12AM[M] GMT- Troy Hicks John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Bill English? From: "Clarke Hathaway" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:41:42 -0700 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:54:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Bill English? > From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:55:06 -0600 > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: looking for > I am wondering if anyone knows what became of a man named Bill English? > If so, can you provide a way to get in touch with him? Bill is on the WWW, he is an ISP in New Mexico. I will see if I can find the URL and send it to you. If I do not get back to you send me a private e-mail reminding me, as I have been busy doing a few websites. Clarke
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:59:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:21:39 -0500 >From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >With the compliments of the Duke of Mendoza: >>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 03:37:53 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >What I remember is this, from someone who has slightly better >claim than you to be an authority on the case: >>Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:44:47 +0100 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Here some relevant paragraphs: >>Now about the F16 radar echoes. This was intensively studied and >>compared with previous studies. This event had ground visual >>observations by different gendarmes (policemens) at different >>location, ground radar echoes from civilian and military and of >>course the F16 radar recordings. But even with all these >>extraordinar conjuction of evidences, all of them could be >>explained by conventional phenomenon. This does not mean there >>was not an UFO, but it means that the question becomes >>undecidable. Christophe also said: 'My father proposed an explanation for all radar related evidences.' Note PROPOSED. And: 'So to me what happened in Belgium these two years remain an unsolved mystery and the proposed explanation for radar evidence hardly scratch the mystery.' >But Henny persists: >>Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been >>witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the >>erratic signal? Which would explain the mystery better than any other explanation. >Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO >performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I >think not. No, and the aliens didn't wave back either. >I also recall that you refused to do some background >reading on radar, lest the purity of your premature conclusions >be contaminated by giving (unasked, as it happens) pleasure to >one you caricature as a debunker. You have to improve your remote viewing skills, Duke. I did do background reading, only not from the Blue Book crap that Eduardo suggested. (The silence from Italy is deafening after I asked Eduaro for specifics about the temperature inversion). So, again: >>no matter how many times the facts are pointed out of >>a solid case, some people are capable of producing an >>infinite amount of bogus to attack the case. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 44 From: Masinaigan@aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:14:50 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:31:24 -0500 Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 44 UFO ROUNDUP Volume 2, Number 44 November 16, 1997 Editor: Joseph Trainor MYSTERIOUS BRIGHT LIGHTS SEEN IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST Thousands of people in the USA's Pacific Northwest region watched Friday night, November 14, 1997, as mysterious bright lights slowly crossed the night sky. The lights were first spotted at 9:06 p.m. Pacific time on the western horizon. One witness, David Way of Keizer, Oregon, said, "It was the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. It looked like something out of Star Trek." (See the Salem, Oregon Statesman-Journal for November 15, 1997) The National UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, Washington was bombarded with thousands of phone calls from eyewitnesses. NORAD and the U.S. Air Force said the "lights" were debris from a Russian SL-12 space rocket "burning up as it reentered the atmosphere." "Whatever was left of it fell safely in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington, said Milt Maas at the National Weather Service in Spokane," Wash. (See the Providence Sunday Journal for November 16, 1997, page A-3) Yet eyewitnesses from Bellingham, Washington to Sacramento, California reported seeing the "bright lights" cross the vault of sky from west to east. In Seattle, videotape of the lights was aired on all three network affiliates--KOMO, KIRO and KING-- at 11 p.m. the night of November 14. According to one viewer, Glen Boyd, "Video I saw showed a large array of lights with trails behind them, traveling across Puget Sound." The lights remained in view from 9:06 p.m. to 9:17 p.m., a total of 11 minutes. Much too slow to be conventional meteors or "space junk." According to Skywatch International, "At approx- imately 9:15 tonight, a formation of as many as twenty lights traveling from west to east was seen by thousands in the Pacific Northwest and Seattle in particular." Witnesses watched the event from Alki Beach in West Seattle, on the shore of Puget Sound. One man reported, "The objects to be looking like 'sparks coming out of a Roman candle' but traveling slowly across the horizon," adding that "the objects traveled in a line and appeared so close he thought 'they were going to crash in downtown Seattle.' He also said he could see smoke coming from the objects. Some reported seeing 'a large triangular-shaped craft.'" (USENET Item) One caller telephoned the Art Bell radio show and reported seeing "wreckage" in Ellensburg, Washington (population 12,361). Ellensburg is on Highway 97 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southeast of Seattle. According to John Erickson of the Paranormal Times, in Portland, Oregon at 9:10 p.m. "one adult, two 13-year- olds and one 8-year-old in a car (plus many others in the state) all saw a cluster of white blinking lights moving slowly near the intersection of Interstate (Highway) 5 and Ballinger Way (NE 205th Street). The lights were blinking slowly. It looked like a mass of brighter and dimmer stars." Oregon witnesses heard no sound associated with the overflight. "There were dim trails after the objects." (See the Paranormal Times for November 15, 1997) In Klamath Falls, Oregon (population 17,737), witnesses described "three large objects" covered with "blinking lights" moving slowly from west to east. In Sacramento, California (population 369,365), witnesses reported seeing "a bright light streak" in the northern sky. Friday night's overflight was the biggest mass sighting of anomalous lights in the night sky since the March 13, 1997 event in Arizona. FRENCH UFO FLAP CONTINUES More UFOs were reported in France this week, with sightings taking place all over the nation. On Sunday, November 2, 1997, at 8:10 p.m., Anne- Marie Bousquet "was in Le Vernet, near Barantan, (department Allier--J.T.) in the company of my mother. We looked up into the sky nonchalantly at this moment and the sky was clear. That was when we saw flying very high a luminous ball of a whitish-blue color." "It appeared suddenly, and its disappearance took place after two seconds. This was not a meteorite. It was much bigger, more voluminous, an object perhaps 5 millimeters long if held at arm's length. It was moving very rapidly. The movement was from the zenith northeast to east. It appeared to extinguish itself just above Busset." That same night, November 2, 1997, at 8:15 p.m., Guillaume L. "was at Quissac, near my parents' home, when I observed a light on a nearby hill. At first, I was astonished to see a streetlight at this deserted place. The light was perfectly immobile." "All at once, the light departed very quickly in the direction of Montpellier, turning to the south-southeast, and I heard a distinct whistling sound that began with the OVNI's (French acronym for UFO--J.T.) movement." "Suddenly, while it seemed to be in flight toward Montpellier, it moved up, i.e. to say, vertically, following an instantaneous right-hand turn, at fantastic speed. It was extraordinary! It could not have been an airplane, a helicopter or a meteorite. Impossible! I am absolutely certain that it was an OVNI. Before I had no belief in them, but now I know they exist." (Merci beaucoup au Banque OVNI et Marie Franck pour ces nouvelles.) On October 10, 1997, at 11:30 p.m., Antoine D. was at his home in Grandvillier, adjusting his telescope when he noticed "a bright point flying from north to south." Grabbing his binoculars, he glimpsed "a luminous glow" that soon "had taken the form of a nearly flat disk of a vivid white color." He adjusted the binoculars from zoom to 20X and watched as the UFO "flew a perfectly rectilinear path" making "such a turn at the vertical that I could barely follow it." The UFO darted off "in a surprising acceleration and disappeared to the south." (Merci beaucoup a Thierry Garnier pour ces nouvelles.) UFO SEEN TWICE OVER SMALL TOWN IN ENGLAND On October 14, 1997, "a Livingston woman froze with terror after spotting a strange light coming from the sky in Nigel Rise, Dedridge" in England. "'I've never seen anything like it,' said the 31-year-old woman, who prefers not to be named. 'People have told me that it must have been a laser light, but you don't see laser lights like this--it lit up the whole side of the house in front of me. It absolutely wasn't lightning, and it came on and went off a couple of times,' she added, 'Strangely, two planes came over, and when the planes were there, the light went off.'" (See the Herald & Post for October 16, 1997.) "An Eilburn woman has reported seeing the strange light which was spotted over Dedridge last week." "'I was gobsmacked,' said the 27-year-old mum, who asked not to be named, 'When I read about it in last week's Post, I told my husband, 'That's what I saw.''" "She spotted the light at 4:30 p.m. (October 14) while walking across the footbridge between Ladywell and Craigshill. 'I do a lot of stargazing,' she added, 'And I know for a fact that it wasn't a satellite, although it did look a bit like one. It was very slow-moving in the sky and about the size of a football. It had a very subtle blue light and reminded me of a Trelar mint. It looked like it was straight above Dedridge." (See the Herald & Post for October 23, 1997. Many thanks to the U.K. UFO Network for sending these news stories.) SPINNING UFO, WEIRD FLASHES VIDEOTAPED IN SCOTLAND Bonnybridge, the center of Scotland's UFO flap during 1995 and 1996, was the site of a new encounter at the end of October 1997. On October 21, 1997, the Malcolm family, who lives near a hillside Roman fort overlooking Bonnybridge, saw "a spinning UFO" hovering outdoors at 7:25 p.m. Aiming his videocamera at the object, Mr. Malcolm caught it on tape. Two minutes later, the sky was filled with "hyper-jumping, laser-like bursts." On October 23, 1997, at 6:48 p.m., the same "pulsing, erratic, hyper-jumping lights" again appeared. A friend of the Malcolm family, who declined to be identified, was driving from Bonnybridge to Larbert when she saw "two large orbs of light and a smaller probe-like orb. They merged together into one large mass. She drove fast to get to the Malcolms' house to alert them, but Mrs. Malcolm had seen the event from the front of her house and was pumping the horn of a parked car to alert" her husband. At 6:51 p.m., videocamera in hand, Mr. Malcolm taped the "large mass of light." On the video, "in slow motion, it can clearly be seen to spin and can be compared to the streetlights below." At 6:53 p.m., "the object moved to the right, in relation to the streetlights, and as the object was being filmed, a big red double-decker bus drives through the frame, as the object spins in the background." At 6:54 p.m., the spinning UFO "moves away behind the hill and is lost from view." At 7:11 p.m., the mysterious flashes again lit up the sky over Bonnybridge. (Many thanks to Neil Cunningham and CSETI for this story.) DAYLIGHT UFOs SPOTTED IN CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND On Wednesday, November 12, 1997, at 7:40 a.m., a few dozen witnesses in the Port Hills section of Christchurch, South Island, New Zealand reported seeing "two eye-shaped objects traveling from south to north" over the seaport city "at approximately 80 to 100 miles per hour at an approximate altitude of 3,500 feet." The condition of the sky at the time was mostly clear with some light clouds and wind gusts of up to 80 knots. "The objects appeared to be 12-plus feet (4 meters) across in size." The UFOs "appeared to be shaped like human eyes. In the center was a silver ball, and the outer areas were black and tapered off to a point. The objects traveled above light cloud in blue sky, and there were heavy gusts of wind at the time." (Many thanks to Ross Dowe and his New Zealand National UFO Hotline. New Zealand readers wishing to report a UFO can reach Ross Dowe at PH 090 05 8367.) SPINNING UFO SEEN IN ITALY On October 16, 1997, a city official in San Nicolo Comelico, Belluno province, Italy and his family watched a hovering UFO for four hours. He described the object as "a pale luminous light at first" and "it left at 8:30 that evening, rapidly taking off, changing its form to that of a spinning top that seemed to emit a blue smoke from its underside." (See the Italian newspaper Liberta for October 31, 1997. Grazie a Stefano Cappucciati e Edoardo Russo di CISU per questo rapportto.) ANOTHER UFO SIGHTING IN CENTRAL FLORIDA On Friday, November 9, 1997, at 8:45 p.m.. Richard L. reported, "Friends and I looked up to see what we thought was a meteor approaching from the northeast. Suddenly it gouted orange/red flames. A moment (passed) and more gusts of flames. It lit up the craft--looked disk-shaped." The group was in Orlando, Florida (population 128,394), approximately 229 miles (366 kilometers) north of Miami. He added, "Then, after a few moments, it turned and headed north-northeast. It shot off a few more gouts of flame, then flew off till it became a speck of light in the distance. The craft was one light--yellowish-white. No running lights as would be seen on a plane or a helicopter." (USENET Item) TRIANGULAR-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN EASTERN GEORGIA On Wednesday, November 5, 1997, at 6:30 p.m., Curtis F. was at his home in Augusta, Georgia (population 47,532), a city on the Savannah River bordering South Carolina, approximately 151 miles (142 kilometers) east of Atlanta. All at once, he "heard a loud roaring noise." "The noise gew to such an intensity that he thought a jet was about to crash. Looking out the window, Curtis saw a distant flying light. As he watched, the unknown light broke apart. One triangular-shaped portion with flashing red and white lights flew away to the southeast--the other part, also with lights, flew off to the north." Curtis "could not ascertain its shape or color. The larger object was observed for a minute before it disappeared, the smaller for only five seconds. Both continued to travel horizontally and at approximately jet speed." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #45. Thanks to George A. Filer and John Thompson of MUFON for this report.) WINGATE'S MOON PROJECT PINPOINTS MANY LUNAR ANOMALIES For the past three years, Steve Wingate, director of Northern California Skywatch, has been analyzing closeup photos of Luna (the Moon--J.T.), looking for unusual and perhaps artificial features. Wingate has anazlyed hundreds of photos taken by NASA's lunar orbiter Clementine between February and April 1994. "I use Paintshop Pro, 3.12 to process the images using custom filters," he wrote, "The majority of images are processed by myself." Clemetine was launched on January 25, 1994 aboard a Titan IIG rocket from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. The orbiter was part of the Deep Space Program Science Experiment (DSPSE), a joint project of NASA and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Interestingly, Wingate has identified several lunar anomalies in the region of Picard and Gassendi craters. At Picard crater, in the Mare Crisium (Sea of Crises-- J.T.), "on left side of Picard, at 11 o'clock position, one can see several startling anomalies. There is a dark spot which seems to be surrounded by several strange features. There is a row of correspondingly smaller round objects that seem to be lined up in a very regular fashion," Wingate reported. "They might be the support structure of a U-shaped elliptical dome, or above-ground tunnel-like structure...There is also a collection of structures which appears to resemble huge chutes at approximately 11:45 on the rim of the crater." Picard crater has long been a hot spot for what astronomers call "transient lunar phenomena" (TLP). On August 10, 1865, as anstronomer named Ingall spotted "a most minute point of light glittering like a star' just west of Picard. (See the Astronomical Register 3-189) On September 5, 1865, Ingall again reported "a conspicuous bright spot west of Picard" (See the Astronomical Register 3-252. Also COMPLETE BOOKS OF CHARLES FORT, Dover Press, N.Y. 1974, pages 426-427) On December 11, 1915, astronomer Bernald Thomas of Glenorchy, Tasmania, Australia saw "a particularly bright spot" on the north shore of the Mare Crisium" that "looked like a star." (English Mechanic 203-12) To view Steve Wingate's Clementine photos and detailed commentary, go to this URL: http://www.anomalous-images.com/clemmoon.html#New13. BIGFOOT TRACKS FOUND IN WESTERN WISCONSIN On Monday, November 3, 1997, Bigfoot tracks were found near the Christy Mountain Ski Area near Rice Lake, Wisconsin (population 9887), located about 295 miles (472 kilometers) northwest of Milwaukee. "Brad Mortenson of the U.S. Expedition and Exploration Society said three tracks found Monday could be from the mysterious-- some say mythical--ape-like creature known as Bigfoot." "He describes the tracks as about 16 to 17.5 inches long and 8 inches wide at the widest." "Asked about the shape, he said, 'It looks like a big foot. It's very distinct.'" "One print showed five toes, and the impressions indicated a creature with a stride of about 4 1/2 feet, typical for the Bigfoot." "Mortenson, 41, of Sarona said he started receiving reports about possible Bigfoot activity after a local newspaper report two weeks ago told about his work with the society, based in Doris, Calif." "'After that we started getting the reports of people coming across the tracks in the Blue Hills,' he said." "That's the hilly wooded region around the Barron County-Rusk County Line (just east of Rice Lake--J.T.) where a preliminary search turned up the tracks this week, he said." (See the Duluth, Minnesota News-Tribune for November 6, 1997, "Bigfoot Searcher Targets Wisconsin," page B-3) CRIPPLED SOLAR PANEL DELAYS MARS SURVEYOR MAP MISSION "NASA's Mars Surveyor is back on track with a redesigned mission that will cost several million dollars more to complete its goals, scientists said Monday" November 10, 1997. In October, the Mars Surveyor began its aerobraking maneuvers, "using the planet's atmosphere to slow down and get into the right orbit" when "one of its fragile, winglike solar panels bent too far." "Managers moved the probe in a higher orbit while they studied the problem." "Once they decided aerobraking was safe, they had the Surveyor resume the maneuvers to get into a lower orbit." "But the probe will go much slower than planned because managers are concerned that too much atmospheric friction could damage the solar panel, which they think was fractured slightly early in the mission." "The slower descent will delay the mapping of the Martian surface by a year, NASA said Monday. The two-year mapping mission is now set to begin in March 1999." "NASA says the redesigned mission will cost 'several million dollars' beyond the $248 million project cost." "'We will still get global coverage (of Mars),' says Arden Albee, project scientist at the California Institute of Technology. 'We are happy that we have not in any way lost the mission.'" (See USA Today for November 11, 1997, "Mars Surveyor Mission Will Take Longer, Cost More," page A-3) from the UFO Files... 1953: THE ESSEX FLAP On November 13, 1953, British viewers watching their black-and-white "telly" were amazed when the BBC presented a newsreel describing an encounter between a flying saucer and two RAF jet planes. The two pilots said "that they saw, while in the air, a saucer whose speed was fantastic. As it moved, it jetted flames or a light that appeared brighter at the periphery than in the center." "At 7 p.m., a circular object, blue in the center, was seen over Southend, Essex, trailing sparks. Altitude not very high, course horizontal, north to south." "At 7:10 p.m., the same or a similar object was seen, glowing, to pass over Guildford, sixty-five miles away. Probably speed: 360 miles an hour." (See FLYING SAUCERS UNCENSORED by Harold T. Wilkins, The Citadel Press, 1955, page 62.) ROUNDUP CORRIGENDA: Last week's UFO ROUNDUP erroneously attributed a quote by the Irish UFO and Paranormal Research Association (IUFOPRA) to Dave Walsh, publisher of the online newsletter Nua Blather. Mr. Walsh responded, "I DID NOT write this. The IUFOPRA Investigation Team did. I am not a member of IUFOPRA. I am not affiliated with any UFO-related organization." Nua Blather, he added, "is a humorous weekly of Dogma Destruction, Forteana and High Weirdness, which looks at how our belief systems and reality tunnels influence our interpretations of the 'truth' presented to us by the popular (and not so popular) media." FUN UFO WEBSITES: Check out Bill Holden's new page at this URL: http://www.anw.com/ufotruth/ Henny van Pluijm answers the most common questions asked about UFOs at his website, UFO FAQ. You'll find this enjoyable website at http://www.ufoic.com/faq/ For an interesting article on ufology in China, try http://detnews.com:80/1997/nation/8711/08/ 11070173.htm Don't miss our parent site, UFOINFO, at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/ To download back issues of UFO ROUNDUP, drop in at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/roundup That's it for this week. To our readers in eastern Europe, enjoy St. Mechtildis Day today. Next year will be the 700th anniversary of her martyrdom. And we'll be back in seven days with more saucer news from "the paper that goes home-- UFO ROUNDUP." See you then. UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 1997 by Masinaigan Productions, all rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO ROUNDUP on their websites or in news groups provided that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in which the item first appeared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:11:03 PST Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:50:24 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:39:53 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 18:08:43 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > <snip> > >> At the current level of specialization in the sciences, a general > >> paper on UFOs would find it difficult to fit into the narrow > >> scheme of many journals. > >> But I suspect that one might be able to write narrowly tailored > >> articles (I believe Bruce M. has done this) for narrow journals. > >> Optics journals might take some papers where a UFO observation > >> could be clearly related to an important optical topic. > >Hello Mark, > >And this reminds me that one Dr. Levengood published a couple > >articles on crop circles in some plant-pathology journal, but got > >away with it because he didn't ever mention UFOs and instead > >blamed it on "plasma vortices" that descend from the upper > >atmosphere, do their thing, and then exit the scene. A matter of > >terminology! > >But if the paper is narrowly tailored to one specific phenomenon > >or event and if you assiduously refrain from using any UFO > >terminology, you're right -- it's sometimes possible then to get > >a paper on it accepted within a mainstream scientific journal. > >Jim Deardorff > The world isn't quite that simple, Jim. Science, and therefore > science journals, dealy primarily with repeatable laboratory > tests and analyses. Other scientists read the papers, and, if > they're interested, repeat the results in their own > laboratories. > Science is not primarily interested in anecdotes. Thus there are > scientific journals on vulcanology not because of poorly > substantianted eyewitness accounts of volcanoes erupting, but > because any scientists who wants to can witness one in action, > acquire samples in the field, and haul them back to the lab. > As you know, that rarely happens in ufology. Take the famous > Linda Cortile case, for example, about which an entire book has > been written. The only thing that can be considered even remotely > of interest to science in that book is the presence of some sand > samples which have allegedly been altered "somehow." Despite the > cases's sensational claims, there's not much there to interest a > scientist of any persuasion, or a science journal either. How is > science even going to attempt to prove, for example, theat the > Secretary General of the United Nations was abducted by a > spaceship from another planet which then dove under the Hudson > River? > "Ah, yes, I see...and you acquired these samples _how_?" > After stating where the samples were supposed to have come from, > you'll probably be asked if you recognize that rectangular shape > in the wall over there and how it works. "You see that little > round thing on one side, about half way up? Well, you turn it to > the right and then push. That will take you to the street, which > is the wide, paved avenue with cars on it. Please pass along it > in either direction until you are completely out of sight. And > don't call us -- we'll call you. All in good time." > Fact is, ufology itself suffers from much the same problem. If > you look at the latest issue of the Journal of UFO Studies, the > field's only referreed journal, for example, you'll see that only > one of the major articles deals with what might be described as a > UFO sighting or report. All the rest, along with the usual book > reviews, are essentially historical or analytical in nature. > By the same token, the last MUFON Symposium Proceedings published > this summer contained 13 papers, only two of which could be > considered a scientific analysis of anything, and one of those is > an analysis of abduction accounts, not hard abduction evidence. > The rest are all commentary or reflection. > Now, suppose Paul Deveruex or Robert Baker wanted to submit a > scientific article to JUFOS that attributed the abduction > phenomenon to lucid dreams or sleep paralysis, respectively? How > far along the peer review process do you think it would get > before being rejected? There is so much in Dennis' posting here that is wrong- headed, goofy, and just plain strange -- not to mention its naive view of what constitutes scientific inquiry. (I encourage interested readers to turn to the writings of Bauer, Westrum, Hufford, Truzzi, and others for a more sensible, balanced view of why science has such a hard time dealing with anomalies such as UFOs, cryptozoological animals, parapsychological phenomena, and so on.) This last sentence, however, is just plain offensive. JUFOS is open to all reasonable points of view on all UFO- related questions, and both Baker and Devereux have already been published in its pages. Were they to write solid papers, they would be published again. What a load of rubbish, and what an insult to the integrity of CUFOS officers (of whom I am one), JUFOS' past editor Mike Swords, and its current editor Stuart Appelle. And, may I said, what a desperate exercise in special pleading and victomology. The real question is, why the enormous difficulty of getting scientific papers on UFOs published in mainstream scientific journals? Dennis is so ufologist-phobic by now that he has become an apologist for just about every debunking excess, and for science's shameful neglect of one of the most interesting questions of the 20th Century. Hynek and McDonald, who wrote eloquently on the subject, must be spinning in their graves. The question has to be asked: Is Dennis on ufology's side in ANY question? Jerry Clark Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Hot Spots From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:12:50 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:58:44 -0500 Subject: Hot Spots Hi List, I am compiling a list of UFO hot spots. Yesterday I saw a Discovery Channel docu that featured sightings in the US town of Dundee. Can someone inform me privately in which state this town lies. Tmia. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:45:03 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:30:03 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:42:08 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] > >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:45:17 -0800 > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 > >>From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > >>To: updates@globalserve.net > >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > <snip> > >>Now very possibly, although statistically highly > >>improbably, 4 million US citizens have been > >>abducted. OK. > >Really? I didn't know the estimated number at all. I will keep it > >as a handy reference. Thankyou. > <snip> > >Take care for now, > >Cathy Johnson > Dear Jakes, Cathy, List: > There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, none, nada, zilch, > that four million Americans have been abducted. There is not even > a credible suggestion of same. It is a complete, total and utter > fiction. (You see, now, Greg et al, why you ought to weigh in on > the negative side on occasion.) > That number comes from something known as the Roper Report, which > is totally without any sort of substantiation whatsoever. It is a > disservice to you personally to give it more than the time of > day, and a greater disservice to the public at large to pass it > around as if it had any meaning at all, let alone as if it were > somehow proved. The number is a total charade and completely > without foundation. > If every ufologist in the world huffed and puffed to their > hearts' content, and then huffed and puffed some more, they might > be able to come up with a thousand abduction cases -- arguably > half of which have never been investigated in any detail or depth > whatsoever, if investigated at all. That is, they've simply been > taken at face value. <Snip> > Dennis Why should your unsubstantiated estimate of 1,000 be taken any more seriously than the Roper Report? If we really want a more reliable estimate, why doesn't MUFON do its own survey? Search for other documents from or mentioning: john.koopmans | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Crop Circle Connector #50 From: Mark Fussell <mjfussell@marque.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:22:22 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:29:07 -0500 Subject: Crop Circle Connector #50 Welcome to the Crop Circle Connector Mailing List #50 Hi WHAT`S NEW on the Crop Circle Connector at:- http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/crop_circles/anasazi/whatsnew.html Updated Sunday 16th November 1997 (Members 2270) *************************************************************** DELUXE, GLOSSY 1998 CROP CIRCLE CALENDAR *****BUY NOW BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS RUSH***** EMAIL TO RESERVE YOUR CALENDAR NOW A Stunning 12x16 inches calendar incorporating photographs of the 1997 formations in four different languages for that International appeal! If you would like to receive your 1998 Crop Circle Calendar before Christmas, please make sure your order and money are received no later than 6th December 1997 for USA orders and 13th December for European orders. email for details:- calendar@marque.demon.co.uk ***************************************** The November 1997 Crop Circle Connector Competition Prize Draw Your chance to win a delux 1998 Crop Circle Calendar, plus a set of 30 colour photographs of the best Crop formations from 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. A set of 10 postcards and a copy of the Music CD "Signs of Life" (Music inspired by the Crop Circles). All photographs & images on the CD by Steve Alexander. 2nd prize one free calendar. To enter go to:- http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/crop_circles/anasazi/nov97.html ***************************************** The Cereologist 1998 Crop Circle Conference at the Cricklade Theatre Andover July 11th 1997 More details in the new year! Keep it in your diaries ***************************************** Dorchester Conference, Dorset UFO's Crop Circle Formations and Government Conspiracies More intrigue on this fascinating day next April in 1998 ***************************************** The Austrian Connection! This is a series of fascinating reports from Austria on three new formations that appeared, and may have an amasing connection to the English patterns on this year Andreas Muller reports on the new discoveries ***************************************** More Trial's in the landscape An image and report on these unusual markings in the crops, which could have possible connections to the phenomenon. See Crop Circles 1997 ***************************************** FGK Homepage update on their personal homepgae, with the latest findings from Germany and abroad! ***************************************** The Flattened Bunny Phenomenon! We might joke, but this unfortuate Rabbit was found squeezed between the flattened stalks in the Nieuwerkerk formation in Holland this year (Dutch Julia Set) See International Crop Circles 1997 *************************************** A MAJOR SERIES OF HISTORICAL REPORTS Alton Barnes, Nr Devizes, Wiltshire 1990 This is the start of a major update on our historical reports of the Crop Circles of the passed, starting with 1990. We are celebrating this formation with a nostalgic look back on a formation that started it all! New report, and images never seen before on the most famous Crop Circle of them all! See Crop Circles 1990 *************************************** Ilyes Homepage Two new articles on the Hugpoint Sandrings and the Moscow Snowrings. A series of articles of these fascinating markings in two diverse surfaces. ilyes discusses the latest findings ALSO Oregon`s sri yantra. A gift of the Circlemakers Updated with this new photo *************************************** All the best Stuart & Mark * The Koch Fractal, Silbury Hill, 1997 :/\: .-- --. . :\ /: . *__/\__/ \__/\__* :\ /: ./__ __\. Mark Fussell: ':\ /:' mailto:mjfussell@marque.demon.co.uk .'__/ \__'. \ / Subscribe: :/_ __ __ _\: news:alt.paranormal.crop-circles * :\/: \ / :\/: * . :/ \: . The Crop Circle Connector Web Site at: .-- --. http://www.marque.demon.co.uk/connector/connector.html :\/: *
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Chat with Ufologist Bruce Maccabee From: "Yvonne Hedenland" <VONNI_H@classic.msn.com> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 97 22:24:41 UT Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:19:57 -0500 Subject: Chat with Ufologist Bruce Maccabee Gulf Breeze, Florida has long been known for it's repetitive UFO "traffic". On Nov.18th 6pm PT, join MSN UFO Forum and Ufologist Dr. Bruce Maccabee as we discuss his investigations into this area in detail. This chat is available at: http://forums.msn.com/UFO. The Briefing Room chat can be accessed by any IRC client. The chat server name is publicchat.msn.com and the room or channel name is #briefing.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Bill English? From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:59:16 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:31:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Bill English? >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:55:06 -0600 >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: looking for >I am wondering if anyone knows what became of a man named Bill >English? >If so, can you provide a way to get in touch with him? I would be interested in writing to Mr. Bill English. I did exchange a few messages with him on a BBS connected to the Internet a few years ago. At that time, he was very sick and discouraged from doing a whole lot of anything. I hope he is better than he was then. Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:47:49 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:42:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:33:34 -0800 >> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:46:02 +0100 >> From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >> To: updates@globalserve.net >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Re-Media Influence on Abduction Reports >> The question though is, have others on the list had witnesses >> relate this same type of occurance to them? Also, knowing it is >> possible that the CE3K movie scene influences this type of >> incident, is it not also possible that this is a regular >> occurance and that Spielberg used a real life experience in the >> movie that he had come across while writing the script. The ole' >> chicken or the egg puzzle. >I never have read one way or the other, but I always assumed >there was some relationship to the following case: >10/21/63 - Moreno, family, and employee; Trancas, Argentina; >evening / early morning > Report Summary >...Moreno was awakened... by a fifteen year old employee at his >ranch... The boy told him that there had apparently been an >accident at the railroad tracks... about a half mile from the >main house. The area was illuminated and people could be seen >moving around... Hi Don, Mark, All, I just wanted to jump in for a sec to contribute a 'tidbit' that relates to a detail mentioned in the "Moreno" report. >Sr. Moreno... awakened his wife... they... [saw] a luminous >oval-shaped object which was hovering just a few feet in the air >over the railroad tracks. It was projecting a beam of light to >the ground,...(here comes the piece I'm talking about! JV)... >where human-looking figures could be seen moving to and fro in >single file, I have had an oportunity to read countless letters from "abductees" and to date I have had (direct) dealings with over two hundred individuals via the IF website. Certain 'odd details' seem to surface over and over again in the accounts that I have been privy to that beg further investigation. In your retelling of the 'Moreno' encounter you have touched on one such 'odd detail' I myself, and several others that have contacted me recall these beings moving around in a 'single file.' Russ Hudson recalls them moving in a single file in what he described as a, "Rock step!" (Doo wah ditty aliens! <G>) Budd told me of a multiple sighting/abduction that happened to a group of teenagers in New England who reported seeing several small grey beings wearing what looked like little 'miners helmets' that had a small light on the front and that they were running to and fro -in a single file.- I'm not relating this information in order to argue for or against these accounts, or whether the fact that aliens may 'bop' around in single files has any real relevance or meaning. It's just "one more" of those (curious) details that seems to surface time and again in contact reports from varied individuals who don't know each other and have never met. Strictly FYI gents, thought I'd share it. To a 'calypso' rhythm: "Hop in dee line, rock your body in time, ...everybody!" John Velez ;) John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Large triangular UFO seen over Santa Barbara From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:01:49 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:03:06 -0500 Subject: Large triangular UFO seen over Santa Barbara Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 02:32:52 +0200 From: "Perry"MaN in Space"" <uasr@MyList.net> To: AlienResearch@Earthcorp.com, UASR@MyList.net Subject: [UASR]> Fw: Large triangular UFO seen over Santa Barbara Channel, Ca. ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ ****<>UASR<>UASR<>UASR<>UASR<>UASR<>UASR<>UASR<>**** ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ FROM :Doc in Phoenix -----Original Message----- From: A.J. Craddock <webmaster@cseti.org> To: webmaster@cseti.org <webmaster@cseti.org> Date: maandag 17 november 1997 0:54 Subject: Large triangular UFO seen over Santa Barbara Channel, Ca. At approximately 10:05 pm on Friday 14th November 1997, Dr. Ted Loder and Tony Craddock were checking out new nightscopes from Tony's house overlooking the Santa Barbara Channel. Ted was using an ITT Night Mariner (Model G3) and Tony a Litton NightMate (Model Nav3) each with a light magnification of 30,000 to 50,000x. They both happened to be looking through the nightscopes at Jupiter, which was about ten degrees above the horizon and over the island of San Miguel. Simultaneously they both saw a set of lights near Jupiter in the shape of a large triangle silently flying eastward down the Santa Barbara Channel. They followed it for about six seconds until it disappeared behind some trees. Both realized that the visible lights were on the outside edges of a large craft which was not itself visible in the night scopes. A few seconds after the initial recognition, both saw the craft tilt slightly on its side so that its triangular shape could be more clearly seen. Its shape was delineated by five to eight lights along its edges clearly visible through the nightscopes. Ted Loder counted five or six lights in the shape of a triangle seen partly on its side, while Tony Craddock saw an additional one or two lights in the center towards the rear, making it appear chevron or boomerang shaped. Tony had the clearer nightscope which may explain why he was able to see the extra lights. Both had the impression that it was not lights independently flying in formation but a solid craft. The length of the craft appeared to be longer than the sword on Orion's belt and shorter than Orion's belt itself. The craft was not visible with the naked eye and was not seen by the two other people who were present without nightscopes. It was later estimated that the craft traveled through a visible arc of 75 degrees in about 6 seconds. It was estimated that the craft was at a distance of 5-10 miles, which would have meant it was traveling at approximately 4000-8000 mph. Both Ted Loder and Tony Craddock are members of CSETI (Center for the Study of E xtraterrestrial Intelligence), and attended CSETI's Congressional Briefing on UF O/ET in Washington DC on April 9th of this year. Dr. Loder is a Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of New Hampshire. Tony Craddock is President of an international petroleum consulting company and co-ordinates Santa Barbara's CSETI Working Group. Posted by : "Perry\"MaN in Space\"" <AlienResearch@Earthcorp.com> ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Send "subscribe" into the BODY to: UASR-request@MyList.net ^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ Search for other documents from or mentioning: louwje | uasr |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Study Estimates Age of the Moon From: RSchatte@aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 07:03:38 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:04:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Study Estimates Age of the Moon --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Study Estimates Age of the Moon Date: 97-11-16 12:15:43 EST From: AOL News .c The Associated Press By A.J. DICKERSON DETROIT (AP) - The moon's age is finally getting pinned down. Of course, age is relative in a universe billions of years old. A new study narrows the moon's age down to a 20-million-year range. Using a new tool to study lunar rocks, University of Michigan scientists have narrowed the time of the moon's formation to between 4.52 billion and 4.50 billion years ago. Scientists believe the planets in our solar system began forming about 4.57 billion years ago. ``People have come up with ages for rocks on the moon previously, but they've been rather imprecise. What we've done is pin down the age of the moon rather precisely,'' geological sciences professor Alexander Halliday said Nov. 10. Research by Halliday, his colleague Der-Chuen Lee and two University of Tennessee scientists also backs up the ``giant impact'' theory of how the moon was created. ``The basic idea is that a planet about the size of Mars or perhaps even larger hit the Earth with a glancing blow,'' Halliday said. The lunar rock studies suggest that the moon was formed from material from the Earth, from the planet that hit Earth or from a combination of the two. If the moon came from the planet that hit Earth, that planet's composition had to have been similar to the Earth's composition, Halliday said. The giant impact would have occurred about 50 million years after the start of our solar system. Research was done on 21 moon rocks using a recently developed method to analyze lunar samples. The equipment is capable of analyzing extremely small samples: in this case, less than a millionth of a gram of tungsten. Tungsten is a metal. The study looked at one isotope, or form, of tungsten. Measurements of the tungsten isotope in moon rocks gave results that suggest when the moon would have formed, Halliday said. The work at Michigan and by Tennessee researchers Gregory Snyder and Lawrence Taylor looked at several types of moon rocks, said Dr. Larry Nyquist, manager of the Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at NASA's Johnson Space Center at Houston. ``It's a very interesting discovery and something we have to try to factor into our own measurements,'' he said. There are four major theories about how the moon formed: Co-accretion: The moon formed in the same place and of the same materials as the Earth. Fission: The moon is a chunk of the Earth that was broken away from the planet and propelled into orbit by an asteroid impact. Giant Impact: The moon was a Mars-size rock that hit the Earth; a large part, perhaps in the form of molten rock, ricocheted into an orbit about the planet. Capture: The moon was a huge rock that wandered into Earth's gravitational grasp and was captured in the planet's orbit. AP-NY-11-16-97 1202EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:45:31 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:57:34 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:39:53 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c VERY selective snip: >As you know, that rarely happens in ufology. Dennis, you're onto what I'm saying. Great minds think alike? Look at the great "implant" issue, with extractions done by, if I remember, Dr. Derrell Sims (spelling?). The result: inconclusive evidence of a small metallic splinter, or more than one, that the body didn't reject, but created a cystic fibre around to protect the body from further damage. Odd? Strange? Not at all. Walk through any metal shop bare-foot and you're likely to be implanted <G!>. BUT: the guy's on the RIGHT TRACK! He INVESTIGATES! ANALYSES! For that, he gets my vote. Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 UFOR: The 1968 RAND Corporation Report on UFOs From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:54:57 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:51:09 -0500 Subject: UFOR: The 1968 RAND Corporation Report on UFOs From: Dr. Rachele Fishman <rayfish@cc.huji.ac.il> Dr. Fishman is a Scientist and a correspondent in Israel for Lancet The RAND Corporation RAND DOCUMENT UFOs: What to Do? George Kocher 27 November 1968 For RAND Use Only DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE IN EXTERNAL RAND PUBLICATIONS OR CORRESPONDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -1- INTRODUCTION Common sense is the quintessence of the experiences and prejudices of its time. It is a most unreliable advisor when one is confronted with a perfectly new situation. Gustav Naan UFOs -- unidentified flying objects, or flying saucers as they are often called -- have been on the mind of the public for at least the last 22 years. For a number of reasons, we know little more about them now than we did at the outset. There exists a great amount of misinformation about the phenomenon not only in the minds of the public, but among educated groups such as scientists as well. It is the purpose of this series of essays to describe various aspects of the phenomenon, make clear my prejudices and the reasons for them, and to suggest a means of prodeeding on this interesting and potentially very significant problem. But first, a few words about the term UFO. J. A. Hynek, an astronomer having continuous involvement with UFO study for over 20 years, defines UFOs as "any reported aerial or surface visual sighting or radar return which remains unexplained by conventional means even after examination by competent persons. This definition ... specifies neither flying nor objects." (1) I would agree, but would prefer to replace "or radar return" with "or instrumental observation" and "even after examination by competent persons" to "even after competent examination by qualified persons." This, then, is the definition I have adopted in the five essays that follow. ii CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Part 1: UFO's: Historical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Part 2: UFO's: Astronomical Aspects . . . . . . . . 8 Part 3: UFO's: The Character of Reports . . . . 12 Part 4: UFO's: Phenomenological Aspects . . . 24 Part 5: UFO's: How to Proceed and Why . . . . 29 A REPORT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 -2- PART 1: UFOs -- HISTORICAL ASPECTS Those familiar with the UFO literature are aware that reports of sightings did not begin with Arnold's sighting in 1947, but that phenomenology much the same as is reported today can be found in documents going back to the earliest times. Vallee (2) gives a sampling of this; B.L.P. Trench (3) has made a more thorough study and reports on the research of others able to study the original documents. What was reported? Luminous discs, shields, globes and elongated objects in the sky, sometimes alone, sometimes in large numbers. Occasional descriptions of interactions with the observers are also mentioned, including landings, and seeing and communicating with occupants. The latter events especially were almost always interpreted in a religious context. A recent example is the repeated appearance of a typical UFO phenomenology at Fatima, Portugal on six successive months in 1917. The October 13 phenomenon was the best reported and was witnessed by a crowd of about 70,000 persons, including a number of scientists, reporters, atheists, and agnostics, as wel as faithful Catholics. One of the scientifically curious was Dr. A Garrett of the University of Coimbra. Rain, which had been falling that day, ceased and the crowd looked up to see the "sun" now visible through the heavy clouds. Professor Garrett wrote, "...I turned toward this (sun) which was attracting all eyes and I could see it like a disk with a clear cut edge, with a vivid rim, luminous and shining, but without hurting one. The comparison I have heard at Fatima with a disk of dull silver, does -3- not seem to me exact. It was a clearer, more vivid, richer color and with shifting tints like the luster of a pearl. It was not at all like the moon on a clear transparent night, for one saw and felt it like a living star. Nor was it spherical like the moon, nor did it have the same quality of lighter and less light. It looked like a burnished wheel cut out of mother-of-pearl. Nor could it be confused with the sun seen through a fog -- there was no fog... This disc spun dizzily round. It was not the twinkling of a star: it whirled round upon itself with mad rapidity... The sun, preserving the celerity of its rotation, detached itself from the firmament and advanced, blood-red, towards the earth, threatening to crush us with the weight of its vast and fiery mass. These moments made a terrifying impression." (4) The relationship of the old phenomenology to religion are discussed by Thomas. (5) An example of earlier celestial displays of interest is illustrated in Figs 1 and 2. These are broadsheets from Nuremberg (1561) and Basel (1566), respectively. The psychologist, C. G. Jung; provides an analysis of the contents of the woodcuts in his interesting book. (6) Reference 7 has a very interesting reproduction of a fourteenth century fresco in a Yugoslavian church. The modern period of the phenomenon began with a widely publicized sighting made by Kenneth Arnold in Washington state in 1947. A study by Bloecher of north american reports over the four week period bracketing the Arnold sighting lists 853 events, including 38 sightings made before Arnold's heavily publicized Sighting. (8) Because the early reports seemed to suggest airborne craft of unusual appearance and kinematics, the problem came to rest with the newly organized U.S. Air Force. Initial fears were that the country was being overflown by advanced foreign aircraft, possibly on intelligence missions. The latter was suggested by the large number of sightings from the White Sands, New Mexico area and from the vicinity of the Hanford, Washington atomic plant. Serious inquiry proceeded for a few years without any positive results. A number of supposedly knowledgeable people spoke out pointing out the sporadic nature of the sightings, and that since the reported -4- [Image] Fig. 1 -- Nuremberg Broadsheet, 1561 [Image] Fig. 2 -- Basel Broadsheet, 1566 Both Broadsheets from the Wickiana Collection, Zurich Central Library -5- kinematics were inconsistent with current physical theory, the UFOs were not likely to be from a foreign power. Further, they argued, no other planets in our solar system were believed to support life -- certainly not intelligent life -- and since even the nearest star was over four light years away, the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin was simply unacceptable from a scientific point of view. (9) The Air Force investigative effort worked as follows: (10) Whenever a sighting was made, a report was to be made out and turned in to the Air Force at base level. The report was forwarded to Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio for study. If the report was interesting enough, followup inquiry was made. By 1952 the number of reports coming in was so large that the CIA was concerned that an actual attack on the country might not be immediately recognized. A panel of scientists was then convened in January 1953 to study the available evidence and see what conclusion could be reached about UFOs. After seven days of hearing evidence and discussing the matter it was concluded that there was only circumstantial evidence of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The panel recommended a broadened study effort with full disclosure of investigations. In order to unplug the military intelligence channels, however, the CIA recommended that, since the UFOs apparently posed no threat, the Air Force should debunk UFO reports and try generally to discourage public interest in them, in the hope that they would go away. (11) It was the CIA's recommendation, apparently, that was made policy, for the investigative procedures used since 1953 have been vestigal and the handling of the subject by the authorities tended to make witnesses look ridiculous. In spite of the unfavorable publicity accorded witnesses, reports persisted, and no doubt in response to official behavior several civilian study groups were formed to receive reports and investigate sightings. The most successful of these groups is the National Investigation Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). NICAP's membership is well dispersed geographically and acts to learn as much as possible from sightings. The large number of scientific and technical personnel in the NICAP membership aids the quality of their evaluations. A summary of characteristics of the UFO phenomenology published by NICAP -6- in 1964 (12) contains 575 reports that were extensively checked by NICAP for accuracy. A series of sightings in 1965 and 1966 received considerable public attention arid after the poor public reception given the official explanations, the Air Force felt compelled to contract for a 15 month (later stretched to l8 months) scientific study to be performed at the University of Colorado under the leadership of E. U. Condon, a highly respected physicist. The Condon Committee is due to complete investigations at the end of June 1968; its report will be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences (presumably to validate that the study was indeed the objective pearl of the scientific method that was desired), and is expected to be made public in October 1968. Unfortunately, the dismissal of two members of the Committee in February 1968 resulted in publicity suggesting that the study was not, in fact, objective. It remains, therefore, to see the final report to determine the worth of the study. In the meantime, the respectability accorded UFOs by the $500,000 study contract permitted a considerable amount of scientific interest to surface. Astronomer Hynek has made a number of public statements on the basis of his long involvement as a consultant to the Air Force; atmospheric physicist James F. McDonald has turned his attention full time to the subject, and a number of scientific and technical journals have printed some dialogue - notably Science, the AIAA Journal, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. It is also noteworthy that the University of Toronto has recently formed a UFO study group. Even the Soviets, who previously refused even to discuss the subject now admit to having a study group with good qualifications. The USSR Academy of Sciences still holds to the orthodox scientific view that UFOs are a nonproblem, however, using the same arguments we heard so long. These arguments are just as invalid in the USSR as in the USA. It therefore appears that the subject is slowly and finally being regarded as a fit subject of scientific inquiry. It is hoped that enough scientists will acquaint themselves with the subject so that progress can finally be made. -7- (Reference 13 is a good account of how the UFO phenomenon was treated in the U.S. and is recommended to those wondering how science came to consciously ignore the subject.) -8- PART 2: UFOs -- ASTRONOMICAL ASPECTS The astonishing thing would be if they did not exist. Jean Cocteau We saw in Part 1 that the historical aspects suggest an extraterrestrial explanation to UFOs. While it has not been established that the contemporary phenomena are extensions of the historical, there does seem to be a continuity in the descriptions of the phenomena described. We shall therefore look at contemporary astronomical knowledge and theories and ascertain the likelihood of the existence of other highly developed life forms. To begin with, the observable universe -- that is, the distance to which we can observe luminous objects -- is several billion lightyears in radius (a light year is the distance light travels in a year at a rate of 186,300 miles per second. The sun is 8 light minutes from the earth. The next-nearest star is 4.2 light years away). Within this vast volume we find hundreds of millions of galaxies. Our own (Milky Way) galaxy is similar to many of those we see at great distances. It is a lens-shaped assemblage of some 100 billion stars having a diameter of about 100,000 light years. The sun is but one of its component stars and lies about 30,000 light years from the center, close to the plane of symmetry. Now let us just consider the stars in our own galaxy -- specifically excluding those in neighboring or distant galaxies. We would like to estimate the number of stars having planets roughly similar to the Earth. From the statistics of stars within 15 light years of the sun we find that only about one-third are single, the rest binary or multiple. Since planetary orbits are often unstable in multiple systems (depending on the details of the configuration) we will say that only 30 billion stars in our galaxy now have a dynamical environment that permits planets to exist around them. Will these stars have planets? We cannot state with assurance that they will; however, current knowledge supports the theory that planetary formation is a natural adjunct to formation of the star itself from the interstellar gas cloud. -9- We would therefore expect about 30 billion stars to have one or more planets. Now, we can reject certain classes of stars as candidates or habitable planets, because their lifetimes are too short (these are stars of high mass). Others can be rejected because of variability in light output, a characteristic that would make evolutionary development of life much more difficult. In fact if we select only those stars similar to the sun (whose peak of radiation energy coincides with a region of terrestrial atmospheric transparency) we have only a few percent of the total -- about one in 30. Therefore, we would expect about 1000 million suitable solar type stars exist. Of these, it is estimated by various astronomers that 200-600 million have planets at about the right distance and have been around long enough that life forms as developed as our own could exist. Implicit in further discussion are the assumptions that: 1. Planets and/or life evolves to a mutual compatibility; 2. The life force, whether spontaneous or otherwise, is such that whenever the environment is favorable, life will exist; 3. Our own history of past evolution and development is neither slow nor fast, but average and typical for life forms. (Ours is the only example available and no one has yet demonstrated that the "average" galactic life form should be any different.) Now let us turn momentarily to time scales. The sun and earth are on the order of 5 billion years old. We might define modern man as being about 5000 years old (Stonehenge is 4000 years old) -- just one millionth of the earth's age. The age of science is certainly not more than 500 years, so our scientific and technical development has thus far occupied only one ten-millionth of the earth's life span. We expect the sun will burn another 5 billion years before significant changes in its brightness occur. Now the age of the galaxy is between 5 and 10 billion years; therefore among the 200-600 millidn stars we would expect to have acceptable planets, some would be older than the sun, some younger (for star formation is still continuing, even though at a lesser rate than in the galaxy's early history) and some the same age. It should be clear from assumption (3) and the example of our own -10- development, that among the populated planets those younger than the sun would be peopled by beings very much behind us technologically, while those on older planets would be extraordinarily advanced (remember our progress of 500 years and note that some planets could be as much as a few billion years older). Indeed, we would be surprised to find someone else at just our stage of technological development. For the purposes of this paper, we can ignore both the multitude younger than ourselves and those at our point of development. Even so, we are left with the possibility of 100,000,000 planets in the galaxy having life forms very much advanced from us. (This number would be reduced significantly if life forms destroyed themselves soon after reaching our age of development. This is a philosophical point on which I am optimistic -- I believe the majority of races will learn to survive.) If these stars are uniformly distributed in the galactic disk, the average separation will be about 10 light years. The usual scientist's reaction at this point is, well, even if the assumptions are correct and this number of advanced civilizations does exist, contact is still impossible because of the speed of light limitation of the theory of relativity. An excellent example of this kind of reasonsing can be found in Ref. 14. My reply is that such a statement would appear to be shortsighted. For the moment, let us ignore the possibilities of overcoming the long time of travel by suspended animation and the like. Recall that our own physical theory has been developed in only 500 years. What can we expect in the next 500? Or 1000 or million or even billion years? I suggest that _if_ a way to circumvent the speed of light restriction is possible, it has already been found by someone in our galaxy. (I haven't the faintest idea how this might be done and I fully agree that our own experimental data appear to accurately confirm the existence of this limitation.) If it has been discovered by one, we certainly would expect it to be used; if no other planet's inhabitants independently discovered the means, it makes little difference for such a thing could be taught by the discoverer. Thus we may conclude that it is very likely that at least one, and probably many of the 100 million advanced planetary populations is capable of interstellar travel. -11- The next question is, of course, have any of them been here? That question cannot yet be answered definitively. Without knowing what kind of phenomenology extraterrestrial visitors might exhibit, I will fall back on my scientific, mechanistic attitudes and say it makes sense to look for some kind of vehicle or spaceship. It appears that the class of phenomenology called UFO reports may contain, as a subset, actual observations of such craft. We shall now turn to the reports to see when and where things are seen and by whom and what phenomenology, if any) is revealed by the reports. (Further information about the astronomical and biological possibilities are in Ref. 15, whose principal defects are (1) the authors uninformed rejection of UFO phenomenology as being relevant to the subject under discussion, and (2) their meek acceptance of the speed-of-light restriction as a universal truth. References 16 and 17 provide more detailed and more technical discussions of some aspects of the problem.) -12- PART 3: UFOs -- THE CHARACTER OF REPORTS Any collection of reports of unknown aerial sightings by the public will include a large percent of noise - sightings of something explainable. The reports are made because the appearance falls outside the range of the observer's experience, and the observer believes it is sufficiently anomalous to warrant the attention of authorities. Thus, any large collection of reports will include descriptions of aircraft, balloons) spacecraft, astronomical objects, atmospheric effects and the like. Often the practiced and perceptive analyst can recognize the stimulus, particularly if he has access to records of aircraft, balloon, and satellite movements, meteorological data and astronomical phenomenology. Recognition of stimulus is aided by a high quality report which is as quantitative as possible and which shows the observer to be able to differentiate between observation and interpretation. Of course a number of reports will be so lacking in details that no conclusion can be reached about what was seen. These are of little use; they may, however, serve as corroborating evidence to another, higher quality, report and should not, therefore be rejected. The really interesting class of reports is that reporting phenomenology which is clearly extraordinary. The observer's qualifications may be such that the report is not only highly credible but is articulate and quantitative as well. It is this subclass of reports, variously estimated at 5 to 20 percent of the total, that offer hope of our learning what is going on. Hynek considers two parameters of reports) credibility and strangeness, and suggests that the investigator really needs only to be concerned with reports having high strangeness and high credibility. The physical scientist is in a position to evaluate strangeness, the social scientist should be able to provide some measure of credibility. Hynek also comments on a number of beliefs about UFOs and reports stating, (18) among other things, that most reports are made by people who previously never gave much thought to UFOs; that reports are not always vague; and that well educated, well trained, reliable, stable people also contri- bute reports. These conclusions have been reached by most people who have taken the trouble to collect and investigate reports first hand. -13- To illustrate the character of reports, I will quote several narratives from the literature. (Narratives, of course, are just the beginning of any report. Quantitative information, usually not given in the narrative must be obtained by careful interview of the witness.) The firzt is taken from a collection of 160 reports by Olsen. (19) It was originally made to NICAP. Date: 24 April 1962 Place: Springfield (Delaware County), Pennsylvania First witness, J. A. Gasslein, Jr. (Lt. Colonel, USAR Ret.) reports: "Time: Approximately 1945 hours, weather: clear, cloudless, medium blue sky, visibility good. "My wife was driving her mother home following the latter's visit to our home. They had driven around the block to higher ground when my wife's mother looked out the car window and saw a large object. It was moving slowly and silently in an east-to-west direction at not over 50 ft. above street level. (Determined by the proximity to and relationship to the size of the Cape-Cod-type bungalows over which the object was passing.) My wife then plainly saw the object herself. "Anxious to have me see the object, my wife quickly drove the car back to our house and attracted my attention. I had been working in the basement. I ran out of the house and up the street for a view. by the time I saw it, the object appeared to be about a quarter to a half-mile away, moving in a westerly direction. I saw it as an object smaller at the top than at the base, seemingly suspended in the air at an angle of about 45 degrees from my position, and giving off colored lights. I know that the object was not any kind of conventional aircraft of balloon. "Having had the advantage of a closer viewing than I, my wife describes the object as follows.. " 'The UFO appeared to be about the size of one of the Cape Cod houses over which it passed, which would make it approximately 30 ft. in diameter and about the same dimension in height. It was circular, surmounted by a dome giving off flashes of green light. The center section rotated a series of square shaped "windows", each giving off a brilliant white light. The base section was somewhat saucer-shaped, -14- curved upward. Shafts of white light were directed downward from the base.' Unfortunately, my wife cannot recall if the exterior was metallic in appearance. In any event, the object had a well-defined outline. Again, it moved silently. There was no evidence of occupants of the UFO. "Approximately 20 to 25 minutes following the first sighting described above, the following~sighting occured: "Returning from taking her mother home, my wife drove the car into our driveway alongside the house, headed westward. In the rear of our home was a wooded park area. My wife walked down the driveway to enter the house. Coming up the driveway was a neighbor friend, a young lady 20 years of age. In a tone of astonishment, she called my wife's attention to the park area, from which was emerging an object of the same description as outlined above moving easterly at low level -- not over 50 ft. above ground level, as judged by the trees in the area -- the UFO proceded relatively slowly and without sound. It was approaching the rear of our home and adjacent properties. "Again, my wife called me from the basement. By the time I got outside, the object had made a 90 degree turn northward and was proceeding parallel to the backs of the houses in the same line as ours. It was perhaps 150 - 200 yards distant. My observation of the characteristics of the UFO tallied with my wife's and the young lady's. Each of them independently made a pencil sketch within a few minutes after the sighting, and the sketches were substantially alike. "All told, there were at least 15 persons in the vicinity who acknowledged seeing the object at about the same time as the sightings made by my wife and myself." Another witness, P. T. Scattergood, reports: "Around 8 (p.m.) I stepped out the front door, facing south and saw a brilliantly lighted object low in the southern sky. At first I took it to be a jet taking off from Philadelphia Airport, which is in that general direction. But I could hear no engine noise and it was traveling too slowly to be a plane. Also it did not have the usual blinking lights. "It appeared to have a row of yellowish lights (which I took for the windows of the "jet") with a clear green light at the top. As I -15- watched, the row of lights appeared to be obscured as though a large paddle-wheel were revolving and blotting them out, beginning with the rear lights and proceeding forward. Since the object was moving west, I saw the right hand side of it. The periodic appearance and disappearance of the lights was perfectly regular. The top green light was constantly visible. I stood on the pavement and watched the object sail leisurely to the west until it disappeared behind some trees. The observation probably lasted from 5 to 10 minutes." This report has the desirable features of the UFO being seen by a number of people (about 15) of which two actually made reports. (Hynek estimates the number of sightings to be about 10 times the number of reports turned in) . Other desirable aspects of this sighting are that it was made during daylight; that it was near enough that some details of its configuration were observable; and, it was visible long enough to allow the observers to consider "explanations" as they watched it. The second example is reported by James F. McDonald in T. Bloecher's book on an intense period of UFO activity in 1947. The report was made 20 years after the sighting to Prof. McDonald for the reasons given at the end of the quotation. "Mrs. Olavick was in her kitchen at 2101 East Hawthorne Street, Tucson, while Mrs. Down was out in the back-year patio. Suddenly Mrs. Down called her out excitedly, and both proceeded to observe what had caught Mrs. Down's eye. The time was just after the noon hour; Tucson's skies were completely cloudless. Somewhat north of their zenith lay an unusual, isolated, "steamy-fleecy" cloud at an altitude which Mrs. Olavick found difficult to estimate, though she recalled that it seemed lower than average for that time of year (thus, perhaps at or below 10,000 feet, say.). No other cloud was to be seen in the sky. In and out of the cloud moved a number of dull-white disc-like objects that rose and fell in an erratic manner, occasionally disappearing into or above the unnatural cloud. She said that these objects were round in planform but were not spherical, for they frequently tipped a bit, exposing a flattened-sphere form. She estimates that they watched these objects cavorting near the cloud for perhaps five or six minutes before the entire group suddenly disappeared within the cloud or perhaps above it. -16- "After a minute or so, as she now recalls it, a new object, perhaps three of four times as large as the little objects, came out of the cloud on its east side. After it emerged, the small objects began to emerge also, taking up a V-formation pattern behind it. The V comprised a line of four-abreast just to the rear of the large object, then a line of three-abreast behind that, and finally two-abreast in the rear. Thus the point of the V was to the rear (in the sense of the emergent and subsequent motion). This formation permitted the first accurate count of the small objects, nine in all. No sooner had the last pair emerged than all ten objects shot off to the northeast, climbing out of sight in a time that she thought was probably two to three seconds. She does not recall what happened to the cloud after the ten objects departed. "I (McDonald) have spoken with Mrs. Olavick several additional times, following her first call. Her account was presented in an unembellished manner, and her descriptions were carefully framed, specifying just which parts had become less distinct in her memory. But the basic vividness of her memory of this observation she stressed repeatedly. I had to explain that it was by no means clear that the objects she saw were identical with those reported by Kenneth Arnold two months later. When I queried her as to why she had not reported them, she pointed out that she and Mrs. Down were entirely convinced that they had been fortunate enough to witness some new American military vehicles about which the general public had not yet been informed. Later she heard of the "flying saucers," and she and Mrs. Down, when they rejoined their husbands in mid-summer in Iowa, told them about their own observation. The husbands, she recalled, made such a joke of it that they ceased mentioning it. Again we have a daytime sighting of several minutes duration, with two witnesses. As is often the case when.the phenomenon appears mechanical, it was interpreted as some secret government development. Ridicule of the sighting by family members and friends (if not by authorities) is frequently mentioned as a reason for delayed reporting of sightings. -17- A third report is taken from a paper Prof. McDonald presented at the 12 March 1968 Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Astronautics Symposium, Montreal. "At about 5:15 am., PDT, on the morning of July 4, 1967, at least five witnesses (and reportealy others not yet locatable) saw an object of unconventional nature moving over Highway 5 on the edge of Corning, California. Hearing of the event from NICAP, I began searching for tne witnesses and eventually telephone-interviewed four. Press accounts from the Corning Daily Observer and Oakland Tribune afforded further corroboration. "Jay Munger, operator of an all-night bowling alley, was drinking coffee with two police officers, James Overton of the Corning force and Frank Rakes of the Orland force, when Munger suddenly spotted the object out the front windows of his bowling alley. In a moment all three were outside observing what they each described as a dark gray oval or disc-shaped object with a bright light shining upwards on its top and a dimmer light shining downward from the underside. A dark gray or black band encircled the mid-section of the object. When first sighted, it lay almost due west, at a distance that they estimated at a quarter of a mile (later substantiated by independent witnesses viewing it at right angles to the line of sight of the trio at the bowling alley). It was barely moving, and seemed to be only a few hundred feet above terrain. The dawn light illuminated the object, but not so brightly as to obscure the two lights on top and bottom, they stated. "Munger, thinking to get an independent observation from a different part of Corning, returned almost immediately to telephone his wife; but she never saw it for reasons of tree-obscuration. At my request, Munger re-enacted the telephoning process to form a rough estimate of elapsed time. He obtained a time of 1-1.5 minutes. This time is of interest because, when he completed the call and rejoined Overton and Rakes, the object had still moved only a short distance south on Highway 5 (about a quarter of a mile: perhaps), but then quickly accelerated and passed off to the south, going out of their sight in only about 10 seconds, far to their south. -18- Paul Heideman, of Fremont, California, was driving south on Highway 5 at the time of the above sighting, along with a friend, Robert King. I located Heideman and obtained from him an account of his observation made from a point on the highway north of Corning. He saw the light from the object, and had veered east (a turn not seen from the more restricted viewing point of the bowiing-alley parking lot). Heideman said that, when first seen, it lay almost straight down Highway 5, serving to check the estimate of the other observers that the object lay only a few city blocks to their west. The weather was clear, no haze, no wind, according to the witnesses. Munger's concise comment was "I've never seen anything like it before." He estimated its "diameter" at perhaps 50-100 ft, and its vertical thickness as perhaps 15-20 ft, with some kind of edge (band) perhaps 5-10 ft thick. No sound was ever heard. Overton stated to me that he had no idea what it was, but that "there was no doubt it was a craft of some sort." The next example is from a report I personally investigated. It occurred in the area where I was reared; the observers are known to my family; I am familiar with the natural phenomenology of the area. Date: 10 October 1966 Place: Near Newton, Illinois First witnesses: Mrs. A (she prefers not to be publicly identified because of the reaction of friends and neighbors). Time: 5:20 p.m. "Mrs. A was in her kitchen preparing supper; five of her children were playing outdoors. The children shouted to her to "come out and see the silent plane". She writes "I glanced out the south window and there it was coming into sight just south of our 72 foot silo moving very slowly from east to west. It was about 35 feet high. My first thought was that it was a plane making an emergency landing, but when I saw it in full view, I knew it was no plane, not like anything I have ever seen. I hurried outside to join the children in the yard. It -19- continued to move in a straight line to the west. We could see it clearly as it drifted over a 50 by 100 foot machine shed being built at the time [the workers were, however, in the fields this day]. It appeared to be larger than our car, and was more oval. There was a bluish glow around the ends, top, and bottom of it. It (the glow) wasn't bright, since it was daylight yet, but more like a low cloud, haze, or fog; or a mixture of bluish-grey tiny bubbles floating along around it. The object was seen clearly. It was blue in color and appeared to be made of metal. You could see [longitudinal] seam lines. There was one black window. I thought they (assuming someone was in it) could see out but we could not see them. I kept looking for someone to peep out and wave, but don't recall seeing or feeling anything at the time. There was a brownish-gold design on the lower back half. A raised part was on the top near the back which was noticed by all the children. It moved very quietly, making no sound at all except for a whirling or vibrating sound for 1 or 2 seconds as it drifted on toward the west... We followed it down the yard and lane, continuing to watch it as it was 300 feet, then 200 feet from the north and south gravel road and the REA electric line which is on the west side of the road. We were talking together, all very excited about what it was, where it came from, if there were people in it, and if it would rise to clear the electric line. It did; it rose so quickly and was out of sight in just a few seconds. Our eyes could not follow it fast enough. This was certainly a fantastic thing." The questionnaire, a lengthy correspondence, an interview in June 1967 and other checking produced the following details: Meteorology: Clear, warm, dry weather, cloudless. Astronomical: Moonset 3:51 p.m. EST UFO: Prolate spheroidial shape as shown below. [Image] -20- The surface appeared to be non-specular, like dull aluminum or metal, and blue, the color probably deriving from the self-luminous halo. Lon- gitudinal seams were apparent, but no rivets or such were seen. The black rectangle was assumed to be a window and appeared to be recessed. It was not shiny, but "like the dark of night." The surrounding glow was partly opaque, yet self luminous. It was darker than the sky and extended about 1/4 the object's length in all directions. The halo was particularly opaque at the ends: of the object, obscuring the underlying parts. The design at the lower rear looked like a pattern of crosses and dots like (1) or (2) [Image] Mrs. A says the glow obscured the design and in any case her attention was fixed on the "window". The only sound heard occurred when the UFO was nearest the unfinished shed, being constructed of a wooden framework covered with ferrous sheets. It is possible that some sheets were caused to vibrate. No electromagnetic effects were noted (TV was off) and no electrostatic or other effects were noted by Mrs. A or her children. As the UFO disappeared, Mrs. A was just looking along the road for a car; two of the children said the UFO pitched nose-up and as it went up a light or flame of orange color was seen at the rear. Enough angular data was provided from building and landmark placement and sizes that it is possible to estimate the size of the metallic portion of the UFO at 16 to 20 feet in length, seen at a distance of 150 to 300 feet. Its linear speed was about 4 to 8 miles per hour, based on the above distances and timings obtained by re-enactment. It was visible for 4 minutes. Angular size was 2 3/4" at arms length. In an effort to quantify the colors somewhat, a Nickerson color fan was used by the witnesses to select the colors most nearly like those on the UFO. The color selections were made independently in direct sunlight with the color fan held in front of a white field. The colors given were -21- Metallic surface Mrs. A. 7.5 PB - 7 Child 1 2.5 PB - 8/5 Child 2 7.5 B - 3/5 Glow (The color of "grayness" was not uniform) Mrs. A. 5 PB - 8/5 2.5 PB - 8/5 Child 1 5 PB - 7/7 Child 2 2.5 PB - 6/8 Orange flare on ascent Child 1 5 YR - 7/11 Child 2 5 YR - 7/11 Second event: Same day, 6:30 p.m., sky is now dark. Location is in town of Newton, Illinois, about seven miles north west of first event. Mrs. B was walking down the steps of a friend's house toward her car. "As I started down the steps my eyes were drawn by something in the south eastern sky. I stopped a moment and saw very clearly a luinous bluish object moving quite rapidly from east to west. It seemed to be rather low in the sky, but at night it is difficult to judge distance either as to how high it was or how far away it was. It did appear larger than a full moon, but instead of being round it had a definite oval shape. I would say an elongated oval. There was no sound that I could detect, and while it appeared to be blue and purple, there was also a whitish glow in it. The outline of the object was very distinct. I watched it until it disappeared behind some trees and a house a little less than a block from me. Further correspondence and discussion brought forth the following information: The major axis of the oval was horizontal; its path was not perfectly horizontal) but somewhat undulatory. Its color was brightest and whitest at the center, becoming more blue and darker toward the edges. Mrs. B. estimated the colors as shown below (Since the interview was conducted in the evening) the color fan was illuminated by an incandescent lamp). [Image] -22- In itself, this last report, which describes a sighting of 15 to 20 seconds duration, contains insufficient information to come to any conclusion. However, when put alongside the earlier report there is the possibility of a relationship -- could these be reports of the same thing seen under differing conditions of illumination? We'll never know positively but the suggestion is quite strong. As far as Mrs. A's sighting is concerned, we have obtained enough data from follow-up inquiry and on-site investigation to rule out known airborne craft, meteorological, and astronomical phenomenon. Yet the observations are sufficiently detailed to give us adequate confidence that some sort of machine was present, behaving in a very extraordinary way. Some parts of the object are similar to other reports (the effervescent glow, the orange color on acceleration, the very black "window" (which sounds like a block-body absorber)). Other parts are unusual -- the UFO's prolate spheroidal shape and the pattern (although seeing the pattern would require the observer to be quite close). The original correspondence and data sheets on Mrs. A's sighting run to over 40 pages. In correspondence and interviews over a period of 8 months no substantial inconsistencies could be found. The geometric data, particularly, are so intricately related that it is most unlikely that the witness could have fabricated a story so well. In addition, acquaintances made it clear that Mrs. A. is not prone to story telling and that "she is too busy to dream up such a tale". Mr. A, who returned from the fields that evening found the household still considerably agitated four hours after the event. He said he had no idea what it was his wife and children saw, but he obviously treated the sighting seriously for he went to considerable trouble to comply with a request to measure the sizes and locations of each building and tree on the farm. It is this kind of sighting - the kind which is clearly inexplicable in contemporary terms, which causes me (and other interested persons) to take the whole subject so seriously. Hynek suggests that it is just this kind of sighting that often goes unreported, because the witness -- especially if his education or training are appropriate -- knows that what he saw was unambiguously extraordinary. And machine-like. A number of such reports were belatedly made after the University of -23- Colorado study effort got underway. Apparently the witnesses waited for the respectability the UOC study brought to the subject. It is hoped that the scientific and intellectual climate will change to the point where witnesses, particularly those having the best qualifications, can feel free to report sightings and know that they are being taken seriously. Not all reports are visual reports only. An example of a photographic observation studied in detail is given in reference 20. Here, a 16mn movie of two objects sighted in the daytime provided the analyst enough information to conclude that no known phenomena could have caused the images. This report is, hopefully, the first in a series of instrumented sightings carefully and adequately studied. -24- PART 4: UFO'S - PHENOMENONOLOGICAL ASPECTS Since I have made a first hand study of only a dozen sightings, the phenomenology described in this section will necessarily be based on descriptions of reports collected by others, particularly NICAP, APRO, UFOIRC, and Vallee. There is, unfortunately, no central file of reports accessible to the interested scientist, although large numbers of reports are in the hands of the organizations mentioned above. (The extensive Air Force files are of very limited use, from what I can tell, because of the extremely inconsistent quality of investigation.) In an unfortunate number of cases the report consists of little more than a narrative. My experience with the Newton sightings suggests that quantitative information is available if the investigator takes the trouble to personally make an on-site study. True, it may not be the quality of an instrumented sighting, but enough quantitative data are available to permit meaningful study of sighting reports. NICAP's document "The UFO Evidence" contains a summary of patterns in appearance and behavior as determined from cases they had studied through 1963. Regarding appearance, the most common type is a disc shape, followed by spherical, oval/elliptical, cylindrical, and triangular. The breakdown of NICAP's 575 cases goes as follows Disc 26 % 149 cases Round 17 % 96 cases Oval/elliptical 13 % 77 cases Cylindrical 8.3 % 48 cases Triangular 2 % 11 cases Other (Radar, light source, 33.7% 194 cases not stated) [Image] Obviously, there may be some mis-classification within the first three groups because of projective effects. Discs may be coin-shaped or lens shaped (double convex). The domed disk is plano-convex, (sometimes double convex) with a smaller radius bulge atop the convex side. The saturn disk is a sphere or oblate spheroid with a thin ring projecting from the equator. Similar objects are -25- [Image] seen without the equatorial ring also. Another subset are the hemispheric variety, sometimes with a small protrusion at the apex and usually seen with the flat side down. All the above mentioned objects are generically oblate with the axis of symmetry usually seen oriented vertically. Another group are prolate, having the major axis horizontal, usually. This includes the elliptical (football) variety, the triangular or tear drop variety, and the cylindrical or cigar shaped species. Reported colors depend strongly on the luminous environment. NICAP finds that of the 253 cases of daytime observations where color is stated, the results are Silver or metallic 34.8 % 88 cases White 32.0 % 81 cases Specular 13.4 % 34 cases Gray 7.5 % 19 cases Black 12.3 % 31 cases It should be noted that a few reports exist suggesting that the brightness of the object first thought by the observer to be reflected sunlight, was in fact self luminosity, as ascertained by the geometry, presence of clouds and the like. In the dark-sky observations, the outline or shape of the UFO is often not seen. What is seen is a light or series of lights, sometimes extremely bright. Luminous rays are also reported, going up sometimes (particularly from domed discs) downward (from hemispheric types principally, also from discs) and from one UFO to another (spherical types). The luminous column is usually not divergent. Excluding these interesting rays, the reported colors of UFOs seen at night are, for 162 cases Red 38.3 % 62 cases Orange 15.4 % 25 cases Yellow 17.3 % 28 cases Green 13.0 % 21 cases Blue 16.0 % 26 cases Purple 0 0 -26- Brightness and color changes are also noted, and while the sample is small (82 cases) NICAP found the following: Of the 25 cases showing a change in brightness, 23 of the changes occurred at the moment of a velocity change (a change of either magnitude or direction). Concerning the change of color, 23 cases showed a color change related to acceleration. While the supporting data are not conclusive, it appears that the spectral shift is to the red upon acceleration. It should also be noted that UFOs reported at night have only a star-like appearance unless very close. Distant UFO's sometimes turn off and on. When closer to the observer, reports often indicate a number of lights, located at the top and around the rim usually. Sometimes the lights flash on and off or change color rhythmically. Several cases have been reported of the UFO flashing its lights in response to the witness flashing hand or vehiclar lights. In other cases the lights winked off with the approach of another car or an aircraft, only to turn on again when the vehicle had passed. While practically any luminous behavior could be produced by someone with sufficient time and money, kinematic behavior at odds with experience or, preferably, at odds with Newtonian behavior are suggestive of non-terrestrial origin. A common kind of motion is called oscillation by NICAP and is subdivided into "wobble on axis" (frequently described also as fluttering, flipping, and tipping); pendulum motion on slow ascent, hovering and decent (also called "falling leaf motion"); and occasionally a side-to-side oscillation observed as the UFO proceeds horizontally. These motions are most often performed by discs, although examples of similar behavior by other forms also exist. The last class, that of violent and erratic maneuvers, most clearly lacks an explanation from current physical theory. Using terms like bobbing, erratic, jerky, zig-zag, dark, and shot away, witnesses describe motions involving high angular accelerations and velocities. A number of radar observations appear to substantiate this anomalous behavior. Among the 40 cases showing such characteristics, NICAP finds that 28 percent were reported by scientific or other appropriately experienced personnel. -27- Variation of Sightings with Time It appears that the UFO phenomenology has been with us from the earliest times. In the last twenty-five years, however, there seems to be a drastic increase in the number of sightings. It is practically impossible to estimate the number of world-wide sightings because of the lack of suitable data collection means. In the U.S., the principal depositories are currently the Air Force, NICAP and APRO. It is estimated that currently these sources together receive about 2000 reports per year. Since only about one sighting in 10 is reported, the number of sightings is about 20,000. But of these, 80 to 95% are not interesting, leaving us with "only" 1000 to 4000 worthwhile sightings per year for North America. In addition to the background of reports more or less constantly flowing in, occasional periods of intense activity are also noted. One such period was October 1954 over most of France. NICAP lists a number of these "flaps". Sometimes they are very localized, covering only a small portion of a state for a period of a few weeks. APRO concludes, on the basis of the reports available to them, that the patterns of appearance follow phases - atomic test areas and installations in the late 1940s and early 50s, rivers, reservoirs and bodies of water in the late 50s and early 60s and now electrical distribution systems. Convincing evidence to support this hypothesis has not been published; however, if the hypothesis were true it would certainly raise a lot of question. McDonald and others suggest that reports of the last few years show more sightings of objects at low altitude (or landed) and more sightings made from urban areas (in the 40s and 50s sightings were generally inversely correlated with population densities). Interactions with the Environment Interactions of UFOs with the environment produce a kind of believability that pure visual observations will never do. Some examples of interaction are cases showing electromagnetic disturbances in practically every kind of device -- radio, TV, auto ignition, aircraft electronics, compass, magnetometer, magnetic automobile speedometer, etc. NICAP lists 106 examples. NICAP also lists 81 cases of radar -28- tracking of UFOs, most of which were simultaneous with visual sightings, and a number of which involved use of interceptors. Among the physiological effects noted are burns, temporary paralysis, prickling sensation, and eyes irritated as by ultraviolet light. A number of witnesses claim to have observed landings; depressions in the ground and damaged vegetation usually result. At a landing site in France, only weeds grow in a nine foot circular area where a disc was seen to land two years ago, despite efforts to replant. (21) At another landing site, French railway officials calculated that a weight of 30 tons would be required to make the depressions found in some railroad ties where a UFO was reported to have landed. While most UFO's are silent, some have made sounds described as hissing, rushing, swishing, humming, whirring, whining, droning, like thunder, like shotgun, and a series of staccato explosions. In the past the absence of sonic booms from supersonic UFO's bothered many scientists; it appears now that that problem might be overcome by surrounding the craft by a corona discharge (which incidentally would be a luminous blue glow around the object). (23) I will purposely not comment much on occupants, except to say that there are a few (very few) reasonably reliable and carefully investigated reports of UFO occupants. For the time being, I would prefer to concentrate on reports of the objects, however, as the frequency of reliable occupant reports is so low. I have no bias one way or the other along these lines. If UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, they may or may not be "manned". If manned, one should expect an occasional appearance. Readers more interested in this aspect of UFOs are referred to reference 24. In summary, we see a wide, almost exasperating range of reported phenomenology. By careful interviews with witnesses and analysis of a large number of reports the significant patterns in phenomenonology should appear. If the UFOs are a new manifestation of nature, they should exhibit some pattarns of appearance or behavior which would aid in identifying and predicting them. If of extraterrestrial origin and intelligently guided it may be possible to anticipate appearances. This will be discussed in the next and final essay. -29- PART 5: UFOs -- HOW TO PROCEED AND WHY We are so far from knowing all the forces of Nature and the various modes of their action that it is not worthy of a philosopher to deny phenomena only because they are inexplicable in the present state of our knowledge. The harder it is to acknowledge the existence of phenomena, the more we are bound to investigate them with increasing care. Laplace Laplace's remarks are certainly as true and significant for us today as for his contemporaries. In the preceeding essays I have suggested that there exists a class of phenomena rather widely occuring today (and perhaps since earliest times) that is elusive, puzzling and often at variance with known scientific and technical experience. What are we going to do about it? What should we, what can we do about it? J. E. MacDonald suggests that the UFO phenomena lie somewhere in the following categories of explanation: 1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. Report files contain examples of these; investigators believe about 5 percent of all reports made are in this category. Detailed study, however, usually uncovers such reports. 2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena. Present understanding of psychology does not admit many of the significant reports to be explained in this way. 3. Misinterpretations of well known physical phenomena (meteorolo- gical, astronomical, optical, etc.). By far the largest percentage of reports fall in this category. Study by an experienced investigator can usually identify these. 4. Poorly understood physical phenomena (rare electrical or moteorological effects, plasmas). Certainly a distinct possibility in a number of cases, it is a category worthy of careful study. Some of the most interesting cases, however have sufficient observational datail to eliminate this possibility (I am referring to reports of unambiguously machine-like objects). -30- 5. Advanced technologies (test vehicles, satellites, reentry effects). Again, some reports can be attributed to this cause, but most cannot. 6. Poorly understood psychic phenomena (psychic projections, archetypal images, parapsychological phenomena, etc). It is difficult to comment on this possibility because the current lack of knowledge of parapsychology. While a (small) number of UFO reports do exhibit aspects of parapsychological phenomenology (25) general relationships have yet to be convincingly demonstrated. Reference 6 deals with this explanation. 7. Extraterrestrial probes. A possibility commonly held by the public and commonly rejected by scientists. Prof. McDonald believes a number of sightings are best explained by this hypothesis. 8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. This explanation is listed because of the nature of certain reports (particularly "contact" reports -- reports involving communication of UFO occupants and the witnesses) and because of the historical aspects of the phenomenology. See reference 5 for elaboration. Perhaps, to play it safe, an additional category should be listed: 9. Other Clearly, the explanation of UFOs will interest someone. Psychologists have an interest in 1, 2, 3 and 6; theologians in category 8, scientists in 4 and 7. Therefore, whatever the explanation, it is a problem of at least average interest. If, by chance, the explanation is 7, or even 8 (and possibly 6) the value to society would be profound and significant. In this sense, an identification of the phenomenon would be a task of highest potential urgency. How might it be done? Because of the transient nature of UFO's we cannot expect to have the interested scientist rush to the spot to make his own observations. Reports so far accumulated, however, show that UFO's sometimes appear frequently in certain areas for a short period of time (a so-called "flap"). One characteristic of the flap is a larger percentage of sightings of objects at low levels than one normally obtains. If the reporting and analysis system were responsive enough, men and instruments -31- could be dispatched when a flap was recognized with a reasonable hope of making first hand observations. I would therefore suggest the following: 1. Organization of a central report receiving agency, staffed by a permanent group of experienced UFO investigators and having on call specialists in astronomy, physics, optics, atmospheric physics, psychology and the like for application when needed. 2. This agency should be readily and instantly accessible to the public for the purpose of reporting. (Witnesses should be able to turn to someone other than the press to make reports.) Report forms could be made available in Post Offices, for example. More urgent reports could be made by toll-free telephone lines. (Radio amateurs have recently begun cooperating with NICAP to provide an alerting system.) Because many sightings are made at night when most services are closed, the local police office should be prepared to receive reports of sightings. Experience indicates that witnesses usually turn first to the police, particularly if the UFO was close or if the witness was frightened. Such a local "data center" would be very useful for identifying flaps and could possibly serve to dispatch personnel to an area of interest. Care must be taken to properly inform the officers involved about the aims of the project and requests for assistance should be made in such a way as to minimize additional police work. An awareness of the problem by a dispatcher or desk sergeant might be sufficient to draw attention to a developing situation. An interested local scientist could then be notified, perhaps in time to make an observation. Hynek also suggests that the police carry cameras in their cars should they become involved as observers. This advice obviously applies to all interested persons. 3. A loose organization of interested scientists should be available to investigate reports in their local areas. A good start toward this has been made by NICAP. It is important that investigations be made rapidly and by properly qualified people. 4. The press should be encouraged to report sightings accurately and in a non-sensational manner. Suitable reporting would encourage other witnesses to come forth. -32- 5. Existing sensor records could be examined for anomalies, particularly if visual reports are made nearby. Since we don't know what to expect, it is difficult to say what is needed; however records of electric, magnetic and gravitational fields, radioactivity, optical and radio frequency anomalies would be a logical place to start. Radars could also contribute, if they are designed for general purpose use. As it is, most current radar detection and tracking devices are designed to ignore anomalous objects. After a few years' operation in this mode, it should be possible to study the resulting report statistics to draw generalities about appearance and behavior (such as was done in Part IV) and most importantly to anticipate times and locations of appearances. Only when this is done will it be possible to instrument sightings and therefore obtain the objective data so badly needed If the explanation is #4, some environmental correlations are bound to occur. For #7 it is possible that appearances could be anticipated, if we are clever enough; for #6 and #8 we will likely not be able to anticipate appearances. Certainly the conclusions drawn by NICAP from reports in their file are startling and, if valid worthy of considerable scientific effort. It would be much more convincing if data could be collected worldwide and if the most interesting reports could be most interesting reports could be intensively and completely investigated. I believe current reports justify the expanded data collection and analysis effort. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pages 33 to 40 consist of the basic report form used by the University of Colorado UFO project which have not been included here. A copy of this reporting form is reproduced in "The Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects," Bantam Books, 1968, published in association with Colorado Associated University Press. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -40- BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 1967 2. Anatomy of a Phenomenon, J. Vallee, Ace Books, Inc H-17 3. The Sky People, B. LePoer Trenth, London, Neville Spearman, 1960. 4. The Meaning of Fatima, C. C. Martindale, S. J., P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York 1950, p. 77. 5. Flying Saucers Through the Ages, Paul Thomas, Neville Spearman, London, 1966. 6. Flying Saucers - A Modern Myth, C. C. Jung, Harcourt, Brace & World New York, 1959 7. Sputnik, January 1967 issue, p. 174 8. Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, Ted Bloecher, 1967; Available from NICAP, 1536 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20036 9. Bloecher, pp. 1-9, 10, 12 10. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, E. J. Ruppelt, Ace Books, Inc. G-537 11. UFO's: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? J. E. McDonald UFORI, Suite 311, 508 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15219 12. The UFO Evidence, NICAP, 6536 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington D.C., 20036, 1964 13. Flying Saucers: Hoax or Reality? L. Jerome Stanton, Belmont Books B50-761 14. "The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects", William Markowitz, Science, 15 Sept. 1967 15. Intelligent Life in the Universe, J. S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Holden-Day, Inc. 1966 (San Francisco) 16. Habitable Planets for Man, S. H. Dole, Blaisdell Publishing Co., New York, 1964 17. Interstellar Communication, Edited by A. C. W. Cameron, Benjamin, New York, 1963 18. Science, 21 October 1966, letter by J. A. Hynek, p. 329 19. The Reference for Outstanding UFO Sighting Reports, T. M. Olsen, UFO Information Retrieval Center, Inc., Box 57, Riderwood, Md. 21139 -24- 20. Observations of an Anomalistic Phenomenon, R. M. L. Baker, Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, January/February, 1968 21. Flying Saucer Review, 14, 1, January/February, 1968, cover and pp. 6-12. 22. Vallee, p. 109 23. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 22 January, 1968, p. 21 24. The Humanoids, special issue of Flying Saucer Review, 49a Kings Grove, Peckham, London, S.E. 15, England (1967) 25. An interesting example appears in the July, 1968 issue of Science & Mechanics, starting on page 30 26. A highly recommended collection of recent views on this subject are contained in the Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, Hearings Before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, July 29, 1968. _________________________________________________________________________ To respond and/or give feedback to an author, reply to his or her E Mail address. If you want us to consider your reply for public posting, you can send a Carbon Copy to us. We reserve the right to edit and post. UFOR articles are archived in http://www.Reference.COM. For any change in your UFOR participation, please, e mail me at d005734c@dc.seflin.org The most ample distribution of articles published in UFOR is highly encouraged as long as proper attribution and respect for the authors and participating lists expressed wishes, if any, are mantained, this include printed and electronic media, including for profit and non profit organizations. _________________________________________________________________________
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:22:37 +0100 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:10:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Christophe also said: >'My father proposed an explanation for all radar related >evidences.' >Note PROPOSED. Yes we have to remain modest in front of this case. It could be a natural phenomenon or it could be a UFO or a mixture of both phenomenon. Since the problem is undecidable we can spend years in this endless discussion. >And: >'So to me what happened in Belgium these two years remain an >unsolved mystery and the proposed explanation for radar evidence >hardly scratch the mystery.' >>But Henny persists: >>>Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been >>>witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the >>>erratic signal? >Which would explain the mystery better than any other >explanation. Sorry. But I can't let this pass. According to the second book on the Belgian UFO flap that discusses visual contact data closely, there is no triangular object reported where the F16 detected the erratic signal. Henny, it is really sad you can't read the two articles. This would clarify a lot of points. >>Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO >>performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I >>think not. There was no ground visual contacts beside moving lights. Lights were more in intense wobbling than moving fast from side to side of the sky. It was though a very uncommon light behaviors which suggested it was not stars. But lights did not show extraordinary displacements as would the UFO speed estimation based on the F16 recording yield. I wish this discussion returns to a wise and rational ground. Henny, It would be a mistake to put into question the whole Belgian UFO flap and the 2000 testimonies simply because we have to discard the F16 evidence. Some skeptics and the belgian defense minister officially did so, but this is an error. Who cares what people say. We are conducting an investigation, we are totally free and we are all searching the truth whatever the path we take. We have to respect any working hypothesis one choose as starting point to do his investigation as long as he remains OBJECTIVE and RATIONAL. So we HAVE TO drop the F16 data as EVIDENCE of the presence of a UFO simply because it COULD be a natural phenomenon. We are searching evidences and we only have evidences when we can discard any rational explanation. Spending more time on defending or attacking this case is loosing your time and energy. What you can do though is check the argumentation concluding to a possible natural phenomenon. It might have been a UFO, but we will never now for sure now. It is bad news for everybody, even for the skeptics, because we can always say it might still have been a UFO. Happily the Belgian UFO flap has plenty more valuable testimonies and there are still many people who didn't testified for various reasons. Bien cordialement, Ch.Meessen
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 06:17:20 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:17:08 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:45:03 -0800 >From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:42:08 -0600 (CST) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> >From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] >> >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:45:17 -0800 >> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> >>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 >> >>From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >> >>To: updates@globalserve.net >> >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> <snip> >> >>Now very possibly, although statistically highly >> >>improbably, 4 million US citizens have been >> >>abducted. OK. >> >Really? I didn't know the estimated number at all. I will keep it >> >as a handy reference. Thankyou. <------snip ----> >> That number comes from something known as the Roper Report, which >> is totally without any sort of substantiation whatsoever. It is a >> disservice to you personally to give it more than the time of >> day, and a greater disservice to the public at large to pass it >> around as if it had any meaning at all, let alone as if it were >> somehow proved. The number is a total charade and completely >> without foundation. >Why should your unsubstantiated estimate of 1,000 be taken any more >seriously than the Roper Report? >If we really want a more reliable estimate, why doesn't MUFON do its >own survey? These are two very good questions that I don't know how to answer. If you can pry any information out of MUFON, by all means, go ahead. It would be certainly appreciated that there would be some idea of the extent that abductions occur. Then we could vote on it as being the correct number of jelly beans in the cookie jar. Take care for now, Cathy Johnson Search for other documents from or mentioning: rfsignal | john.koopmans
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Bill English? From: "Derrel" <derrel@holman.net> [Derrel Sims] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:31:37 -0600 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:52:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Bill English? > From: "Clarke Hathaway" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> > To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Bill English? > Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 10:41:42 -0700 > > From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:55:06 -0600 > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: looking for > > I am wondering if anyone knows what became of a man named Bill English? > > If so, can you provide a way to get in touch with him? > Bill is on the WWW, he is an ISP in New Mexico. I will see if I > can find the URL and send it to you. If I do not get back to you > send me a private e-mail reminding me, as I have been busy doing > a few websites. > Clarke Dear Clarke, please inform me as well if you find Bill's whereabouts...This is what I sent Barbara. ---------- : From: Derrel <derrel@holman.net> : To: c549597@showme.missouri.edu : Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Bill English? : Date: Sunday, November 16, 1997 3:26 AM : Barbara, I dont know his address, but he lives in Cloudcroft : New Mexico. Up the hill from Alamogordo, NM, my home for 13 : years. : Derrel Sims, CM.Ht., R.H.A. : Director of Physical Investigations : F.I.R.S.T.(Fund for Interactive Research & Space Technology) : P.O. Box 60944 Houston, Texas 77205
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:59:11 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 09:40:03 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:42:08 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] >>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 08:45:17 -0800 >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:29:26 +0200 >>>From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >>>To: updates@globalserve.net >>>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c ><snip> >>>Now very possibly, although statistically highly >>>improbably, 4 million US citizens have been >>>abducted. OK. >That number comes from something known as the Roper Report, which >is totally without any sort of substantiation whatsoever. It is a >disservice to you personally to give it more than the time of >day, and a greater disservice to the public at large to pass it >around as if it had any meaning at all, let alone as if it were >somehow proved. The number is a total charade and completely >without foundation. Thank you for clearing up the source of that information. Personally, I have no idea of the numbers of abductees in North America. I am on several lists that are exclusively for abductees. It seems that there are small groups of people who have gotten together to share their experiences. Some of these groups are literally encounter groups. Others are more informal in intent and content. I would suppose it is a topic of its own. The fact that one person had an unusual story to tell would be very intriguing, and more than likely true. But, the crowds of people that have had such experiences has only served to confuse everything with a host of possibilities that defies the imagination. Now what? Do you believe her, him or them? Who would you believe? I don't even know who to believe. Oh, guess what I found... The "abduction experience"2 is characterized by subjectively real memories of being taken secretly and/or against one's will by apparently nonhuman entities and subjected to complex physical and psychological procedures.3 The number of such experiences has been estimated by Jacobs (1992) as 5-6% of the population, and by Hopkins, Jacobs, and Westrum (1992) as 2% of the population. More conservative estimates may be derived by counting the actual number of cases that have been reported by investigators. For example, Bullard's (1994) survey of 13 investigators yielded 1,700 cases. Whatever the number, few aspects of ufology have attracted as much attention. To those who dismiss the possibility that UFOs may be spacecraft, the notion of abductions by UFO occupants is seen as inherently implausible. For those who believe that UFOs are under the control of extraterrestrials, abduction experiences suggest both a rationale for surreptitious UFO activity and an opportunity to learn about the purpose underlying such activity. In essence, the abduction experience is seen as an answer to the proverbial question, "Why don't they land on the White House lawn?" Take care for now, Cathy Johnson
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:58:16 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:20:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/17/97 9:42 AM: > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:47:49 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > I myself, and several others that have contacted me recall these > beings moving around in a 'single file.' Russ Hudson recalls them > moving in a single file in what he described as a, "Rock step!" > (Doo wah ditty aliens! <G>) > Budd told me of a multiple sighting/abduction that happened to a > group of teenagers in New England who reported seeing several small > grey beings wearing what looked like little 'miners helmets' that > had a small light on the front and that they were running to and fro > -in a single file.- Also, the same detail was present in the initial Andreasson abduction, where the entities moved through the door in single file, and did the same thing when leaving with Betty - in that segment, she was part of the line. Cases where the entities move oddly, stiffly, in unison, or float are all part of the consciously recalled case lore. Recurrence of those motifs in abductions are part of what lead me to keep my mind open on the subject. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Hot Spots From: Joyce Murphy <jmurphy@onramp.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:09:15 -0600 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:23:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots >Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:12:50 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Hot Spots >Hi List, >I am compiling a list of UFO hot spots. Yesterday I saw a Discovery >Channel docu that featured sightings in the US town of Dundee. >Can someone inform me privately in which state this town lies. >Tmia. This is probably Dundee Wisconsin where there is so much activity that once a year the town has what they call UFO Daze - a gathering at Bill Benson's Hideaway Resort on Long Lake. The townspeople get together to discuss what all has happened to them regarding UFO experiences during the past year. Last year, Beyond Boundaries was invited and presented our slideshow presentation of expedition findings around the world. We had a great time there and met some genuine UFO researchers mostly unknown to the mainstream UFO people here on the net - Joyce. PS: There is a 3 hour broadcast available in the archives of Sightings on Radio with Jeff Rense that we did with the people at Bill Bensons Resort - http://rampages.onramp.net/~jmurphy
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:28:12 +0100 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:27:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual Hello Henny! (or should I call "Henry" till you begin to spell my name right?) At 01.59 17/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:21:39 -0500 >>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith] >>Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >I did do background reading, only not from the Blue Book >crap that Eduardo suggested. (The silence from Italy is >deafening after I asked Eduaro for specifics about the >temperature inversion). Plese do not over-estimate yourself! My silence is only due to the fact that I am busy at helping to organise the 12th National UFO Congress, to be held in Bologna next weeekend, something I take to be somewhat more urgent than our little tea-cup storm about a seven-years-old UFO incident abroad. But don't be afraid (?). I'll not let you silence-deafened for long, and will come to you with some needed help and documentation about those items you are apparently eager to learn but much too lazy to go searching for. Since you refused to better document yourself about those same subjects you are pretending to speak about, and at the same time challenged me to do your homework, I'll have to find some spare time to traslate in plain English what A. Meessen wrote about the astronomical objects (i.e. stars and planets) you insist to call a triangular object, as well as how he DID explain why atmospheric conditions that night could well account for the F-16 radar readings. So you won't have to base yourself on his son's e-mail postings, instead. My only regret is that, after that, you'll just close your eyes and open your mouth to call Auguste Meessen a sordid debunker (as just everybody whose opinions you don't share and don't like), and it would be quite inappropriate and unjust to him, who's always been (and still is) a staunch promoter of the ETH and whose intellectual honesty - in coming to (and openly admitting) opposite conclusions to his own beliefs - should be an example for many. In the meantime, since I guess you're probably less busy than I in properly ufological activities, would you please take the time to enlighten us about what "background reading" you finally chose to do, since you claim it was something completely different from my proposed bibliography, and I love to learn more and more as of our subject? Ah, only for your knowledge: nothing I quoted had anything to do with the "Blue Book crap" (though I could have well suggested you to also read Ruppelt and Steiger: so, what about taking some lessons in ufology before speaking, next time? Edoardo Russo Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici CISU, Casella postale 82, 10100 Torino - tel 011-3290279 - fax 011-545033 http://www.arpnet.it/~ufo e-mail: edoardo.russo@torino.alpcom.it
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 ROJECT-1947: August 1947 Gallup Poll From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:02:38 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:34:11 -0500 Subject: ROJECT-1947: August 1947 Gallup Poll August 1947 Gallup Poll "What do you think these saucers are?" No answer, don't know 20% Imagination, optical illusions, mirages, etc. 29% Hoax 10% US secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc. 15% Weather forecasting devices 3% Russian secret weapon 1% Searchlights on airplanes 2% Other explanations 9% Total 102% "(Adds to more than 100% because some gave more than one answer.) "Guesses ranged all the way from practical to miraculous. Among the later was a woman, citing biblical text, who said it was a sign of the world's end. A man in the West thought the discs were radio waves from the Bikini atomic bomb explosion while another man saw in them a new product being put out by the 'Dupont people.' "A few people smelled a publicity or advertising stunt, while others felt sure that the saucers were after all only some kind of meteor or comet." Informal newspaper polls from 1947 support the general line shown above. Interestingly enough 90% of Americans had heard of flying saucers. While only half had heard about the Marshall Plan or 61% about the Taft-Hartley Labor bill. Writers about the early days of UFOs fall into to the trap: UFO = ET spaceship. However, most people did not consider this seriously. In 1952 after the April LIFE magazine article Project Blue Book's files are full of letters proposing all kinds of theory. They ran something like this, "I don't know much about atomic bombs, but here is my theory on how the atomic tests are making the flying saucers...." Television was new and starting to show up in a large number of America homes: "Those flying saucers are caused by all the TV wave running through the atmosphere." Many skeptic don't really talk about UFOs, they are busy trying to demolish the ETH which they somehow think is equivalent. The Condon Committee report is not so much a study of UFOs, but a hatch job, with lots of irrelavent padding (which Condon told Craig to put in), on why they do not represent a problem and are not ET. A number of cases have no solutions, but the scientific value is considered to be zero. The padding involves trival cases. As McDonald remarked: they were contracted to look at the difficult material not mess around in known waters. The discussion of capability of instruments deployed to study other phenomena showed that they were not much good in studying this type of phenomenon (a)--especially since they were not set up for this type of observation. One thing the discussion of instruments did not address was how many times they detected weather balloons, aircraft or blowing papers.... I have to cut this short, as I have to take my car in for repair.....the point I was heading for is that most comments and "studies" are colored by belief or are about belief and not about what has been reported. Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Bill English? From: "Clarke Hathaway" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:32:37 -0700 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:34:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Bill English? > From: rfsignal@sprynet.com [Cathy Johnson] > Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:59:16 -0800 > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Bill English? > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 16:55:06 -0600 > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: looking for > >I am wondering if anyone knows what became of a man named Bill > >English? > >If so, can you provide a way to get in touch with him? > I would be interested in writing to Mr. Bill English. I did > exchange a few messages with him on a BBS connected to the > Internet a few years ago. At that time, he was very sick and > discouraged from doing a whole lot of anything. I hope he is > better than he was then. > Take care for now, > Cathy Johnson Hi Cathy, Bill is not interested in being in the loop again. He is living a quiet life in a small town in New Mexico. How do I know this, because we talk to Bill from time to time. He and Clark are friends. Julie Search for other documents from or mentioning: earthwrk | rfsignal |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Object over Bangor North Wales UK From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:52:00 -0600 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:40:59 -0500 Subject: Object over Bangor North Wales UK Just received this report from UK Joe Henry Minnesota MUFON On Sunday November 16th at 16:10 hrs GMT an object was sighted moving South to North over Bangor North Wales, UK. The object was observed from the upper floor of the University Library. When the object was first sighted it was bright white in colour, then it entered a cloud, when it emerged it was a Yellow/Gold in colour, and had a similarity to the rescue helicopterts which operate in the area. But the object showed not characteristic rotor blades or floation/undercarraige struts port and stardboard. It had no flashing warning strobes and no ensignia denoting its origin. The shape was similar to a tear drop on its side. The motion seemed to be too smooth to be a helicopter or other aircaft. It did not reappear once out of sight. The object was at approximatley 500ft with the sun to its starboard. The forward portion of the "fuselage" had a black/dark area which led me to compaire it to the Sea King helicopter in the Search and Rescue colours. There was no forward canopy visible. The craft was in sight for approximatley 8-10 seconds. I am an experienced ex-military aircraft observer and am proficient in aircraft recognition. Hope this is of some interest to you. Thanks for your time. S. ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 17 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:17:53 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:46:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:22:37 +0100 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Christophe Meessen <meessen@cppm.in2p3.fr> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:56:01 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual I said: >>>>Remember my remarks about a triangular object that had been >>>>witnessed at the exact same spot where the F16s detected the >>>>erratic signal? >>Which would explain the mystery better than any other >>explanation. Christophe said: >Sorry. But I can't let this pass. According to the second book on >the Belgian UFO flap that discusses visual contact data closely, >there is no triangular object reported where the F16 detected the >erratic signal. I will simply throw in this from the secretarial staff of the=B7 Belgian Air Force staff. <begin> REPORT ON THE OBSERVATION OF UFOs DURING THE NIGHT OF MARCH 30-31, 1990=B7 1.Introduction=B7 a. This report gives an overall view of the reports from the concerned Air Force units and of the reports from ocular witnesses of the gendarmerie patrols, about the unknown phenomena watched in the air space (hereafter called UFOs), south of the axis Brussels-Tirlemont, during the night of March 30-31, 1990.=B7 b. The observations, visual and radar, were of such a nature that the take off of two F-16 of the 1 J Wing has been decided, in order to identify these UFOs.=B7 c. This report has been established by Major Lambrechts, VS/3 Ctl-Met 1.=B7 =B7 2. Context.=B7 Since the beginning of December 1989, strange phenomena have been=B7 regularly noticed in the Belgian air space. The Air Force has at its disposal several ocular witnesses, most of them having been informed by the gendarmerie. The Air Force radar stations could not confirm, in any case, up to March 30-31, these sightings, and the presence of the UFOs could never be established by the fighters sent in that order. The Air Force staff has been able to produce several hypotheses about the origin of these UFOs. The presence or the testing of B-2 or F-117A (stealth), RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULM (Ultra Light Motorized) and AWACS in the Belgian air space during the facts can be excluded.=B7 The cabinet of the MLV (Ministry of National Defense) has been informed about these discoveries. In the meantime, the SOBEPS (Societe Belge d'Etude des Phenomenes Spatiaux) got in touch with the MLV, in order that the MLV backed the SOBEPS in its inquiries about this phenomenon. This request has been accepted, and after that the Air Force has regularly cooperated with this society.=B7 3. Chronological summary of the events during the night of March 30-31, 1990. Note: local time. March 30: 23 h 00: The supervisor responsible (MC) for the Glons CRC (Control Reporting Center) receives a phone call from Mr. A. Renkin, gendarmerie MDL, who certifies to see, from his home at Ramillies, three unusual lights towards Thorembais-Gembloux. These lights are distinctly more intense than stars and planets, they don't move and are located at the apexes of an equilateral triangle. Their color is changing: red, green and yellow.=B7 23 h 05: The Glons CRC asks the Wavre gendarmerie to send a patrol at this place in order to confirm this sighting.=B7 23 h 10: A new call from Mr. Renkin points out a new phenomenon: three other lights move towards the first triangle. One of these lights is far brighter than the others. The Glons CRC observes in the meantime an unidentified radar contact, about 5 km north of the Beauvechain airport. The contacts moves at about 25 knots towards west. 23 h 28: A gendarmerie patrol including, among others, Captain Pinson, is on the premises and confirms Mr. Renkin's sightings. Captain Pinson describes the observed phenomenon as follows: the bright points have the dimension of a big star(*); their color changes continually. The prevailing color is red; then it changes itself in blue, green, yellow and white, but not always in the same order. The lights are very clear, as if they were signals: this enables to distinguish them from stars. 23 h 30 - 23 h 45: The three new lights, in the meantime, have drawn closer to the first observed triangle. In their turn, after a series of erratic moves, they arrange themselves also in triangular formation. In the meantime, the Glons CRC observes the phenomenon on radar.=B7 23 h 49 - 23 h 59: The Semmerkaze TCC/RP (Traffic Center Control/=B7 Reporting Post) confirms in its turn to have a clear radar contact at the same position pointed out by the Glons CRC.=B7 =B7 23 h 56: After prerequisite coordination with the SOC II, and since all conditions are fulfilled to make the QRA take off, the Glons CRC gives the scramble order to the 1 J Wing.=B7 23 h 45 - 00 h 15: The bright points are still clearly observed from ground. Their respective position does not change. The whole formation seems to move slowly in comparison with the stars. The ocular witnesses on ground notice that the UFOs send from time to time brief and more intense luminous signals. In the mean time, two weaker luminous points are observed towards Eghezee. Those, as the others, have also brief and erratic moves.=B7 March 31: 00 h 05: Two F-16, QRA of J Wing, AL 17 and AL 23, take off. Between 00 h 07 and 00 h 54, under control of the CRC, on the whole nine interception attempts have been undertaken by the fighters. The planes have had, several times, brief radar contacts on the targets designated by the CRC. In three cases, the pilots managed to lock on the target during a few seconds, which, each time, induced a drastic change in the comportment of the UFOs. In no case, the pilots have had a visual contact with the UFOs. 00 h 13: First lock on the target designated by the CRC. Position: "on the nose" 6 NM (Nautical Miles), 9000 feet, direction: 250. The target speed changes within minimum time from 150 to 970 knots, altitude coming down from 9000 to 5000 feet, then up to 11000 feet, and, shortly after, down to ground level. From this results a "break lock" after some seconds, the pilot losing the radar contact. The Glons radar informs, at the moment of the break lock, that the fighters are above the target position. +/- 00 h 19 - 00 h 30: The Semmerkaze TCC as well as the Glons CRC have lost contact with the target. From time to time a contact appears in the region, but they are too few to have a clear track. In the meantime, the pilots contact on VHF the radio of the civilian air traffic, in order to coordinate their moves with the Brussels TMA. The radio contact on UHF is maintained with the Glons CRC. 00 h 30: AL 17 has a radar contact at 5000 feet, 20 NM away Beauvechain (Nivelles), position 255. The target moves at very high speed (740 knots). The lock on lasts during 6 seconds, and, at the break lock, the signal of a jamming appears on the scope. +/- 00 h 30: The ground witnesses see three times the F-16 pass along. During the third pass, they see the planes turning in circles at the center of the great formation initially seen. At the same time, they notice the disappearance of the little triangle, while the brightest, western point of the big triangle moves very fast, probably up. This point emits intense red signals, in a repetitive way, during the maneuver. The two other points of the great triangle disappear shortly after. The clear points above Eghezee are no longer visible, and only the western brightest point of the triangle can be observed.=B7 <end> Apparently there were several objects in the sky that were visually reported to be maneuvering during the F16 chase. Is it too much to ask to consider that one or more of them had simply switched off their lights, which would explain their sudden disappearance, as described, as well as the erratic radar trace that cannot be explained by any known natural phenomenon or radar error? Hence my remark: >>Which would explain the mystery better than any other >>explanation. >Henny, it is really sad you can't read the two articles. >This would clarify a lot of points. I can read them when someone scans them in and posts them somewhere. I can read French. >>>Yes, but see above. And did the eyewitnesses report the UFO >>>performing the same merry capers as appeared on the radar? I >>>think not. >There was no ground visual contacts beside moving lights. Lights >were more in intense wobbling than moving fast from side to side >of the sky. It was though a very uncommon light behaviors which >suggested it was not stars. But lights did not show extraordinary >displacements as would the UFO speed estimation based on the F16 >recording yield. See above, several objects suddenly disappeared from view. Any military pilot will tell you that the first things he does when he doesn't want to be detected by a potential hostile pursuer is to switch off his lights. >I wish this discussion returns to a wise and rational ground. Yes, and I might add a common sense ground as well. >Henny, It would be a mistake to put into question the whole >Belgian UFO flap and the 2000 testimonies simply because we have >to discard the F16 evidence. >Some skeptics and the belgian defense minister officially did so, >but this is an error. Who cares what people say. We are >conducting an investigation, we are totally free and we are all >searching the truth whatever the path we take. >We have to respect any working hypothesis one choose as starting >point to do his investigation as long as he remains OBJECTIVE and >RATIONAL. Encore. >So we HAVE TO drop the F16 data as EVIDENCE of the presence of a >UFO simply because it COULD be a natural phenomenon. What natural phenomenon produces a jamming signal? What natural phenomenon accelerates after radar lock through the sound barrier, making three 70 degree turns and on altitudes between 0 and 11,000 feet? What natural phenomenon does this, Christophe? And while you're at, analyses by Dr. James McDonald tell me that only heavy temperature inversions can influence radar signals. These were the atmospheric conditions of the night: 'A slight temperature inversion at ground, and another, as slight, at 3000 feet.' And as you can see, these altitudes do not coincide with the radar trace that I presented. So why is the temperature inversion explanation brought up in the first place? Are we putting a square peg in a round hole? >We are searching evidences and we only have evidences when we can >discard any rational explanation. Spending more time on defending >or attacking this case is loosing your time and energy. What you >can do though is check the argumentation concluding to a >possible natural phenomenon. >It might have been a UFO, but we will never now for sure now. It >is bad news for everybody, even for the skeptics, because we can >always say it might still have been a UFO. >Happily the Belgian UFO flap has plenty more valuable testimonies >and there are still many people who didn't testified for various >reasons. I hope one day they will come forward and add their experiences to the database. >Bien cordialement, >Ch.Meessen La meme et merci beaucoup malgre tout. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:21:41 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:03:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:58:16 -0800 > > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 00:47:49 -0500 > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > > I myself, and several others that have contacted me recall these > > beings moving around in a 'single file.' Russ Hudson recalls them > > moving in a single file in what he described as a, "Rock step!" > > (Doo wah ditty aliens! <G>) > > Budd told me of a multiple sighting/abduction that happened to a > > group of teenagers in New England who reported seeing several small > > grey beings wearing what looked like little 'miners helmets' that > > had a small light on the front and that they were running to and fro > > -in a single file.- > Also, the same detail was present in the initial Andreasson > abduction, where the entities moved through the door in single > file, and did the same thing when leaving with Betty - in that > segment, she was part of the line. > Cases where the entities move oddly, stiffly, in unison, or float > are all part of the consciously recalled case lore. Recurrence of > those motifs in abductions are part of what lead me to keep my > mind open on the subject. If I remember correctly, in 'Communion' Whitley Strieber refers to entities in his bedroom moving toward him in "lockstep" which I assumed meant in unison or moving of the same accord. Perhaps motivated by one mind or a collective mind. Don Ledger Search for other documents from or mentioning: dledger | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Brazilian alien? From: RobIrving@aol.com Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:42:44 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:03:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Brazilian alien? > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 97 13:26:09 UT > From: "Tim Weir" <chilli-t@classic.msn.com> > To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Brazilian alien Hi Tim, > The alien was green in colour and appeared to have 'horns'. Are you sure the little devil was an alien? Rob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:51:10 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:11:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:52:21 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> <supermagnum snip> >>Several years ago I got into a letter-writing argument with Kottmeyer >>over the "goose hypothesis". [...] >>He came on strong, until I pointed out that Arnold said he turned his >>plane and opened the (left hand side) window. At this time Arnold was >>flying south, the same direction as the UFOS. Had they been geese >>Arnold would have overtaken and passed them. At any rate he wouldn't >>have been puzzled at their "high speed" even if they could fly as >>fast as 50 mph, as Kottmeyer suggested. (Arnold's plane was probably >>traveling 100 mph or faster but certainly much faster than 50 mph). >Understood and noted. >This all comes back to how reliable Arnold's overall judgement >was during that brief encounter. >If his calculations were perhaps out by some 50% on the length to >width ratio, maybe by a relative 35% on the altitude of the >objects, is it likely that his estimate of the objects' speed was >similarly inaccurate under these difficult conditions? Perhaps you didn't understand after all. Suppose these had been geese, say, 1/2 mile from the plane (angular size 1 mr or so). Suppose that as Arnold flew eastward the geese passed in front of him and were south of his position when he turned to the right to fly parallel to them. Suppose these are super geese that can fly at 60 mph (1 mile/minute or 88 ft/sec) and were 2000 ft south of Arnold when he turned. As soon as he completes the right hand turn he rolls down the window to get a clear view of these geese. Initially his sighting line to the geese is southward, lets say about 45 degrees to the left of dead head (plane now flying south).. At this time he is travelling at 120 mph (2 mi/min). How long does a it take for him to catch up with the geese (hint: 1 mi/min differential air speed; need to cover the 2000 ft "lead" the geese have on him.) In about 23 seconds the sighting line would rotate from 45 degrees to the left to 90 degrees to the left. After that the strange objects would clearly be behind the plane.. But, more importantly, it would probably only take a few seconds after the turn for Arnold to realize that **the sighting line to the objects was rotating to the left**...which would mean he was catching up with these strange objects, rather than rotating to the right, which would mean the objects were pulling away from him. Of course the numbers and distances used in this "model" of the sighting are synthetic. However, they illustrate the point. Now I hope you understand that it would be DIFFICULT for Arnold to mistake geese for high speed objects because as soon as he started flying parallel to their path he would realize he was catching up. When Kottmeyer realized this he shut up. >A question which Kottmeyer asks; if the objects were travelling >at the speed Arnold indicates, how can we account for the >apparent lack of a "sonic boom"? Lots of people ask that question. As we know, the skeptic uses this "it can't be" argument against the reality of something unusual going on. "If it were real, at that speed there would be a sonic boom." Well, Arnold may not have heard one if there was one. ON the other hand, fthe OTHER WITNESS (not considered by Kottmeyer, as I recall), Fred Johnson near Mt. Adams saw these things fly over his head, looked at them in a telescope, saw his compass wobble (lilke to see geese do that!) and heard no noise. Incidently there were a number of other sightings in the northwest on June 24.)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Hot Spots From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:46:31 -0500 Subject: Hot Spots Hi List, Here is a preliminary list of UFO Hot Spots. Anyone care to add a few or point out errors? I think there must be some some more at least in Latin America that I haven't included. UFO Hot spots Canada British Columbia Iceland In the Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland fishermen report Unidentified Submersible Objects. Mexico Mexico City Hockeypuck shapes. Starting in 1991. UK Falkirk triangle, Scotland=B7 Includes the towns of Bonnybridge and Falkirk Large number of sightings starting in 1992 Luminous objects USA Cascade Mountains, Washington Dundee, Wisconsin Flying Triangles Gulf Breeze, Florida Hundreds of sightings, including Ed Walters case. Starting late 1980s? Hudson Valley, New Jersey Flying triangles, early 1980s San Luis Valley, California Town of Del Norte is plagued by animal mutilations that sometimes coincide with luminous low flying UFOs __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: UFOR: fossil evidence of Alien species? From: Don Ledger <dledger@ISTAR.CA> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:28:52 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:55:12 -0500 Subject: Re: UFOR: fossil evidence of Alien species? Francisco Lopez wrote: > From:authority@webtv.net > The Palo Alto, CA bylined story of human like species being discovered was > a joke story. It was admitted to be a joke, by its author, the husband of > Jane Segal, the head moderator of the IUFO list. She apologized for > placing the story, and her husband apologized for making it up. > Doc in Phoenix You gotta wonder what kind of boring lives people like this must have if that's all they have to do with their time, making up hoaxes. All it does is make our jobs harder and reinforce beliefs in many circles that the phenomenon as a whole is a collection of misidentifications, mass hysteria and of course "hoaxes". That poor sad little guy. I feel sorry for him. Don Ledger \_______________________________________________/ __ __ _____ _____ /\ \/\ \/\ __\/\ __`\ Instant Archives at: \ \ \ \ \ \ \_/\ \ \/\ \ http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates \ \ \ \ \ \ _\\ \ \ \ \ UFO UpDates - Toronto \ \ \_\ \ \ \/ \ \ \_\ \ updates@globalserve.net \ \_____\ \_\ \ \_____\ ++ 416-696-0145 \/_____/\/_/ \/_____/ Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp __ __ ____ __ /\ \/\ \ /\ _ `\ /\ \__ \ \ \ \ \ _____\ \ \/\ \ __ \ \ ,_\ __ ____ \ \ \ \ \/\ __`\ \ \ \ \ / __ \ \ \ \/ /'__`\ / __\ \ \ \_\ \ \ \_\ \ \ \_\ \/\ \ \ \_\ \ \_/\ __//\__, `\ \ \_____\ \ __/\ \____/\ \__/ \_\\ \__\ \____\/\____/ \/_____/\ \ \ \/___/ \/__/\/_/ \/__/\/____/\/___/ +-+-+-+\ \_\+-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |T|h|e| \/_/|E|-|M|a|i|l| |L|i|s|t| |S|e|r|v|i|c|e| +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:44:29 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:24:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:51:10 -0500 > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Now I hope you understand that it would be DIFFICULT for Arnold > to mistake geese for high speed objects because as soon as he > started flying parallel to their path he would realize he was > catching up. When Kottmeyer realized this he shut up. I'm glad you raised this, Bruce, because I did a semi-controlled experiment this weekend (talk about coincidence). I was driving on a north to south highway, and it turned out that there were some geese flying in approx. the same direction. They were at some distance, and as I drove along I quickly caught up with them and passed them (@65 mph). Also, they were at about 20 degrees elevation; they were clearly geese at all distances, even when at the limits of resolution. And, despite the fact that the sun was to my right and the geese were to my left, they never once emitted a specular reflection or looked like disk-shaped object. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Hot Spots From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:12:19 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:20:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots >>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:12:50 +0100 (MET) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>Subject: Hot Spots >>Hi List, >>I am compiling a list of UFO hot spots. Yesterday I saw a Discovery >>Channel docu that featured sightings in the US town of Dundee. >>Can someone inform me privately in which state this town lies. >>Tmia. Henny, I don't know about Dundee, but your list ought to include Wytheville, Virginia, just down the road from me. This has been a real hot spot for many years, and the sightings continue. This has been a subject for Unsolved Mysteries and The X-Files. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:03:39 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:19:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:24:56 -0800 <selective snipping> Mark sorry for not writing sooner only I've been a tad busy. >Back in the investigation, as in famous Sherlock Holmes >quote, one must eliminate the _possible_ before accepting >that what remains, no matter how improbable (i.e. UFO >status) is indeed the truth. I wonder if Phil Klass ever read any Sherlock Holmes?? <G> >The case must literally _compel_ >acceptance as a UFO in the face of a considerable and >warranted focus by the investigator on proving it an IFO. >When that happens, the resulting case can be considered >(hopefully) as solid and usable UFO data. > >This does not mean that the investigator should be biased >against the witness or the case. But realistically, the >investigator must know going in that there is no more >than a 30% chance that the case is a UFO case. With >that perspective and drive, the investigator is less likely >to pack up and go away when the surface of the case >has been explored, leaving another time bomb for some >trusting researcher to end up having explode in their >hands. >------ >Mark Cashman I understand exactly what you are saying, it appears that we both have very similar ideas but use different terminology. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: UFOR: The 1968 RAND Corporation Report on UFOs From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:13:11 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:25:30 -0500 Subject: Re: UFOR: The 1968 RAND Corporation Report on UFOs >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:54:57 -0500 (EST) >From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org> >Subject: UFOR: The RAND Corporation Report on UFOs >SMTP id EAA23845 for <updates@globalserve.net> > RAND DOCUMENT > UFOs: What to Do? The text posted here was just converted HTML from my site and it didn't include any of the original drawings. To see these, load up the complete paper at: http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/papers/kocher.htm Or just work your way through from the index page. -- Jean van Gemert Jeanvg@dds.nl, j.v.gemert@tn.fontys.nl Eindhoven Polytechnic, Department of Physical Engineering __________________________________________________________________________ Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate: http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html -----------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Maccabee Mexico City Analysis - Live Chat From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 15:00:48 UT Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:21:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Maccabee Mexico City Analysis - Live Chat Dr. Bruce Maccabee is scheduled to chat with the UFO Forum at 6pm, PT. (http://forums.msn.com/UFO) Although we were going to initially discuss the Gulf Breeze scenario, an opportunity has come up that is worth changing the agenda for. Dr. Maccabee has been able to obtain a copy of the Mexico City Video and has done some extensive analysis. The URLs for his analysis are on the UFO Mind site in the archives as follows: Comments on Mexico City Video of 08-06-97 - 1/2:http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/nov/m14-020.shtml Comments on Mexico City Video of 08-06-97 - 2/2: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/nov/m14-009.shtml Mexico City - More Video Analysis: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1997/nov/m15-006.shtml The UFO Forum has faxed copies of these analyses to Jim Dilettoso who has been working with the original video footage. Our hope is to obtain a response from him before this evening's chat. -- Diana Botsford Moderator Forum Manager UFO Forum Project: watchfire http://forums.msn.com/UFO
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:06 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:13:52 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 21:42:08 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c ><snip> >>>Now very possibly, although statistically highly >>>improbably, 4 million US citizens have been >>>abducted. OK. ><snip> <selective snipping> >There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, none, nada, zilch, >that four million Americans have been abducted. There is not even >a credible suggestion of same. It is a complete, total and utter >fiction. (You see, now, Greg et al, why you ought to weigh in on >the negative side on occasion.) >That number comes from something known as the Roper Report, which >is totally without any sort of substantiation whatsoever. It is a >disservice to you personally to give it more than the time of >day, and a greater disservice to the public at large to pass it >around as if it had any meaning at all, let alone as if it were >somehow proved. The number is a total charade and completely >without foundation. >If every ufologist in the world huffed and puffed to their >hearts' content, and then huffed and puffed some more, they might >be able to come up with a thousand abduction cases -- arguably >half of which have never been investigated in any detail or depth >whatsoever, if investigated at all. That is, they've simply been >taken at face value. >To argue, suggest, or believe otherwise is to seriously delude >yourself. When it comes to the number four million, and the >phrase "one in forty" in regard to abductions, be aware that they >are one and the same, and equally and wholly without significance >or meaning. Both are chimeras with a capital C, nothing more and >nothing less. >Anyone who says otherwise probably listens to Art Bell in their >underwear and is itching for a fight. >Dennis Dennis When I had the occasion to chat to Budd Hopkins ( at some length I might add) at the Fortean Times UNconvention this year he said that he had personally over six hundred genuine cases on his files. Now if I remember correctly Budd has been doing his reseach into abductions for a large number of years ( 20 plus) and it was his first book that got a huge amount of people writing to him about their cases, ( I dare say this is possibly how John Velez got in contact with the man.) What I mean to say that it was only his writing a book on the subject that gave these people a person to speak to. If there was no person to speak to then a lot of these people would probably still be silent now and we would know nothing of their cases. However Budd said that he believed that there were loads of people that did not contact him (or any other researcher for that matter ) simply because they did not want to accept what was happening to them. He also said to me that he had no way of knowing just how many people have been abducted but the figure was frightening at any number. Now if Budd has no *real* idea of the amount of people that have been abducted then who has? So a speculation of "4 million" could be way out OR an _under_ estimate. Who Knows? Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Belgian Radar Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:33:05 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:27:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar Visual Jean Pierre, Thank you for your this information. >Then I read on sci.skeptic that (at the end >of December 1996 or beginning of January 1997), >during an A&E TV broadcast (USA), with >some people from the SOBEPS (if memory serves), >it was said that, amongst the various locks, >there was one simultaneous lock of both fighters >as well as the ground radar. Reading the transcript >of the conversation between the ground controller >and the pilots, and scrutinizing the details of >the locks as published in the first SOBEPS book, >I concluded that it could be only locks number >5 and 6 (Meessen's numerotation), lasting 8 and >11.4 seconds. And this was very probably IMHO the >craft flying in straight line from Brussels to >Liege, at subsonic speed, and followed by the >Glons and Semmerzake ground radars. But these >echoes and this craft don't look extraterrestial, >they don't have the "crazy" characteristics of >the contact of which you reposted the transcript, >they look like maybe a private jet flying >illegally (no transponder). However the whole >thing remains a bit mysterious. >Sincerely, >Jean-Pierre Pharabod Look at these sets of data. These are the contacts. I. number (seconds) at=B7 1 2.3 00 h 13 March 31,1990 (March 30 22 h 13 GMT)=B7 2 3.4=B7 3 19.9 00 h 15=B7 4 27.5 00 h 29=B7 5 8.0=B7 6 11.4=B7 7 9.3=B7 8 < 0.1=B7 9 45.9 00 h 39=B7 10 16.2=B7 11 11.4=B7 12 9.5=B7 13 11.2 00 h 46' Eliminating contact 9 (the other F16), contacts 3 and 4, lasting 19.9 and 27.5 seconds, are the only ones that could relate to the erratic contact sequence lasting 22.5 seconds. Contact 4 - 27 sec. - could include 22.5 seconds of radar lock. But: >From the staff report it appears that: 00 h 13: First lock on the target designated by the CRC. Position: "on the nose" 6 NM (Nautical Miles), 9000 feet, direction: 250. The target speed changes within minimum time from 150 to 970 knots, altitude coming down from 9000 to 5000 feet, then up to 11000 feet, and, shortly after, down to ground level. Contact 3 happened at 00.15 according to the table of concacts. Though we don't have exact corroberation of the times of contact, contact 3 would seem the best fit for the erratic contact sequence. II. Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)=B7 00 200 150 7000=B7 01 200 150 7000=B7 02 200 150 7000=B7 03 200 150 7000=B7 04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000=B7 05 turn 270 =3D 22 g 560 6000=B7 06 270 560 6000=B7 07 270 570 6000=B7 08 270 560 7000=B7 09 270 550 7000=B7 10 210 560 9000=B7 11 210 570 10000=B7 12 210 560 11000=B7 13 210 570 10000=B7 14 270 770 7000=B7 15 270 770 6000=B7 16 270 780 6000=B7 17 270 790 5000=B7 18 290 1010 4000=B7 19 290 1000 3000=B7 20 290 990 2000=B7 21 290 990 1000=B7 22 300 990 0000=B7 22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock=B7 III. The above contact sequence includes an acceleration from 150 to 560 knots. Which would corroberate with the rounded numbers the pilot provides in this excerpt, from 100 to 600. This contact excerpt clearly shows simultaneous radar contact. It also shows erratic moves that cannot be explained by any terrestrial aircraft or natural phenomenon. P=3DPilot C=3DController Numbers like 300 and 120 are headings, measured in degrees. ***** P Roger SB 100=B7 C Civilian traffic 300, 5 miles=B7 P " " " " "=B7 Steady 120 C Continue 100 P 100=B7 C Even 060 now 060, 5 P Steady 060=B7 C 060, 3. You have contact?=B7 P One contact but speed is changing from 100 to 600 C I have the same contact=B7 P Slightly to right 4 miles=B7 C Affirmative. High moving=B7 P Steady east now=B7 C Roger=B7 P Lost contact=B7 Although the above maneuvers could not be witnessed visually from the ground, the Glons radar had picked up the signal earlier while the gendarmes were watching the objects in the sky. Nowhere in the reports is there any mention that the Glons radar lost contact with the objects. The Glons radar did direct the F16s to the target. In other words, the same objects that were seen by the gendarmes were later detected by F16 radar AND Glons radar and showed the erractic signal. In other words, there is no need to dismiss the F16 radar recordings as evidence. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Arizona Hockey Puck Update From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:54 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:15:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Arizona Hockey Puck Update Phoenix Sightings Update by Tom King A wave of sighting in Arizona has started up again and continue almost daily. November 14, 1997 a report of a Hockey Puck was taped for 15 minutes by Jeff Willis. Local MUFON investigators are looking into the footage. I haven't had time to see a copy yet. November 16, 1997. Rob King reported while hiking up Camelback Mts he saw a strange white object over Phoenix. He took three 35 mm of the high altitude object with a 1500 mm telephoto lens. November 17, 1997. Again Rob King reported at 11:30 during his lunch break in Scottsdale, AZ he saw two large silver objects traveling together near the clouds. One object suddenly stopped and hovered while the other silver object kept going. After many miles of traveling it reversed course and came back and parked next to the other object. Rob went inside and brought out two construction workers to see this. They watched these objects and saw a large comercial jet approaching. They thought the objects were about hald the size of the jet. When the jet approached the two objects with in half a mile, they both shot upwards rapidly. Rob said they "shot off like bullets". I placed a call with Sky Habor Airport and talked to someone who was in the tower. They said the object was two high to register on their 5 mile radar limit. So I called Alburque Center and they state they had no usual reports and transferred me to Military operations and I spoke with a Mr. Meyers. Mr. Meyers stated he knew heard nothing about anything usual. He added nothing would happen unless the pilot reported the sighting. I will follow up on this one and try to find the person watching the radar in this area. Also one other recent sighting was reported by Chris Williams who videotaped a pulsing object flying just under the clouds. If anyone reading this has any additional information please forward it to me. Tom King, Skywatcher Arizona Skywatch director AZ Skywatch http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/skywatch/skywatch.htm OVNI Chapterhouse at http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 'Coincidental' UFO Sightings and Natural Events From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:50:40 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:29:16 -0500 Subject: 'Coincidental' UFO Sightings and Natural Events The recent Washington state UFO sightings, which were said by some to be explained both by a satellite rocket reentry and a meteor shower, raises the old question of how "coincidental" such UFO events actually are. In this Washington state case, many of the reports were of dazzling displays that lasted 5 or 10 seconds long, and could not have been due to meteors, each of whose streak lasts less than one second. And many could not have been those assigned to the reentering rocket, as it was said by authorities to have splashed into the Pacific, while the UFOs were seen over land passing from west to east. This latter info comes from callers to the Art Bell show that night. If anyone has quotes from witnesses on this, perhaps obtained from Linda Howe's report (whose audio I'm unable to download) on Art's web page, it would be worthwhile to post it here. The earliest mention I've noticed in any literature that such UFO sightings tend to occur near the same time and place as natural events, more frequently than can be ascribed to chance, is due to Pennsylvania ufologist Stan Gordon (see the MUFON J. of Dec. 1985, p. 8). Here he states: "Recently the MUFON UFO Journal published several articles which have shown indication that unexplained UFO activity in some cases seems to occur at nearly the same time, and in the same general location where observers have reported the passage of a scientifically explainable UFO, such as a bright meteor or a satellite re-entry. This 'covert' activity should be closely monitored by researchers to see if additional cases of this type are occurring." I believe that Stan Gordon was right on in his analysis, and that such cases have been recurring, with this Washington state event being the most recent. This would merely mean that the "I" in SETI, which stands for intelligence, is indeed an attribute of the UFO aliens, and is of sufficiently high level to be able to stay several jumps ahead of scientists and ufologists alike. The main reason for such alien strategy, of course, would be to supply at least a modicum of deniability to those debunkers and negative skeptics whose beliefs (or belief systems, one may say) would be shattered if they were suddenly forced to believe that UFO aliens or ETs are in our vicinity, are aware of us, and are far ahead of us not only in science and technology but in intelligence and cleverness. However, by ignoring the witnesses' reports indicating that the natural "explanation" can't explain the sightings, or at most can explain only the ordinary humdrum observance that occurred nearby in space or time, debunkers can utilize the ridicule factor, as by saying "If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you." Such ridicule, of course, does not address the sightings in question, but fear of such ridicule may deter ufologists from paying more attention to such cases. I believe such alien behavior or strategy is fully consistent with their similar strategy of frequently disguising (or reshaping?) their craft to look nearly or somewhat like airplanes or even black helicopters, and at times at night to appear like stars, except for moving about suddenly at times but at other times just sitting still and being of an intensity comparable to a star. Prof. Harley Rutledge has documented cases of the latter type. The aliens thereby continue to supply deniability to the incredulous while supplying UFO evidence to those who may happen to notice that the "airplane" had no wings & tail, or at night showed improperly colored or improperly located navigational lights, etc. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Arizona Boomerang Update From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:11:04 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:11:04 -0500 Subject: Arizona Boomerang Update Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:33 -0500 (EST) To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) Subject: Arizona Boomerang Update Arizona Boomerang Update. by Tom King At the first Annual Skywatch International conference held in Phoenix Arizona, held last November 15, 16. Bill Hamilton presented a very interesting videotape of apparently two "Boomerang" style objects sighted north of Phoenix. Bill recieved a phone call just before he left for Italy last week. A man was reporting he had videotaped two boomerangs back in 1992. He also stated he had a copy of local news coverage to verify his sighting. Bill had the man contact Village Labs and he brought his tape down to be studied. The witness and his wife were out videotaping the moon on November 27, 1992. They noticed a strange set of lights and focused their camera on it. As they zoomed in a V-shaped formation of lights is seen. With a large flashing object following it. This videotape is remarkably simular to Terry McLehran videotape of the boomerang on March 13. Although this video has more details to look at in regard to these boomerang sightings. During the video you can see many of the lights are moving and some merge together. For a couple of seconds it becomes a very bright formation of lights. Some people wonder if this part could reveal some detail about if its one object. One of the things that came to mind was. Could this be a formation of jets? Or a refueling operation? I called Luke Air Force base and talked to Public Affairs Officier Bill McKenzy. I explained to him where and what happened, and told Bill I have this on tape, and a old newscast. Bill stated that they don't fly or train in the CaveCreek area, nor would the AirForce EVER refuel over a populated area. Jet fuel might hit houses and people would sue the AirForce. He went on to say, they refuel over mountains in northern Arizona between 30,000 to 40,000 ft. I asked how I could get documentation for that night as to all military aircraft in the state or in the sky. Bill thought it would be very hard almost impossible.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 LIUFON's John Ford 'Unfit' To Stand Trial From: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:05:48 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:34:06 -0500 Subject: LIUFON's John Ford 'Unfit' To Stand Trial Friday, November 14, 1997 UFO enthusiast in N.Y. found unfit to stand trial John Ford, a UFO enthusiast accused of masterminding a plot to assassinate three political officials in Suffolk County, was found unfit to stand trial on Thursday. A judge ordered that he be sent to an upstate psychiatric institution for at least a year. Ford, 48, was arrested a year ago on charges that he was scheming to kill the three officials by putting radium in their cars and lacing their toothpaste with radioactive metal. Investigators said Ford wanted the three officials killed because he believed they were interfering with his efforts to contact aliens from outer space. Ford's friends said he believed that visitors from outer space had crash-landed on Long Island and that government officials were keeping the aliens at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton and had created diversionary fires in Long Island's Pine Barrens to conceal the crash landings. =A9 1997 Deseret News Publishing Co.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Hot Spots From: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:27:56 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:29:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Hot Spots >Hi List, >Here is a preliminary list of UFO Hot Spots. Anyone care to >add a few or point out errors? I think there must be some >some more at least in Latin America that I haven't included. >San Luis Valley, California >Town of Del Norte is plagued by animal mutilations that >sometimes coincide with luminous low flying UFOs San Luis Valley is in south central Colo. and Northern NM. Tim
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Hot Spots From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:16:49 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:40:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > Subject: Hot Spots > Hi List, > Here is a preliminary list of UFO Hot Spots. Anyone care to > add a few or point out errors? I think there must be some > some more at least in Latin America that I haven't included. Hi Henny, I think UFO Hot Spots will be found nearly anywhere in the world one cares to look at closely. Whenever a few UFO sightings are reported in a given area, other people are willing to share their UFO observations and a Hot Spot can be created. This would not rule out that some UFO "Cold Spots" could actually be Hot Spots. For example, I never thought that Oakville, Ontario was a UFO Hot Spot until someone from CSETI started to observe and noted lots of UFO activity there. An astronomer who gave a talk at a MUFON Ontario meeting recently argued that UFOs cannot be extraterrestrial craft since they have lights like aircraft which would make them too easy to detect at night. But who is to say that this is actually the exception rather than the rule and that the vast majority of UFOs are in fact unlit objects. I know of a few other astronomers who have detected such dark UFOs in the night sky. Could there be 10 unlit UFOs for every 1 UFO with lights, maybe 100 to 1, or 1000 to 1? Who knows? This and UFO Hot Spots are all relative. Nikolaos Balaskas
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:28:12 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:56:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:44:29 -0800 >> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:51:10 -0500 >> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony> >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> Now I hope you understand that it would be DIFFICULT for Arnold >> to mistake geese for high speed objects because as soon as he >> started flying parallel to their path he would realize he was >> catching up. When Kottmeyer realized this he shut up. >I'm glad you raised this, Bruce, because I did a semi-controlled >experiment this weekend (talk about coincidence). >I was driving on a north to south highway, and it turned out that >there were some geese flying in approx. the same direction. They >were at some distance, and as I drove along I quickly caught up >with them and passed them (@65 mph). >Also, they were at about 20 degrees elevation; they were clearly >geese at all distances, even when at the limits of resolution. >And, despite the fact that the sun was to my right and the geese >were to my left, they never once emitted a specular reflection or >looked like disk-shaped object. Thanks for reporting your "controlled experiment with geese" (Glad you didn't try doing 120 mph to bettern simulate Arnold's situation.) If it flies like a goose, reflects like a goose and looks like a goose..... then you can use it to goose anyone who claims Arnold saw a flight of geese.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:50:59 +0100 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:53:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:44:29 -0800 > > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:51:10 -0500 > > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > Now I hope you understand that it would be DIFFICULT for Arnold > > to mistake geese for high speed objects because as soon as he > > started flying parallel to their path he would realize he was > > catching up. When Kottmeyer realized this he shut up. > I'm glad you raised this, Bruce, because I did a semi-controlled > experiment this weekend (talk about coincidence). > I was driving on a north to south highway, and it turned out that > there were some geese flying in approx. the same direction. They > were at some distance, and as I drove along I quickly caught up > with them and passed them (@65 mph). > Also, they were at about 20 degrees elevation; they were clearly > geese at all distances, even when at the limits of resolution. > And, despite the fact that the sun was to my right and the geese > were to my left, they never once emitted a specular reflection or > looked like disk-shaped object. Hi Mark and Bruce, Nonetheless they do reflect light. I've seen it myself on a few occassions, but only toward sunset with the geese flying below my altitude and the sun two to three diameters above the horizon. They were very pretty and that's it. In no way..I repeat...in no way am I suggesting that geese [or other birds] were what Arnold saw. In each case when I observed the geese reflecting it was more like a change of wing colour [lovely golden hue] with an apparent low degree of reflectivity and they were OBVIOUSLY geese. Again, I don't buy into the idea that geese were the objects that Arnold saw. I sure he had seen, during his lenghty flying career, many instances of where flights of geese or some other type of bird reflected light. Like we all do he would have filed it away in his memory and would have reviewed that as a possibilty when he had his sighting. He did mention geese but obviously did not relate that in any way to his sighting other than to note that the objects strung out like geese in a roughly [geeselike] formation. Strange, the more we talk about Arnold's sighting the more it intrigues me, even though it is one of the earliest of sightings. I've already noted a few things that have been missed or misinterpreted. Strange they weren't picked up before this. Best, Don Ledger Search for other documents from or mentioning: dledger | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Are 'We' Being 'Watched'? From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:37:23 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:58:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Are 'We' Being 'Watched'? >Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:20:59 -0400 (AST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >From: Eric Howarth <erich@bud.peinet.pe.ca> >Subject: Are we being watched ???? >Pentagon Trolls the Net/UFO Groups Targeted! >"Pentagon Trolls The Net" By David Corn >c1996 Hi All Apart from the fact that this report is a year old, what can "they" do? Whilst I don't pretend to know what the percentages of the people on the internet are American, a huge chunk of people are NOT American. So what can "they" do with this information other than to collect it? The reason I say this is simple, there is a large amount of internet users in countries that America has no influence on let alone extradition arrangements. So post away the American government can get as paranoid as it likes "they" can't *do* anything about "them". The only people who'll get rattled by this is the people who have got something to hide and are worried about it. (IMHO) Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | erich |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Object over Bangor North Wales UK From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:51:06 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:05:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Object over Bangor North Wales UK >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:52:00 -0600 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> >Subject: Object over Bangor North Wales UK >Just received this report from UK >Joe Henry >Minnesota MUFON >On Sunday November 16th at 16:10 hrs GMT an object was sighted >moving South to North over Bangor North Wales, UK. The object was >observed from the upper floor of the University Library. When the >object was first sighted it was bright white in colour, then it >entered a cloud, when it emerged it was a Yellow/Gold in colour, >and had a similarity to the rescue helicopterts which operate in >the area. But the object showed not characteristic rotor blades >or floation/undercarraige struts port and stardboard. It had no >flashing warning strobes and no ensignia denoting its origin. >The shape was similar to a tear drop on its side. The motion >seemed to be too smooth to be a helicopter or other aircaft. It >did not reappear once out of sight. The object was at >approximatley 500ft with the sun to its starboard. The forward >portion of the "fuselage" had a black/dark area which led me to >compaire it to the Sea King helicopter in the Search and Rescue >colours. There was no forward canopy visible. The craft was in >sight for approximatley 8-10 seconds. I am an experienced >ex-military aircraft observer and am proficient in aircraft >recognition. Hope this is of some interest to you. Thanks for >your time. >S. hi Joel It might be related or it might not but Ratheon is a large company which is some sort of equavalent to Lockheed for secret defence projects. I am NOT saying that it is connected but, Ratheon's HQ is slightly north of north Wales and it is fairly well known that they test their "planes" over the sea between Ireland and England. Again I state it might be nothing whatsoever to do with the object sighted but it is worth considering. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | jhenry |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:13:17 -0500 Subject: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Hello Errol & List, I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. My question to the List is........Can these web logs be messed around with in any way?. Is this likely to be a hoax? If it is the Government who visited the site, why are they interested in the phenomenon in Scotland and a new site which obviously poses no threat to them or their country's security? I hope that this matter can be cleared up as I find this all to be very puzzling. Thank you for your time...........Dave Ledger(UFO Scotland) http//wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Hot Spots From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:34:51 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:54:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote: > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:12:19 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hot Spots > >>Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 21:12:50 +0100 (MET) > >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > >>Subject: Hot Spots > >>Hi List, > >>I am compiling a list of UFO hot spots. Yesterday I saw a Discovery > >>Channel docu that featured sightings in the US town of Dundee. > >>Can someone inform me privately in which state this town lies. > >>Tmia. > Henny, > I don't know about Dundee, but your list ought to include > Wytheville, Virginia, just down the road from me. This has > been a real hot spot for many years, and the sightings > continue. > This has been a subject for Unsolved Mysteries and The X-Files. > Bob Hi Bob & Henny, There's a book documenting the Wytheville sightings up to 1988: Danny Gordon's _Don't Look Up_. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 PROJECT-1947 Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:46:47 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:39:39 -0500 Subject: PROJECT-1947 Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his Greetings LIst Members, The Area 51 Mailing LIst has a rather harsh message about Steve Wilson, Colonel, CAF, USAF (Ret) [CAF must be the Confederate Air Force, an aviation booster group.] It seemed that such an unsupported attack needed an answer. Best regards, Jan ================================================================== Glenn, I am *shocked* by the post below! Now can't we all just get along? IF Colonel Wilson is in the hospital, I wish him a speedy and complete recovery. He should get back to work as soon as possible so he can defend his good name and correct the mistaken ideas about him. After his return, two things he should do right away: make sure his records reflect his status as "Triple Ace" and holder to "The Air Medal or Honor." Seems like he has been left off the public listings of Aces and Medal of Honor winners. Or perhaps my eyes, which are not as good as they once were, caused me to miss the entries. Someone with better vision should check out the Aces Site: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/aces.html and the Medal of Honor Site: http://160.147.68.21:80/cmh-pg/moh1.htm Someone with sharp eye sight could probably find his name on these sites. Or you know how bureaucrats operate these days, he was probably just left of the lists by mistake. He should also check the MJ-12 roster to see if they left him off of that also. Get Well Soon, Colonel! -- Jan Aldrich ----- "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 07:38:39 -0800 From: [withheld by request] [From a correspondent who has watched the "Colonel" for several years.] It makes me sick to watch people buy [the Colonel's] lines day after day. I just wish someone would do something about him. A lot of people will remember the things he has said in public and hoped people forgot. He probably never planned to show up at the Skywatch conference and is pulling one of his "disappearing acts" he is so famous for. ... Most if not all of what the Colonel claims about himself are lies and most of the stuff on his web site is misinformation and disinformation.... IF the colonel is really in the hospital, he would probably be in a VA in or around Austin, Texas. He is disabled with heart/lung disease and depends on oxygen. He is around 63 years old. Desert Storm my ass! He may not be in the hospital at all as he has done this before in the past and was never really gone. But since he IS disabled, he may be sick and actually in the hospital. Can't tell when he is telling the truth anymore because he lies so much. But the members of his little "cult" will never believe this because they WANT to believe he is telling them information supposedly from an "insider". He has never provided proof of his claims and he always gets mad at anyone who asks him to prove what he says and he says he doesn't have to prove anything. All of his lies are there, in his own words, in many posts he has posted to the Skywatch mailing list. It is there in the memories of his cult too if they think back...if they CAN think for themselves anymore. ==============================================================
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies From: Rebecca Keith <XianneKei@AOL.COM> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:02:21 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:57:52 -0500 Subject: PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies Greetings Jan and list, >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:46:47 -0800 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> >Subject: Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > The Area 51 Mailing LIst has a rather harsh message about > Steve Wilson, Colonel, CAF, USAF (Ret) [CAF must be the > Confederate Air Force, an aviation booster group.] It seemed > that such an unsupported attack needed an answer. While the good Col is answering your questions, I hope he can also tell us where he learned to read Vegan. Nevermind, that I don't even know what VEGAN is, but from digesting some of Col Steve's posts, I have surmised it is some sort of alien language which is written on the side of UFOs. Why do we bother with people like Col. Steve? Bob Dean? Derrel Sims? And countless others? They never offer ANY proof for their claims -- they just want to be storytellers. I wrote Col. Steve off during the Alien Autopsy debacle, as he was making wild claims then. People who make claims with no documentation are a waste of our time. And on the oppposite of the coin, when one offers proof that these storytellers claims are bogus, well, their followers will never believe you and brand you an agent of disinformation! Since I'm relatively new to this field, I would like to know: Has it always been like this? Or is the problem worse now because we live in the information age? Thanks, Rebecca BTW, I wrote about storytellers in the latest issue of Fortean Times (Issue 105). Search for other documents from or mentioning: xiannekei | jan |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:11:46 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:30:59 -0500 Subject: Re: PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his Hi Rebecca, Yesterday, I talked to Richard Hall. He wanted some pictures to use in the UFO Evidence, Volume II. He told me that he had taking quick look at the Fortean Times. His deadline for the art work is Friday. So he did not have too much time except for a quick read. He said someone he did not know had written a great article. He felt as if the calvary had rode in with reinforcement. Today, I got my Fortean Times, and I see what he means. Here is Rebecca saying what few have had the courage to say. "You husksters, where is the proof of all your wonderful stories?" Excellent article! I highly recommend it! We need to expose this lot to the searching light of truth. Keep up the good work Rebecca. > While the good Col is answering your questions, I hope he can also tell us > where he learned to read Vegan. Nevermind, that I don't even know what VEGAN > is, but from digesting some of Col Steve's posts, I have surmised it is some > sort of alien language which is written on the side of UFOs. > Why do we bother with people like Col. Steve? Bob Dean? Derrel Sims? Because Ufology has become entertainment, and most people associated with it want these people to entertain them with their wonderful tales. And > countless others? Yes, we are overrun by X-files and smiling grey heads..... They never offer ANY proof for their claims -- they just > want to be storytellers. I wrote Col. Steve off during the Alien Autopsy > debacle, as he was making wild claims then. > People who make claims with no documentation are a waste of our time. However, they are good for 100 posts on the less focused Email Lists. > And on > the oppposite of the coin, when one offers proof that these storytellers > claims are bogus, well, their followers will never believe you and brand you > an agent of disinformation! Exactly. A new logical fallacy has been created. If you don't agree with someone, just label that person a disinformation agent. > Since I'm relatively new to this field, I would like to know: Has it always > been like this? There were nuts here from the very beginning. Now, they have grabbed the high ground and control what is left of ufology. When NICAP was around in the late sixties, at least there was a more serious atitude. > Or is the problem worse now because we live in the information age? It is definitely gotten worse. Anyone can jump up and start a stupid thread that will go on for weeks. > BTW, I wrote about storytellers in the latest issue of Fortean Times (Issue > 105). Yes, you did and a terrific job, too! Well done. Thanks, -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: Maccabee Mexico City Analysis - Live Chat From: "WHITE" <mjawhite@digitaldune.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:28:53 -0700 Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:24:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Maccabee Mexico City Analysis - Live Chat Diana posted: >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 15:00:48 UT >From: "Diana Hopkins" <DDBH@classic.msn.com> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Maccabee Mexico City Analysis - Live Chat Tuesday at 6pm, PT >Dr. Bruce Maccabee is scheduled to chat with the UFO Forum at 6pm, PT. >(http://forums.msn.com/UFO) Although we were going to initially discuss <snip> Diana: Sorry I missed the chat with BM; server went "busy." Could you post the comments from Jim D.... If he responded to your fax. Thanks! John White mjawhite@digitaldune.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:35:50 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:15:27 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:55:51 -0600 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Phoenix Lights > It's not a matter of making the planes fit, radar says they were > not there in the 1st place. As I understand it, the only report that the lights were seen but nothing could be picked up on radar is the one made by Bill Grava, an air traffic controller at Sky Harbor Airport. However, Grava states in his interview with Susan Rook on CNN that his radar coverage was limited to a diameter of 10 miles around the airport. If, as is generally agreed, the 10 pm lights were at least 5 miles southwest of the airport, then there is no reason to believe that the 10 pm lights or anything in the air associated with them would have been close enough to have been picked up on Sky Harbor's radar. At least in relation to the 10 pm lights, "nothing on radar" seems to be a myth, which should be discarded. Has the flight path of the V-shaped object(s) that flew overhead 1 1/2 hours earlier been established well enough to know for sure whether or not they were close enough to Sky Harbor to have been picked up on radar? -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 18 The National UFO Reporting Centre From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:37:50 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:22:58 -0500 Subject: The National UFO Reporting Centre Many people enjoy reading the reports online from the National UFO Reporting Center. People from all over the planet, write or call in reports of their UFO sightings. Information coming from the Center is a starting source of an investigation in your local area. They are the hub of ufology with the spokes being the investigators. Times have changed in recent years and now they are getting to the point where they are becoming unable to function. To many reports and inquires for information are getting impossible to process. The calls coming into the Center are so frequent that the staff is unable to keep up with the data. They are understaffed and underfunded. Their telephone rings non stop with new reports and investigators wanting to access file data. It seems that now their is a large influx of U.S. sightings that have bogged down the operations of the Center. With recent mass sightings in Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, and California and the west coast they are overloaded with information without the resources to disseminate it. Imagine the data we could access and enter into their system on all the recent and old sightings that have happened? This organization is running on a volunteer basis and all out of pocket, while some organizations receive some funding from Rockefeller, or Bigelow. We must take action to support and improve the Center immediately! They need their own building, high powered computers, and most importantly a funded staff. As UFO researchers we should recognize this problem and address it, for we can't afford to lose this center or its data. If we expect to continue to getting information, we need to start giving back and making this a two way street. We cannot expect to just keep taking and giving nothing in return. I'm calling on all UFO researchers to help them, especially the top UFO researchers who have the power to help. As the UFO community we need to band together as a team and support each other. Linking your site to their homepage isn't going to help, what they need is funding! As acting director of Arizona Skywatch we are going to make it a point to find out ways to raise funds for them. Skywatch, MUFON, CUFOS, ORTK, and others should join together to improve the machine that this our own UFO intelligent system. We can't afford to lose them and this data, send whatever funds you can to: National UFO Reporting Center P.O. Box 45623 University Station Seattle, WA 98145 You can also support them by getting their videotape. What the hell its almost Christmas, help out. Also I was not asked by the National UFO Reporting Center to ask for help. I made my own decision to help. After speaking with Peter Davenport I realized how serious these problems are in getting the information out. I am not going to sit around and watch this center shut down from information overload. I'm doing something about it, people need to get up off their ass and start helping these people who are breaking their back for us. Tom King, Skywatcher Arizona Skywatch director AZ Skywatch http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/skywatch/skywatch.htm OVNI Chapterhouse at http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:14:13 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:55:27 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/18/97 9:13 PM: > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 > From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Question > Hello Errol & List, > I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of > you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating > on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. > I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc > and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform > you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I > noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. Most likely these are from some US government employee who was using his work computer to surf the net. Web counters may report any host with ".gov" in the suffix as US government. Nothing sinister. We just have a lot of government employees over here with nothing better to do than surf the net on taxpayer dollars. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: Hot Spots From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:56:49 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:01:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:16:49 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) >From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos@YorkU.CA> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Hot Spots >> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >> Subject: Hot Spots >> Hi List, >> Here is a preliminary list of UFO Hot Spots. Anyone care to >> add a few or point out errors? I think there must be some >> some more at least in Latin America that I haven't included. >Hi Henny, >I think UFO Hot Spots will be found nearly anywhere in the world >one cares to look at closely. > Nikolaos Balaskas Hiya Henny, Save you some trouble, short list, "Hot Spot: Planet Earth!" <G> However, if you insist on listing 'individual places' could you please add -my backyard- to your "Hot Spot" list. <VBG> John Velez ;) John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: JJ <fierycelt@full-moon.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:23:49 +1030 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:03:32 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 > From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Question > Hello Errol & List, > I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of > you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating > on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. > I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc > and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform > you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I > noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. > My question to the List is........Can these web logs be messed > around with in any way?. Is this likely to be a hoax? If it is > the Government who visited the site, why are they interested in > the phenomenon in Scotland and a new site which obviously poses > no threat to them or their country's security? > I hope that this matter can be cleared up as I find this all to > be very puzzling. > Thank you for your time...........Dave Ledger(UFO Scotland) > http//wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger > Hi Dave!!! I have another one to add to your anecdote. I have a website NOT even up and running, and some little "visitor" appeared, fully identifiable. Poking around where no man has gone before!!!!!!!!!!! (No funnies, thank you, gentlemen!!!!) INTERESTING EH? JJ
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:05:37 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:06 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Now if Budd has no *real* idea of the amount of people that have >been abducted then who has? So a speculation of "4 million" >could be way out OR an _under_ estimate. >Who Knows? > Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones Dear Sean: And, yes, I could be the Queen or King of England. Who knows? But if I wanted to appropriate your property, intellectual or otherwise, under the guise of same, wouldn't you at least ask for some proof or bona fides before surrendering same? Or maybe a mouse wouldn't. Another question to consider: Let's assume 4 million Americans have been abducted. At current rates, we represent approximately 1/22nd of the world's total population. If all peoples and cultures are being abducted on a proportional, regular and democratic basis (and why wouldn't they be?), that would amount to some 88 million abductions worldwide over, say, the last 50 years. Do the math. The last time I tried it I think I came up with something like 22,000 abductions per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, no weekends or holidays off, and no time-and-a-half for overtime. But maybe my numbers are off. Still, busy little bastards, aren't they? You'd think after almost a hundred million shots that they would have gotten enough of whatever it is that they came for by now. But maybe James Deardorff, having finally settled the burning issue of the color of the Brazilian aliens -- brown, not green -- can further enlighten us? How long again were the horns, Jim? Or maybe Jerry Clark would like to weigh in on this one? Looks like an article in the making for Nature to me. Now who wants to write it up and sign their name to it? Jim? Jerry? Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:56:49 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:10:07 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 >From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Question >Hello Errol & List, >I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of >you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating >on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. >I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc >and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform >you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I >noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. Hi David, I have a web site since January and have logged about 40 visits from USA Government. All the visitors are registered automatically according to the extension in their e-mail address. When someone has '.uk' at the end of his e-mail address, the visitor is registered as 'United Kingdom'. When someone has 'gov' at the end, as in jsmith@nasa.gov, he is listed as USA Government. So your visitor could have been from NASA, the Post Office or the Internal Revenue Service (taxes). >My question to the List is........Can these web logs be messed >around with in any way?. Is this likely to be a hoax? There is no need to suppose this is done by hacking or hoaxing. The counter software simply works that way because it is designed that way and should operate that way. The owner of the web site (you) gets to know who is coming. >If it is >the Government who visited the site, why are they interested in >the phenomenon in Scotland and a new site which obviously poses >no threat to them or their country's security? First of all, "the Government" does not exist. And why would government employees be interested in your web site? Why would anyone be? Because they are interested in the UFO phenomenon. No need to assume evil intent, let alone feelings of national security violations. Government employees are just like us and treating them differently would be discrimination. If there is a UFO cover up in the USA, and I think there is, the odds are roughly that only one in 100,000 US government workers know the details. He/she would not worry about a single UFO website out of the 10,000 that there are already are which - by the way - don't affect the cover up in the least. I could go on about the UFO community being far more damaging to openness about this subject than the cover up itself, but I'll stop here. In any case, don't worry. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 08:33:45 +0200 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:14:26 -0500 Subject: Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:02:21 -0500 >From: Rebecca Keith <XianneKei@AOL.COM> >Subject: Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >Greetings Jan and list, >>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:46:47 -0800 >>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> >>Subject: Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies >>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >People who make claims with no documentation are a waste > of our time. Becky So Majestic exists, because Stan Friedman has the MJ-12 documents? So all abductees are lying because they can't show an alien boarding stamp in their passports? OK, before you bite my head off: the above is just a gentle reminder that you can't make sweeping statements like that on THIS list. HOWEVER: I happen to agree with you. So if this mail has confused everybody, then go work it out. Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za Search for other documents from or mentioning: louwje | xiannekei |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:21:13 -0700 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:20:10 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:35:50 -0600 (CST) > Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:15:27 -0500 > Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > As I understand it, the only report that the lights were seen but > nothing could be picked up on radar is the one made by Bill > Grava, an air traffic controller at Sky Harbor Airport. However, > Grava states in his interview with Susan Rook on CNN that his > radar coverage was limited to a diameter of 10 miles around the > airport. > If, as is generally agreed, the 10 pm lights were at least 5 > miles southwest of the airport, then there is no reason to > believe that the 10 pm lights or anything in the air associated > with them would have been close enough to have been picked up on > Sky Harbor's radar. > At least in relation to the 10 pm lights, "nothing on radar" > seems to be a myth, which should be discarded. > Has the flight path of the V-shaped object(s) that flew overhead > 1 1/2 hours earlier been established well enough to know for sure > whether or not they were close enough to Sky Harbor to have been > picked up on radar? > -George Fergus It's also noteworthy that Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force Base affirmed Grava's statements and said that nothing passed overhead on radar at Luke either although the folks over a Luke have not exactly had a spotless record of veracity since this whole thing began. I don't think we can eliminate the plane hypothesis for reasons of radar alone. The ATC radar at Skyharbor is designed to detect signals emitted by transponders within the planes themselves. If a plane was not carrying a transponder or it was turned off, it would not have shown up on radar. Grava said he is still reluctant to accept the plane theory based on the brightness of the lights. As a side note, I certainly hope the folks at Skyharbor airport have some kind of radar tracking that extends further out from the airport than a 10 mile diameter, that seems rather limited for a commercial airport. The Terry Proctor video is the only one I've seen of the 8:00pm event and although the video is very poor quality. The triangular formation of lights definitley did not look like planes. It looked like a single solid object. This was in sharp contrast to the several videos of the 10pm event which look quite different from what Proctor shot and almost like independant objects which adds creedance to the flare theory. Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull] Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:34:00 GMT Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:22:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 19:21:41 +0100 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >>Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >>Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 11:58:16 -0800 >> Cases where the entities move oddly, stiffly, in unison, or float >> are all part of the consciously recalled case lore. Recurrence of >> those motifs in abductions are part of what lead me to keep my >> mind open on the subject. >If I remember correctly, in 'Communion' Whitley Strieber refers >to entities in his bedroom moving toward him in "lockstep" which >I assumed meant in unison or moving of the same accord. Perhaps >motivated by one mind or a collective mind. >Don Ledger Reports of Men In Black which speak of two or more MIB in a 'visitation' also include this 'moving in unison' feature. Rob Bull
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Re: ROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:14:15 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:24:20 -0500 Subject: Re: ROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 16:02:21 -0500 >From: Rebecca Keith <XianneKei@AOL.COM> >Subject: Re: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies >To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >Why do we bother with people like Col. Steve? Bob Dean? Derrel >Sims? And countless others? They never offer ANY proof for their >claims -- they just want to be storytellers. I wrote Col. Steve >off during the Alien Autopsy debacle, as he was making wild >claims then. Did you leave out Dr. Greer for a reason? >People who make claims with no documentation are a waste of our >time. And on the oppposite of the coin, when one offers proof >that these storytellers claims are bogus, well, their followers >will never believe you and brand you an agent of disinformation! Perhaps you are confusing the search for truth with a search for something greater (sorry, I can't come up with a better way to say it). IMHO, most people in this genre come into it with an accepted belief structure for which they hoping to find both direction and support. Those you mention above seem to meet that need, and thus they are able to gather a group of supporters around them. The problem is that because of this structure, and the personalities involved at the top, little "proof" is needed to entice those on the outside to "believe" and those who become critical are attacking a group's belief structure, not an individual. For a researcher they provide no answers and are (as you say) useless. For those searching simply for something to believe in, they provide a foundation for their belief structure. >Since I'm relatively new to this field, I would like to know: Has >it always been like this? >Or is the problem worse now because we live in the information >age? One can only imagine what it would have been like if the Internet had existed in the 50's when George Adamski was a prominent figure in the genre. But keep in mind that the advantages of the information age work both ways, and also provide you a voice to help keep everyone else's feet firmly planted on the ground.... <g> IMHO, no matter how hard we analyze the Internet, we will in the end merely see ourselves reflected back. Steve Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve | xiannekei |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 19 Space Shuttle Reports Near Miss With UFO? From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:23:46 -0700 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:29:20 -0500 Subject: Space Shuttle Reports Near Miss With UFO? The following is posted at ISUR at: http://www.isur.com./public_board/messages/7973.html I would say this story is very likely a hoax or just some joker's confabulation but just in case here's the post, better safe than sorry. Was Endeavor even flying in September?? Jared. SIGHTINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Space Shuttle Reports Near Miss With UFO? >From Eric Howarth 11-17-97 =A0Note: We are trying to establish contact with author Kliner to determine if he has in his possession the tape of the alleged incident. In the meantime, as it is circulating around the internet, we post it for your information only. This story reads like a tabloid piece and is in serious need of corroboration. =A0 WASHINGTON - The Space Shuttle Endeavor narrowly avoided a collision with a gigantic UFO during its 12-day mission in September and a top-secret NASA audio tape proves it. =A0 That's the word from author William Kliner, who claims to have obtained a copy of the tape from highly placed NASA sources and flatly calls the incident "the most dramatic close encounter in history." =A0 In the 23-second tape, which was recorded off one of several secret radio frequencies that NASA reserves for classified conversations with space shuttle astronauts, Commander David Walker is heard to say: =A0 "Bogey at 3 o'clock . . . God . . . what is it? My God - it's coming right at us." =A0 NASA: What's there? =A0 Walker: THERE'S NO WAY! Oh God! Get back. MOVE!" =A0 NASA: Endeavor! Endeavor! What . . . explain . . . =A0 Walker: What the . . . where are we? Where is it? Where . . . it's gone. IT'S GONE. Not (unintelligible) . . . UFO. Spacecraft . . . huge . . . intelligent . . . OVER THERE! =A0 NASA: Endeavor. Switch . . . NOW! =A0 The tape ends abruptly with what would appear to be a NASA order for Walker to change radio frequency. =A0 And while nobody other than Walker, his crew and a handful of NASA officials knows exactly what happened next, the Endeavor returned to Earth safely on Sept. 18, indicating that the close encounter ended without further incident. =A0 =A0 "This is dazzling proof that UFOs not only exist, they are piloted by extraterrestrials who are interested in our technology and possibly even mankind's ventures into space," declared Kliner, who has published hundreds of articles on America's space program over the past 25 years. =A0 "Until now, I didn't believe in the existence of UFOs and I certainly didn't believe that extraterrestrials were visiting our planet. =A0 "But now I know better. Space aliens actually observed our shuttle astronauts as they orbited Earth - and NASA's own tape proves it." =A0 NASA spokesmen declined to comment on the author's report pending the outcome of what one official called "an investigation into the source of unauthorized information that might or might not have basis in fact." =A0 Like NASA, Commander Walker and his crew - Pilot Ken Cockrell and Mission Specialists James Voss, James Newman and Michael Gernhardt - aren't talking. =A0 But Kliner's sources say the Endeavor and crew did, in fact, avert an in-orbit collision with "a massive, walnut-shaped spacecraft of unknown origin." =A0 "From what I understand, the spacecraft was the size of a small city and glowed bright green as it approached the shuttle," he continued. =A0 "At some point during the encounter, the UFO veered off course to avoid a collision. =A0 "As far as I know," he continued, "there was no contact between the UFO and the shuttle. If there was contact, my sources are unaware of it."
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Cynthia Hind from Zimbabwe From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:51:27 +0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:14:46 -0500 Subject: Cynthia Hind from Zimbabwe Could anybody help with any contact details for Cynthia Hind of Zimbabwe, who runs one of the few Southern African UFO groups. Thanks Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:13:45 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:21:35 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Greg Sandow wrote: >From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:31:29 -0500 >Is it just me, or have we been reading some real nonsense about >the ETH? >Forgive me for using something so unscientific as common sense, >but in essence the ETH works something like this. >People say they've seen unusual flying craft....<snip> >....many reasonable folks find themselves saying: >"Well, maybe these UFOs come from space!" And, you know, if they >don't come from earth, and they do things our own aircraft can't, >that's not an unreasonable thought...<snip> >Let's concede that these debates aren't settled. But is the ETH >ridiculous, on its face? Suppose it's become some kind of >orthodoxy in ufological circles. Excuse me -- every field has >its orthodoxies, some fairly indefensible (like the scientific >orthodoxy that study of UFOs has no scientific merit), some no >doubt dead-on accurate (like the belief that cholesterol can >encourage heart attacks). But even if we suspect that some >orthodoxy makes no sense, should we deride people who hold the >majority view? >The ETH, while it obviously strikes some as naive, is not exactly >a surprising belief. If any of us saw, right before our >eyes, the things that Jerry Cohen or John Velez or Bob Shell say >they've seen, wouldn't we -- yes, even Professors Mendoza and >Devereux -- find ourselves wondering: "Wow...could that be from >another planet?" Right or wrong (and I don't think Bob automatically >supports the ETH), it's a perfectly understandable >thing to think. Dear Greg, As I've said in my responses to Jerome Clark elsewhere on this list, I for one am not arguing that the ETH should be removed from contention. I am saying two distinct things about the ETH: 1) It isn't a single hypothesis, and 2) It is such a dominating paradigm it is (a)skewing most ufological thinking, (b) minimising attention to other approaches to the UFO problem as a consequence. Regarding point (1), Dennis Stacy in an earlier reply to you has listed some of the forms the so-called ETH has taken. Elsewhere, I have pointed out that the ETH is a child of its times, and other people in other times and places had other ways to "explain" unusual aerial phenomena that suited their cultural conditioning. I feel justified in saying that the ETH is, in fact, an ET *Motif* rather than a hypothesis (ETM). I am suggesting it has become an automatic recourse for most people in ufology;it has become a standing *assumption* that ET craft are what we are dealing with - and all assumptions shape how people perceive evidence. Even those who do not subscribe to the ETM still find themselves obliged to spend time arguing about it, and, worse, having to somehow 'prove' how their alternative approaches against the ETM - even though the ETM is not an established fact, being no more than a collective shadow in the mind. The ETM is just the standard assumption one would expect people in our society to come to, just as one would have expected people in medieval Christian Europe to come to assumptions of portents and dragons, or tribal peoples to deal with the phenomena in terms of flying spirits and shamans (and such explanations could be much closer to the truth than our ET spaceships!). As a consequence, the ETM is drawing the vast majority of ufological energy and effort to itself, and makes ufologists in general intellectually lazy. To the point, in fact, that any other attempt is considered "debunking". I am trying to alert fellow researchers that we ought to be more conscious about our assumptions. The ETM has had 50 years to prove itself, and it has failed to do so. Much evidence collected in that time can be seen in whole other lights, but if the only lamp you are carrying is the ETM, then everything serves to support that prejudice. So, for example, physical traces are seen as strong proof of physical ET craft, but such traces can absolutely just as well be evidence of geophysical phenomena. I am suggesting that after 50 years it might be a good idea to place the ETM on no greater a footing than other approaches. I am not saying we should get rid of it as a possible explanation for some aerial sightings, but I *am* saying we should downgrade it. (Regarding "alien abductions",also as I have stated elsewhere on this list,I do NOT think the ETM is a tenable approach. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to take the time and trouble to see that other explanations are better.) Please see my forthcoming response to Jerome Clark for further discussion on these matters, plus a piece of research using this very list to prove that the ETM is overweaningly, unhealthily, dominant. We really have to decide whether or not we want ufology to be a forum for research, or a system of belief. As to your point that if we had experiences like Jerry Cohen and John Velez we might wonder about the ETM. Well, of course. But let me make it clear that I am not in awe of these gentlemen: I am also an experient. I have seen undoubted anomalous aerial phenomena, both luminous and non-luminous; I have seen an anomalous craft, and I have been within 20 feet of an alien (I've mentioned that last item before on the list, but apart form a couple of private queries, no one on this list seems to have been much interested in this observation). Of course I considered the ETM for some of them, but I have found, in fact, that I did not need it. That doesn't mean I know completely what some of the encounters were, but I am satisfied that I know what they *weren't*. The ETM is so insidious that I honestly believe it is doing more harm than good at this stage in the game. Think about it. Best wishes, Paul Devereux
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:55:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:29:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:06 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >When I had the occasion to chat to Budd Hopkins ( at some length >I might add) at the Fortean Times UNconvention this year he said >that he had personally over six hundred genuine cases on his >files. >Now if I remember correctly Budd has been doing his reseach into >abductions for a large number of years ( 20 plus) and it was his >first book that got a huge amount of people writing to him about >their cases, ( I dare say this is possibly how John Velez got in >contact with the man.) >What I mean to say that it was only his writing a book on the >subject that gave these people a person to speak to. If there >was no person to speak to then a lot of these people would >probably still be silent now and we would know nothing of their >cases. However Budd said that he believed that there were loads >of people that did not contact him (or any other researcher for >that matter ) simply because they did not want to accept what >was happening to them. He also said to me that he had no way of >knowing just how many people have been abducted but the figure >was frightening at any number. >Now if Budd has no *real* idea of the amount of people that have >been abducted then who has? So a speculation of "4 million" >could be way out OR an _under_ estimate. >Who Knows? Sean, Agreed. I've gotten to know Budd pretty well over the last three years, and just spent a very enjoyable dinner and evening with him and Greg Sandow in NYC three weeks ago. Budd was just back from Australia, and bubbling over with stories of the abductees he had interviewed there. I don't necessarily buy into the whole ETH, but I think Budd is an honest and dedicated man whose main purpose in all of this is to help people who have had truly weird experiences. I don't claim to know exactly what is happening to these people, but SOMETHING is, and I do not think it has a human origin. I think we are in contact with a non-human intelligence (or intelligences) of awesome power. I just don't claim to know what it is/they are or where it/they come from. The ETH is not the only explanation. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:30:20 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:28:34 -0500 Subject: Re: one of my visitors was listed as 'USA > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 > From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Question > Hello Errol & List, > I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of > you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating > on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. > I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc > and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform > you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I > noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. > My question to the List is........Can these web logs be messed > around with in any way?. Hi All, To quote a rather nice Moody Blues track, "Isn't Life Strange", shortly after my little site went live, I was faithfully checking through the log to see which enlightend people had been a visiting, when a couple or three ip numbers seemed a little out of the ordinary, Being in the network business you do get to know the regular ip's from the not so regular. Anyway I checked a few out and lo and behold I traced one back to a workstation in a large military inteligence establishment in the US and another one to behind a firewall in the UK Gov domain, these within 10 days of the site going live, since then I have had, and still get, a smattering of hits from similar sources even the nice people at NASA. As for fudging the logs, you can fudge the hostname but you cann't fudge the ip number if your system logs it. Without the right ip the router system breaks. Best Regards Neil. -- * * * * * * * * Neil Morris. /101101101 Virtual Bumper Stickers Inc 10110101010\ Dept of Physics. 1 1 Univ of Manchester 0 0 Schuster Labs. 1 Computer Programmers DO IT with BITS of BYTES 1 Brunswick St. 0 0 Manchester. 1 1 UK. \0101010110010110110010110101101011011110101011010/ G8KOQ E-mail: neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk Roswell and Alien Autopsy Archive-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/ Dave Willetts Home Page-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/dave_willetts/ Mike Sterling Home Page-> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/mike-s/ Tim Morgan Home Page -> http://adm2.ph.man.ac.uk/tim-m/ * * * * * * * *
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Arizona Hockey Puck Update From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:57:39 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:41:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Arizona Hockey Puck Update >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:54 -0500 (EST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) >Subject: Arizona Hockey Puck Update >Phoenix Sightings Update >by Tom King >A wave of sighting in Arizona has started up again and continue >almost daily. >November 14, 1997 a report of a Hockey Puck was taped for 15 >minutes by Jeff Willis. Local MUFON investigators are looking >into the footage. I haven't had time to see a copy yet. Tom, Clarification please. Was the Hockey Puck taped, or was the report of its sighting taped? Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 19 Nov 1997 14:59:38 UT Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:42:26 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:35:50 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar >> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:55:51 -0600 >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Phoenix Lights >> It's not a matter of making the planes fit, radar says they were >> not there in the 1st place. >Has the flight path of the V-shaped object(s) that flew overhead >1 1/2 hours earlier been established well enough to know for sure >whether or not they were close enough to Sky Harbor to have been >picked up on radar? The original TV news report said that a pilot departing Skyharbor around 8:30 PM looked above him to see a V-shaped formation of lights and radioed the tower to see if the tower controller had anything on radar. As I understand it, most aircraft are identified on their radar by transponder signals, but they have other radar that reflects waves from an object. The controller replied they had nothing on radar. The later event seen by Bill Grava was a formation of amber lights behind South Mountain at around 10 PM and I do not think he found any radar returns for these lights. This formation has now been shown to be in the valley between South Mtn. and the Estrellas. Bill Hamilton Search for other documents from or mentioning: william.hamilton |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:03:31 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:43:47 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 >From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Question >Hello Errol & List, >I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of >you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating >on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. >I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc >and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform >you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I >noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. >My question to the List is........Can these web logs be messed >around with in any way?. Is this likely to be a hoax? If it is >the Government who visited the site, why are they interested in >the phenomenon in Scotland and a new site which obviously poses >no threat to them or their country's security? >I hope that this matter can be cleared up as I find this all to >be very puzzling. >Thank you for your time...........Dave Ledger(UFO Scotland) >http//wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger Dave, Not to worry, mate. My web site is about photography and only just mentions UFOs. I get something like two or three hundred hits from US Govt every month. This just means that someone is coming to your site from a US Govt computer. Since there are many thousands of such computers this is nothing to worry much about. However, all of these people are technically in violation of govt rules for doing private surfing via govt computers and computer networks. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Hot Spots From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:12:23 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:45:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:34:51 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hot Spots >Hi Bob & Henny, >There's a book documenting the Wytheville sightings up to 1988: Danny >Gordon's _Don't Look Up_. > Jim Deardorff Thanks, Jim, I knew there was a book but didn't know the name or author. Wytheville is why I am interested in UFOs. Until he retired my Dad was a TV news reporter with Channel 10 in Roanoke, VA. He did many stories about Wytheville over the years, at first treating it as a "silly season" story. But as he talked to more and more ordinary people who were telling very extraordinary stories, he was gradually won over by them. Today he is convinced that they are telling the truth. I grew up watching him turn from total skeptic to believer, and I guess some of it rubbed off on me. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:19:38 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:46:05 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Another question to consider: Let's assume 4 million Americans >have been abducted. At current rates, we represent approximately >1/22nd of the world's total population. If all peoples and >cultures are being abducted on a proportional, regular and >democratic basis (and why wouldn't they be?), that would amount >to some 88 million abductions worldwide over, say, the last 50 >years. >Do the math. The last time I tried it I think I came up with >something like 22,000 abductions per hour, 24 hours a day, seven >days a week, 365 days a year, no weekends or holidays off, and no >time-and-a-half for overtime. But maybe my numbers are off. >Still, busy little bastards, aren't they? You'd think after >almost a hundred million shots that they would have gotten enough >of whatever it is that they came for by now. Dennis, Excuse me, but this is a pretty ridiculous bunch of crap. We don't know who are what they are. We don't know how many of them there are. We don't know what they are up to. Maybe there are 22,000 abductions per hour. Maybe a million. What does that prove???? Without knowing just what we are dealing with, we have absolutely no way to quantify what a "reasonable' number of abductions is. Personally, I suspect that the number of people who have had this experience is far higher than even the highest estimates. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Hot Spots From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:33:57 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:54:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Hot Spots >> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >> Subject: Hot Spots -snip- >An astronomer who gave a talk at a MUFON Ontario meeting recently >argued that UFOs cannot be extraterrestrial craft since they have >lights like aircraft which would make them too easy to detect at >night. But who is to say that this is actually the exception >rather than the rule and that the vast majority of UFOs are in >fact unlit objects. Most UFOs have lights. Abright single color or white is quite conspicuous. But if they try to imitate aircraft lights they would be largely ignored by the public who assume it is aircraft. they don't know common lighting patterns and even the military uses different patterns to identify specific craft from the ground. This is called "disguising" rather than hiding. People are getting more critical about what they see, so the reports of UFO's are more likely the real thing than misidentifications or natural phenomena. At Minnesota MUFON, we hardly ever get easily explained sightings. A light in the sky is not enough, it either has to do something extraordinary or be close enough not to look like anything known. As far as hotspots go, I think there are many short lived ones that are hot for a few weeks and then go cold only to go hot again sometime in the future. We need to look for long term patterns rather than assume they like certain places. Joel Henry ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Space Shuttle Reports Near Miss With UFO? From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:39:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:55:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Reports Near Miss With UFO? >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:23:46 -0700 >From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >To: Updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Endeavor hoopla Sounds like BS to me, but worth checking out. I wonder if NASA routinely looks for "missing time" in shuttle missions. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:47:21 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:56:42 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:06 +0000 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Now if Budd has no *real* idea of the amount of people that have > >been abducted then who has? So a speculation of "4 million" > >could be way out OR an _under_ estimate. > >Who Knows? > > Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! > Sean Jones > Dear Sean: > Another question to consider: Let's assume 4 million Americans > have been abducted. At current rates, we represent approximately > 1/22nd of the world's total population. If all peoples and > cultures are being abducted on a proportional, regular and > democratic basis (and why wouldn't they be?), that would amount > to some 88 million abductions worldwide over, say, the last 50 > years. > Do the math. The last time I tried it I think I came up with > something like 22,000 abductions per hour, 24 hours a day, seven > days a week, 365 days a year, no weekends or holidays off, and no > time-and-a-half for overtime. But maybe my numbers are off. > Or maybe Jerry Clark would like to weigh in on this one? Looks > like an article in the making for Nature to me. Now who wants to > write it up and sign their name to it? Jim? Jerry? > Dennis Dennis, Huh? What does Nature have to do with this? I don't buy the zillions-of-abductees notion and have rejected ever since the first time I heard about it, in a November 1991 phone convesation with my friend Budd Hopkins. The best piece on the subject appears in Journal of UFO Studies 4 (new series, 1992); see Hall, Rodeghier, and Johnson's "The Prevalence of Abductions: A Critical Look." Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:13:16 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:58:20 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 06:56:49 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government' >>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 >>From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Question >>Hello Errol & List, >>I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc >>and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform >>you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I >>noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. While I use my private email provider to send email, I sometimes browse the "net" while on break at work (at the U.S. House). I stopped using my work email address when it began to raise eyebrows, but can't do anything (easily) to mask my domain. To be honest, I would be more curious if the domain was .mil, which would indicate that it was a military domain in the U.S. that had made contact, rather than a basic .gov (which can relate to a local government agency). >If there is a UFO cover up in the USA, and I think there is, >the odds are roughly that only one in 100,000 US government >workers know the details. He/she would not worry about a >single UFO website out of the 10,000 that there are >already are which - by the way - don't affect the cover up >in the least. I could go on about the UFO community being >far more damaging to openness about this subject than the >cover up itself, but I'll stop here. >In any case, don't worry. I would suggest that US Government is being used in a very generic way here, and there are those who might suggest that few government workers have any knowledge of the "cover-up" and that much of the research is now being handled by private concerns under contract with the government. I don't think this can easily be boiled down to a simple black and white issue, and while I would agree that a cover-up exists, to attribute it to the "government" is IMHO overly broad and misleading.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Ted Viens <drtedv@freewwweb.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:53:16 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:59:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:28:12 -0500 > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:44:29 -0800 > >> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:51:10 -0500 > >> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > >> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony> > >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >> Now I hope you understand that it would be DIFFICULT for Arnold > >> to mistake geese for high speed objects because as soon as he > >> started flying parallel to their path he would realize he was > >> catching up. When Kottmeyer realized this he shut up. > >I'm glad you raised this, Bruce, because I did a semi-controlled > >experiment this weekend (talk about coincidence). > >I was driving on a north to south highway, and it turned out that > >there were some geese flying in approx. the same direction. They > >were at some distance, and as I drove along I quickly caught up > >with them and passed them (@65 mph). > >Also, they were at about 20 degrees elevation; they were clearly > >geese at all distances, even when at the limits of resolution. > >And, despite the fact that the sun was to my right and the geese > >were to my left, they never once emitted a specular reflection or > >looked like disk-shaped object. > Thanks for reporting your "controlled experiment with geese" > (Glad you didn't try doing 120 mph to bettern simulate Arnold's > situation.) > If it flies like a goose, reflects like a goose and looks like a > goose..... then you can use it to goose anyone who claims Arnold > saw a flight of geese. Musing over this a few days ago, I realized that in terms of angular dimensions in the horizontal plane, there was little to distinguish a flight of geese a mile away from some weird flying thangs a dozen miles away. So, I began to wonder by what easy method could a pilot distinguish the two. Then, eureka, it struck me. Any small vertical motion perpendicular to the common horizontal flight paths would readily tell the pilot whether the objects were very close to the plane or much nearer the mountains. Even a short motion of a foot or so such as bobbing the head up and down would cause nearby geese to wiggle more against the horizon than distant flying thangs. The veritcal motion of the plane during the turns would have made it painfully obvious. The apparent displacement of geese would be more than ten times greater than that of distant objects. This would be true of the formation of the objects even if individually they were moving up and down. Perhaps Arnold was so familiar with this way of distinguishing geese, he didn't feel the need to eliminate them early in his report. Bye... Ted.. Search for other documents from or mentioning: drtedv | brumac |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his From: XianneKei@aol.com [Rebecca Keith] Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:44:07 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:02:11 -0500 Subject: Re: PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:14:15 -0500 >Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 07:24:20 -0500 >Subject: Re: PROJECT-1947: "Colonel Steve Wilson" and his lies > Did you leave out Dr. Greer for a reason? His name didin't roll off my fingetips when I typed the message. He did get a mention in the Fortean Times article though. Rebecca
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:25:34 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:10:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull] >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:34:00 GMT >Reports of Men In Black which speak of two or more MIB in a >'visitation' also include this 'moving in unison' feature. >Rob Bull Is this mentioned in Jenny Randles new book on the Men In Black? I saw it at a local bookstore, but didn't get a chance to review it, and wonder what the general opinion was on it. Steve
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:47:14 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:12:11 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:06 +0000 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>Now if Budd has no *real* idea of the amount of people that have >>been abducted then who has? So a speculation of "4 million" >>could be way out OR an _under_ estimate. >>Who Knows? >> Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! > Sean Jones >Dear Sean: >And, yes, I could be the Queen or King of England. >Who knows? If the combine an infinite Universe with the law of averages, you probably ARE the King AND the Queen of England in some distant places, but that's the danger of playing with statistics. [text deleted] I seem to recall that the "4 million" figure was originally given as a reference to the projected number of abductees worldwide, and not just to the U.S. But, it would be interesting to see who had originally come up with that projection and what it was based on. I have seen at least one analysis conducted that questioned the number of aliens and craft that it would take to accomplish the large number that had been projected, and while the number was high, it wasn't beyond the scope of reason (whatever that means in this genre). However, in the end it is only a projection based on a number of annecdotal "knowns" and speculative "unknowns". Perhaps someone can write a good book on this subject, but they should target their audiance well. Steve
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:16:26 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:15:11 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:35:50 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar -snip- >However, >Grava states in his interview with Susan Rook on CNN that his >radar coverage was limited to a diameter of 10 miles around the >airport. >If, as is generally agreed, the 10 pm lights were at least 5 >miles southwest of the airport, 5 miles is within the 10 mile dia. limit. Also, these radar are not as limited as it sounds. Their main limit is the display itself and at what point it cuts off on the edge. We need to find out what the radar display image was set for to know for sure if it would or wouldn't have picked up planes in that area. Also, if planes had flown over and dropped flares, they would have continued over the area well into the radar limit area as they passed over (they don't stand still and don't make instant reversals in mid air you know). >then there is no reason to >believe that the 10 pm lights or anything in the air associated >with them would have been close enough to have been picked up on >Sky Harbor's radar. >At least in relation to the 10 pm lights, "nothing on radar" >seems to be a myth, which should be discarded. >Has the flight path of the V-shaped object(s) that flew overhead >1 1/2 hours earlier been established well enough to know for sure >whether or not they were close enough to Sky Harbor to have been >picked up on radar? >-George Fergus They flight path of the "V" objects crosses over the middle of Pheonix as it was sighted. Radar should have seen it. Normally, radar is set to see transponder craft unless there is a lot of small aicraft or military activity in the area. If someone calls up with a UFO report, they can simply turn off the filters to see the raw reflections. We have this trouble in Minnesota. They do not cooperate and turn filters off. But they are informed by the military in advance of operations where they will be so even if they are transponderless and flying under military radar control, the local radar can divert traffic from this area. We need to know if that was the case that night in Pheonix, and if so the military radar would definately have been watching. Otherwise there would be noone at all to prevent planes in the area from crashing into each other. These simple statements are not enough. We need ALL the details of what they were looking at, filter settings, fly area coordination details provided by the military, etc. then we can start making intelligent conclusions, not uninformed assumptions. Joel Henry ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:58:29 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:13:43 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:21:13 -0700 >From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) >To: Updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar >> From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 18:35:50 -0600 (CST) >> Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 21:15:27 -0500 >> Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar >> As I understand it, the only report that the lights were seen but >> nothing could be picked up on radar is the one made by Bill >> Grava, an air traffic controller at Sky Harbor Airport. However, >> Grava states in his interview with Susan Rook on CNN that his >> radar coverage was limited to a diameter of 10 miles around the >> airport. >> If, as is generally agreed, the 10 pm lights were at least 5 >> miles southwest of the airport, then there is no reason to >> believe that the 10 pm lights or anything in the air associated >> with them would have been close enough to have been picked up on >> Sky Harbor's radar. >> At least in relation to the 10 pm lights, "nothing on radar" >> seems to be a myth, which should be discarded. >> Has the flight path of the V-shaped object(s) that flew overhead >> 1 1/2 hours earlier been established well enough to know for sure >> whether or not they were close enough to Sky Harbor to have been >> picked up on radar? >> -George Fergus It should be noted that none of the witnesses to the formation of lights rep[orted any planes in that area AS THE LIGHTS CAME ON. No planes seen by eyes, or radar means either they were totally unlighted (very unlikely possibly illegal and very dangerous) or they weren't there, period. Lets look at ALL the facts, not just a few or one at a time. Joel Henry ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Alfred's Odd Ode #200 [200!!??? --ebk] From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:29:19 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:19:12 -0500 Subject: Alfred's Odd Ode #200 [200!!??? --ebk] Apology to MW #200 (For November 19, 1997) "So you _want_ to be burned at the stake just like Bruno"? "Keep going, old son, as you are"! "Call attention to graft or the meter's glad owner," "And you're in their killin' jar." I don't want to die on the stake like Monk Bruno, But my life's been too blessed for retreat. I only talk about what books and papers tell me, As the story _I_ first got was incomplete! "How can you criticize, (you fool) at all, your Founding Fathers"? "How can you draw (in shame?), a soldier's pay"? "What's this "Watchers" foolishness really saying -- really meaning"? "And what's this crazy "view" of yours to say"? I criticize "your" frowning fathers 'cause I understand they _earned_ it! I take the pay -- (a welfare!), it's their _show_. Professor Drake equates, quite well, the stunning thought they're out there! To have the guts to stand *outside* to know. "And what of this ethnic affection you have"? "And what do _you_ do with your money"? "Where do you get off just speaking your mind"? "And what's with this rhyming unfunny"? Folks *appeared* to me fondly as I _took_ back my sight. Well, I'm _trying_ to keep it from you. You could sure try it =85 be better between us. I do it for pleasure =85 to stop feeling screwed. "Do you go to a church? If you don't then why not"? "=85Believing the only *true* God?" "Do you have family values? Do you pray? Do you tithe"? "Will your reverend give you a nod"? =85Stopped beating your wife? Does she cry when you hit her? I have a small fire, my own. I believe in commitment. To myself. To what's real. No, the reverend's hefting his stone. "What's all this whining regarding tree hugging"? "Why do you rail at those folks who've done well"? "Where's your compassion for Di and Theresa?" "You should slop with the pigs and roll in their hell"! The Earth is our home, our provider, and Mother. It's the _not_ giving back I abhor and despise. It's Theresa then Di, wasn't _that_ what you're meaning? Perhaps, but you'd precede me -- to _your_ complete surprise! Lehmberg@snowhill.com Yeah -- it's towards the end of the conversation that the proud and patronizing conservative invariably gets abusive and insulting -- about the same time I begin to smile. See -- if I'm wrong, it means nothing; every body, including me, has a big laugh at _my_ expense. But if _he's_ wrong, it is the most profound disaster for us all at every level and category of our existence. Well -- you asked. Now you know. Great suffering Zot! They look through a keyhole and assume they see an entirety! Let's just open the furshingler door. -- Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake for trying to open the door.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:21:07 -0500 Subject: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? Hello List, Like a good commercial this was only to get your attention. But what if next week the governement comes out with a statement regarding the existence of ET visitors? And what if they would state that they have been here for many decades? Can you imagine this situation, the day you hear this on CNN? Would many of us be without a hobby? All fascination for the subject lost. No target to shoot at. Well you have my point now. Will we be doing our daily thing, go to work, sleep etc or will the world around us get a whole new perspective? Most of us are allready convinced of the fact they are here. So no big shock for us! Isn't it? Can you tell me how your day would look like after hearing the BIG news? Thanks, Hendrik Rademaker The Netherlands hradem@worldonline.nl
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 NASA Craft To Study Asteroid, Mars From: RSchatte@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:18:27 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:22:27 -0500 Subject: NASA Craft To Study Asteroid, Mars --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: NASA Craft To Study Asteroid, Mars Date: 97-11-19 10:07:39 EST From: AOL News .c The Associated Press By JANE E. ALLEN PASADENA, Calif. (AP) - Slowly accelerating through space with a solar-powered engine, NASA's $141 million Deep Space 1 spacecraft will test a dozen new technologies for future missions. DS1, the first in NASA's New Millennium series, is set for launch next July on a two-year mission. The 5-foot-high workhorse will cruise past an asteroid, Mars and a comet, doing scientific work with several compact, lightweight and highly efficient new instruments. Seven members of the science team held a briefing Tuesday to discuss the spacecraft's advanced technologies, including a solar electric propulsion system. In January 1999, the spacecraft will pass within 5 miles of an asteroid named for Christa McAuliffe, the New Hampshire teacher killed by the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. It will snap pictures, analyze the asteroid's surface composition and brightness, and monitor effects of the solar wind. In April 2000, DS1 will pass by Mars, conducting tests while it uses the planet for a gravity assist maneuver to fling it on a path toward the comet West-Kohoutek-Ikemura. Once it catches up with the comet, it will study its solid nucleus and surrounding cloud of gas and dust. The mission also offers ``a long-overdue opportunity to flight-test ion propulsion,'' said Joseph Wang, who runs the propulsion group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. An array of 720 lenses will focus sunlight on solar panels to produce electricity to power the ion propulsion engine. Inside the engine, atoms of xenon gas are given positive charges, then exposed to a negative electrical field that attracts and shoots them out the back of the spacecraft. The result is a gradual buildup of speed over many months. The propulsion method is 10 times more efficient than burning fuel, ``but the thrust is extremely gentle,'' said Marc D. Rayman, the project's chief mission engineer at JPL. He compared the engine's thrust to the weight of a piece of paper in your hand. AP-NY-11-19-97 0940EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:21:02 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:44:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? Sean Jones wrote: >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:41:52 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >>From: DevereuxP <DevereuxP@aol.com> [Paul Devereux] >>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:55:04 EST >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >>1001 other beliefs that wax and wane within ufology (it >>is folkore, after all), who is arguing otherwise? >I am for one. I get pretty bloody annoyed when you keep refering >to Ufology as Folklore >Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus 1991 >folklore (n) 1, the unwritten literature of a people as >expressed in folk tales, songs etc. 2, study of such materials. >Collins Dictionary 1994 >folklore (n) traditional beliefs etc. of a community; study of >these >As you can see neither of these dictionaries of the English >language agree with your version of what folklore is. >For one there is plenty of written material about ufology and >ufological issuses, you have written some yourself. And since >when is ufology a tradition? >I could argue with loads of things in this post of yours but I >do not wish to waste my time typing to you when it is blatantly >obvious that you do not listen to what is said. Sean, If you subscribe to learned journals of folklore, as I do, you will see that bona fide folkorists of an academic bent study the most remarkable subject matter. Research subjects range from things like belief structures in the internal language of motor cycle gangs to motifs within the gossip of modern village communities! Ufology is now two generations old in its present form, and has brought with it patterns of thinking that are hundreds of years old. Ufology *is* a community in the conceptual sense, and it most certainly does have its traditions. The greatest of these is the ET Motif or ETM (inaccurately referred to as the ET Hypothesis or ETH). It is folklore. Grays are folklore. Abductions are folklore. Roswell is folklore. Government conspiracies are folklore. Planetoid -sized ET craft accompanying a comet seen in the sky is folklore. Etc.,etc., etc. The 1994 Collins definition is quite applicable. But folklore does not mean that nothing ever happened that triggered that lore. It just means that stories have developed that can actually mask the originating factor, facts can mutate, and should not be taken at face value. Take, for example, a folktale that states that Old Bill, a train guard who was killed in a train accident, can be seen on moonlit nights haunting the length of track where he died, carrying his lantern (perhaps looking for his severed head or arm). We may have a factual germ in that there was a train crash in the vicinity, say, 50 years ago. And, perhaps, on moonlit nights, a weird light can be seen that at a distance looks like a lantern light. But that wouldn't mean there was ever a train guard there called Old Bill, or that his ghost haunts the tracks. A story has built up around some half-remembered event back in time. Ufology is a story we tell ourselves. In the telling, some facts will be unearthed. So, to follow the Old Bill story,let us say, I go into the reference library and prove that there never was an Old Bill. Let's say I also show that the train accident happened 8 miles way from the place now haunted. Let's further say that, I dunno, Mendoza sits out one moonlit night and finds the ghostly "lantern" to be a reflection of moonlight off an exposed crystalline deposit in a big rock, that seems to weave and flicker behind the moving branches of trees? Three things would follow from this obtaining of factual data: (1) the piece of folklore did mark a real set of events; (2)the set events were not what the piece of folklore stated; (3) THE PEOPLE DOWN IN THE NEARBY COMMUNITY WILL STILL TALK ABOUT, AND BELIEVE IN, THE GHOST OF OLD BILL. Let's consider Roswell. Something happened there but we do not know what. We do not know how many times it happened, and whether it was really at Roswell or somewhere else in the general region. Even if an ET craft did impact at a specific spot, all the other stories and beliefs we find in the Roswell literature and debate *have* to have been folklore. Anything could have happened at Roswell, from an ET craft crashing, to a secret government balloon coming down. All we have to deal with is the folklore that has arisen around that long-distant event. (Which happened, moreover, in an isolated rural community which is the perfect breeding ground for folklore.) I repeat, most of the Roswell literature *has* to be folklore, whatever the final truth of the matter turns out to be. It is just the same with tales of government conspiracy. We all know governments keep secrets - sometimes for sensible reasons, other times less reasonably. (The times when the Secretary of State for Defence took tea used to be an official secret in Britain!) That knowledge, combined with the frustated belief that ET craft have landed and have been captured (frustrated because there is no hard evidence, let alone proof of the matter) gives the germ that can set off whole sagas of conspiracy theories. Even if the ETM is true, it will still be the case that most of ufology was storytelling, the stuff of folklore. In ufology, we are all up to our armpits in folklore. You included, Sean - like it or lump it. That the ufological community is now a virtual one in cyberspace, that the folklore has gone electronic, does not change the fact that it is still folklore. Indeed, modern communications have exacerbated the process. You only have to look at the passing content of this list to see that it is just like the superstitious gossip of a rural community. Just look at the parade of beliefs, rumours, stories and opinions that can be generated about a few moments of video footage, or a short film of an alien autopsy! The august experts agree or disagree, the believers insist it is true, the infidels insist it is a hoax. We rarely get to the true facts of the matter. And in the few cases we do, we find that all was not what it seemed. (The folklorist would say: "Precisely!") This is folklore in action, Sean. (Indeed, there is a hot Ph.D. dissertation waiting to be written by some folklorist on how the internet can enhance folkloric dynamics.) If you think you are dealing with facts all the time in ufology, or even most of the time, you are seriously - nay, dangerously - deluding yourself. Now, Sean, are *you* listening? Best wishes, Paul Devereux
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:04:36 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:36:18 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:21:13 -0700 > From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) > To: Updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > It's also noteworthy that Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force > Base affirmed Grava's statements and said that nothing passed > overhead on radar at Luke either although the folks over a Luke > have not exactly had a spotless record of veracity since this > whole thing began. > I don't think we can eliminate the plane hypothesis for reasons > of radar alone. The ATC radar at Skyharbor is designed to detect > signals emitted by transponders within the planes themselves. If > a plane was not carrying a transponder or it was turned off, it > would not have shown up on radar. Grava said he is still > reluctant to accept the plane theory based on the brightness of > the lights. Did you get this info from the Phoenix New Times article? http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996/062697/news2.html I found this article misleading in several details. Any large commercial airport will have both primary and secondary (transponder) radar. Planes which do not generate transponder signals will still show up as radar blips but without IDs next to them. There are are ways to filter out some of the stuff picked up by primary radar, such as things that are not moving (ground clutter) or already-identified aircraft, but full radar would always be turned back on in case an aircraft has a transponder malfunction, and particularly if it was suspected that an unauthorized aircraft without a transponder might be nearby. Mark Adkins (emerald@aztec.asu.edu) says he has confirmed this by email with local pilots who have flown without transponders yet were pointed out by radio to nearby pilots by Sky Harbor air traffic control. If the writer of the New Times article couldn't get this straight, how much confidence can we have in the rest of the article? What the article actually said, speaking about air traffic controller Bill Grava, is: "He confirms that the object or objects did not register on radar as they passed overhead, a fact seconded by Captain Stacey Cotton of Luke Air Force Base." But we know from Grava's own words that he never saw anything overhead, only on the far horizon above South Mountain, so "as they passed overhead" is a phrase invented by the writer of the article. And so we must ask exactly what "fact" was seconded by Captain Cotton. Regarding Luke Air Force Base's less-than-spotless record of veracity, some apparent lies may simply be due to inaccurate press reports, ignorant spokespersons, or insufficiently probing questions. At times, it's like trying to find the right keywords to get info from a computer database. For example: None of our planes were in the air that night - Oh, you expected us to check for visiting planes too? We got no phone calls about the incident. - Oh, you expected us to check with the night switchboard operators to see if there were any calls when our office was closed? -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:31:42 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:39:40 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:55:06 +0000 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >>Now if Budd has no *real* idea of the amount of people that have >>been abducted then who has? So a speculation of "4 million" >>could be way out OR an _under_ estimate. >>Who Knows? >Dear Sean: Dennis >And, yes, I could be the Queen or King of England. Well all hail your worshipfulnes. <said with a humungous grin> I'm not a royalist I'm afraid. >Who knows? >But if I wanted to appropriate your property, intellectual or >otherwise, under the guise of same, wouldn't you at least ask for >some proof or bona fides before surrendering same? Tentative theories until prrof either confirms or denies is what is being offered here not a appropriation of property. >Or maybe a mouse wouldn't. squeak squeak and so say all us mice. >Another question to consider: Let's assume 4 million Americans >have been abducted. At current rates, we represent approximately >1/22nd of the world's total population. If all peoples and >cultures are being abducted on a proportional, regular and >democratic basis (and why wouldn't they be?), that would amount >to some 88 million abductions worldwide over, say, the last 50 >years. >Do the math. The last time I tried it I think I came up with >something like 22,000 abductions per hour, 24 hours a day, seven >days a week, 365 days a year, no weekends or holidays off, and no >time-and-a-half for overtime. But maybe my numbers are off. >Still, busy little bastards, aren't they? You'd think after >almost a hundred million shots that they would have gotten enough >of whatever it is that they came for by now. But maybe James >Deardorff, having finally settled the burning issue of the color >of the Brazilian aliens -- brown, not green -- can further >enlighten us? >How long again were the horns, Jim? >Or maybe Jerry Clark would like to weigh in on this one? Looks >like an article in the making for Nature to me. Now who wants to >write it up and sign their name to it? Jim? Jerry? >Dennis Dennis whilst I agree with your math I disagree that the aliens are democratically abducting people from all the nations of the world with an even like(dislike??) However why should the aliens abduct loads of people from all over the world when its well known that Americans are the most interesting <HUGE G> Seriously though statistics, it has long been said can prove ANYTHING its just they way you present them. We all know abductions happen both at night and day and since the alien arnt Christians we can be damn sure they don't adhere to Christmas holidays and most definitely why should they adhere to our national holidays? So for sure the abductions could well be happening 24/7-365. As for colours and horns, does it *really* matter all that much what colour they are or weather they have horns or not, they are still abducting people! Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | dstacy |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:24:41 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:44:48 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA I don't think Dave Ledger needs to get excited. > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 > > From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Question > > Hello Errol & List, > > I have a question which has left me a bit puzzled. As a few of > > you will know, I have just opened up a new website concentrating > > on the ufo phenomena in Scotland, called UFO Scotland. > > I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc > > and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform > > you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I > > noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. > > My question to the List is........Can these web logs be messed > > around with in any way?. Is this likely to be a hoax? If it is > > the Government who visited the site, why are they interested in > > the phenomenon in Scotland and a new site which obviously poses > > no threat to them or their country's security? Your visitor doesn't have to be "the" government, or in fact anyone making any kind of official visit. It could just be a federal employee surfing the web when he or she ought to be working. In other words....it's probably not the CIA. It could just as well be my friend Laurel, who manages contracts for one of the regional offices of the General Services Administration. When she's not making sure the terms for buildiing a federal courthouse are on the up and up, she plays on the web. Greg Sandow
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:57:46 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:57:46 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:42:05 +0000 > From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Question > Hello Errol & List, <snip> > I am using a webcounter at the site to monitor the traffic etc > and when I was reading through the feedback results, which inform > you as to the user, their web browser, operating system etc. I > noticed that one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Government'. <snip> Dave, As you're probably starting to understand, those '.gov' addresses showing up on sites are not unusual. And as has been pointed out, many stations at work are equipped with surfing-software. Actually, there are several subscribers here whose addresses end with '.gov' and '.mil' (as in Military). I don't see those suffixes as being worrisome, anymore than re-mailer services such as HotMail. With all the budgetary cutbacks occurring around the planet, I imagine that sussing the stuff UFO 'loonies' pass around cyberspace has become very low priority. However, that said, PGP encrypted material is probably causing some .gov addresses to loose a bit of sleep. <G> ebk
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: DRudiak@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:20:49 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:16:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:44:29 -0800 > > Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:51:10 -0500 > > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > Now I hope you understand that it would be DIFFICULT for Arnold > > to mistake geese for high speed objects because as soon as he > > started flying parallel to their path he would realize he was > > catching up. When Kottmeyer realized this he shut up. > I'm glad you raised this, Bruce, because I did a semi-controlled > experiment this weekend (talk about coincidence). > I was driving on a north to south highway, and it turned out that > there were some geese flying in approx. the same direction. They > were at some distance, and as I drove along I quickly caught up > with them and passed them (@65 mph). > Also, they were at about 20 degrees elevation; they were clearly > geese at all distances, even when at the limits of resolution. > And, despite the fact that the sun was to my right and the geese > were to my left, they never once emitted a specular reflection or > looked like disk-shaped object. I did a rather similar chance experiment during a discussion of the seagull expl anation for Tremonton, Utah movie. Driving down the freeway in the S.F. Bay are a, I noticed a group of white birds circling over the freeway some distance ahea d. I deduced that they were undoubtably seagulls even though I still could see no details such as wings or body. At that point they were just white dots. I then watched them until I could just make out their wings, checked my odometer , and then determined how far I drove until I passed right under them. The dist ance was about .6 - .7 mile. The gulls around here probably have wingspans of about 2.5 feet. That means I could begin to clearly distinguish them as birds when the wings sub tended an angle of about 2.5 min arc. The actual detail I was discerning was co nsiderably less than than. Eyechart letters, e.g., are designed to have the line thickness and gaps between adjacent lines (like on the letter "E") be exactly 1/5 the width of the letter itself. I've tested to 20/12 letter acuity in laboratory conditions (0.6 minar c resolution), and making out the wings on the gulls was a simpler resolution ta sk than distinguishing different letters on an eyechart. I was probably resolvi ng detail of about 0.5 minarc. Flapping of the wings also helped. Like yourself, I have never seen gulls or any other type of bird flashing with a metal-like finish in the sun. The gulls I saw varied in brightness as they soared and changed angle, but nothing like the bright, specular reflections reported by Kenneth Arnold, the ones that drew his attention to the objects in the first place. Larger birds like geese or swans, proposed by Kottmeyer, would have to be further away than the gulls I saw in order for Arnold to have not recognized them for what they were (assuming he had perfectly corrected eyesight). Kottmeyer used a one mile estimate, though if they had been real big birds like swans they might have been further than that, say 6000 or 7000 feet. Beyond that and they would just look like dots with no distinguishing detail, yet Arnold reported detail. Without question, if he had been close enough he would have seen flapping wings no problem. Arnold indicated he was flying at around 110 mph, or nearly two miles per minute. That means that even at 7000 feet distance, Arnold would have intercepted the hypothetical birds in about 45 seconds on his initial eastward trajectory while they flew south. He would have recognized them as birds long before then as he approached, even if he swung south before interception in order to open his pilot side window to check for reflections. In addition, the birds would not have receded in the distance and faded from view, but would have remained close at all times. Finally Bruce Maccabee's point about the birds drifting back to the north as Arnold flew south at twice the speed of the hypothetical birds, would also preclude birds from being an explanation, since Arnold saw them disappear to the south-southeast in the direction of Mt. Adams. David Rudiak Search for other documents from or mentioning: drudiak | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Dave Ledger <dledger@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:40:11 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:24:31 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA Hi group, Many thanks to all the list members who replied to my question concerning the site visit.Once again,the members of the list have shown outstanding kindness and support. The matter has since been cleared up and my visitor turns out to be an employee from the USA govt Social Security dept(face turning bright red!)Still.....you never know unless you ask! Thankyou group..............Dave Ledger(UFO Scotland) http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Beyond Science?: Aliens Have Landed From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:43:38 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:26:23 -0500 Subject: Beyond Science?: Aliens Have Landed Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:23:20 -0800 From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> Subject: Beyond Science?: Aliens Have Landed To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM If you didn't catch it on its original showing tonight, the following www site may still provide some insights on the subject sited, one of the many topics on tonights show on PBS: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS http://www.pbs.org/saf/4_class/44_guides/guide_802/4482_aliens.html Subjects discussed were Roswell, the value of experts, the Drake equation, and the value of eyewitnesses. Enjoy, Ed Stewart -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone, There is Something | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. Going On! ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. --------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:26:37 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:31:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:50:59 +0100 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony <sssnip> Hi Mark and Bruce, >Nonetheless they do reflect light. I've seen it myself on a few >occassions, but only toward sunset with the geese flying below my <snip> Sure they reflect light..... hard to see if they didn't. They would not cause a bright flash of light on Arnold's plane from ANY distance, however. Certainly would not gave Arnold a sudden fright based on his initial thought that he had gotten to close to a fast moving fighter aircraft (his initial impression). >Again, I don't buy into the idea that geese were the objects that >Arnold saw. I sure he had seen, during his lenghty flying career, >many instances of where flights of geese or some other type of >bird reflected light. Like we all do he would have filed it away >in his memory and would have reviewed that as a possibilty when >he had his sighting. He did mention geese but obviously did not >relate that in any way to his sighting other than to note that t>he objects strung out like geese in a roughly [geeselike] >formation. >Strange, the more we talk about Arnold's sighting the more it >intrigues me, even though it is one of the earliest of sightings. >I've already noted a few things that have been missed or >misinterpreted. Strange they weren't picked up before this. Arnold's sighting has been trivialized in many publications over the years. "Oh, he saw something, but it could have been anything. What's important is all the other sightings that were report." Any scientist trying to understand a new phenomenon should try to first understand the initial report of that phenomenon, assuming the first report is well done, as is Arnold's. The fact is, all you need is Arnold's report to conclude "something unusual was flying around." The other reports lend support to Arnold's..
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:44:18 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:33:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:50:59 +0100 > From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Nonetheless they do reflect light. I've seen it myself on a few > occassions, but only toward sunset with the geese flying below my > altitude and the sun two to three diameters above the horizon. Yup... seen it too. And as you say, not the kind of reflectivity it would seem Arnold had in mind. > Strange, the more we talk about Arnold's sighting the more it > intrigues me, even though it is one of the earliest of sightings. > I've already noted a few things that have been missed or > misinterpreted. Strange they weren't picked up before this. One of the things I've found in doing this sort of examination is that it actually gets me to read cases which I've taken for granted, and from that more detailed reading to gain a more correct and less casual picture of what is actually being described. This sometimes even happens with cases which I consider among my "favorites", where, preparing it for the website or for use in a lecture, some new aspect comes to light, or some taken-for-granted concept is suddenly revealed as being not sufficiently accurate. In the case of the Arnold sighting, I think that what I have seen in this examination is that the sighting was stranger than I often considered it to be, and trying to put it in the context of Arnold's society at the time makes me see it as even stranger. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:16:10 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:36:21 -0500 Subject: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available As a known government agent and aspiring Man in Black, I feel an obligation to support the work of my fellow operatives. Thus, I have just accepted a clandestine shipment from Prometheus Books, mouthpiece of the Buffalo Cabal. Among them are a number of amusing and well-written works of skepticism. They are all a bit pricey but are worth the cost if you have been attracted to any of the cases they discuss. Below are a few that I have reviewed so far. All reviews are my own. These books are available from our Research Center by phone (702-729-2648) or on-line shopping cart. See more at the given URL. -------------------------------------------------------------- SPACESHIPS OF THE PLEIADES: THE BILLY MEIER STORY By Kal Korff, $26.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/k/korffmeier/ Kal Korff effectively trashes the Billy Meier story in this weighty, well-illustrated volume. Meier's claims are among the most enduring, mainly because they produced stunningly clear photos of flying saucers hovering above the Swiss landscape. Meier said he was in contact with "Semjase," a beautiful female humanoid from the Pleiades star system who allowed Meier, but no one else, to photograph her "beamships." Korff methodically dissects the claims and the photos. Not only does he prove the photos hoaxes; he also provides detailed how-to instructions for producing your own. In Switzerland, Agent Korff goes undercover to investigate Meier and his group, the Semjase Silver Star Center, which Korff calls a ufo "cult." (A bit too strong a word we think. "Clown college" would be a better term, with special guest appearances by Wendelle Stevens, Lee Elders and Jim "Give-Me-A-Photo-And-I'll-Show-You-a-UFO" Dilettoso.) There are plenty of footnotes and references, and the whole work is so carefully researched and ultimately devastating that we feel a little sad. Billy Meier's aliens were so full of peace and love -- a product of the 60s -- and the saucers were so stunningly stylish -- even if made with dinner plates -- that it seems inhumane to dispatch them with such efficiency. (We can imagine poor Santa Claus getting similar treatment from Korff.) Still, this book is a lot of fun, and Korff comes off as quite a character himself -- a sort of mad crusader who will let no Pleiadians stand in the way of the truth. (1995) -------------------------------------------------------------- THE TRUTH ABOUT URI GELLER By James Randi, $20.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/u/uri/ Professional magician James Randi analyses the feats of famed psychic Uri Geller, who Randi argues is little more than a crafty illusionist. The difference between Geller and a stage magician, Randi says, is that the magician acknowledges he is a trickster. Geller performs the same tricks but never admits them, instead using them to defraud wealthy benefactors. Randi provides how-to instructions on spoon-bending, clairvoyance, psychic photography and "teleportation." Gellers psychic feats only seem to happen when people look away momentarily or when his low-key assistant, who you rarely hear about, is lurking nearby. Randi can't prove that _everything_ Geller does is phony, because he can't be everywhere Geller is. What Randi does prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that Geller cannot be trusted. Randi is at his best when explaining magical illusions and the art of misdirecting attention; he is weaker when attempting to debunk remote viewing experiments at SRI, where Geller earned a qualified endorsement. (Randi only speculates that some sort of fraud must have occurred.) Written at the height of Geller's popularity in 1975, this book still stands as a fascinating exercise in healthy skepticism. --------------------------------------------------------------- THE ROSWELL UFO CRASH: WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW By Kal Korff, $26.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/r/roskorff/ This is a book you won't find in the Roswell International UFO Museum! It is a devastating disassembly of the Roswell case which leaves little of it standing. Korff methodically addresses each point of the crashed saucer hypothesis and pokes holes in the claims of each of the prominent witnesses, including Frankie Rowe, Glenn Dennis, Frank Kauffman and all the others you have heard about. Published this year, the book includes chapters on the Project Mogul balloon and the alien autopsy film. Apart from the Air Force's more recent "Parachute Dummy" report, you can't claim that Korff is overlooking anything, and his style is much easier to take than that of the better known Roswell curmudgeon Phil Klass. (Klass has just released his own Roswell book, but it seems superfluous after this one.) This book is much more effective in addressing the Roswell claims than the much ballyhooed Air Force report, which only fanned the flames with more speculation. This is the book that Roswell proponents must deal with if the hope to resurrect their case. If they can't respond effectively, then the Roswell Incident will live on only on T-shirts. --------------------------------------------------------------- UFOS: THE PUBLIC DECEIVED By Philip Klass, $19.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/k/klassufo/ Our favorite misanthrope tackles the belief that UFOs are being covered up by the highest levels of the U.S. government. Klass analyses dozens of popular claims prior to this book's 1983 publication date, including the Travis Walton case, classified CIA documents, UFOs over SAC bases and many alleged aircraft/UFO encounters. Not surprisingly, Klass finds only fraud, fantasy and misperception. Klass is an impassioned disbeliever - a religious zealot of ufology's far right - and all of his writings and investigations are colored by this ideology. He makes many of the same mistakes of reasoning as the true believers - inferring the whole from one detail, for instance, or liberally inserting his own speculation where facts are lacking - but unlike the believers, Klass also conducts solid research on occasion, and he has dug up devastating information on many seemingly plausible UFO claims. Unfortunately this book suffers from a lack of footnotes or a bibliography, but most of those references can be found in "pro-UFO" books like "The UFO Cover-Up," which examines many of the same cases. Whenever reviewing an historical UFO case, it is important to seek Klass's analysis to read the worst that anyone can say about it. If the case holds up after a "Klass attack," then it might be something worth pursuing. --------------------------------------------------------------- UFO ABDUCTIONS: A DANGEROUS GAME By Philip Klass, $20.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/k/klassabd/ Philip Klass agrees that alleged abductees are victims -- but not of aliens. They have been deceived, instead, by abduction researchers, who in the process of promoting themselves are determined to see alien intrusions regardless of the facts. Many victims are suffering from ordinary human mental illnesses, which go untreated as long as as the false "alien" diagnosis prevails. Due to popular books, movies and TV shows on the subject, thousand have been "implanted" with the idea that aliens are messing with them, and this breeds unnecessary fear and neurosis. This book is mostly a response to Whitley Strieber's Commmunion and Budd Hopkin's Missing Time and Intruders. Those who know Klass and his work won't find any surprises here. This book is written by the Klass-o-Matic skeptic machine without footnotes or index. If you are seriously interested in abductions, then you need to read it. However, if you are only casually interested and already recognize the possibility of human self-deception, then the book probably isn't worth the high price, since you know what Klass is going to say before he says it. (1989) --------------------------------------------------------------- Entries for other Prometheus books will follow as I have a chance to review them. (I've already rejected a number of them as Way Too Boring.) (c) Glenn Campbell, 1997. This message may be freely distributed on the internet so long as it remain intact.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:40:10 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:42:24 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:13:45 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: That ol' ET >>The ETH, while it obviously strikes some as naive, is not exactly >>a surprising belief. If any of us saw, right before our >>eyes, the things that Jerry Cohen or John Velez or Bob Shell say >>they've seen, wouldn't we -- yes, even Professors Mendoza and >>Devereux -- find ourselves wondering: "Wow...could that be from >>another planet?" Right or wrong (and I don't think Bob automatically >>supports the ETH), it's a perfectly understandable >>thing to think. No, I do not support the ETH. I think it is misguided and naive. >Even those who do not subscribe to the ETM still find themselves >obliged to spend time arguing about it, and, worse, having to >somehow 'prove' how their alternative approaches against the ETM >- even though the ETM is not an established fact, being no more >than a collective shadow in the mind. Absolutely, and it is both tiresome and boring to have to go over the same ground endlessly. >The ETM is just the standard assumption one would expect people >in our society to come to, just as one would have expected people >in medieval Christian Europe to come to assumptions of portents >and dragons, or tribal peoples to deal with the phenomena in terms >of flying spirits and shamans (and such explanations could be >much closer to the truth than our ET spaceships!). Actually, I disagree a bit here. I am not sure we are dealing with human assumptions so much as with a phenomenon which adjusts its presentation to fit the prevailing human mythos of the time. It or they pose as aliens today because people are ready to accept that, but I doubt that it is any closer to the truth than the gods or demons of ages past. >We really have to decide whether or not we want ufology to be >a forum for research, or a system of belief. Many want a new religion. I have seen this at the UFO conferences, where there are many in search of space messiahs and salvation. It seems that the majority of humans still need the crutch of religion and lack the self-confidence to face the universe alone and unburdened, or perhaps I should say unshackled. >The ETM is so insidious that I honestly believe it is doing more >harm than good at this stage in the game. AMEN, Brother Paul!!!!! Bob Shell
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Shuttle 'Near Miss' URL From: Eric Howarth <erich@bud.peinet.pe.ca> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:43:24 -0400 (AST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:44:28 -0500 Subject: Shuttle 'Near Miss' URL Hi All Earlier this week i posted some information on a Shuttle near miss. This site was found by me on one of my "SURFING EXPIDITIONS" Some people have been kind enough to reply to me with some facts that this post is a hoax. Well others have suggested that i created this hoax. Well to all here is the Site Location http://www.brotherblue.org/datruth/nearmiss.htm In future i will post all URLS with any information i find. Hoping to offset some of the speculation of my character. To those that sent me info on this post THANKS A BUNCH. Eric Howarth: erich@cycor.ca Life is 10% fate, 90% of what you make of fate
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:03:14 +0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:56:54 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:13:45 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: That ol' ET >and I have been within 20 feet of an alien >(I've mentioned that last item before on the list, but apart form >a couple of private queries, no one on this list seems to have >been much interested in this observation) Paul, I've deleted that thread, but if I remember correctly, somebody did pump you for more detail. Well, now you HAVE to tell us. Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:16:19 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:58:47 -0500 Subject: Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? >From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> >To: <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Existence of UFO's admitted by USA government... >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 >Hello List, >Like a good commercial this was only to get your attention. >But what if next week the governement comes out with a statement >regarding the existence of ET visitors? And what if they would state >that they have been here for many decades? Can you imagine this >situation, the day you hear this on CNN? > >Would many of us be without a hobby? All fascination for the subject >lost. No target to shoot at. Well you have my point now. >Will we be doing our daily thing, go to work, sleep etc >or will the world around us get a whole new perspective?> >Most of us are allready convinced of the fact they are here. >So no big shock for us! Isn't it? >Can you tell me how your day would look like after hearing >the BIG news? >Thanks, >Hendrik Rademaker >The Netherlands >hradem@worldonline.nl I believe this is the point where we have to be even more diligent than before. The gov./military will feed us a wave of Bull so thick you won't be able to move your feet. We will need to be able to use past data, etc to determine the truthfulness of their words. What if they tried to sell us out to the aliens and make us think it's a great idea and everyone should jump on the bandwagon. I for one am more worried about the lies ON CONTACT than the ones they are feeding us now. Joel Henry ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:44:01 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:01:34 -0500 Subject: Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? >From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> >To: <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Existence of UFO's admitted by USA government... >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 >Hello List, >Like a good commercial this was only to get your attention. >But what if next week the governement comes out with a statement >regarding the existence of ET visitors? And what if they would state >that they have been here for many decades? Can you imagine this >situation, the day you hear this on CNN? >Would many of us be without a hobby? All fascination for the subject >lost. No target to shoot at. Well you have my point now. >Will we be doing our daily thing, go to work, sleep etc >or will the world around us get a whole new perspective? >Most of us are allready convinced of the fact they are here. >So no big shock for us! Isn't it? >Can you tell me how your day would look like after hearing >the BIG news? I'd be damned surprised! I think they are here and have been for decades, but I am far from convinced that they are ET. So long as football is still on TV and cold beer in the fridge, I don't think the news would have much effect on most Americans. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Help for an Indonesian Author From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:21:23 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:00:27 -0500 Subject: Help for an Indonesian Author Greeting, Nur Austinus is an Indonesia UFO author who has requested some help with questions he has. Perhaps some UFO UpDates subscribers will share their views with him. -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/ ================================================================= Who can help me to give the information of Catholic's view about UFOs? How Islamic view about UFOs? How United Nations view or statement about UFOs too? Let me Know if any web sites about it. How with the statement of some people who conclusion the UFO is satan? I'm in Indonesia now researching about UFO and make organization called BETA-UFO. I'm been attack by some people who not agree with UFOs. Why UFO crash in Roswell, 1947? What happend and what cause make that UFO crash? Some trouble in their engine? Shutdown by US military force? Alien error? Sabotage? UFO battle (dog fight) with other UFOs and shutdown? or? Maybe, they are run escape from their colonies or desertion and want joint with us (political asylum)? We know an UFOs crash and down in Roswell at July, 2, 1947. Before the crash, two objects (UFOs) reported at Corona, Lincoln County, New Mexico (at time 9:50). They were flying fast. But we know about 48 kilometers from Corona, one UFO crash (down) at Roswell. What happend with that UFO (crash UFO)? What happend with the other UFO? If true before the crash were two UFOs, so, why the other UFO not rescue? Why the alien body left there by their friends (if they are their friends)? I think, they were in air combat. One escape from the other. One shutdown the other. And the winner go away... Regards, Nur Agustinus bgm@sby.centrin.net.id
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:45:18 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:11:41 -0500 Subject: Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? > From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> > To: <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Existence of UFO's admitted by USA government... > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 > [...] > Most of us are allready convinced of the fact they are here. > So no big shock for us! Isn't it? > Can you tell me how your day would look like after hearing > the BIG news? Hendrik, I would be trying to observe the reaction in others around me, and in particular I'd be waiting for an announcement that would soon come forth to the effect that CNN's pronouncement was the result of a misguided news director, under the influence of New Age thinking, for whom the company was now apologizing. How to put forth the news in a believable form that would withstand the false or misleading statements that would emanate from the scientific establishment and CSICOP is quite a problem. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:01:42 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:56:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? > From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:21:02 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? > Sean Jones wrote: > >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:41:52 +0000 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? > >>From: DevereuxP <DevereuxP@aol.com> [Paul Devereux] > >>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 19:55:04 EST > >>To: updates@globalserve.net > >>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? > >>1001 other beliefs that wax and wane within ufology (it > >>is folkore, after all), who is arguing otherwise? > >I am for one. I get pretty bloody annoyed when you keep refering > >to Ufology as Folklore > >Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus 1991 > >folklore (n) 1, the unwritten literature of a people as > >expressed in folk tales, songs etc. 2, study of such materials. > >Collins Dictionary 1994 > >folklore (n) traditional beliefs etc. of a community; study of > >these > >As you can see neither of these dictionaries of the English > >language agree with your version of what folklore is. > >For one there is plenty of written material about ufology and > >ufological issuses, you have written some yourself. And since > >when is ufology a tradition? > >I could argue with loads of things in this post of yours but I > >do not wish to waste my time typing to you when it is blatantly > >obvious that you do not listen to what is said. > Sean, > If you subscribe to learned journals of folklore, as I do, you > will see that bona fide folkorists of an academic bent study the > most remarkable subject matter. Research subjects range from > things like belief structures in the internal language of motor > cycle gangs to motifs within the gossip of modern village > communities! > Ufology is now two generations old in its present form, and has > brought with it patterns of thinking that are hundreds of years > old. Ufology *is* a community in the conceptual sense, and it > most certainly does have its traditions. The greatest of these is > the ET Motif or ETM (inaccurately referred to as the ET > Hypothesis or ETH). It is folklore. Grays are folklore. > Abductions are folklore. Roswell is folklore. Government > conspiracies are folklore. Planetoid -sized ET craft accompanying > a comet seen in the sky is folklore. Etc.,etc., etc. Sean, What my friend Paul, earthlight theorist and nature mystic, is saying here can be summarized as follows: What he knows, he knows, but what the rest of us know, we only believe. Cheers, Jerry Clark Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | devereuxp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Significant Records of Technical Achievements From: Masinaigan@aol.com [Joe Trainor] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:52:06 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:36:00 -0500 Subject: Significant Records of Technical Achievements From USA Today November 20, 1997 RECORDS DESTROYED The (USA's) National Archives and the Navy blame each other for the inadvertent destruction of records chronicling what the Archives calls "some of the most significant technical achievements in the 20th Century." The 4,200 scientific notebooks and 600 boxes of correspondence and technical memos of the Naval Research Laboratory were "pulped beyond recognition," the Archives said. Some records were of rocket development, the early space program and development of radar. File this one under "Crime Against History," gang!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 The Phoenix Lights - update from Peter Davenport From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:29:12 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:44:20 -0500 Subject: The Phoenix Lights - update from Peter Davenport After reading the Arizona New Times report about amateur astronomer Mitch's Stanley's sighting, in which Mitch says that in his telescope each of the first three lights of the V-shaped formation was actually two individual lights which seemed to be attached to an airplane, I recalled that that the original report by Peter Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center also mentioned a sighting by an amateur astronomer. Here is the relevant paragraph from the NUFORC site at http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/CB970313.html : "Many people called from those areas, far too many to describe in detail. One of the most interesting reports, however, was from a young man, who identified himself as an "amateur astronomer," who resides in west Phoenix. His description of the object, which he saw to the west of his home, appeared to be a cluster of solid, unblinking lights, which moved in an unwavering procession from the north to south. He could discern, he thought, that each of the individual lights in fact was two smaller lights. Also, he reported that he observed two aircraft in the vicinity of the object, one of which appeared to turn away from the object to the west, and the other which turned to the east." I wrote to Peter and asked him if this report came from Mitch Stanley or from someone else. Here is Peter's reply, in which he provides other information as well: From: National UFO Reporting Center <director@ufocenter.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:16:12 -0800 To: George Fergus <fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com> Subject: Re: UFO Events Over Arizona, March 13, l997 Dear George, Thanks for your message!! The astronomer I alluded to in my report is not Mitch. I just looked at the web page you cited, and I found his description intriguing in some narrow regards, but I am QUITE confident that the object(s) that went over AZ on that night were not conventional aircraft. Mitch is correct that each of the larger lights was, by at least two good observers, reported to consist of two or three individual lights. However,... They apparently traveled from Henderson, NV, to Paulden, AZ, in approximately 21 minutes--translating to supersonic speed, probably. The lights were totally silent, with only one person dissenting with this view. They hovered in at least four locations for up to approximately 2-5 minutes. The lights were distinctly red over Paulden, AZ, but only the lead light in the cluster was red, or "pinkish," by the time they had gotten down to Prescott Valley. Also, the object is reported to have "blotted out" the lights of Prescott Valley airport, as viewed from the cockpit of a twin Cessna approaching the airport from the northeast. Moreover, the object(s) passed through the airspace of at least 3 commercial airports--Prescott, Phoenix, and Tucson--even though the air traffic controllers knew nothing about them. Does the military either fly, or release 3000 degree flares, over commercial airliners on the tarmac of a major international airport?? I would like to see Mitch's statement in writing. I could contact the astronomer who contacted us, but I would feel uncomfortable releasing his name without his permission. We did receive a fine written report from him, and he apparently did get a good look at the objects. Also, his statement seems to confirm that there may have been military aircraft in the vicinity of the lights directly over Phoenix. We have sources in Luke AFB, who have given us a second-by-second account of the intercept by F-15c fighters, each with a LANTIRN II imaging pod on its wing. The lead pilot needed a bit of help to get out of the cockpit of his fighter, upon landing... All for now. Please let us know what you find. Cordially, ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter B. Davenport, Director National UFO Reporting Center director@ufocenter.com www.ufocenter.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:48:54 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:47:21 PST > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:52:31 -0600 (CST) > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > Another question to consider: Let's assume 4 million Americans > > have been abducted. At current rates, we represent approximately > > 1/22nd of the world's total population. If all peoples and > > cultures are being abducted on a proportional, regular and > > democratic basis (and why wouldn't they be?), that would amount > > to some 88 million abductions worldwide over, say, the last 50 > > years. > > Do the math. The last time I tried it I think I came up with > > something like 22,000 abductions per hour, 24 hours a day, seven > > days a week, 365 days a year, no weekends or holidays off, and no > > time-and-a-half for overtime. But maybe my numbers are off. > > Or maybe Jerry Clark would like to weigh in on this one? Looks > > like an article in the making for Nature to me. Now who wants to > > write it up and sign their name to it? Jim? Jerry? > > Dennis > Dennis, > > Huh? What does Nature have to do with this? > I don't buy the zillions-of-abductees notion and > have rejected ever since the first time I heard > about it, in a November 1991 phone convesation > with my friend Budd Hopkins. The best piece on > the subject appears in Journal of UFO Studies 4 > (new series, 1992); see Hall, Rodeghier, and > Johnson's "The Prevalence of Abductions: A > Critical Look." > Jerry Clark > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:19:38 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Dennis, > Excuse me, but this is a pretty ridiculous bunch of crap. > We don't know who are what they are. We don't know how many of > them there are. We don't know what they are up to. > Maybe there are 22,000 abductions per hour. Maybe a million. > What does that prove???? Without knowing just what we are dealing > with, we have absolutely no way to quantify what a "reasonable' > number of abductions is. > Personally, I suspect that the number of people who have had > this experience is far higher than even the highest estimates. > Bob Jerry and Bob and All, Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities. But here's one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal Experiences_. Though the report repeatedly states that they received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send out in the first place? Perhaps it was two or three times as many? My thought is that those who felt the subject was too silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have responded negatively to most or all the questions. So their 2% estimate, granted that it was conservatively based on requiring positive responses to 4 out of 5 key indicator questions, might have been up to a factor of two too large. Beyond this, there are plenty of assumptions Dennis made that we should be highly suspicious of. As another List member mentioned, we can't expect the aliens or ETs to be "democratic," or random, in their work. Most ufologists used to think that UFO sightings should occur randomly, and that if any person had *two* sightings, or heaven forbid, three or more, he/she must be hallucinating or hoaxing it all. That's no longer the consensus, thanks to our improved understanding of the abduction phenomenon, as limited as that is. And after Gulf Breeze, most of us realize that even UFO photographic opportunities can come repeatedly to the same person. So we shouldn't blindly assume that the proportion of abductions within the population of many nations, like India and perhaps China, is necessarily anywhere near as high as in the U.S. India seems to have quite a shortage of UFO reports, too, does it not? Maybe that's due to their people already accepting the existence of many gods & goddesses (in one form or another) within Hinduism and not requiring extensive conditioning by the aliens to get them used to the idea of their presence. So Dennis' assumption there might be off by a factor of 10 or so. And who's to say that there are not 100 or more different alien groups (most of the greys differ in detail) engaged in the abductions? Then there's the likelihood that during a single night each alien group in the abduction business abducts 10 or more persons, not just one. We all know of multiple-abduction cases and cases where an abductee reports seeing several or many other abductees also being processed. Then there's the possibility that many of the alien groups involved are capable of dipping from our near future back a few decades in time to engage in abductions, with the subsequent suppression of memories done partly for the reason of avoiding any time paradox. (Just a possibility to consider.) So I think if you were to put such factors together and apply them to Dennis' estimate, his 22,000 abductions-per-hour figure worldwide could be pared down to a single digit per ET group. (BTW, I'm in the habit of using "ET" and "alien" interchangeably, so I hope this doesn't bother anyone. ET has the advantage of only two letters and "alien" five, and the latter is moreover sometimes confused with "human immigrant." And since ET allows for the likelihood that the EBE's emerged as a civilization on some distant planet so many millions of years ago that they have command of interdimensional capabilities we're not yet aware of, etc., it includes aliens who have long since left their home planet for good, or visited here in past aeons, etc. When I mention ETs, I thus don't think of the aliens as cruising along in lumbering 21st-century spaceships and abiding by 20th-century science.) Jim Deardorff Search for other documents from or mentioning: deardorj | clark |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Cynthia Hind from Zimbabwe From: Philip Mantle <el51@dial.pipex.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:34:47 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:55:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Cynthia Hind from Zimbabwe > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:51:27 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Cynthia Hind from Zimbabwe > Could anybody help with any contact details > for Cynthia Hind of Zimbabwe, who runs one of > the few Southern African UFO groups. > Thanks Dear colleague, you can write to Cynthia Hind at: PO Box 49, Harare, Zimbabwe. All the best, Philip Mantle.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:55:54 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:18:49 -0500 Subject: Re: >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:21:02 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? > Paul Thank you for taking the time to reply to my short irate comment. >Sean, >If you subscribe to learned journals of folklore, as I do, you >will see that bona fide folkorists of an academic bent study the >most remarkable subject matter. Research subjects range from >things like belief structures in the internal language of motor >cycle gangs to motifs within the gossip of modern village >communities! I'm afraid that I do not subscribe to any learned journels of folklore, so I will have to take your word for it. >Ufology is now two generations old in its present form, In my understanding a generation is fifty years, taking it that "modern" ufology started with Kenneth Arnold, how do you make it two generations?? > and has >brought with it patterns of thinking that are hundreds of years >old. Ufology *is* a community in the conceptual sense, and it >most certainly does have its traditions. The greatest of these is >the ET Motif or ETM (inaccurately referred to as the ET >Hypothesis or ETH). I beleive that the label ETH is pretty well accepted as "the" label for the Extra Terrestrial *beliefs* > It is folklore. It _could_ become that, if it is allowed to. > Grays are folklore. I disagree >Abductions are folklore. Folklore is about things that have happened, not things that ARE happening. >Roswell is folklore. I disagree. ( although I hate to admit it, I can clearly see why you feel that way about the Roswell "myth".) >Government >conspiracies are folklore. Planetoid -sized ET craft accompanying >a comet seen in the sky is folklore. Etc.,etc., etc. I disagree to all of the above >The 1994 >Collins definition is quite applicable. How?? >But folklore does not mean that nothing ever happened that >triggered that lore. It just means that stories have developed >that can actually mask the originating factor, facts can mutate, >and should not be taken at face value. Take, for example, a >folktale that states that Old Bill, a train guard who was killed >in a train accident, can be seen on moonlit nights haunting the >length of track where he died, carrying his lantern (perhaps >looking for his severed head or arm). We may have a factual germ >in that there was a train crash in the vicinity, say, 50 years >ago. And, perhaps, on moonlit nights, a weird light can be seen >that at a distance looks like a lantern light. But that wouldn't >mean there was ever a train guard there called Old Bill, or that >his ghost haunts the tracks. A story has built up around some >half-remembered event back in time. As I recollect, when I studied the legends of King Arthur, legends tend to based on a grain of fact that somehow grows to become somewhat more than it was originally. Your ghost STORY which you use to try and explain folklore is exactly the same sort of thing. A local LEGEND/STORY. It is not, nor I doubt, will ever be folklore. >Ufology is a story we tell ourselves. In the telling, some facts >will be unearthed. So, to follow the Old Bill story,let us say, >I go into the reference library and prove that there never was >an Old Bill. Let's say I also show that the train accident happened >8 miles way from the place now haunted. Let's further say that, >I dunno, Mendoza sits out one moonlit night and finds the ghostly >"lantern" to be a reflection of moonlight off an exposed crystalline >deposit in a big rock, that seems to weave and flicker behind >the moving branches of trees? Three things would follow from this >obtaining of factual data: (1) the piece of folklore did mark >a real set of events; (2)the set events were not what the piece >of folklore stated; (3) THE PEOPLE DOWN IN THE NEARBY >COMMUNITY WILL STILL TALK ABOUT, AND BELIEVE IN, THE >GHOST OF OLD BILL. Again a local story. >Let's consider Roswell. Something happened there but we do not >know what. True, in the extent that it is not public knowledge exactly what happened. >We do not know how many times it happened, and whether >it was really at Roswell or somewhere else in the general region. >Even if an ET craft did impact at a specific spot, all the other >stories and beliefs we find in the Roswell literature and debate >*have* to have been folklore. Anything could have happened at >Roswell, from an ET craft crashing, to a secret government >balloon coming down. All we have to deal with is the folklore >that has arisen around that long-distant event. (Which happened, >moreover, in an isolated rural community which is the perfect >breeding ground for folklore.) I repeat, most of the Roswell >literature *has* to be folklore, whatever the final truth of the >matter turns out to be. I'm pretty sure that Stan will not be to happy to hear all of his work referred to as folklore. In fact I believe he refers to his work as RESEARCH. >It is just the same with tales of government conspiracy. We all >know governments keep secrets - sometimes for sensible reasons, >other times less reasonably. Finally, something we do agree on <G> >(The times when the Secretary of >State for Defence took tea used to be an official secret in >Britain!) That knowledge, combined with the frustated belief that >ET craft have landed and have been captured (frustrated because >there is no hard evidence, let alone proof of the matter) gives >the germ that can set off whole sagas of conspiracy theories. >Even if the ETM is true, it will still be the case that most of >ufology was storytelling, ?? I don't understand, if uflogy is correct how can it be called story telling if proved true?? >the stuff of folklore. In ufology, we >are all up to our armpits in folklore. I disagree >You included, Sean - like >it or lump it. You are right there I am "up to my armpits" in uflogy. <G> > That the ufological community is now a virtual >one in cyberspace, Something else I disagree with, well at least partially. There is *a* community in cyberspace but it is not a "real" community is the true sense of the world, after all is'nt life virtual enough for you?? >that the folklore has gone electronic, If I understand your understanding of folklore, then the internet itself is part of folklore. Correct?? >does >not change the fact that it is still folklore. Indeed, modern >communications have exacerbated the process. You only have to >look at the passing content of this list to see that it is just >like the superstitious gossip of a rural community. Just look >at the parade of beliefs, rumours, stories and opinions that can >be generated about a few moments of video footage, or a short >film of an alien autopsy! The august experts agree or disagree, >the believers insist it is true, the infidels insist it is a hoax. >We rarely get to the true facts of the matter. If you was given the true facts and/or evidence that all your theories and etc was totally false and that you have been wasting all these years just how would you feel Paul? >And in the few >cases we do, we find that all was not what it seemed. (The folklorist >would say: "Precisely!") This is folklore in action, Sean. (Indeed, >there is a hot Ph.D. dissertation waiting to be written by some >folklorist on how the internet can enhance folkloric dynamics.) >If you think you are dealing with facts all the time in ufology, >or even most of the time, My interest in ufology is finding the facts Paul, so how can I be >you are seriously - nay, dangerously >- deluding yourself. ?? >Now, Sean, are *you* listening? yes thanks >Best wishes, And you may have mine, said in the best possible terms. Whilst I seriously disagree with your beliefs Paul I don't have an axe to grind with you personally. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | devereuxp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Shuttle 'Near Miss' URL From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:07:02 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:22:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Shuttle 'Near Miss' URL > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:43:24 -0400 (AST) > To: blackvault@mylist.net, updates@globalserve.net, ndunlks@aol.com > From: Eric Howarth <erich@bud.peinet.pe.ca> > Subject: Shuttle Near Miss URL > Hi All > Earlier this week i posted some information on a Shuttle near > miss. This site was found by me on one of my "SURFING > EXPIDITIONS" Some people have been kind enough to reply to me > with some facts that this post is a hoax. > Well others have suggested that i created this hoax. > Well to all here is the Site Location > http://www.brotherblue.org/datruth/nearmiss.htm [snip] Thanks, Eric, for posting that site. Are we to believe that you did not bother to look at the other things on this site? The Extremely Holy Magnum Opus and Greate Alchymickal Worke of the W:.W:.N:. 12 U.S. Senators Are Space Aliens! Space Alien Meets With Newt Gingrich! Man Posing as Space Alien Conned Girls Into Sex! Gay Space Alien Spurned by Homophobic Hick! Secret CIA Study: Space Aliens Are Demons From Hell! Alien Warns of Invasion From Space! An ET Gobbled My Laundry! Sex Channeller Makes Love to Grieving Widows Evil ETs Cut My Leg Off! Aliens Stole My Face! Space Alien Executed! UFO Beams Dead Man Into Sky! Space Aliens Captured by U.S. Navy! Priest Saves Boy Possessed by Space Alien! Elephants Snatched by UFO! Woman Uses Bug Spray to Kill E.T.! 4,000 Year Old UFO Found in Grand Canyon! Is Your Pet a Space Alien? Space Aliens Use TV to Control Your Brain! Grim Radio Signals From Outer Space WWII Bomber Found on Moon! Mystery Planet Sends a Christmas Message to Earth How to Contact Space Aliens Space Aliens Make Deposits in Sperm Banks! Space Alien Doctors Are Curing Earthlings! Hunter Kills Tiny Space Alien! I Am An Alien From Outer Space! Jupiter Sends Distress Signal to Earth! I Talk With Space Aliens! We Were Married on a UFO! Mars Face Built By Space ALiens 4,000 Years Ago! Mother of Human Race Came From the Stars! Space Shuttle Reports Near Miss With UFO! Space Aliens Drained My Blood! Top-Secret Report: Space Aliens Hate Dogs! Evil ETs Cut My Leg Off! UFOs Blamed for Blocking Out Sun in Japan! Angry Citizens Stop UFO Abductions! Soviet Troops Shoot Down a UFO! I Took a Ride on an Alien Starship! Titanic Sunk by Space Alien Sub! UFO Space Train Orbiting Earth! Hell is on the Planet Venus! Space Aliens on Welfare! Space Aliens Gave Me X-Ray Vision! UFO Cult Wants to Clone You -- For $1,000,000.00! Incredible Medical Cures Beamed From Outer Space! Photographic Proof of Space Alien Invasion! -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 20 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:01:09 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:49:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:44:18 -0800 > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:50:59 +0100 > > From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > > Nonetheless they do reflect light. I've seen it myself on a few > > occassions, but only toward sunset with the geese flying below my > > altitude and the sun two to three diameters above the horizon. > Yup... seen it too. And as you say, not the kind of reflectivity > it would seem Arnold had in mind. <snip> The mirror like flashes seem to rule out birds. However, let's assume geese. How fast can the fly? 60 mph? That is 1 mile/minute. Arnold was flying approximately penpendicular to the UFOs flight path. He timed the UFOs for about 2 minutes. so the flight of geese could have been about 2 miles in that. What about tail winds? Arnold comments on the great flying conditions. If he had cross-winds, they were not so great. So the length of the base line distance is two miles and Arnold is approaching the flight path at a 90 degree angle. For simplicity, put Arnold on the prependicular bisector of that the 2 mile baseline. The objects swept through around 80 degrees of angular displacement in that two minutes. Well, plotting Arnold's approximate position on a map of Washington state shows about that angle between the two land marks he cites. Again for simplicity's sake say that the angular displacement was 90 degrees. Okay, so Arnold is now one mile from the flight path. If we are dealing with geese, he should have crossed the flight path during his observation. Okay, Arnold and the geese were not standing still which influences the how much of the angle the geese swept through. The closer he gots to the geese's flight path the greater the angle seems. Still he should have crossed their flight path. The actual displacement of the geese is only two miles. The angular displacement argues that Arnold must be very close to their flight path. He should either recognized geese or cross their path. Now if the distance the objects traveled in two minutes is much greater than geese can fly, then you can start moving the the objects much farther away from Arnold. Geese don't seem to work. Well, maybe, despite the comments about the flight conditions, they did have a huge tail wind, so the baseline was much longer. Okay, fine. However, once Arnold turns to follow the objects he also has the advantage of the tail wind so he should, if they were geese, be able to see he was overhauling them. Not geese, again. > ------ Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: natural.state@erols.com [Melanie Mecca] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:36:35 -0600 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:13:59 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:40:10 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] > >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:13:45 -0500 (EST) > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: That ol' ET > >The ETM is just the standard assumption one would expect people > >in our society to come to, just as one would have expected people > >in medieval Christian Europe to come to assumptions of portents > >and dragons, or tribal peoples to deal with the phenomena in terms > >of flying spirits and shamans (and such explanations could be > >much closer to the truth than our ET spaceships!). > >We really have to decide whether or not we want ufology to be > >a forum for research, or a system of belief. > Many want a new religion. I have seen this at the UFO conferences, > where there are many in search of space messiahs and salvation. It > seems that the majority of humans still need the crutch of religion > and lack the self-confidence to face the universe alone and > unburdened, or perhaps I should say unshackled. Now wait just a minute here. I belive your implication is that those who subscribe to the ETH as their favored assumption for visitor origins are taking this point of view because they are psychologically wimpy and need a big dose of the "opiate of the masses" in the form of the ETH. Is that what you mean to be saying? You mean to be shinin' on everyone who holds this view by asserting that they are weak-minded cowards of inferior processing power? And, my pet peeve, are you also perhaps confusing (pick a term) multi-dimensional demonstrations with the point of origin of a species? Assessing cloaking abilities, shape-shifting, walking through doors etc. through a narrow-minded perspective, as if possession of those powers de facto proved that the origin of those beings could not possibly be through evolution in bodies on a life-bearing world? Your assertions seem to spring from a limited inner horizon, IMHO. Melanie Mecca Search for other documents from or mentioning: natural.state |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Corso Named in Lawsuit From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:08:56 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:20:07 -0500 Subject: Corso Named in Lawsuit Source: LOS ANGELES TIMES (11-16-97) "THE COURT FILES -- A Tale of Ghostwriters and Alien Landings" By ANN W. O'NEILL THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE: When you're promoting your life story, especially when that story turns into a bestseller about flying saucers, it's not a good idea to let your son butt in on the press junket, assault the publicist and threaten the life of the producer who owns the movie rights. That's allegedly what happened after Col. Philip J. Corso's ghostwritten memoir, "The Day After Roswell," was published this summer, according to a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Named as defendants are Col. Corso and his son, Philip Jr., accused by producer Neil Russell of failing to promote the book after a dispute over money. The hardback spent three weeks in August on the _New York Times_ bestseller list, rising to No. 12 before dropping off the radar. A favorite of UFO buffs, it propounds that the laser, the microchip and fiber-optics were developed from technology gleaned from an alien spacecraft that crashed 50 years ago in the desert near Roswell, N.M. During a 21-year military career, Corso was a key intelligence officer who served on Gen. Douglas MacArthur's staff in Korea and as a national security advisor to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Russell says in his suit that he bought the rights to Corso's life story in 1992, then decided it would be lucrative to publish a book and then release a movie version. The dispute began at a meeting in April or May when, the suit states, Corso's son "demanded extraordinary amounts of money" pending the book's release. Afterward, the suit contends, Corso Jr. interfered with interviews, assaulted Russell and a Simon & Schuster publicist, and threatened Russell's life--all at the colonel's behest. The colonel, meanwhile, is accused of trying to negotiate a better movie deal with someone else. Because of the Corsos' behavior, the suit alleges, Simon & Schuster and its Pocket Books division canceled negotiations for future book deals. Russell and his production company are seeking unspecified damages, as well as punitive damages and a restraining order preventing the Corsos from calling or threatening Russell and his family. Neither Russell nor his lawyer, Martin J. Singer, had any comment. Corso's publicist at Pocket Books had no comment and said she didn't know how to reach him. Other attempts to reach Corso were unsuccessful.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:05:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:27:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:25:34 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > >From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull] > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:34:00 GMT > >Reports of Men In Black which speak of two or more MIB in a > >'visitation' also include this 'moving in unison' feature. > >Rob Bull > Is this mentioned in Jenny Randles new book on the Men In Black? > I saw it at a local bookstore, but didn't get a chance to review > it, and wonder what the general opinion was on it. > Steve I can't say what the general opinion is but I will offer an insight regarding her discussion of Kenneth Arnold's interaction with Crisman and Dahl. As of this late date she is still unaware that Crisman worked for the US Central Intelligence Agency despite this being documented in literature dealing with Garrison's investigation in New Orleans and in UFO literature as well. This gives me the impression that she doesn't do much background research on the individuals in the stories she writes. I wouldn't classify it as investigative journalism, something more akin to folklore or less charitably fairy tales; what you read and spend your time on is your choice. Gary
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:20:29 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:41:02 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:11:12 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] > >Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:45:44 -0500 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >> big snip < > >> I don't think McDonald ever had a personal sighting, yet he was > >> quite passionate about the subject. Wouldn't scientists with a > >> personal experience be even more vocal and passionate? > >Well Dennis you are quite wrong about this statement, James > >McDonald did have a sighting or have you forgotten how Jacques > >Vallee documents how he double-crossed James McDonald by > >revealing information about McDonalds sighting which had been > >confidential. > >Gary Alevy > Dear Gary: > When I use the words "I don't think" that means I'm not certain. > And if McDonald did have a sighting, it would only substantiate > my point, not mitigate it. > But anyway, I'm happy to have this information. I don't recall it > off the top of head, so perhaps you could point me in the right > direction. Where is the incident of Vallee's double-cross you > mention? I'd like to look it up. > Thanks! > Dennis Hi Dennis, In response to your request I have included the two relevant, complete day journal entries from Jacques Vallee's book FORBIDDEN SCIENCE. And yes the reason that many scientists and others are passionate about this field is their personal experience. Vallee discusses his close range 1950s sighting earlier in the book. To the best of my knowledge this is the only citation I have seen regarding McDonald's sighting and I have never seen the details of his sighting published anywhere. Perhaps Jerome Clark who has now had access to McDonald's files could shed some light on this issue or publish the relevant material. Although Vallee had access to this he only used it as a means to attempt to embarrass McDonald with the journalist from Time magazine. Then again this is the same Vallee who all these years has keep the identity of "Pentacle" as secret for his own purposes. The material in these passages is quite thought provoking isn't it Gary Alevy FORBIDDEN SCIENCE: Journals 1957-1969 by Jacques Vallee, 1992 North Atlantic Books, the two relevant entries are quoted below in their entirety for the days listed: Page 254-256 Chicago. Sunday 16 April 1967. Kazantsev's secretary has sent me a copy of the Soviet magazine Smena with an article by Felix Zigel that quotes Challenge and reproduces two pictures from it. Yesterday I went to Hynek's house. I had promised that I would help him reorganize his files, which overflow into shoeboxes and in a basket in a little room on the first floor. He complains that he doesn't find anything any more, and I can see why. The reports of various years are mixed together. Pictures and letters get lost. Having established a method to reclassify this mess, I began the real work early in the afternoon. By evening I had returned many of the documents to the places where they belonged, in neat folders and envelopes. But I had stumbled on something I felt was important. I found it among the relics of Project Henry. It was a simple letter dated 1954. It came from a cloud physicist at the University of Chicago who was studying for a doctorate at the time. Together with three other physicists he had seen a bright unidentified object in the sky over Arizona. The letter gave precise details and calculations. It was signed James McDonald. When I showed him the letter Hynek was dumbfounded. He examined the text, as well as the response from the Air Force, which was attached to it. "I don't remember ever seeing this," he said. "Evidently it went to Captain Hardin," I pointed out. "He's the one who replied to it." "If I had remembered this I might well have contacted McDonald. We would have met much earlier." "You could have had an influence on the policy of the Air Force, if the t two of you had joined forces at the time. We could rewrite history here: when the 1954 wave swept Europe you could have contacted Aime Michel...... "The Condon Committee would never have happened," Hynek mused. But he shot the whole idea down: "I probably would have been labeled as a crackpot. Whipple wouldn't have asked me to work with him at the Smithsonian in 1957. Northwestern would never have hired me as the director of Dearborn .... You and I wouldn't be here talking." This brought the discussion to the subject of McDonald's upcoming visit. I told Hynek he could not refuse to meet with him. He tried to get out of it: "You could take care of it with Bill and Fred ... find out how he feels." He wanted to avoid another confrontation at all cost. I tried to make him feel guilty: "You already forgot the meeting with the Canadians, and with our publisher. This time you've got to be there." He finally agreed that we had to find out once and for all if he could work with McDonald. Mimi Hynek has a dinner party planned for Saturday, but it can be rescheduled. We hear that McDonald is not having much success so far. An article he recently published in the National Enquirer has eroded whatever measure of respect he was beginning to gain among his peers. On the Air Force side, Lieutenant Morley has just briefed Colonel Sleeper, who has responsibility for the Foreign Technology Division and reportedly would love to see them dump Project Blue Book altogether. In this kind of circuitous communication the facts are irrelevant. All the conclusions are already drawn. My California friend has a job offer for me in San Diego. My first inclination is still to return to France. But Allen has vowed to keep me in this country no matter what happens. Page 298-300 Chicago. Thursday 20 July 1967. A week ago Hynek was interviewed by John Wilhelm, a journalist from Time magazine. Aggressive, inquisitive, precise, Wilhelm pushed him around, squeezing him into narrow corners. Hynek answered but the questions kept coming back about the handling of cases by Project Blue Book, about the false astronomical explanations, about statements made to Congress by the Air Force, about the Condon s When Wilhelm halted the interview to go get a sandwich Hynek me at the computation center: It's not going well, Jacques. Not well at all. This guy wants to everything. He is looking for blood. He is going back all the way to Project Sign. He keeps asking about the possible role of the CIA. Obviously it's McDonald who is sending him here. You know Time magazine they need a juicy story. They need a simple answer and a scapegoat they can throw to the public. But here there is no simple answer. If they could put everything on my back, that would make a lot of people happy. trying to be patient but there are limits...." I could tell in his voice that he was genuinely afraid. He has given himself over to this crowd with his many public appearances, his lectures. But the public and the UFO believers are clamoring for more. McDonald is giving them what they seek, dramatic accusations and simplistic conclusions. On one side is Hynek, an older man who is troubled, who constantly questions his own life in search of deeper truths. On the other side is a fiery champion who thinks he has all the answers: UFOs are extraterrestrial, we're being watched, even invaded. Perhaps he is right. But the way he is handling the problem stinks. "Give the McDonald sighting to this guy Wilhelm," I suddenly said. "It's the obvious solution. Why is Jim hiding his own sighting, pretending he has just discovered the problem, if he is so sure of the answers?" At six o'clock I called Susan, Hynek's secretary. Allen was still in conference with Wilhelm, behind closed doors. It was only much later in the evening that I was able to reach him. "I followed your advice. Wilhelm was visibly shocked when I confronted him with McDonald's own sighting." With a very tired voice he added: "After a day like this, Jacques, I wish I had never heard of UFOs." I feel the same way. The pressure and ridicule the scientific establishment places on anyone who dares raise this forbidden topic is incredible in its vicious character, in its unfairness. Following Hynek's letter to Science(9) a biologist wrote in to record a personal sighting. Hynek requested more details. He received the following answer: I could simply ignore your letter and drop the whole story of my UFO observation. But that would be impolite and I don't want to be. Therefore I am answering you but I do so with regret. I have been subjected to fearful trouble since my short letter in Science. In reality I am not at all a sensitive person. I have spent thirty years in Federal and State biological research and I think I have withstood all kinds of criticism. But I must admit I no longer want to receive repulsive remarks from my friends (are they still my friends?), from my associates, from crackpots and others. The recent letter by Stibitz (Science, 27 January 1967) irritates me and causes more confusion that I intend to stand. So, let us forget this whole story, please. No wonder scientists do not find the evidence convincing; the very best cases, the reports from their own peers, don't reach them because people are too embarrassed to describe phenomena which contradict what they think science is. end of excerpts
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: LIUFON's John Ford 'Unfit' To Stand Trial From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:35:51 -0600 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:45:14 -0500 Subject: Re: LIUFON's John Ford 'Unfit' To Stand Trial >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:05:48 -0500 (EST) >From: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) >Subject: UFO enthusiast in N.Y. found unfit to stand trial >To updates@globalserve.net >Deseret News Archives, Salt Lake City > Friday, November 14, 1997 > UFO enthusiast in N.Y. found unfit to stand trial >John Ford, a UFO enthusiast accused of masterminding a plot to >assassinate three political officials in Suffolk County, was >found unfit to stand trial on Thursday. A judge ordered that he >be sent to an upstate psychiatric institution for at least a >year. >Ford, 48, was arrested a year ago on charges that he was scheming >to kill the three officials by putting radium in their cars and >lacing their toothpaste with radioactive metal. >Investigators said Ford wanted the three officials killed because >he believed they were interfering with his efforts to contact >aliens from outer space. Ford's friends said he believed that >visitors from outer space had crash-landed on Long Island and >that government officials were keeping the aliens at Brookhaven >National Laboratory in Upton and had created diversionary fires >in Long Island's Pine Barrens to conceal the crash landings. > =A9 1997 Deseret News Publishing Co. Since you are keeping up with John Ford, maybe you can answer a question for me regarding one of John's LIUFON, members. I am talking about Brian Levins. Do you know him? He was very close to John, from the investigative prespective. I have been unable to locate Brian since last May or June. If you have any information to offer, I appreciate it. REgards, Mike
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA From: Kerry Ferrand <kferrand@rocketmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:39:27 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:47:14 -0500 Subject: Re: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:03:31 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: ...one of my visitors was listed as 'USA > Government' > > I get something like two or three hundred hits from US Govt > every month. This just means that someone is coming to your > site from a US Govt computer. Since there are many thousands > of such computers this is nothing to worry much about. > > However, all of these people are technically in violation of > govt rules for doing private surfing via govt computers and > computer networks. > > Bob I understand that some US Govt. branches (NASA comes to mind) offer its employees dial up access schemes for a fee. ..also I get a lot fo hits from .gov sites that turn out to be the web masters of assorted Gov. pages looking for external links and so on..hard to tell what is official work and what is just personal browsing. K
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Corso's Convoluted Claims From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:45:22 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:51:56 -0500 Subject: Corso's Convoluted Claims List: Dang, I thank I've finally got muh OCR scanner workin' agin, no thanks to Win95! Those who think we got everything from the aliens and couldn't think up nuthin' on our own may be interested in the following, which appeared in, and is copyrighted by, the NY Times for 11-8-97. Maybe Darlington got the secret of longevity from the aliens, too. Dennis Sidney Darlington, a Bell Labs mathematician who pioneered the design of electronic circuits and whose formulas helped launch rockets 300 times without error, died on Oct. 31 at his home in Exeter, N.H. He was 91. At Bell Labs, in Murray Hill, N.J., where he headed the mathematics research center, Dr. Darlington was ranked alongside his colleague Claude Shannon for breakthroughs in communication networks that foreshadowed the integrated circuit and in turn computers and modern communications. Dr. Darlington's discovery of ways to custom-design circuits using precise mathematical specifications, a specialty now called network synthesis theory, made him the leading authority in electronic circuits for decades, said Dr. Ernest Kuh, a former colleague who is now at the University of California at Berkeley. Before Dr. Darlington's work, circuits were designed in an intuitive, ad hoc manner. His advances won him the highest award in his field, the Medal of Honor of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. At a chalkboard at Bell Labs with three or four other rocket guidance experts, he would scrawl equations that became the basis for guiding the Air Force Titan 1, the Thor-Delta and dozens of other rockets. His rocket guidance formulas could instantly plug in the information from several sources - the trajectory designed to launch a satellite, the data from radar that tracked the rocket, and the instruments in the rocket itself - and could then return a flow of commands to the rocket. Always a tinkerer, Dr. Darlington in the 1950's spent a weekend at home playing with a new gadget, the transistor. Trying to get more gain from an amplifier the size of a kernel of corn, he found a way to combine two or more transistors in one chip, an idea that became the Darlington Compound Chip and pointed the way toward integrated circuits. He patented the idea and lived to see the Darlington chip become required study for electrical engineering students everywhere. One of them, Edgar Gilbert, who became his colleague, said the chip was a universal component until the era of integrated circuits. "He was pretty practical for a mathematician," Mr. Gilbert said. And being practical about money, Dr. Darlington told Bell Labs' lawyers to write the patent for his idea to cover any number of transistors. But they wrote it for only two. Dr. Darlington said later he believed that if the patent had been unlimited, he and Bell Labs, a part of Lucent Technologies, would receive a royalty on every integrated circuit chip. He also made advances in radar. In 1947, his system pushed ahead the concept of radar. This approach, using several frequencies to lower the demands for high peak power, made possible the antiballistic missile, or ABM, defense systems, in which Dr. Darlington played a major role, said Dr. Debassis Mitra, the head of mathematics at Bell Labs. Dr. Darlington, who was born in Pittsburgh, received bachelor's degrees from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate in physics from Columbia University. At Bell Labs, where he worked from 1929 until retiring in 1971, Dr. Darlington also helped run the company's support of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:06:27 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:23:39 -0500 Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:04:36 -0600 (CST) > Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:36:18 -0500 > Subject: Re: The Phoenix Lights - nothing on radar > Did you get this info from the Phoenix New Times article? Yup, > http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1996/062697/news2.html > I found this article misleading in several details. > Any large commercial airport will have both primary and secondary > (transponder) radar. Planes which do not generate transponder > signals will still show up as radar blips but without IDs next to > them. There are are ways to filter out some of the stuff picked > up by primary radar, such as things that are not moving (ground > clutter) or already-identified aircraft, but full radar would > always be turned back on in case an aircraft has a transponder > malfunction, and particularly if it was suspected that an > unauthorized aircraft without a transponder might be nearby. > Mark Adkins (emerald@aztec.asu.edu) says he has confirmed this by > email with local pilots who have flown without transponders yet were > pointed out by radio to nearby pilots by Sky Harbor air traffic > control. > If the writer of the New Times article couldn't get this straight, > how much confidence can we have in the rest of the article? Touch=E9, It seemed necessary to cite the parts of the that reflected testimony from the ATC's and Air Force spokesman as they corresponded to your post but the rest of the article took liberties. A subjective skeptical interpretation. > Regarding Luke Air Force Base's less-than-spotless record of > veracity, some apparent lies may simply be due to inaccurate > press reports, ignorant spokespersons, or insufficiently probing > questions. At times, it's like trying to find the right keywords > to get info from a computer database. For example: > None of our planes were in the air that night > - Oh, you expected us to check for visiting planes too? > We got no phone calls about the incident. > - Oh, you expected us to check with the night switchboard operators > to see if there were any calls when our office was closed? This seems overly convenient here. If we question the veracity of Air Force's testimony regarding this incident, there is a volume of evidence to suggest that the false statements made by the Air Force were probably the result of official duplicity rather than erroneous remarks resulting from inaccurate or a lack of pertinent information. That is, if we take Bill Greiner's testimony into consideration and we assume that the Luke spokesperson would have know damn well that the switchboard was saturated on the evening of the 13th. Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:31:14 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:29:47 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Jerry and Bob and All, >Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities. But here's >one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't >locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal >Experiences_. Though the report repeatedly states that they >received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send >out in the first place? Perhaps it was two or three times as >many? My thought is that those who felt the subject was too >silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were >likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have >responded negatively to most or all the questions. So their 2% >estimate, granted that it was conservatively based on requiring >positive responses to 4 out of 5 key indicator questions, might >have been up to a factor of two too large. Jim: If you would use your noggin to actually think with, instead of as a mere hair support, you'd realize that the Roper Report personally interviewed 6000 people. They didn't send out more responses than they got back. They interviewed 6000 people, period. Moreover, word has it that Hopkins and Jacobs actually "cooked" the numbers down from something like five per cent because they couldn't believe the original numbers -- never mind that the original numbers don't measure anything whatsoever, and neither do the final ones. >Beyond this, there are plenty of assumptions Dennis made that we >should be highly suspicious of. Just as we should be suspicious of anything you say, or am I wrong in thinking that Billy Meier somehow turned up a long lost manuscript, or was it merely translation, of one of the books of the Bible? Perhaps you would care to elucidate? >As another List member mentioned, we can't expect the aliens or ETs to be >"democratic," or random, in their work. <Merciful snip> >So we shouldn't blindly assume that the >proportion of abductions within the population of many nations, >like India and perhaps China, is necessarily anywhere near as >high as in the U.S. So you're saying you're a closet racist, or merely that aliens prefer Anglo-Saxons and their immediate descendants to other, less "savory" subjects? Talk about making assumptions we should be highly suspicious of! In case you haven't noticed, and I doubt you have, India presently boasts some of the best software programmers in the world. But let's turn my misguided democratic assumptions/questions around: What's your explanation for why aliens prefer Americans? India seems to have quite a shortage of UFO >reports, too, does it not? Maybe that's due to their people >already accepting the existence of many gods & goddesses (in one >form or another) within Hinduism and not requiring extensive >conditioning by the aliens to get them used to the idea of their >presence. Another assumption of yours that we should be equally wary and suspicious of. Maybe it's simply due to the fact that they're not Americans. >So Dennis' assumption there might be off by a factor of >10 or so. Whereas yours might be off only by a factor of 100 or so >And who's to say that there are not 100 or more different alien >groups (most of the greys differ in detail) engaged in the >abductions? Me. Wanna fight? If there were a hundred different alien groups involved, are you saying that all of them are so enamored of Americans that they'd overlook India's 7-800 million possibilities altogether? Do you honestly think India is any more monolithically Hinduistic than we are, say, Methodist? >Then there's the likelihood that during a single night each alien >group in the abduction business abducts 10 or more persons, not >just one. We weren't talking about a single night, Jim, or can't you read? We were talking about every hour of the day, day and night. >We all know of multiple-abduction cases and cases >where an abductee reports seeing several or many other abductees >also being processed. Do we, now? And even if we did, such cases are in the vast minority, unless you're using a different database than the rest of us. >Then there's the possibility that many of the alien groups >involved are capable of dipping from our near future back a few >decades in time to engage in abductions, with the subsequent >suppression of memories done partly for the reason of avoiding >any time paradox. (Just a possibility to consider.) Well, yes, Jim, there's the possibility of *anything*, if you want to look at it that way. For example, there's even the possibility that you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. >So I think if you were to put such factors together and apply >them to Dennis' estimate, his 22,000 abductions-per-hour figure >worldwide could be pared down to a single digit per ET group. How so, Jim? The above graf doesn't make sense no matter how many times I read it. If you eliminated the rest of the world altogether, you would still be getting something like 1000 abductions hourly for the last 50 years, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Where's your single digit? Damn, Jim, don't the bastards *ever* sleep? >(BTW, I'm in the habit of using "ET" and "alien" interchangeably, >so I hope this doesn't bother anyone. ET has the advantage of >only two letters and "alien" five, and the latter is moreover >sometimes confused with "human immigrant." You gotta be careful about that closet racism stuff, Jim. >And since ET allows for the likelihood that the EBE's emerged as a >civilization on some distant planet so many millions of years ago > that they have >command of interdimensional capabilities we're not yet aware of, >etc., it includes aliens who have long since left their home >planet for good, or visited here in past aeons, etc. Blah, blah, blah, etc. >When I mention ETs, I thus don't think of the aliens as cruising >along in lumbering 21st-century spaceships and abiding by >20th-century science.) >Jim Deardorff Problem is, you don't think at all. You just ascribe omnipotent powers to the aliens and assert your own motives for their actions. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: HOT SPOTS From: David Kirby/ Karin Dostal <lbear@rmi.net> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:01:21 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:35:17 -0500 Subject: Re: HOT SPOTS >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:33:57 -0600 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hot Spots >>> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 05:11:24 +0100 (MET) >>> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>> From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >>> Subject: Hot Spots >-snip- >>An astronomer who gave a talk at a MUFON Ontario meeting recently >>argued that UFOs cannot be extraterrestrial craft since they have >>lights like aircraft which would make them too easy to detect at >>night. But who is to say that this is actually the exception >>rather than the rule and that the vast majority of UFOs are in >>fact unlit objects. >Most UFO's have lights. A bright single color or white is quite >conspicuous. But if they try to imitate aircraft lights they would >be largely ignored by the public who assume it is aircraft. they >don't know common lighting patterns and even the military uses >different patterns to identify specific craft from the ground. >This is called "disguising" rather than hiding. People are getting >more critical about what they see, so the reports of UFO's are >more likely the real thing than misidentifications or natural >phenomena. At Minnesota MUFON, we hardly ever get easily explained >sightings. A light in the sky is not enough, it either has to do >something extraordinary or be close enough not to look like anything >known. Joel Henry's assertion that: "Most UFOs have lights. A bright single color or white is quite conspicuous.", sounds exactly like the kind of ufological dogma that keeps the study of this phenomenon mired in tail-chasing fruitlessness. We'll assume that Henry meant that ufo cases reported at night are characterized by the witnessing of a light of some kind. That's fine.Plenty of reports involve daylight sightings with no lights visible. Let us not venture into the dangerous territory of characterizing what is or might be out there. Unwitnessed ufo's are just as real as witnessed ones, aren't they? Airplanes use lights to identify themselves to other aircraft and ground-based navigation agencies. If we assume that ufo's are craft piloted by extra-terrestrials, externally visible lights would seem a pointless feature, and a counter-productive one if their surveillance of our planet is indeed clandestine. As for the fact that different conventional aircraft use different lighting schemes, so what? 98 potential observers out of a hundred see a blinking light moving across the sky and assume it is an aircraft of explainable origin, regardless of the frequency, brilliance or duration of the lights visible. I have often wondered, if these little rascals are determined to be as invisible to Joe Mundane as they could be, why not turn on the lights and pretend to be a Cessna? Are all aircraft that appear to be earth-based really earth-based? Then again, why not turn the lights off altogether? Sniggling little point, and thanks to Joel for an otherwise well-informed posting. dave kirby
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: Scientific American Frontiers on UFOs From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:25:47 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:50:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Scientific American Frontiers on UFOs Here is an interesting link to Scientic American Frontier's page on Roswell and the UFO situation. About halfway through this read I noticed it began reeking of CSICOP due to the variety of references to SI and various familiar names. The assesment is not exactly balanced but was quite interesting nonetheless. http://www.pbs.org/saf/4_class/44_guides/guide_802/4482_aliens.html Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:36:02 +0200 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:49:30 -0500 Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever I'm beginning to have problem with all these sightings. I'm inherently a very linear thinker, so forgive me, BUT: - Why are flying triangles mostly only seen at night - Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all the headlights on - Why are these things mostly observed over high population density areas, and not small to medium settlements ??? I fail to see the logic. Can somebody explain this twist to the ET Hypothesis to me? If one flies at night to hide oneself, then the lights should be off, no? If one flies at night with the lights on, so one can see where one is flying, I assume, then why over a humonguous place like Phoenix, Arizona? If one flies at night with the lights on, over Phoenix, Arizona, then why not during the day? There's a missing element here: can somebody help? Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 21 Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 03:00:47 -0700 Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:58:56 -0500 Subject: Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? > From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 > Fwd Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:21:07 -0500 > Subject: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? > But what if next week the governement comes out with a statement > regarding the existence of ET visitors? And what if they would state > that they have been here for many decades? Can you imagine this > situation, the day you hear this on CNN? > Would many of us be without a hobby? All fascination for the subject > lost. No target to shoot at. Well you have my point now. > Will we be doing our daily thing, go to work, sleep etc > or will the world around us get a whole new perspective? Hendrick if this actually happened the first thing I would do is run out and try to buy up all of Prometheus's books which would probably go way up in value after such an announcement and they would likely be going out of business or at the very least, be forced to shift to debunking psychic phenomenon and Astrology full time. I would also enjoy sitting back and watching Klass try to debunk it all. I'd really live for that. :-) Jared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:55:11 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:47:38 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities. But here's >one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't >locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal >Experiences_. Though the report repeatedly states that they >received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send >out in the first place? Perhaps it was two or three times as >many? My thought is that those who felt the subject was too >silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were >likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have >responded negatively to most or all the questions. So their 2% >estimate, granted that it was conservatively based on requiring >positive responses to 4 out of 5 key indicator questions, might >have been up to a factor of two too large. My magazine does a reader survey every two years or so. Typically send out around 20,000 surveys and get something like 2,000 back. I'm told by the company that does our statistical analysis that this is a much higher than average percentage of returns. We tried to get more returns a couple of times by giving a gift to everyone who sent back the form, but it made only a tiny difference in the numbers we got back, so we stopped. I don't know details of how the Roper Poll was done, but if they got back close to 6,000 responses, they must have sent out 60,000 or more surveys. >Then there's the possibility that many of the alien groups >involved are capable of dipping from our near future back a few >decades in time to engage in abductions, with the subsequent >suppression of memories done partly for the reason of avoiding >any time paradox. (Just a possibility to consider.) That's one of my problems with the ETH. Why consider travel only in space?? We know that space and time are one and the same. I think it is just as likely that our visitors come from the distant future or distant past as it is that they come from somewhere distant in space. Contactees have said that they have trouble understanding our concept of time, and it may be totally meaningless to them if they travel freely in it. I don't like the terms "ET" or "alien", because both imply an origin somewhere other than Earth. Ultra Terrestrial comes close to being the right word, but I think we need a new one. What shall we call them?? (No I don't think others will accept my suggestion LGB, Little Gray Bastards!) Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:08:07 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:48:55 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: natural.state@erols.com [Melanie Mecca] >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:36:35 -0600 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >Now wait just a minute here. I belive your implication is that >those who subscribe to the ETH as their favored assumption for >visitor origins are taking this point of view because they are >psychologically wimpy and need a big dose of the "opiate of the >masses" in the form of the ETH. Is that what you mean to be >saying? You mean to be shinin' on everyone who holds this view >by asserting that they are weak-minded cowards of inferior >processing power? Oh my, Melanie, did I strike a nerve??? No, I don't think everyone who believes the ETH is wimpy, weak minded, lily livered coward, etc. Many are quite gifted intellectually. However, there are those, and in large numbers, who want to turn belief in UFOs into a new religion. Just listen to them speak at UFO conferences, and you hear echos of a Southern Baptist preacher. And look at their wide-eyed followers. They are no different from moonies, or follower of Charles Manson, in my opinion. They want to "BELIEVE" and follow. They want someone else to do their thinking for them and reassure them that when the ship hits the sand they will be carried away to safety in gently glowing space ships. Well I don't buy into that. I think we need to wipe the sleep from our eyes and stop creating new mythology. We need to admit that we don't know who/what we are dealing with, don't know their/it's agenda, and have no assurances that the phenomenon is benevolent. >And, my pet peeve, are you also perhaps confusing (pick a term) >multi-dimensional demonstrations with the point of origin of a >species? Assessing cloaking abilities, shape-shifting, walking >through doors etc. through a narrow-minded perspective, as if >possession of those powers de facto proved that the origin of >those beings could not possibly be through evolution in bodies >on a life-bearing world? Your assertions seem to spring from a >limited inner horizon, IMHO. Where in the world did I say anything like that???????????? Looking in the mirror, are we? I have not said that what we are dealing with are not extraterrestrial biological entities. I have said that there is no reason to limit ourselves to this one possibility when there are many others, and we have no solid evidence to point toward or rule out any of them. Maybe they are EBEs,and the ETH is certainly one hypothesis to explain what is going on. But it is not the only one, and I see no reason to limit our discussions to its confines. Please take that burr out from under your saddle. It doesn't become you. Bob Search for other documents from or mentioning: 76750.2717 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull] Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 14:07:00 GMT Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:50:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:25:34 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >>From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull] >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports >>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:34:00 GMT >>Reports of Men In Black which speak of two or more MIB in a >>visitation' also include this 'moving in unison' feature. >>Rob Bull >Is this mentioned in Jenny Randles new book on the Men In Black? >I saw it at a local bookstore, but didn't get a chance to review >it, and wonder what the general opinion was on it. >Steve I have the book and on the whole I would say it is "Good, worth buying", but it falls some way short of being the definitive tract on the subject. I can't remember whether it mentions the 'moving in unison' feature. I have also spotted two small points in the book which are just plain WRONG, which leads me to have doubts about the rest of it. Rob Bull
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:47:14 +0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:59:12 -0500 Subject: Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? >From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> >To: <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Existence of UFO's admitted by USA government... >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 Hendrik, >But what if next week the governement comes out with a statement >regarding the existence of ET visitors? And what if they would state >that they have been here for many decades? Can you imagine this >situation, the day you hear this on CNN? >Would many of us be without a hobby? All fascination for the subject >lost. No target to shoot at. Well you have my point now. >Will we be doing our daily thing, go to work, sleep etc >or will the world around us get a whole new perspective? >Most of us are allready convinced of the fact they are here. >So no big shock for us! Isn't it? >Can you tell me how your day would look like after hearing >the BIG news? - TV Ratings will reach astronomical proportions - Phone lines will be jammed - No work this morning - Mucho people gathered with beer, chips and pretzels in front of the TV set at 9 in the morning - Pizza for the next 3 meals - Phil Klass will go hide in Antarctic - The Duke of Mendoza and his fellow partners will try hard to make you believe that they knew all the time, and if you ask about WHAT they knew, you'll get stuck with 23 K threads for a year - Pro-UFO advocates will go broke and loose all prestige. Although in the end they will have been right, we live in a world of yack manure. The BS mill won't stop. The debunkers will get all the credit. - If THEY come as conquerors, we're all in deep shit, unless THEY do it the same way the allies (except Staline) did it in 1945. - If THEY come in peace, we're in for a ride. - In any case, abductions wont be recognized until the next 50 years. Remember Kennedy ? Thanks for the chuckle, I grant you first prize for the best question on the List this year (no joke). Serge Salvaille
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Corso's Convoluted Claims From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:38:18 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:08:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Corso's Convoluted Claims > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:45:22 -0600 (CST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Corso's Convoluted Claims > List: > > Dang, I thank I've finally got muh OCR scanner workin' agin, no > thanks to Win95! > Those who think we got everything from the aliens and couldn't > think up nuthin' on our own may be interested in the following, > which appeared in, and is copyrighted by, the NY Times for > 11-8-97. Maybe Darlington got the secret of longevity from the > aliens, too. > Dennis > Sidney Darlington, a Bell Labs mathematician who pioneered the > design of electronic circuits and whose formulas helped launch > rockets 300 times without error, died on Oct. 31 at his home in > Exeter, N.H. He was 91. > At Bell Labs, in Murray Hill, N.J., where he headed the > mathematics research center, Dr. Darlington was ranked alongside > his colleague Claude Shannon for breakthroughs in communication > networks that foreshadowed the integrated circuit and in turn > computers and modern communications. > Dr. Darlington's discovery of ways to custom-design circuits > using precise mathematical specifications, a specialty now called > network synthesis theory, made him the leading authority in > electronic circuits for decades, said Dr. Ernest Kuh, a former > colleague who is now at the University of California at > Berkeley. Naturally it was the live Alien from Roswell (big grin at this point) that gave Dr. Darlington his precise mathematical specifications...... > Before Dr. Darlington's work, circuits were designed in an > intuitive, ad hoc manner. His advances won him the highest award > in his field, the Medal of Honor of the Institute of Electrical > and Electronic Engineers. > At a chalkboard at Bell Labs with three or four other rocket > guidance experts, he would scrawl equations that became the basis > for guiding the Air Force Titan 1, the Thor-Delta and dozens of > other rockets. Naturally the Corsoites will immediatly claim that this is PROOF, and that the three or four other rocket guidance experts were in fact aliens blah blah blah. > His rocket guidance formulas could instantly plug in the > information from several sources - the trajectory designed to > launch a satellite, the data from radar that tracked the rocket, > and the instruments in the rocket itself - and could then return > a flow of commands to the rocket. > Always a tinkerer, Dr. Darlington in the 1950's spent a weekend > at home playing with a new gadget, the transistor. Trying to get > more gain from an amplifier the size of a kernel of corn, he > found a way to combine two or more transistors in one chip, an > idea that became the Darlington Compound Chip and pointed the way > toward integrated circuits. Ah, them their Alien coffees........... Cheers, Robert
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:23:29 PST Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:12:04 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:20:29 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:11:12 -0600 (CST) > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > > >From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] > > >Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:45:44 -0500 > > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > And yes the reason that many scientists and others are passionate > about this field is their personal experience. Vallee discusses > his close range 1950s sighting earlier in the book. To the best > of my knowledge this is the only citation I have seen regarding > McDonald's sighting and I have never seen the details of his > sighting published anywhere. Perhaps Jerome Clark who has now > had access to McDonald's files could shed some light on this > issue or publish the relevant material. Although Vallee had > access to this he only used it as a means to attempt to embarrass > McDonald with the journalist from Time magazine. Then again this > is the same Vallee who all these years has keep the identity of > "Pentacle" as secret for his own purposes. According to undated letter (ca. early February 1954) he wrote the Air Force, McDonald and two other meteorologists observed an "unusually brilliant object low in the southwestern sky" on January 10, at 5:25 p.m., while driving north along Arizona Sate Highway 83. The 3 1/2-page letter details the technical aspects of the sighting and McDonald's subsequent attempt to explain it. After thorough analysis and investigation he concluded that no conventional explanation he could think of worked. The individual ("Pentacle") to whom Vallee ludicrously assigns all sorts of sinister significance was Howard C. Cross, an associate co-ordination director at the Battelle Memorial Institute. The so-called Pentacle Letter is reprinted in its entirety on page 5 of International UFO Reporter, May/June 1993. I urge Gary to read the article of which it is a part ("The Pentacle Letter and the Battelle UFO Project" by Jennie Zeidman and Mark Rodeghier) for the real story. Vallee inflated an innocuous document into something far more important and unrecognizable through sheer ignorance and paranoia. Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:37:22 PST Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:20:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:05:24 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:25:34 -0500 > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > > >From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Rob Bull] > > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > >Subject: Re: Media Influence on Abduction Reports > > >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 11:34:00 GMT > I can't say what the general opinion is but I will offer an > insight regarding her discussion of Kenneth Arnold's interaction > with Crisman and Dahl. As of this late date she is still unaware > that Crisman worked for the US Central Intelligence Agency > despite this being documented in literature dealing with > Garrison's investigation in New Orleans and in UFO literature as > well. This gives me the impression that she doesn't do much > background research on the individuals in the stories she writes. > I wouldn't classify it as investigative journalism, something > more akin to folklore or less charitably fairy tales; what you > read and spend your time on is your choice. > Gary Hi, Gary and list, Having followed the Maury Island hoax pretty carefully (see the account in the forthcoming UFO Encyclopedia, second edition), I wonder what is the source for the assertion that "Crisman worked for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency." Crisman was a con man and a liar who made many false claims -- just like, in fact, the even more notorious Jim Garrison. Jerry Clark Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | galevy | steve |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Space Shuttle - UFO "Near Miss" From: Graham William Birdsall <106151.1150@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:49:52 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:28:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Space Shuttle - UFO "Near Miss" >WASHINGTON - The Space Shuttle Endeavor narrowly avoided a collision with >a gigantic UFO during its 12-day mission in September and a top-secret >NASA audio tape proves it! >That's the word from author William Kliner, who claims to have obtained a >copy of the tape from highly placed NASA sources and flatly calls the >incident "the most dramatic close encounter in history." This report is interesting, but has there been any independent corroboration of the account of William Kliner, or indeed and follow-up? Colleagues will doubtless have noted that the "September" incident (if true), refers to STS-69, September 1995. A simple check on NASA's shuttle missions has shown that the following personnel (as cited by Mr. Kliner), were indeed on board: David M. Walker - Commander Kenneth D. Cockrell - Pilot James S. Voss - Payload Commander James H. Newman Ph.D. - Mission Specialist Michael L. Gernhardt - Mission Specialist While this might add some substance to part of Mr. Kliner's allegations, until such time as the audiotape undergoes independent voice analysis to compare Commander Walker's voice transmission with earlier recordings, such stories should be treated with a fair degree of caution. Would it be too much to hope that such analysis will be undertaken, in the interests of practical and objective investigation? Best regards, Graham W. Birdsall (Editor) UFO Magazine [UK]
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Posting Rules for UFO UpDates From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:49:59 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:49:59 -0500 Subject: Posting Rules for UFO UpDates Posting Rules To help current and future readers of UFO UpDates' posts and the UFO UpDates Instant Archive software at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates please observe the following rules when posting to the List. 1. Line-length Please make your lines no more than 70 characters long ------------------------This line is 70 characters--------------------- Longer lines are wrapped by various pieces of software along the Net and leave awkward and eye-jarring line lengths. 2. Attribution When responding to a message from the List, _always_ include the four line 'header' from the body of that message at the start of _your_ message - eg.: >Date: 01 Jan 97 00:00:01 EST >From: Genghis@mukluk.com <Bob Bobberts> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Grays are Grey Area Again - it's at the beginning of the 'body' of the message you are responding to. 3. Quoting _Always_ quote from the message to which you are responding. Quotes should come _before_ you key your response. Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the first character. It should look like this: >Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the >first character. It should look like this: Keep quoted material from previous messages to a minimum: Just quote enough text to let people know what you are referring to. Messages that do not utilize the required quoting protocol or contain excessive quoting will not be posted to UpDates. The Archive software will automatically italicize these lines. Visit the Archive page and take a look. Most modern E-Mail software will allow the user to click a 'Reply' button and automatically open a new window, with the message being responded to inserted with universal quote-mark (>) at the beginning of each line. When 'Reply' is clicked, some E-Mail software will insert a line which states: On 01 Jan 97 at 00:00:01 EST, UFO UpDates wrote: If your program does this, please remove it - UFO UpDates did not _write_ the message - it merely posted it to the List. 5. Don't send 'personal' responses to the list that should be sent directly to the original author. Send a message to the list only if it contains new information that you want _everyone_ to see. Messages that contain what the List Moderator considers to be personal attacks or 'flames' will not be posted to the List. Those messages will be forwarded to the person they refer to for their information. 6. URLs (Web Site addresses) _must_ include 'http://' and be on one line. The Archive software will make the URL a 'click-able' link to that address in your archived message. ------------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: "Julianne Presson" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:59:43 -0700 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:29:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:55:54 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >>From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:21:02 -0500 (EST) >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? [............] >>Sean, >>If you subscribe to learned journals of folklore, as I do, you >>will see that bona fide folkorists of an academic bent study the >>most remarkable subject matter. Research subjects range from >>things like belief structures in the internal language of motor >>cycle gangs to motifs within the gossip of modern village >>communities! >I'm afraid that I do not subscribe to any learned journels of >folklore, so I will have to take your word for it. >>Ufology is now two generations old in its present form, >In my understanding a generation is fifty years, taking it that >"modern" ufology started with Kenneth Arnold, how do you make it >two generations?? >> and has >>brought with it patterns of thinking that are hundreds of years >>old. Ufology *is* a community in the conceptual sense, and it >>most certainly does have its traditions. The greatest of these is >>the ET Motif or ETM (inaccurately referred to as the ET >>Hypothesis or ETH). >I beleive that the label ETH is pretty well accepted as "the" >label for the Extra Terrestrial *beliefs* >> It is folklore. >It _could_ become that, if it is allowed to. >> Grays are folklore. >I disagree [.................] >>The 1994 >>Collins definition is quite applicable. [................] folklore (fok=B4l=F4r=B4, -lor=B4) noun 1. The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally. 2. The comparative study of folk knowledge and culture. Also called folkloristics. 3. a. A body of widely accepted but usually specious notions about a place, a group, or an institution: Rumors of their antics became part of the folklore of Hollywood. b. A popular but unfounded belief. - folk=B4lor=B4ic adjective - folk=B4lor=B4ish adjective - folk=B4lor=B4ist noun - folk=B4loris=B4tic adjective The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright =A9 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. >Something else I disagree with, well at least partially. There >is *a* community in cyberspace but it is not a "real" community >is the true sense of the world, after all is'nt life virtual >enough for you?? community (ke-my=A1=B4n=EE-t=EA) noun plural communities Abbr. com. 1. a. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. b. The district or locality in which such a group lives. 2. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community. 3. a. Similarity or identity: a community of interests. b. Sharing, participation, and fellowship. 4. Society as a whole; the public. 5. Ecology. a. A group of plants and animals living and interacting with one another in a specific region under relatively similar environmental conditions. b. The region occupied by a group of interacting organisms. noun, attributive Often used to modify another noun: community problems; community facilities. [Middle English communite, citizenry, from Old French, from Latin comm=FAnit=E2s, fellowship, from comm=FAnis, common. See COMMON.] The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright =A9 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. >And you may have mine, said in the best possible terms. >Whilst I seriously disagree with your beliefs Paul I don't have >an axe to grind with you personally. Sean why would you have a virtual axe to grid with anyone??? Julie Search for other documents from or mentioning: earthwrk | tedric |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:41:28 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:31:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:01:09 -0800 > From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > The mirror like flashes seem to rule out birds. > However, let's assume geese. How fast can the fly? 60 mph? > That is 1 mile/minute. Arnold was flying approximately > penpendicular to the UFOs flight path. He timed the UFOs for > about 2 minutes. so the flight of geese could have been about 2 > miles in that. What about tail winds? Arnold comments on the > great flying conditions. If he had cross-winds, they were not so > great. > So the length of the base line distance is two miles and Arnold > is approaching the flight path at a 90 degree angle. For > simplicity, put Arnold on the prependicular bisector of that the > 2 mile baseline. The objects swept through around 80 degrees of > angular displacement in that two minutes. Well, plotting > Arnold's approximate position on a map of Washington state shows > about that angle between the two land marks he cites. Again for > simplicity's sake say that the angular displacement was 90 > degrees. Okay, so Arnold is now one mile from the flight path. > If we are dealing with geese, he should have crossed the flight > path during his observation. > Okay, Arnold and the geese were not standing still which > influences the how much of the angle the geese swept through. > The closer he gots to the geese's flight path the greater the > angle seems. Still he should have crossed their flight path. > The actual displacement of the geese is only two miles. The > angular displacement argues that Arnold must be very close to > their flight path. He should either recognized geese or cross > their path. Now if the distance the objects traveled in two > minutes is much greater than geese can fly, then you can start > moving the the objects much farther away from Arnold. Geese > don't seem to work. > Well, maybe, despite the comments about the flight conditions, > they did have a huge tail wind, so the baseline was much longer. > Okay, fine. However, once Arnold turns to follow the objects he > also has the advantage of the tail wind so he should, if they > were geese, be able to see he was overhauling them. Not geese, > again. Also, wouldn't birds in June usually be flying back north, not flying south? But since this thread refuses to die I'll add my 2 cents of wild speculation: Arnold is annoyed by a strange flash and tries to see where it came from. He turns the plane, looking, until he spots something ahead that looks like a group of planes. His heading is now north rather than east. He sees that the objects are moving to his right, and decides to see how fast they are going, not realizing that it is actually a flock of birds flying north and their apparent southward motion against the distant mountains is simply due to his own airspeed. He determines that these planes are moving incredibly fast, and decides to get a better look by turning the plane completely around so that it is now heading south in the direction he thinks they are flying, and he opens his left window. However, since he is now actually heading in the opposite direction from the birds, he passes them and after a brief closeup they quickly disappear from view. But he could definitely discern that they had no tails, since from his point of view they would have been flying backwards. He then resumes his eastward journey. -George Fergus
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: {85} part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:39:31 -0500 Subject: Re: {85} part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network ______ _______ ____ ------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- U K / / // ___/ / / ' November 22nd, 1997 / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 1 Issue 85 --- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with subscribers in over 40 countries. This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the subject section e.g. Repost {82} part 1, part 2 or part 3. In this issue: -------------- Editorial --------- UK.UFO.NW IRC channel THE DESERT RAT UK.UFO.NW SKYWATCH 1997 United Kingdom News ------------------- [UK 1] British Airways pilots sightings [UK 2] If anyone's out there, please wait until we've microwaved the dinner [UK 3] Nine see 'UFOs in Star Wars battle' [UK 4] Aliens get spaced out for Scots [UK 5] Men In Black [UK 6] Alien Spotter: Did you see a Southall UFO [UK 7] Thirty Years ago in Horsham World News ---------- [W 1] A Russian scholar says our solar system has 2 Earth's [W 2] Bandai rings the changes [W 3] Safety board in spotlight of TWA probe after FBI bows out [W 4] How Mars Hotted Up for Life [W 5] USAF future testing of an Airborne Laser [W 6] SETI@home - SETI@home is a grand experiment to harness the spare power of hundreds of thousands of Internet-connected computers in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) - uk.ufo.nw says: well worth a read Letters ------- Real Estate on the moon the Name a Star article Wall Street Journal article. Editorial ========= UK.UFO.NW IRC channel Our search for guests for the UK.UFO.NW IRC (internet relay chat) channel has been and continues to be very successful. However we would like your help. Do you know of anyone who would make an interesting guest on the channel, whether they be ufologists, abductees or other. If you do please get them to mail us at: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk or send us their details i.e. e-mail address etc and we will contact them. Recent previous guests to the channel have included: Stanton Friedman, Matthew Williams, Michael Lindemann, John Velez Confirmed near future guests include: Dan Sherman: http://www.earthworld.com/ppd/ (Project Preserve Destiny) Graham W. Birdsall: http://www.ufomagazine.co.uk/ (UFO Magazine) All meetings where invited guests are in attendance become moderated. This works very well keeping the channel tidy. Visitors to the channel are able to ask questions of the guest through the channel administrators Crow & Raine. Connecting to the UK.UFO.NW IRC channel is very simple. It is not even necessary to have a dedicated IRC program. You will find full connection details at the foot of the e-zine. THE DESERT RAT Some of you seasoned internetters will need no introduction to 'The Desert Rat'. Others of you may be more familiar with the name Glenn Cambel. Infact both are one and the same. Glenn is probably the most knowledgeable civilian on Area 51 / Groom Lake. Glen wrote and edited 37 issues of 'The Desert Rat' which ran from January 1994 to the Fall 1996. It has to be said that 'The Desert Rat' was a classic. If you have the time it is well worth reading the back issues. For this particular type of e-zine there is little to touch them. Interesting, exciting, thought provoking. The good news is 'The Desert Rat' is back with us. Or as Glenn would say it never really left. It was just taking a rest. Checkout Glenn's web site at: http://www.ufomind.com/ Current & back issues of The Desert Rat can be found at: http://www.ufomind.com/rat/ Biography taken from Ufomind/PsiSpy - "The Mothership" web site." Biography Alias: Psychospy Occupation: Owner and director of the Area 51 Research Center, which is chiefly a mail order company that sell books and documents relating to Area 51. The company is housed in a mobile home in Rachel, Nevada, and has two employees apart from Campbell. Campbell says that all profits from the company "support our continued research." Prior Occupation: Computer programmer. Worked in "C" on the IBM PC writing software for banking. Employed by small company in Cambridge, Mass. Source of Support: Campbell says he is supported by income from the mail order business as well as savings accumulated while he was a programmer. Residence: Spends most of his time in Las Vegas; usually visits Rachel on the weekends. Major Works: Author of Area 51 Viewers Guide, a 115-page self-published guide to the public lands surrounding Area 51, as well as references and local lore. (Available from author for $15 plus $4 p/h). Author of Groom Lake Desert Rat, an on-line newsletter published at least monthly since Jan. 1994. Back issues available on WWW. The 1997 Skywatch The date of the 1997 Skywatch proved to be a weekend that would be remembered world wide, unfortunately not for the reasons hoped for by all UFO enthusiasts, but for the tragic death of one of the World's most beautiful and well loved ladies, Princess Diana, Princess Of Wales. It is uncanny that the UK UFO NW was visiting Wales that weekend and we wish to extend our sincere condolences to the families and friends of all involved, not least of which Princes William and Harry, who are now forced to live their lives with nothing more than memories of a truly wonderful mother. Our best wishes go with you. SKYWATCH 1997 UK.UFO.NW would like to thank Lloydy for organising this years Skywatch and for writing the below informative and amusing report about our weekend. Skywatch 1997 By Lloyd Bayliss The preparations for the 1997 Skywatch event began not long after the ''96 event was done and dusted - such was the success of that weekend. Within weeks it was decided that the '97 event would move to Lloydy's home turf, the mountains of South Wales. Almost immediately, preparations began and prospective sites were sought out and suitable campsites were evaluated. In early '97 the founder of the UK UFO NW, Dave Somen and close friend Paul_J met up with Lloydy at South Wales and checked out the three 'short listed' sites. The original plan was to spend each of the two nights at different locations, but after being impressed with the first site an a little disappointed with the second, the third one blew everyone away. With stunning views of the Black Mountains to the right, the Brecon Beacons to the left and views overlooking Llangorse Lake and beyond stretching out into the distance in front, the third site was chosen to accommodate the skywatchers for both nights. The site was located near a small mountain top car park on the B4560 running over Llangynidr Mountain. A short walk down a green path would take you far enough away from curious eyes, though close enough to the cars for supplies and security. The campsite was a small Caravan Club site called 'Clydach Gorge' off the A465 "Heads Of The Valleys" road at Clydach, around ten miles from the Skywatch site itself. The following months were spent booking the campsite, getting photographs and details to the skywatchers, informing police Etc, and by the end of August, all was ready! The date set for the "Quest International Skywatch 1997" was the weekend of 30- 31 August, slightly later than the previous year's event and thought by some to be perhaps a little too late in the summer for such an occasion. However, the date was set and preparations completed, all that remained was for people to turn up and the skies to remain clear. Suffice to say, people turned up, and we'll leave it at that! The enthusiasts attending this year's vigil were : DAVE_UFO, PAUL_J, LLOYDY, DOUG_LGM, CROW, RAINE, ESPE, HIDEOUT, NESSUS, TOM and JON. Dave, Paul and Hideout met up with Lloydy at the Little Chef cafe on the A465 at Gilwern just after midday. Doug was picked up from Abergavenny train station thirty minutes later and it was on to the campsite to do battle with a tent that could easily have housed a small circus! The daunting mass of canvas and aluminium poles once again surprised everyone with its willingness to be formed into something resembling the shape of a tent! A crew with such a wide spread of expertise ranging from the academic to law and order could never be foxed by a fabric abode, a ground sheet on the other hand - now that's another matter! After stopping off at the railway station to pick up Espe, a short trip to the local DIY store soon cured the groundsheet problem and it was on to the supermarket for some extra "supplies". And that was it, everything was set. All that remained was to sit back, enjoy the pleasant late summer sun and wait for Crow and Raine to turn up. And wait. And wait! A couple of hours later they rolled up, Crow as cool as ever and Raine just as bubbly. Then, suddenly, the time had come for Skywatch '97 to begin proper. Cameras, coffee, passengers and food were loaded into the cars and it was onward and upward, and upward, and then up some more until we reached the spot for the night's activities on the side of Llangynidr Mountain. The skies were still fairly clear, though a slight chill was just starting to make itself felt in the early evening air. After ferrying most of the kit from the small car park, first on the agenda was food - of course! Much had been heard about Dave's major contribution to this year's festivities, the amazing, all in one, portable, throw away Bar-B-Quick! Dave had brought seven, yes seven, of these wonderful labour saving devices on the strength that not only could we cook on them throughout the two nights, they would also serve to keep us warm if the temperature dropped a little too far below the comfort zone. Nice idea but, I'm not sure who said (if indeed anyone ever has!), "the best ideas are not always the most successful ones!" After spending over twenty minutes trying to persuade this wonder of modern technology to burst into flame (a faint glow would have sufficed!), it was finally decided that it was actually cooling the air around it! At this point Jon, a friend and colleague of Dave's turned up to join in the proceedings. Now, Jon just happens to be a fireman, and so his talent for controlling fire was put to good use in attempting to persuade 'Barbie' number two to give off a little heat. It turns out that Jon's extensive training had not been wasted and soon we had two miniature furnaces (OK, slight exaggeration I grant you) piled high with burgers and sausages. With nightfall drawing ever closer and the light fading fast, some patchy cloud began to bubble up, slowly massing together to form a slightly worrying veil over much of the dusk sky. It may have been the long distance aroma of burning sausages, but it was around now that another local skywatcher, Tom, turned up. He arrived in style dressed in full combats and riding a brand new Yamaha XT 600. A few nervous glances were shared among some of the other members of the gang until Lloydy announced "Ah, Tom's here at last!" With the cloud thickening fast and a suggestion of a few spots of rain, skywatching quickly became a case of "oh look, I think I can just see a star behind that cloud!" With a lack of sky to watch, talk naturally turned to stories of strange lights, unusual craft and crop circles. Nessus and his girlfriend were the last of the skywatchers to arrive and conversation was soon joined between him and Espe over an incident that had occurred in Nessus' locality involving seemingly intelligently controlled lights following a car. Espe countered with possible explanations involving static electricity and a lively debate was enjoyed by all. Eventually the two parties agreed to discuss the topic in more depth at a later date and a truce was drawn up around a beefburger, a hot dog and a couple of cans of lager! As far as stories go though, the most memorable of the evening had to be that of Tom's tale of a prehistoric teradactile! The story goes something like this... Some time ago, an article appeared in a magazine telling of a road crew blasting a tunnel through a mountainside in France. Apparently, after one particular blast, when the dust settled a baby teradactile staggered out of the gloom, coughed once and promptly fell over dead!!! Tom swears blind he read the story but he can't remember which magazine he saw it in! Draw your own conclusions, but whatever, it certainly brought some jocularity to the evening! After settling down behind some windbreakers and umbrellas to do some serious cloud watching (skywatching was well out of the question by this time), things began to get more and more uncomfortable as the temperature dropped and the rain began to fall, lightly at first then with an urgency that suggested it was there to stay. As one young lady, who shall remain anonymous, fell heavily for Paul_J (literally - over his feet and straight down a bank), the reluctant call was made to 'Abandon Skywatch' at around midnight. And so it was with slightly dampened spirits and very dampened feet and bums, the kit was hurriedly packed away and thrown into the cars for the short journey back to the campsite. By the time we reached our temporary canvas home, the rain had reached epic proportions and spirits were sinking almost as fast as our cars were sinking into the mud of the campsite. After a subdued beverage, most people decided to call it a night and try to catch some sleep and hope for better weather for day two. Our disappointment in finding little change in the weather overnight was soon forgotten when the devastating news of Princess Diana's fatal car accident was heard over the radio. This terrible news combined with the distinct lack of sky to watch and little prospect of any improvement in the weather for the weekend served to mark the end of Skywatch '97. A quiet (and wet!) stroll around a local trading estate killed some time while train timetables were waited upon and then it was time to leave, each member of the Skywatch team heading for his or her own corner of the country. Although the event itself was a washout (Skywash '97 was a favourite term of endearment!), it is still good to meet up with the people that make up the UK UFO Network and to put faces to old and new Internet friends alike. A trek down South seems to be on the cards for next year's event, so roll on Skywatch '98!!! United Kingdom News =================== [UK 1]****** Source: United Kingdom UFO Network British Airways pilots sightings The United Kingdom UFO Network are currently investigating a number of sightings that have occurred in the Midlands (UK) over the last two weeks. Sighting No. 1 Thursday 13th November 1997 a British Airways ATP - twin propeller - aircraft BA 1858 (flight number not confirmed as yet) with an official departure time of 6.35pm (departure time may have been slightly later, this has yet to be confirmed) departed Birmingham International Airport on route to Aberdeen, Scotland. At 7pm numerous witnesses including police and security at Birmingham airport heard on their vehicle radios one of the pilots of the ATP aircraft make a report to Birmingham's air traffic control (ATC). The pilot said that they had just seen what was described as a shooting star pass underneath the aircraft. ATC requested the aircraft's heading and altitude and asked them to phone once they had reached their destination. Enquiries were made at Birmingham ATC who confirmed that they had infact received the radio message as described above. We were informed that the sighting had taken place in Manchester Airports air space. This confused us somewhat as to why the pilot had contacted Birmingham while in Manchester's airspace. One possible reason could be that Manchester's air space starts only 12 miles from Birmingham. It is possible that the aircraft's radio frequency was still tuned to Birmingham when the sighting occurred. It is known that the pilots have made an official UFO report to Manchester's ATC. Enquiries are underway with a uk.ufo.nw investigator who works for British Airways to contact the pilots. More news on that as soon as we have it. Enquiries were then made with a contact at Manchester Airport who through his own investigations was able to confirm that the sighting was reported officially to Manchester ATC. Things now get a little strange. Sighting No. 2 One week exactly prior to this sighting on Thursday 6th November 1997 a British Airways ATP pilot on route from Aberdeen to Manchester at 6.45pm reported to Manchester ATC a basketball sized object passing down the right side of the aircraft from front to back. The aircraft's altitude was 17,000 feet, travelling east to west and 20 miles from Stoke. This was not apparently recorded as an official sighting. Further enquiries are underway on this sighting and we'll report when we know more. Sighting No. 3 Twelve and a half hours after sighting number one at 7.35am on Friday 14th November 1997 a male worker operating his fork lift truck in the grounds of a large metal works in Perry Barr, Birmingham reported seeing two orange spheres in the sky. We have now spoken to the witness who was able to furnish us with the following details. He saw two bright orange spheres travelling across Perry Barr towards Kingstanding, Birmingham. He estimated their height to be approximately 2,000 feet and 8 to 9 miles from him. The spheres appeared to be travelling together in the same direction and at great speed. Total time of the sightings was approximately one minute. Once again further enquiries are underway and we are hoping to have more details for you next issue. [UK 2]****** Source: Daily Mail newspaper Publish Date: Friday 7th November 1997 If anyone's out there, please wait until we've microwaved the dinner By James Clark For years they have scanned the skies, awaiting a signal from a distant galaxy. So far, scientists searching for extra-terrestrial life from the Jodrell Bank complex in Cheshire have nothing to report. That's not to say someone out there isn't trying to make contact. But even if they were, the centre's multi-million pound technology would fail to detect them - because of interference from microwave ovens in homes nearby. As one exasperated eavesdropper put it yesterday: "The single most important breakthrough in our history could be lost forever thanks to something as simple as a Cornish pasty being cooked for some chap's tea." Jodrell Bank's chief enigineer, Dr Tony Batilana, explained: "It is like that crackling you get when you're listening to the radio and someone turns on a light switch. We're listening to signals so far away that this can obliterate them." Mobile phones, video recorders, TVs and other household electronics also cause problems. "Astronomy has been a fascination for mankind from the dawn of time," Dr Batilana added. "So it would be extremely sad to write off all posibility of pursuing our inquiry for the sake of a microwave." Officials from the centre's Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence section have asked the local council to limit the number of household electronics in nearby Holmes Chapel. Congleton Council planning officer Richard House explained: "A special consultation zone has been set up to keep disruption to a minimum. But although we can limit the number of houses built, people can own whatever they like." First to feel the force of the regulations is the hotel firm Hayley, which is carrying out an 'electronics audit' at its conference centre near Jodrell Bank. Manager director Norman Bellone explained : "It's bizarre that something so seemingly insignificant can affect something so mind-boggling. But we'll do what we can." [UK 3]****** Source: The Sun newspaper Publish Date: Thursday 6th November 1997 From: Vadir Nine see 'UFOs in Star Wars battle' Sighting date: 16th August 1997 Exclusive By Yvonne Bolouri Nine neighbour's claim to have seen an amazing Star Wars - style UFO battle over their homes. Stunned David Ledger and his girlfriend Karen Williams watched as a huge orange object cruised silently overhead as they took their dogs for a midnight walk. Soon more star shaped craft appeared - and the couple frantically roused neighbours in Kirkcaldy, Fife, to witness the sighting. David, 35, said: "The Orange object covered three - quarters of the sky in about 30 seconds then stopped. "What looked like a shooting star zig-zagged towards it and it shot off in the opposite direction. This happened at least five times. One UFO passed right over our heads." All nine friends watched as the glittering craft attacked and dodged each other in a 45-minute lightshow. Another witness, labourer David Walker, said: "They weren't shooting stars. Shooting stars do not stop, hang about for a minute then fly away again." UFO expert Malcolm Robinson - who has probed the so-called Falkirk Triangle hotspot - said: "I can find no rational explanation." NINE SCOTS TELL OF UFO MYSTERY Exclusive By Yvonne Bolouri and Arlene Russo Just before turning in for the night David Ledger and girlfriend Karen Williams took their dogs out for a walk. Then as they stood gazing up at the stars, David and Karen watched open-mouthed as a massive orange object silently glided over the rooftops into view. Within minutes the young couple were battering on neighbours doors and rallying pals to watch spellbound as a Star Wars-type battle unfolded before their eyes. None of the nine independent adult witnesses doubt their own judgement. They know what they saw with their own eyes but were too alarmed to discuss in detail what they saw. Now, for the first time, they agreed to tell The Scottish Sun what really happened that starry, August 16 night in the skies over Kirkcaldy, Fife. In addition, top Scots ufologist Malcolm Robinson has taken sworn and signed depositions from all nine. Each can remember the incident with crystal clarity. David, 35, said: "Karen and I had just let the dogs out and were standing looking up at the sky. It was a lovely night and the sky was very clear. "Then from a corner of the roof we watched a large orange object glide overhead and out towards the River Forth. Dazzling "It moved really fast and had covered three-quarters of the sky when it suddenly stopped. -[continued in part 2]-
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 part 2 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:52:52 -0500 Subject: part 2 - United Kingdom UFO Network ______ _______ ____ ------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- U K / / // ___/ / / ' November 22nd, 1997 / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 2 Issue 85 --- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with subscribers in over 40 countries. This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the subject section e.g. Repost {82} part 1, part 2 or part 3. "A dazzling blue flash lit up the sky and what looked like a shooting star zig- zagged at top speed towards the orange UFO which then zipped off in the opposite direction. "I was so determined everyone should see this I ran off and banged on my neighbour's door. "Karen ran up the street to her mum's house and dragged her mum and brother Stephen out to see it. "It ended up with nine of us standing in the middle of the garden watching this amazing sight with small crafts zipping over the sky for nearly an hour. "If I haven't got so many others to watch it, no-one would have believed us. We weren't seeing things. What happened was very real." Karen, 24, added: "I didn't have time to feel frightened. "I just raced up the road to my mum's while David was yelling on the neighbours. Everyone must have thought we were mad but we didn't care. We just wanted them to look at the sky and see this before it was too late." Karen's sister, Marcelle, 24, said: "I can hardly believe all this has happened right on our doorsteps. I may not have believed before, but now I know UFOs exist." Brother Stephen, 23, added: "Karen told us there was something amazing going on in the sky and we just locked the door and ran down to where everyone had gathered. "We stood and watched with everyone else. There were loads of pod-like lights zipping around the sky, but they weren't going straight - they were weaving from side to side, gliding in front and behind each other. "I had grabbed our video camera but it didn't record it clearly. There was so much going on and it must have lasted for a good couple of hours because it was still going on when we decided to go home." Amazingly Steven and his pal David Walker had experienced their own close encounter, two years earlier, walking on country backroads towards Cowdenbeath. Stephen said: "I was already convinced about UFOs. David and I watched a large silver object, shaped like a teardrop, descend into woods near Kirkcaldy, two years ago. We never really talked about it. Now and again we'd bring it up between ourselves. "We watched this craft for ages, hovering just above the woods about 100 yards from the road. "It was shiny silver, more a sort of silvery grey metallic, but it hung around for ages, and when it turned, its underside was just a dazzling light. "Now I was standing again with David watching another phenomenon." David, 21, said: "It was unbelievable. My wife Nicola and I heard all this shouting so we went to have a look from our verandah. Everyone was out in the garden below so Nicola and I joined them. "At first we couldn't see anything. Then we saw all these white lights and four or five of them were flying in some sort of pattern, weaving and diving from side to side. They were travelling very fast. One went behind another and it disappeared then the same thing happened again. It really was very unusual. None of us had ever seen anything like it before. "They weren't shooting stars because they did not fall and they did not leave a trail behind them. Also, shooting stars do not stop, hang about for a minute then fly away again." Another witness, social care worker Terry March, also rushed outside. He said: "I saw a star-like object which was being attacked by another similar object. Then I saw a large flash, like a laser." And Alfonso Clark, 23, said: "I am now positive there is much more to this than meets the eye. Before all this happened I'd have found it all pretty hard to believe." Jim Fay and his son Mark were watching TV when David came banging on their door. Jim, 49, said: "Both of us rushed outside to see what all the commotion was. "We watched four or five lights, all travelling sideways, Criss-crossing over each other, cutting through each other's path with the most amazing precision. All this activity seemed to be heading towards the River Forth. We watched it for about 35 minutes. We couldn't believe what we were seeing." Mark, 13, said: "I only told a couple of my pals about it because I thought everyone would think I was mad. "Dad and I watched these lights. They were like stars only much too fast, cutting through each other's path, sometimes in front, sometimes behind but they moved sideways, not in front of each other. "I was glad David had shouted on us or else we'd have missed it." Conspiracy theorists believe the strange objects are similar to UFOs caught on a NASA video of the Space Shuttle Discovery Mission STS-48. A leaked video from the live link television broadcast showed a mysterious white object as the satellite left the earth's atmosphere. When a large flash appeared in the bottom corner of the screen, the object stopped, turned 90 degrees and shot off into space. The video shows more than 10 unknown objects moving around. One is saucer shaped with a reflecting surface and resembles a triangular craft. David Ledger has since become obsessed with solving the mystery of the strange sky objects. He spends hours on the Internet contacting UFO groups. He said: "It's like a driving force within me. I am compelled to find out more about those star UFOs. "Those mysterious star UFOs came into my life and I want to know why. They have left a lot of mysteries unanswered and I believe this has happened for a reason. "Since this has happened to us I'm desperate to get to the bottom of it. "Funnily enough, those who have never seen anything like this are the first to sneer and make fun of it. Ignorance is bliss. "But people are speaking up nowadays, so we may be closer to getting answers than we think. " We'll never break new ground on this unless people are prepared to speak up and not be put off by those who make fun of them. I think it's us who will have the last laugh because I'm convinced there's definitely something out there. Sightings "If alien forces are watching us, it's a lot more intelligent than we are. Mention UFOs to some folk and they start talking about wee green men. It's a lot more sophisticated than that!" The sightings have created a huge stir in research units throughout the world, alerted through the Internet. Scotland's leading UFO specialist, Malcolm Robinson said: "I have been investigating this and can find no rational explanation for the sightings at all. "The Ministry of Defence has confirmed there wasn't commercial or military aircraft on that night at that time. HM Coastguard have no record of anything and neither do the police. "My job is to investigate all phenomena and find the rational explanations. "Only when all other areas have been exhausted will I admit to real phenomena and in this case I have no doubts whatsoever. "This is Scotland's first multi-witness UFO sighting which makes this case stand head and shoulders above all others and has been a genuine UFO sighting." Did you see anything? Did you see anything unusual in the sky as Saturday night turned into Sunday morning on August 16th? If so we want to know! The truths out there and we want your help to uncover the mystery. Call Yvonne Bolouri on 0141 420 5290 or 0141 420 5291 today. She'll call you right back so don't worry about the costs. And don't forget to also contact us UK.UFO.NW at: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk [UK 4]****** Source: The Sun newspaper Publish Date: Friday 7th November 1997 From: Vadir Aliens get spaced out for Scots By Yvonne Bolourl Extra-terrestrial beings are no strangers to Scotland. In fact they seem to be regular visitors. Over the past year, there have been numerous sightings with locals convinced what they have seen is real. In September last year, two women out walking with their kids claimed they stumbled across 100 little grey beings and their space ship in a deserted field near the Falkland Hills in Fife. They saw the aliens following orders given by a tall, tanned, flat-faced leader with a bulbous head. Then, last November, Banchory Academy girl Lesley Fitzgerald, 14, snapped a mystery object over Balmoral, in Kincardineshire, days before the Queen arrived on holiday. That was just weeks after RAF jets were scrambled to Inverness to investigate an invader penetrating top security airspace over the Royal estate. Construction worker Jim Macleen, 54, caught a UFO on camera four times in five months over his factory in Mount Vernon, then again in Ruthergen, Glasgow. Experts confirmed the pics were authentic. Bruises Two party plan Ann Summers sellers drove from Alves, Invernesshire, to Elgin, Morayshire, when a UFO followed their car. Jane McIntosh, 23, and Diane Pirrie, 19, were so terrified they rushed to the police. Then forestry worker Robert Taylor hit the headlines 18 years ago after claiming he was attacked by aliens, and showed off the bruises. Robert, now 78, stumbled across a saucer-shaped craft in a clearing in Dean's Forest near his home in Livingston. He says: "Two spheres dropped from the craft. They took a bit of skin from my chin, but I don't know anything else because I passed out." A series of UFO sightings gripped Scotland in February 1995. Civil servant David Gribben claimed he saw a UFO heading towards the Isle of Jura as he left the Kelvin Hall in Glasgow and a Navy chopper investigated. Hundreds of callers jammed The Scottish Sun switchboard claiming they had spotted a UFO over the country after the incident. Mum-to-be Jane Adamson thought she'd gone into labour when she spotted a UFO in Falkirk - a few miles from Britain's UFO capital Bonnybridge. And Falkirk granny Margaret Ross, 64, stunned experts after filming a space ship on her camcorder. Quick-thinking Jim McNeish, 55, also grabbed a camcorder when he saw a huge ball of bright light expand to seven times its normal size before shrinking back again over the skies in Grangemouth. Hundreds ring to say We saw Star Wars too By Yvonne Bolourl Star - gazing Sun readers reckon we are not alone. Our switchboards were jammed yesterday after we told how nine neighbours in Kirkcaldy witnessed a Star Wars battle in the skies in August. Restaurant worker Andrew Middleton, 53, of St Andrews, Fife, said: "I saw the same phenomenon on the same night. "I came home from work after midnight and was making myself a cup of tea when I decided to have a cigarette. "I don't smoke in the house so I went into the garden and lit up. It was exactly 12.50am when I saw a huge bright yellow light in the sky. It zig-zagged across the sky like a graph then shot down behind the house next to me. "The nearest house is about 500 yards away and I was cursing it because I couldn't see where it went to. "The flash was a bit like lightning but instead of lighting up the sky in that split second, it lit up a ziggy line like you see on a graph." Mum-of-three Kathy Steel, 44, of Kirkcaldy, said: "I saw it too. "There was a blue object, a big blue light with lots of white lights all darting around it. I shouted to my daughter and husband to come and have a look but they were too busy watching television. "It was amazing. At one point I counted eight separate lights all flying at tremendous speed zig- zagging around the sky. "I'm not a fanciful type and I know what I saw with my own eyes that night." Vicki Lamble, 20, of Kirkcaldy, said: "I was really glad to read your story because I saw it to on the same night as the others. "I was looking out the window and at first glance I thought it was a helicopter in the sky. Dazzling "Suddenly the light became so bright, realy dazzling, like a star then it started to change shape and colours. "It went from round to oval. It's really difficult to describe. I called my friend Lesley and we watched it until the next morning. It was fascinating. We sat up and watched all these lights zipping about the sky. "The speed was incredible - and all those different colours and shapes. "It was great to read that other folk had seen similar things." Nightclub bouncer Kevin Neary, 29, of Stonyburn, West Lothian, said he saw a similar scene over Bathgate three months ago. He said: "I was on my way home from work, with two guys who had been to the club when I saw two orange lights over the hills in Bathgate. "They looked like orange street lamps but they were high in the sky, then I noticed another two behind them. "I pointed them out to my mates but they were pretty drunk so they were taking the mickey. "I was stone-cold sober, because I had just finished work, so I didn't say any more but I kept on watching. "Two other lights suddenly fell from the darkness alongside the others, so there were six of them and they were all buzzing about the sky like wasps. "I could see another four further back in the sky, there was about a dozen in all but it really really freaked me out. "Next day one of the guys who had been with me confessed he'd seen it as well but said he'd deny it because he didn't want folk to think he was mad. "I don't care what folk think. I saw it and I don't mind putting my name to it - It was amazing." Alan Melville, 32, of Kirkcaldy, saw the same thing at Kinghorn Beach three miles from Kirkcaldy a couple of years ago. Promotions boss Alan said: "My girl friend and I have also seen huge orange objects drifting through the sky and believe me, seeing somethink like that realy changes your perspective on life. "You forget the day to day drudgery and all your complaints when you witness something so fantastic. "One night we had gone for a drive when we saw a big orange ball object in the sky. We watched it change shape and colour and we've seen lots of little objects chasing each other around the sky, darting in and out of the clouds. "We've seen this a couple of times and it's very reassuring having someone else with you at the time. "The last time we just looked at each other and said: 'Are you seeing what I'm seeing?' And it's a relief when the other person says 'Yes!' Balls Office worker Fiona Lowrie, 26, from Kirkcaldy said: "I've witnessed UFOs twice this year in this area. "The first was on April 24 at 6.30 in the morning. "My window looks over The Forth and I saw three orange balls floating in the middle of the sky, they were like dancing and the middle one moved quickly in between the two overs. I dragged my fiancee out of bed and watched them for a minute. The other time was on September 11 at 7.55 at night and I got the fright of my life. "I looked out my window to see this huge black triangle just 200ft from my house with three blinking lights. "I just about had a heart attack. It stayed there for about 15 seconds before zooming off. "I now keep a camera at my window because there's definitely something out there." Hairdresser Caroline Anderson, 22, of Glenrothes also reckons Fife's a UFO hotspot. She said: "I've been watching odd lights in the sky over Glenrothes for the past year. "Just before Christmas last year I saw a huge orange ball which caught my eye because it was so bright and just sort of hovered in the one place for ages before it turned bluish then green then it disappeared. "I've been looking out for it ever since." Care worker Jim Maxwell, 35, from Beith, Ayrshire, said: "I didn't see that particular sighting but I saw something a couple of months ago which I thought was really strange. "I was on night duty and I noticed a bright light in the sky around 5 in the morning. "I thought it was a shooting star and I was expecting it to whoosh across the sky. "It was too fast and far too high to be a plane. My work mate saw it too. We never did find out what it was." [UK 5]****** Source: The Sun newspaper Publish Date: Friday 7th November 1997 From: Vadir Men In Black by Arlene Russo A top UFO expert last night claimed he has secret documents that expose a real life Men In Black - style group covering up thousands of mystery Scottish sightings. Author Nicholas Redfern alleges that for over 50 years, secret government officials have ordered RAF pilots and radar operators to keep quiet about alien craft they have tracked. But Nicholas, 33, believes this is all about to change. He said: "Government's are running scared. They cannot hide it any longer. "We are being visited by extraterestrials. This is not about little green men and flying saucers. This is a serious defence issue. "Six or seven other secret Ministry of Defence Department's are involved. They're the real Men In Black and this is where the really good UFO reports end up." Nicholas has gained unprecedented access to thousands of previously classified Defence and RAF files. Strange He claims a conspiracy of silence has suppressed details about the flood of Bonnybridge UFO sightings, adding: "for some inexplicable reason UFOs are attracted to Bonnybridge. Something in that area is attracting them. This is happening nowhere else in Britain. "The number of alien abductions in Scotland has also increased and the Government knows more than it claims. "These flying objects are witnessed by trained military - expert witnesses at the forefront of defending our country." Redferns own obsession with UFOs was sparked as a 14 year old, when his father Frank recounted a strange experience. In 1952, while serving with RAF, Neatishead, Norfolk, radar mechanic Frank tracked a fast moving UFO. The next day it returned and was filmed. However, photos, radar tapes and records mysteriously disappeared and the incident was forgotten. Nicholas said: "as far back as 1953 pilots were warned not to discuss UFO sightings outside official channels, not even with their families." But he reckons that kind of attitude could soon be about to change - with Government's softening us for amazing revelations about alien visitors. The said: "in the last three years Britain has released 2,000 pages of declassified UFO material. "Nicholas Pope, a Government official has spoken out extensively about his role as the MoD's UFO frontman. "The US Government, CIA and FBI have also been pumping out declassified documents. "This is being done deliberately. World Government's are slowly acclimatising us to the fact that UFOs exist. Strange "The problem has been that UFOs enter our airspace and our pilots can not intercept them. "World Government's don't want to admit that they are not in control of our skies. "They may not be about to tell us the whole truth even now, but they can no longer deny that something strange is going on in our skies." Nicholas is convinced authorities will admit within five years that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. He went on: "the powers that be imagine there will be worldwide hysteria when they say UFOs exist. I disagree. We've lived for half a century with the threat of nuclear war hanging over us. "In the same way, when we receive official confirmation that UFOs exist, for the first fortnight it will the front page news. "But we'll all go back to normal life." Despite that, Nicholas warns us to forget the cuddly ET image. He claims the first credible face-to-face encounter occurred near Balmoral in November 1958 - and bears out his theory. Two terrestrial army soldiers heard a gurgling sound from a group of trees, then saw two figures over 7ft tall emerge. The soldiers fled in terror and were chased by a disc-shaped UFO, which swept low then vanished in a trial of spikes. Now he is convinced UFOs deliberately target military installations. He adds: "they are studying our defence capabilities. Maybe they are trying to see if we can withstand an attack. Aliens are out for their own ends. They abduct us and interfere with our thought patterns." But maybe visitors from other planets have very good reasons for being wary of us. Nicholas added: "let's face it, were not very friendly. If we spot a UFO, we try and blast it out of our skies. "Humans are too aggressive and unpredictable for aliens. "But aliens are reprogramming our patterns of thought. Squirrels "It's no coincidence many abductees go through a life change. "They become vegiterians, are more concerned about the enviroment and develop artistic qualities. "So maybe in another 50 years, once our thought patterns are more peaceful, aliens will make open contact. "On the other hand, they are an advanced species. We're like ants to them, so what can they learn from us? "Just as we have no interest in speaking to squirrels, maybe they have no desire to speak to an intellectually inferior species." [UK 6]****** Source: Ealing Gazette Publish Date: 24th October 1997 From: mickjones@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mick Jones Alien Spotter: Did you see a Southall UFO. A UFO group is trying to find if the truth is out there after one of its members saw an unidentified flying object hovering over Southall - for the second time in six months. Elaine Waite, 42, spotted the metallic globe earlier this month in the south-east sky as she was walking to work along Dormers Wells Lane, Southall. She says it appeared to be hovering over Norwood Green. But UFO experts at the Ministry of Defence (MOD) say its unlikely to have been an X-File type of craft. They believe it is most likely to have been the sun reflecting off an aircraft as it approached Heathrow Airport. Elaine, a school classroom assistant, saw the phenomenon on October 2 at 8.2Oam. She said: I was just walking along the road and I saw it. It was a bright day and there was hardly a cloud in the sky. It was like a silver or metallic globe and over the far side of Southall. It just hung in the sky appearing not to move. I got a good look at it. It must have stayed there for around eight seconds before it disappeared. I know people will say it was an aircraft. because Heathrow is nearby, but it just vanished and didnt fade away as a plane would. Elaine saw a similar object in May appearing to hover over Brent River Park. She said the UFO was similar to that filmed by Christopher Martin as it hovered over Bromley-By-Bow, east London, in September. But Alien Encounters, a magazine devoted to UFOs, got experts to examine the film and most concluded the objects were probably balloons. Elaine is a member of the UFO Postal Network which investigates sightings and the effect they have on people. She wants to launch an investigation into her own sightings and has appealed for anyone else who saw the object to contact her. -[continued in part 3]-
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 {85} part 3 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:28:37 -0500 Subject: {85} part 3 - United Kingdom UFO Network ______ _______ ____ ------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- U K / / // ___/ / / ' November 22nd, 1997 / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 3 Issue 85 --- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with subscribers in over 40 countries. This issue comes in 3 parts. If any part is missing please mail: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk giving the issue number. The issue will be reposted to you. Please put the details as below in the subject section e.g. Repost {82} part 1, part 2 or part 3. She said: If anyone else saw this aerial phenomenon I would really like to hear from them. I do hope someone can shed some light on this. I am not a mad teenager thats gone off my trolley, I am just a concerned person who wants some answers. But a UFO expert at the MOD shattered the flying saucer theory. He said: We havent found a UFO yet. Most of the sightings weve investigated have proved to be aircraft flying in the area. This one could have been the sun reflecting off an aircraft. If there had been a UFO flying near. Heathrow I think the airport would have spotted it. The airport has very good radar equipment. Anyone who has seen a UFO can write to Elaine at 23 Manaton Crescent, Southall UB1 2SY. And don't forget us at: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk [UK 7]****** Source: West Sussex County Times Publish Date: 3rd November 1997 From: "Phil Light" <phil.light@ukonline.co.uk> Thirty Years ago in Horsham THE UFOs reported flying over Horsham in last week's County Times are on the move again. This time the shining objects have been spotted at Storrington and Shermanbury. William Greenwell, of Shermanbury, and his family saw an object in the sky to the south east of their Shermanbury Place home on Monday night. The object gave a kaleidoscope effect, "with colours of a brilliance I have never seen before - reds, greens, blues and a central whiteness that was almost too bright to watch," he said. "It sounds ridiculous I know. I'm not a crank or anything and I'm quite prepared to accept that there's a rational explanation, but this is what I saw." That same night, Paul Quick, of Hampers Lane, Storrington, spied a glowing ball "one and a half times the size of a bus" land on the Downs. "It was the shape of a rugby ball on its side and was quite bright, but not dazzling." Mr Quick's family saw the object land on the Downs before it slithered down the side of the hill and disappeared. But Hove Police, who were alerted by the Quicks, said the object was the planet Venus. World News ========== [W 1]****** Source: Voice of Russia (Radio) Date: 5th November 1997 A Russian scholar says our solar system has 2 Earth's A Russian scholar says our solar system has 2 Earth's. He says a planet whose mass and dimensions that equal those of our home planet is located behind the Sun, on the other side of the solar system. It never shows up because it takes it and the earth exactly the same time to orbit the Sun. Nonetheless, it can be seen if a space satellite with a telescope aboard is launched towards Mars or Venus. [W 2]****** Source: The Electronic Telegraph Publish Date: Tuesday 11th November 1997 Bandai rings the changes By Michael Fitzpatrick The people who brought us Tamagotchi are about to launch a similar key-ring alien that will metamorphoses every time it's near a mobile phone user. Designed like the Tamagotchi to bring out our motherly instincts with demands for air and food, the Wave UFO will also transform its LCD features when a mobile phone goes off within one metre of it. The new cyber alien-pet will be the next big thing, says Bandai. It expects it to outsell the once massively popular Tamagotchi. With the virtual pet boom in Japan now in decline, Bandai decided its next move would be to cash in on the Japanese obsession with mobile phones. They are so cheap and plentiful in Japan that at one point they were coming free with every hamburger. Japan watcher Izumi Okamoto says: "Riding alongside the required Tamagotchi in every schoolgirl's bag is a mobile and a Pocket Bell pager. It didn't take long for Japan's largest toy company put two and two together." In another bid to fill the vacuum left by the drop in Tamagotchi sales, Bandai has a scored hit in Japan with Angel Scope fortune telling machines. Children punch in personal details on the key-ring-size toy and up come predictions from Japan's best-known fortune- teller. [W 3]****** Source: Sky News Date: Sunday 16th November 1997 Safety board in spotlight of TWA probe after FBI bows out With the FBI's withdrawal from the investigation into the explosion of TWA Flight 800, the hunt for terrorists and saboteurs has given way to a study of frayed wires and a vapor-filled fuel tank. The National Transportation Safety Board begins public hearings Dec. 8, but spokesman Peter Goelz said no one should expect an answer to the most important question "what caused the explosion " any time soon. The loved ones of 230 people killed when the Boeing 747 was ripped apart on July 17, 1996, are wondering if they will ever know. "Maybe this will be like the Kennedy assassination, where there are some people out there that think there was a second gunman. But you have to rely on the people who have conducted this investigation and have faith in the job the FBI has done,'' said Richard Bergman of Los Angeles. His best friend, Eugene Silverman and Silverman's wife and two daughters died in the explosion. James Kallstrom, an FBI assistant director who headed the criminal investigation, sent a letter this week to the families of victims of the disaster to announce the agency was suspending its probe. He said the investigation "has found absolutely no evidence to cause us to believe that the TWA Flight 800 tragedy was the result of a criminal act.'' So barring some new evidence, one of the biggest criminal investigations in the nation's history has concluded with the finding that no crime was committed. "It is very disappointing that another government agency is reporting they do not know what caused this. We are looking forward to the day that some agency does know what caused it,'' TWA spokesman Mark Abels said. On Thursday, NTSB Chairman James Hall told a congressional committee that he hoped a probable cause could be identified by the end of next year. Goelz said the agency will continue to draw upon the FBI's expertise. Bernard Loeb, the NTSB's director of aviation safety, said investigators continue to dig into several theories on how enough electrical energy might have entered the center fuel tank to touch off a blast. Loeb said the agency is concentrating on the fuel measuring rods, the fuel pumps, static electricity and chafed wiring. "None are more important or more likely than the other,'' Loeb said. [W 4]****** Source: BBC News Date: 14th November 1997 How Mars Hotted Up for Life French scientists have proposed a new theory to support the idea that life once evolved on the planet Mars. They say that thick clouds of carbon dioxide ice acted as a blanket over the planet, keeping the surface warm enough for liquid water to flow there. Their theory is published in the journal 'Science'. This report from Andrew Luck-Baker of our Science staff. People sometimes call Mars the 'Red planet' - but nearly four billion years ago, it was the 'White planet'. The Martian surface was hidden beneath thick white clouds. Below there were erupting volcanoes, oceans, lakes and rivers. This is the portrait of ancient Mars painted by scientists at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris. It's a world away from the dead, rust-coloured desert shown in the pictures recently beamed back to us by the now defunct Pathfinder mission. That space probe, together with previous studies of the Martian landscape and rocks, provided a convincing body of evidence that water once flowed on the planet - according to Dr Francois Forget. "Everyone agrees that more than 3.8 billion years ago, the climate on Mars was much warmer than it is today. And this is suprising because at that time, the Sun was about 25 percent less bright than it is today, so it's not obvious how you explain why Mars was warmer back then." Today Mars is far too cold for water to exist as a liquid. That's partly because the planet has an extremely thin atmosphere. But 3.8 billion years ago, Martian volcanoes had created a dense atmosphere containing a lot of carbon dioxide. According to the French scientists' calculations, the subzero temperatures in the Martian skies would have caused some of the carbon dioxide to form small snowflakes, creating a planet- wide blanket of cloud. Clouds like these would have had a very strong greenhouse effect, trapping the incoming warmth of the Sun between them and the Martian surface. Francois Forget says conditions would have warm enough for water to flow. "In our (computer) model we can easily reach temperatures higher than the freezing point of water. Hopefully the observations of the spacecraft Mars Global Surveyor (now orbiting the planet) will help us estimate what the climate conditions were in more detail. I think the global average temperature was slightly below zero degrees Celsius, but of course it would be higher or lower depending on the latitude, seasons and time of day. That means that, because there was liquid water there over a long period of time, it's likely conditions were suitable for life". These findings will fire the enthusiasm of other scientists hoping to detect signs of life today in planetary systems around other stars. If the French team is right, the conditions suitable for the origin and evolution of life will extend much further from a star than previously thought. There could be many more planets in the Universe than astronomers had expected, comfortable enough to be homes for extraterrestrial organisms. [W 5]****** Source: Pentagon statement Date: 1st October 1997 From: Adrian Haynes <adrianh@dircon.co.uk> USAF future testing of an Airborne Laser KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- Pentagon officials announced Oct. 1 approval of the Air Force's environmental planning connected with future testing of an Airborne Laser. That approval, in the form of a "Record of Decision," is the last step in the Air Force's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Airborne Laser. It clears the way for the Air Force to house and test its YAL-1A Attack Laser, a laser-carrying Boeing 747 aircraft, during the Program Definition and Risk Reduction Phase. Under that phase, the prototype aircraft, currently under development, will be based at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. There, the aircraft will complete its integration of the weapon system and undergo ground and flight testing. Also in this risk reduction phase, the aircraft will use the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico for short-range diagnostic testing of the laser under low- and high-powers. This phase will end with the YAL-1A Attack Laser conducting expanded-area testing on the Western Test Range. This is an area off the California coast in the Pacific Ocean, operated by Vandenberg AFB and Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center. There, the aircraft will complete long-range testing of the weapons-class laser, under low- and high-power conditions. Included will be a test that will show how well the YAL-1A Attack Laser can destroy a theater ballistic missile shortly after being launched. The YAL-1A Attack Laser has been characterized as a revolutionary step forward in defensive systems. The aircraft will carry a chemical oxygen iodine laser capable of destroying Scud-like missiles shortly after being launched from hundreds of miles away. In battle, the aircraft would be over friendly territory, flying at an altitude of around 40,000 feet, looking toward enemy airspace. It would detect an enemy theater ballistic missile shortly after launched as it clears any clouds. The YAL-1A would then lock on to the target and use its chemical laser to destroy it. The weapon system includes a modified Boeing 747 freighter aircraft, a weapon's class laser, laser-fuel storage tanks, and a low-power laser that can acquire and track a target and then direct the primary laser on to that target. Also included is a laser-beam control system and a beam director (a telescope enclosed in a turret at the front of the aircraft) that will focus the laser's energy on a target. Associated with all this are computerized controls, communications, intelligence and related systems needed to manage and control the YAL-1A Attack Laser. Predicated on successfully completing this phase, a second airborne laser will be built and undergo a series of operational performance testing. Beyond that will come the production phase in which five additional aircraft are projected. During this environmental process, the Air Force examined six locations and conducted hearings with the general public. In a process that took more than two years, officials determined that there would be a minor socioeconomic benefit and no significant adverse environmental impacts. The Air Force will continue to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service and further evaluate migratory patterns of various marine mammal and animal species. The Airborne Laser Program Office, a unit of the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles AFB Calif., is managing the program here. [W 6] Source: SETI web site URL: http://www.bigscience.com/setiathome.html#experience SETI@home SETI@home is a grand experiment to harness the spare power of hundreds of thousands of Internet-connected computers in the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI.) When the experiment launches in Spring 1998, computer users from all over the world will be able to participate in a major scientific experiment. Each participant has the slight but captivating possibility that his or her computer will detect the faint murmur of a civilization beyond Earth. What is SETI@home The SETI@home program is a special kind of screensaver. Like other screensavers it starts up when you leave your computer unattended and shuts down as soon as you return to work. What it does in the interim is what makes it unique. While you are getting coffee, or having lunch or sleeping, your computer will be helping the Search for Extra- Terrestrial Intelligence by analysing data specially captured by the world's largest radio telescope. While the SETI@home program is running you will be able to choose from three main "visualizations" of the experiment. Science Mode in which the analysis taking place on the local machine is shown in real time, the significance of each result is explained, and the process is illustrated to a level understandable by high school science students. Sky Progress Mode which shows how the entire experiment is covering the sky, and summarizes at a glance all the potentially interesting results found so far. The background for this visualization will usually be an accurate image of the bright stars in that region of the sky, but participants may choose more abstract representations as well. Earth Progress Mode focuses on the people participating in the experiment. A spinning globe of the earth will be shown with a highlight for every individual or organization who is currently participating. The total number of computers involved will be displayed in real time, and participants who have been involved the longest, or have analysed the most data will be featured. SETI@home will be accompanied by a Web site showing the current status of the search, providing various educational material and links on SETI, astrobiology, and astronomy, and hosting the download of the client software. SETI background Current SETI research consists primarily of radio astronomers searching for narrow-bandwidth radio signals (radio waves are able to penetrate interstellar dust clouds, and narrow-bandwidth signals are not found in nature). There are a handful of such projects. Some are focusing on particular nearby stars, others are scanning star-dense parts of the sky. The SETI Institute 's Project Phoenix is the best known of these projects. All the SETI projects use special-purpose signal analysis hardware, typically Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) machines with millions of frequency channels. This analysis, though impressive, barely skims the surface of what is possible. Real-time searches can only check a small number of bandwidths, frequency drift rates and pulse periodicities. The Science behind SETI@home SETI@home is real science. The data is from the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, the largest and most sensitive radio telescope in the world. By the time 50,000 PCs are involved, the scope of the search will rival all current SETI projects. SETI@home may indeed detect a signal that would otherwise be missed. The project has three major components: Data collection. SETI@home is working with SERENDIP, a SETI project based at UC Berkeley. SERENDIP has ongoing time at the Arecibo radio telescope. SERENDIP has designed a PC-based system that will extract a limited frequency band of their signal, sample it, and write it in real time to a digital tape. These tapes will be mailed to a file server in the U.S. Data analysis. SERENDIP has developed a program for SETI@home that searches for strong signals at 4,000,000 different combinations of frequency, bandwidth, and chirp (the drift in frequency with time) illustrated here. The diversity and sensitivity of this analysis exceeds anything that can be done in real time. Distributed computation. Big Science has developed software that divides the radio telescope data into chunks, distributes these chunks to clients, and collects the results. It also manages the distribution of architecture-specific versions of the analysis code, and takes care of various security concerns. A data-flow diagram illustrates the entire process. Project Status SETI@home was conceived in 1995. The project is a collaborative effort of several astronomers and computer scientists. It is funded by donations and corporate sponsorships. Prototype versions of the software where developed during 1996, including the distributed computation mechanism, the signal analysis program, and the screensaver graphics. The project has been endorsed by the scientific community, including the Planetary Society, the SETI Institute and its president Frank Drake. A paper on SETI@home appeared at the 5th International Conference in Bioastronomy in July 1996. We plan to begin technical testing of data analysis and distributed computation at the end of 1997, and to launch the experiment in the 2nd quarter of 1998. The current focus of efforts is fundraising. To launch the project successfully we need approximately $200,000 and solid promotional relationships. Personnel The founding members of the SETI@home team are: Dan Werthimer, Chief Scientist. Dan is Principal Investigator of the Project SERENDIP at UC Berkeley. He has been actively involved in SETI observations for 17 years, and is the designer of the SERENDIP data collection hardware. David Gedye, Project Director. David is Vice President of Engineering for Virtual University International. He has ten years experience designing and building multi-user environments, most recently as Director of Online Games for Starwave Corporation. David P. Anderson, Technical Director. David is Chief Technical Officer at Tunes Network Inc. He has published about 60 papers in distributed systems and other areas of Computer Science. Woodruff T. Sullivan III, Project Scientist. Woody is a Professor of Astromony at the University of Washington, and has been an active member of the academic SETI community for more than 20 years. The following members of The SETI Institute form the SETI@home advisory panel: Jill Tarter Tom Pierson Kent Cullers John Dreher Acknowledgements Jeff Cobb from the SERENDIP team did a great job writing and testing initial versions of the client analysis code. Many thanks to Craig Kassnoff, who participated in the project's formative discussions and made key introductions. Thanks also to Starwave, who sponsored the scientific feasibility study. Ralph Derrickson has supported the project from its inception, and given much needed business advice. Recent News & How you can help September '97. More than 35,000 people have joined the SETI@home mailing list, many after seeing Dan Werthimer discuss the project on the Discovery Channel. More than 1500 people have offered programming and design help in response to a request on this web site. If you were one of them, and have not received a reply, we apologize sincerely. We've been overwhelmed by the response and are not yet ready to use volunteers effectively. Also this month -- the first magnetic tape of test data from Arecibo was returned to Berkeley. This will be used to test the analysis algorithms, and get an initial sense of the terrestrial interference characteristics. August '97. Dan Werthimer was interviewed on NPR's All Things Considered. Other stories this month included one by PC World. The SETI@home mailing list grew to 10,000 people. Senior members of the SETI Institute accepted invitations to sit on our advisory board. June '97. The SETI@home web site was established, and David Gedye was interviewed by the New York Times. We recently used this part of the web site to call for volunteers with skills in programming, graphic design, and science education. The response was overwhelming, and we already have more volunteers (at least 1500 of them) than we can respond to on an individual basis. If you have volunteered but have not heard back, please bear with us. As of September 1997, the crucial issue for the SETI@home project is funding. If you represent an organization that would consider becoming a sponsor of the SETI@home project, or you are a successful fundraiser and would like to help the project, please send email to the Project Director David Gedye. If you would like to help us test the first version of SETI@home (currently scheduled for late 1997), or you would simply like to be on our mailing list, please enter your full email address and Letters ======= From: Jorgen Westman <jorgen@romelix.se> Real estate on the Moon Hi! Jorgen from WUFOC here. Can you remember where a person was able to buy a piece of real-estate on the Moon? This was up some months ago... Kind regards, Jorgen Westman. -- uk.ufo.nw says: The below letter refers to an advertisement taken from numerous national UK newspapers which we thought would interest readers. It appeared in the last e-zine {84}. From: Name withheld the Name a Star article I had your UFO Network Newsletter forwarded to me and read with interest the Name a Star article. Not, you will understand, because I have an interest in having a star named after me, but because I work very close to the response address. For your information 3 Humber Road London NW2 is a residential address and is certainly not part of the Millenium Business Centre. This does not, of course, mean that the offer is not legitimate, however I will not personally be subscribing! --- From: Brian Straight <brians@mdbs.com> Wall Street Journal article. Today's Wall Street Journal (Friday 7th November 97) has a front page article called "Maoists for Martians: Here, UFOs Make for Serious Science." Quite an intersting article--unfortunately, I don't have time to type it all. If you know someone who subscribes to the electronic edition, you might be able to get the text. uk.ufo.nw says: If anyone has the article we would certainly like a copy for the e-zine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED KINGDOM UFO NETWORK STATEMENT uk.ufo.nw statement: The articles or text appearing within these pages are not necessarily the views or opinions of United Kingdom UFO Network. REPORTS Please forward all reports to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk WWW Visit us on the World Wide Web at http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/ BACK ISSUES & FILES For information on receiving back issues and other files send mail with REQUEST INFO in the subject area to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk IRC - (INTERNET RELAY CHAT) The meetings take place at 11pm (2300hrs) each and every Saturday night. Times will vary depending on your location in the world. If you would like to know the time in your part of the world send a mail to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk In the subject section put: IRC TIME INFO In the message of your mail please put: a) Your Country b) Your location c) Nearest major City Connecting to our weekly UFO meetings on the IRC (internet relay chat) is now easier than ever. If you are using at least one of the following web browers: Netscape 3 ++ MS Internet Explorer 4 ++ Simply visit one of the below url's (world wide web) addresses. When the 'ultrachat' page has loaded you will see a large grey filled box somewhere on the screen. It may then take a few more seconds for the java script to load and run. The grey area will then turn white and you will be asked to enter a nickname. Your own name or a nickname will suffice here. Once you press return you will be presented with various bits of information scrolling up the screen. After a few seconds you will be connected to the uk.ufo.nw #UFO channel. Down the right hand side of the screen you will see a list of the people currently on channel. At the bottom of the screen is where you type your messages. The large upper left section of the screen is were you read and follow the proceedings of the meetings. Don't be shy. We are all a friendly bunch. Give it a go. You'll soon get the hang of it. We'll be happy to offer any assistance that you may need. http://www.holodeck.demon.co.uk/ultrachat.html http://www.maygale.org/07/eyesonly http://www.geocities/Area51/Cavern/2646 http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ultrachat.htm http://www.ultranet.org/webchat/ufo.html http://web.ukonline.co.uk/colin.light/ultrachat.htm http://web.ukonline.co.uk/phil.light http://www.ufo.grid9.net/ufo.html http://www.us.ultranet.org/webchat/ufo.html http://www.no.ultranet.org/webchat/ufo.html http://crowman.demon.co.uk/ultrachat.html If you are using one of the dedicated IRC programs such as the excellent MIRC available free from: http://www.mirc.co.uk/index.html enter one of the below irc server addresses into your program. The nearer the server to your location the faster the connection. If one fails then try another. London.UK.EU.UltraNET.Org Belgrade.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Kalemegdan.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Singidunum.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Bor.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Zemun.YU.EU.UltraNet.org Gloucester.UK.EU.UltraNET.Org Uppsala.SE.EU.UltraNET.Org Johnson-City.TN.US.UltraNet.Org Haifa.IL.AS.UltraNET.Org Mons.BE.EU.ultraNET.Org Neuilly.FR.EU.UltraNET.Org Hofors.SE.EU.UltraNET.Org Bergen.NO.EU.UltraNET.Org Once you are connected to a server join channel: #UFO The uk.ufo.nw #UFO channel is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Visit the channel at any time. There is usually someone there to talk to. For those of you needing help connecting to our IRC meetings send your questions to: ufo-irc-advice@crowman.demon.co.uk If you want to be a little more adventurous and perhaps use one of the dedicated IRC programs such as the excellent MIRC visit the below urls for advice: http://www.crowman.demon.co.uk/ultranet.htm http://web.ukonline.co.uk/phil.light/irchelp.htm SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The UK.UFO.NW free fortnightly e-zine covering UFO reports and information from the UK and around the world is now available by subscribing to our new List Server. Send mail to: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu In the main body of the mail put: subscribe ufo fn ln note: in place of fn put your first name. in place of ln put your last name. For example: subscribe ufo John Smith A confirm mail will then be sent to you which you need to reply to within 48 hours to be put on the e-zine mailing list. If you have problems you may also subscribe by sending mail to: ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk In the subject section of your mail type: SUBSCRIBE
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:56:32 -0700 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:08:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:13:45 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: That ol' ET >>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net> >>To: "'UFO UpDates - Toronto'" <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 18:31:29 -0500 [...] >>The ETH, while it obviously strikes some as naive, is not exactly >>a surprising belief. If any of us saw, right before our >>eyes, the things that Jerry Cohen or John Velez or Bob Shell say >>they've seen, wouldn't we -- yes, even Professors Mendoza and >>Devereux -- find ourselves wondering: "Wow...could that be from >>another planet?" Right or wrong (and I don't think Bob automatically >>supports the ETH), it's a perfectly understandable >>thing to think. >Dear Greg, >As I've said in my responses to Jerome Clark elsewhere on this >list, I for one am not arguing that the ETH should be removed >from contention. I am saying two distinct things about the ETH: >1) It isn't a single hypothesis, and >2) It is such a dominating paradigm it is (a)skewing most ufological >thinking, (b) minimising attention to other approaches to the >UFO problem as a consequence. I would be with you here if you said "minimizing attention to other approaches to some aspects of the general 'UFO' problem as a consequence." I believe such things as ball lightning or geomagnetic phenomena may very well get mixed in with what is generally referred to as the raw UFO data. I find such phenomena terribly interesting and I'm delighted that folks such as yourself are investigating them. But when you refer to such things in the context of "the" UFO problem, I have trouble being bothered to give them the time of day. Why? It relates back to Greg's point above. I had no interest in UFOs prior to a sighting of an initially unlit, structured, rotating and then anomalously accelerating disc-shaped thing about ten years ago. I don't have a serious expectation that the source of this effect was a geomagnetic light of some kind, or that some kind of radiation provoked the identical hallucination in myself and another observer (although I will cede the technical possibility.) In previous posts, you've ceded that there may be some phantasms out there that do appear as structured "craft"-like things, but that this is probably such a rare and ineffectual phenomena as to be unstudyable or without import. Still, it is precisely *this* UFO problem that a lot of us are interested in, precisely because of its strangeness and potential significance. And I think you can make a pretty decent case that this phenomenon is at least real and physical (plenty of the time :). That said, I'm all for alternatives to the (literalist) ETH, such as the possibility of strange "psi"-type phenomena etc. >Regarding point (1), Dennis Stacy in an earlier reply to you has >listed some of the forms the so-called ETH has taken. Elsewhere, >I have pointed out that the ETH is a child of its times, and >other people in other times and places had other ways to >"explain" unusual aerial phenomena that suited their cultural >conditioning. I feel justified in saying that the ETH is, in >fact, an ET *Motif* rather than a hypothesis (ETM). I would agree that the ETH is not a hypothesis in the sense of your proverbial falsifiable hypothesis for straightforward testing in a lab. The ETH is a broad epistemological proposition. Here's a quote from Michael Swords which I broadly agree with: "If one insists on applying hypotheses to it, then I think that the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis remains a viable one for dealing with the phenomena sufficiently (just as angels, demons, fairy folk, a capricious God, an extradimensional Gamestaer et al, do). And, I think the ETH, because it in no way stretches the current scientific paradigm beyond what is already admitted ontologically, remains the simplest (& therefore tentatively best supported) hypothesis available. It is not a proven hypothesis. It is also, despite insistent claims by certain "experts" and debunkers, in _no_ way disproven, nor even, in my opinion, damaged. "However, I do not insist that it is true, nor feel in any way the need to "believe" in it." "The ETH, as it is usually discussed, is neither science nor pseudo-science nor anti-science. It is merely human beings trying to make sense out of a complicated ongoing mystery. Science itself employs large theoretical "untestables" all the time (ex. Cosmic Evolution, Darwinism, Continental Drift); huge macroconcepts within which only small pieces can be tested or checked for their correlation with the larger thought. The ETH grows out of a similar urge to place a bewildering complexity into a conceivable context." [going on to note in passing the much sturdier ground on which Darwinism rests] >I am >suggesting it has become an automatic recourse for most people in >ufology;it has become a standing *assumption* that ET craft are >what we are dealing with - and all assumptions shape how people >perceive evidence. This is a fair concern, but again I think your ultimate beef is going to be with the phenomenon itself. It seems to me to be the thing that's provoking this hysterical groping for extraordinary explanations. [...] >I am trying to alert fellow researchers that we ought to be more >conscious about our assumptions. The ETM has had 50 years to prove >itself, and it has failed to do so. You see this sentiment over and over again in critical commentary, and I always find it to be an interesting persepective. One could equally say that 100% misperception-hallucination-hoax has had 50 years to prove itself and has also failed. Not only that, since we know so much more about what these things are (they are initially more parsimonious explaantions), we can actually conclusively reject them across repetitions of anomalous observations by credible observers etc. etc., a fact of far more epistemological consequence than the ETH's "failure to prove itself". Other alternatives, such as earthlights, have been addressed previously on this list by such regulars as Mark Cashman, who highlighted some reasons why earthlights haven't been prioritized as a possible explanation for the core problem pretty well (I thought). >Much evidence collected in >that time can be seen in whole other lights, but if the only lamp >you are carrying is the ETM, then everything serves to support >that prejudice. So, for example, physical traces are seen as strong >proof of physical ET craft, but such traces can absolutely just >as well be evidence of geophysical phenomena. I am suggesting >that after 50 years it might be a good idea to place the ETM on >no greater a footing than other approaches. Then you are saying that you have argued persuasively in favor of disregarding that class of core UFO cases which strongly suggest high-strangeness (highly structured objects, CE2s with dramatic multiple witness testimony, CE3s etc.) But a lot of people aren't going to agree that you have done so. [...] >As to your point that if we had experiences like Jerry Cohen and >John Velez we might wonder about the ETM. Well, of course. But >let me make it clear that I am not in awe of these gentlemen: >I am also an experient. I have seen undoubted anomalous >aerial phenomena, both luminous and non-luminous; I have seen >an anomalous craft, and I have been within 20 feet of an alien >(I've mentioned that last item before on the list, but apart form >a couple of private queries, no one on this list seems to have >been much interested in this observation). Of course I considered >the ETM for some of them, but I have found, in fact, that I did >not need it. That doesn't mean I know completely what some of >the encounters were, but I am satisfied that I know what they >*weren't*. Well, I'm interested. What was your alien encounter? What "non-extraordinary" explanation did you find satisfactory, and why? >The ETM is so insidious that I honestly believe it is doing more >harm than good at this stage in the game. >Think about it. I promise. -- Geoff Price Geoff@CalibanMW.com Search for other documents from or mentioning: geoff | devereuxp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: PROJECT 1947 Website UPDATE From: legion@mira.net [John Stepkowski] Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:46:31 +1100 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:46:40 -0500 Subject: Re: PROJECT 1947 Website UPDATE ----------------- PROJECT 1947 ----------------- What's New http://www.iufog.org/project1947/new.htm ------------------ Forum Site Update Link Update News ------------------------------------------------------------------- Forum A new addition to the website is the PROJECT 1947 Forum. http://www.iufog.org/project1947/forum/index.htm Many researchers affiliated with PROJECT 1947 have interests in contemporary UFO research and we hope to showcase these efforts in the Forum area. The Forum's first contributor is Australian researcher, Bill Chalker, who has provided us with articles demonstrating his wide-ranging interests in all aspects of UFOlogy. In "Australian Aboriginal Culture and Possible UFO Connections," Bill explores possible parallels between aboriginal lore and the modern-day UFO experience. Bill's interest in physical trace cases is highlighted in his personal "Account of 'Angel Hair' Observation." One view of the UFO phenomenon holds that the governments of the world have accepted the reality of UFOs as vehicles from other planets. Another perspective, based on once-classified official government documents, is that while the subject of UFOs has been taken seriously, their origin and purpose remains a mystery. In "The Ultimate Secret - Fact or Fiction: The Australian Connection," Bill relates stories of Australian close encounters with "Men in Black" and alleged crashed saucer retrievals. The article illustrates some of the vast reservoir of accounts and rumors that exist about governments' involvement with the UFO phenomenon. Material from government files appears quite tame when compared to the tales recounted in the first article, but the importance of official documents lies in the fact that they report how responsible officials, military personnel, and otherwise solid citizens have encountered various manifestations of the UFO phenomenon. Having been allowed unprecedented access to previously restricted Australian government UFO files, Bill is in a unique position to extensively detail officialdom's approach to the "UFO problem" in "UFOs 'Sub Rosa' Down Under - The Australian Military & Government Role in the UFO Controversy" Bill Chalker welcomes feedback and comments on his articles. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Site Update Aircraft / UFO Encounters Catalogue Dominique Weinstein, a French researcher based in Paris, continues to compile his unique database of Aircraft / UFO Encounters (ACUFOE). The main sources for the core of this catalogue consist of his own research and the extensive files of the highly respected 40 year old French UFO journal, _Lumi=E8res Dans La Nuit_. ACUFOE is an ongoing project. Dominique continues to consult numerous publications, official records, and private files. Researchers in France and other countries have contributed additional cases from around the world. As this work is constantly being updated, he welcomes additional cases, further information on cases currently in the catalogue, and cases found to be mistakes, hoaxes or IFOs. The latest ACUFOE catalogue update will soon be offered to the public. The PROJECT 1947 Web Site is proud to host a small sample of Dominique Weinstein's catalogue. http://www.iufog.org/project1947/acufoe.htm ------------------------------- Aircraft / UFO Encounters Prior to 1942 Jan Aldrich lists some pre-1942 Aircraft / UFO Encounters http://www.iufog.org/project1947/jan42.htm ------------------------------- The PROJECT 1947 Notice Board. To aid PROJECT 1947 listmembers in their current research efforts, a publically accessible 'Notice Board' now contains details of requests for information. Research is a gift economy. The more we contribute the more we all get back. Please check the 'Notice Board' regularly and contact the researchers listed if you can help. http://www.iufog.org/project1947/47notice.htm ------------------------------- The PROJECT 1947 Links Page has been updated. All Catalogues are now accessible from the one page. http://www.iufog.org/project1947/pj47lnk.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Update The LunaScan Project (TLP) is an EBTI (Earth-Based Telescopic Imaging) program using live CCD imaging technology to observe, document, and record LTPs (Lunar Transient Phenomena) http://www.evansville.net/~slk/lshomepage.html Encompassing various aspects of Lunar imagery, including attempts to re-image areas allegedly containing "anomalous" structures, LunaScan is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in astronomy and selenology. The LunaScan co-ordinator, Francis Ridge, has limited copies of his book "Regional Encounters: The FC Files" available. Taken from the files of the UFO Filter Centre, the book contains a "chronological report of special close encounter events" incorporated into Fran's personal investigations. ------------------------------- Mark Cashman has added new cases and articles to his UFO page. Always worth a look. http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/5623/ufo.htm ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- News Limited copies of _Charles Fort, The Fortean Society & Unidentified Flying Objects_ are still available. (114 pp.) Written and published by noted UFO historian Loren Gross, this book is subtitled "A survey of the unidentified flying object mystery from August, 1895, to August, 1947," and contains a detailed historical overview of UFOs/UAPs, with an emphasis on Charles Fort and other Fortean luminaries such as Tiffany Thayer and R. DeWitt Miller. Combining a history of Fortean researchers with newspaper accounts of early UFO reports, Loren Gross provides a richly detailed overview of the phenomenon, and a look at researchers like Charles Fort who chose the "little trodden paths" in their journey through the mysterious and unexplored landscape. Copies are just (US)$6.00 (including p&h), and available from: Mr. Jan Aldrich P. O. Box 391 Canterbury, CT 06331 U.S.A E-mail Jan Aldrich (jan@cyberzone.net) for more details. ------------------------------- Larry Hatch has just released the latest version (November, 1997) of his *U* UFO Database for IBM-PC compatibles. *UDEMO*, a limited demonstration version of the *U* UFO Database, is now available. *U* was first introduced in October, 1994, and allowed the rapid searching and cross-referencing of many UFO reports. This revision now contains in excess of 16,200 high quality sightings. In addition, the latest version contains many new features and improvements: * NEW STATISTICS Functions have been added. * NEW MAP FUNCTIONS. * ASTRONOMICAL FEATURES. (Plots positions of planets at the time of UFO sightings). * NEW SEARCH PATHs added. * RECORDS "TAGGING" to set aside special cases. * Pop-up REFERENCES WINDOW. (see all the sources by number). * ABBREVIATIONS LOOKUP in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese! * SPEED ARRAY loads into memory to speed up lengthy operations. * New UTILITIES MENU consolidates all routines into a single .EXE file. and much more. The *UDemo* version is limited to UFO reports from 1952-53 but is otherwise fully functional. Ordering and operating details are contained in the *UDEMO* file which can be downloaded here. http://www.iufog.org/project1947/dload/udemo.htm ------------------------------- Revised: November 18, 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- PROJECT 1947 | E-Mail: http://www.iufog.org/project1947/ | legion@werple.net.au
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 London, UK, UFO Meeting From: John Hayes <ufoinfo@cableinet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:53:43 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:47:48 -0500 Subject: London, UK, UFO Meeting LONDON UFO STUDIES MEETING Date: Friday 5th December Speaker: Matthew Williams Subject: Underground Bases & Conspiracy Theories Venue: Unity Hall Bramley Close Walthamstow London E17 ENGLAND Admission: Adults =A34, Members/Senior Citizens/Children =A32 (Payable at the door) Doors Open: 7.30pm Meeting Ends: 11.00pm Refreshments available Enquiries to: Roy Lake 10A Tudor Road Barking Essex IG11 9RX Phone: 0181 270 9919 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Thanks, John Hayes ufoinfo@cableinet.co.uk ufoinfo@digiserve.com Visit UFOINFO @ http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:14:14 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:51:04 -0500 Subject: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:31:14 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Jerry and Bob and All, > >Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities. But here's > >one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't > >locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal > >Experiences_. Though the report repeatedly states that they > >received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send > >out in the first place? Perhaps it was two or three times as > >many? My thought is that those who felt the subject was too > >silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were > >likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have > >responded negatively to most or all the questions... > Jim: > If you would use your noggin to actually think with, instead of > as a mere hair support, you'd realize that the Roper Report > personally interviewed 6000 people. They didn't send out more > responses than they got back. They interviewed 6000 people, > period. Dennis, A pedantic reply in kind would point out that the Roper Report itself did not interview any people, and that their organization surveyed 5,947. And of course they didn't send out any responses. Whether their survey was by telephone, door to door, or through the mail, my point is that a person who had no unusual or paranormal experiences, or denies that he has, and who thinks anything paranormal is dumb or goofy, would be more likely to say "No, I'm not interested in answering your questions, click" than a person who is open to the paranormal, due perhaps to having had a paranormal experience. So this would tend to bias the results of such a poll towards positive answers, but by how much and how to avoid such bias are difficult questions to answer. > Moreover, word has it that Hopkins and Jacobs actually "cooked" > the numbers down from something like five per cent because they > couldn't believe the original numbers -- never mind that the > original numbers don't measure anything whatsoever, and neither > do the final ones. Too bad that neither Budd nor Dave are on this List to reply to your latter clause. > >Beyond this, there are plenty of assumptions Dennis made that we > >should be highly suspicious of. > Just as we should be suspicious of anything you say, or am I > wrong in thinking that Billy Meier somehow turned up a long lost > manuscript, or was it merely translation, of one of the books of > the Bible? Perhaps you would care to elucidate? If you were to be interested in the English translation of the _Talmud of Jmmanuel_ (TJ), or my book on it (_Celestial Teachings_), you'd have read one or both. They're published by Wild Flower Press. The Aramaic manuscript wasn't long lost, merely secreted away in a tomb near Jerusalem for some 1900 years until Meier's ETs decided it was time for it to be discovered & translated, and for Meier to become its custodian and editor. The TJ is not one of the books of the Bible. Rather, it very much seems to be the original writing that prompted the appearance of the first Gospel, which actually turns out to have been Matthew, just as the early church fathers have attested, and not Mark. But the TJ contains a lot of teachings on the human spirit and its evolution and immortality that were unacceptable to those who got Christianity going, and so it had to be very heavily edited when the first Gospel was formed. Yet the connection between the TJ and the Gospel of Matthew is unmistakable, so the task of any open-minded scholar who studies it is to try to assess whether the Gospel of Matthew appears to be based upon the TJ, or vice versa. If you by any chance base your estimate of the TJ on what Korff had to say about it in his 1995 anti-Meier book, beware that this book of his is just as riddled with errors and omissions, or even more so, than his book about Roswell. I've noted that in just 7 pages where he discusses the TJ, he makes 37 false or unsupported claims, misleading impressions, plain errors, and false innuendos. He took someone else's word for much of this without evidently looking into any of it for himself. This is documented in an article on the website: http://users.bart.nl/~edzmath/access.htm (see under chap. 2). It would seem to me that Dennis's feelings toward the Meier contactee case, which carry over to any who report positive findings on the case, may be due to the TJ document and its unacceptable implications for Christianity. That's why one's religion or lack of it, or one's belief "system," is a critical item that may predispose a ufologist. > >As another List member mentioned, we can't expect the aliens or ETs > >to be "democratic," or random, in their work. .... > >So we shouldn't blindly assume that the > >proportion of abductions within the population of many nations, > >like India and perhaps China, is necessarily anywhere near as > >high as in the U.S. > So you're saying you're a closet racist, or merely that aliens > prefer Anglo-Saxons and their immediate descendants to other, > less "savory" subjects? Talk about making assumptions we should > be highly suspicious of! In case you haven't noticed, and I doubt > you have, India presently boasts some of the best software > programmers in the world. I don't doubt the latter, but do wonder if you imply here that being a software programmer protects one from being a UFO abductee. Somehow I doubt that! > But let's turn my misguided democratic assumptions/questions > around: What's your explanation for why aliens prefer Americans? > > India seems to have quite a shortage of UFO > >reports, too, does it not? Maybe that's due to their people > >already accepting the existence of many gods & goddesses (in one > >form or another) within Hinduism and not requiring extensive > >conditioning by the aliens to get them used to the idea of their > >presence. > Another assumption of yours that we should be equally wary and > suspicious of. Maybe it's simply due to the fact that they're not > Americans. It's a possibility worth keeping in mind -- that the aliens have had to work on the western world more intensively in terms of numbers of UFO sightings and abductions per capita, than elsewhere because people under the influence or dominance of Western religions, excluding where books like those by Barry Downing & Joe Lewels have opened some eyes, are prone to equate aliens with the devil, etc. But the aliens may indeed have had to work extra hard on the world's leading superpower due to our reliance on 20th-century science to supply us with truth, and for other reasons. > .... Do you honestly think India is any more > monolithically Hinduistic than we are, say, Methodist? Yes, it turns out they are. They're 82% Hindu (according to a Hindu I heard speak recently), then in declining percentages Sikh, Christian, Sufi, and last of all Buddhist, which surprised me. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:59:18 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:00:53 -0500 Subject: Re: After The 'Big News'.....Then What? > From: "Hendrik Rademaker" <hradem@worldonline.nl> > To: <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Existence of UFO's admitted by USA government... > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:06:40 +0100 > Hello List, > Like a good commercial this was only to get your attention. > But what if next week the governement comes out with a statement > regarding the existence of ET visitors? And what if they would state > that they have been here for many decades? Can you imagine this > situation, the day you hear this on CNN? We must understand some perspectives here. To the people interested and researching UFOs, most of them think this is the end all event/happening/whatever of the world. To the rest of the people, UFOs are something of a casual "gee whiz" type interest, while they focus on what they think is the end-all such as "Save the redwoods, save the rainforest, Nostradamus, woodworking, geology, ozone depletion or whatever. Also consider the fact that the people who are starving to death in Africa, couldn't care less about UFOs, only in where the next bite of food comes from. Likewise to the people who loose their homes due to a river flooding most likely couldn't care less about UFOs/ET reality. They are concerned with how they are going to rebuild, when is the insurance going to pay for it, if not private, then when does the FEMA check show up. As for the big announcement it would be a 2 day to one week media event, until the next natural disaster/Saddam Hussain threat or whatever then it would be business as usuall. Then after that you would have the new critics who would be saying something to the effect of "Well, look at all the billions you spent studying ET/alien craft, when the money could have been more wisely used for condoms and clean drug needles for the junkies and addicts." The last gallup poll on UFOs (as I recall) was that 51% believed in UFOs. Now after some sort of "big announcement" the grand majority of the people would be saying "I knew it all the time" even if they didn't believe in the first place. You would also have a fractional amount of people claiming how this was some kind of government/et conspiracy to bring in the New World Order, blah blah. > Would many of us be without a hobby? All fascination for the subject > lost. No target to shoot at. Well you have my point now. For many people, the "mystery" would be gone and they would move on. No longer would the people interested in the subject be flocking to hear popular speakers on the UFO lecture circuit. They would instead be wanting to hear from the hands on scientists who did the research on the bodies, craft not to mention numerous movie and book deals from those same scientists. > Will we be doing our daily thing, go to work, sleep etc > or will the world around us get a whole new perspective? The only thing many people truly care about --in a figurative sense-- is their paychecks, beer and monday night football. Now if the government/or ET's interfered with that, then the people would be up in arms and upset. Cheers, Robert
The UFO UpDates Archive Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:49:02 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:40:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony When this pivotal case came up in discussions recently, it was an opportunity to consider some open points; the merit's of Kottmeyer's explanation, the differing sketches which Arnold produced, etc. I was particularly interested by Arnold's initial impression that the behaviour of the objects suggested he was observing a flock of geese. The question was how much more likely is it that Arnold had indeed seen a flock of geese, or something similar, than he witnessed intelligently controlled objects which flew like a flock of geese. I thought some additional research into the ornithological alternatives might further clarify the debate and this has proved to be of potential significance. There seems to be compelling evidence that the unidentified objects reported by Kenneth Arnold, may have been a flock of American White Pelicans. Indigenous to Washington state, the American White Pelican (Pelecan userythrorhynchos) is the largest bird in North America and amongst the biggest in the world. A predominately white bird, with black primaries and outer secondaries, it weighs up to 15 kg, (33 lb) and it's massive wingspan can extend to 3 m (10 ft) or more. The clue to possibly identifying the enigmatic objects remains in Arnold's description of their flight characteristics. Often, birds have a distinctive signature, the "jizz" as it's known, and from this a bird's probable identity can be determined, even if the sighting was inconclusive. The appropriate people to consult were those familiar with bird life in the Pacific Northwest and I asked some of them if they would gave an informed opinion based on Arnold's descriptions. Michael Price, suggested a "possible candidate species in the area at that time of year (sporadically) whose color, size, flight profile and proclivity for formation flight at sometimes quite high altitude would even more produce *every* detail of the phenomenon which Arnold observed: a flock of non - or failed - breeder, southbound White Pelicans". He added, "They'd have been large enough to visible for a good distance, they fly in formation, and if the light were reflecting just right off a large nearby glaciated peak, their comparatively vast white underwing area would reflect a *ton* of light in exactly the pattern described by Arnold". Richard Rowlett concurred: "White Pelicans was the first thing that came to mind as I was reflecting back on an ultra high-flying southbound formation I saw a few years ago over the Barancas in western Durango, Mexico, east of Mazatlan. It was a fluke that I detected them at all by unaided eye. Even in the bins [binoculars], I was perplexed about what they were for awhile, at first not even sure they were birds. Strange lighting and angle it was. Don Baccus also commented to Michael Price: "Michael, my first thought when I started reading your analysis was white pelican. Several years ago, when training a good birder in the finer details of splitting migrating hawks into species, age, etc. at long distances at the beginning of the fall migration season (i.e. training him to run our count), we saw distant white "blurps" fading in and out of visibility many miles north. This was at the Goshutes, i.e. on the Utah/Nevada border. It was near sunset. It was obvious that the sun was reflecting on their underwings. They'd disappear momentarily and then reappear in sequence. They were flying east-to-west and we first spotted them somewhat to the northeast. I pegged them as white pelicans almost immediately, as the whole cadence of the thing matched the way white pelicans will soar in line (in this case - they'll also 'V' up), and rather than flap all at once, often will each begin to flap as each reaches the position where the previous bird began to flap. Same with turning, etc. Of course, they'll also do this in more of a synchronized formation, too, but I'm sure you've all seen white pelicans flap and glide in the kind of pattern I'm describing. I couldn't think of any bird that would show such a cadence and literally twinkle white while switching from soaring to flapping". Investigating this suggestion further, there are notable correlations with Arnold's observations. Arnold claimed, "They flew like many times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were linked together". "...they numbered nine. They were flying diagonally in echelon formation..." In 'Birds of the World', by Oliver L. Austin Jr. p 42, he states: "Pelicans fly in long lines, sometimes in a V formation, sometimes abreast, sometimes in single file directly behind one another. Most often they form a wide echelon, each bird slightly behind and to one side of the next". Arnold also mentions, "They were flying diagonally in echelon formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first four and last five". Discussing this with Michael, he agreed with my assessment that this is standard behaviour in a flock and wrote, "all line-abreast, diagonal and astern flocking birds develop gaps and fill them in randomly". What "startled" Arnold the most, he recalled, "was the fact that I could not find any tails on them". Pelicans have "stumpy" tails, similar to the representation in Arnold's later sketch showing one of the "objects". Arnold's sketch now begins to make sense and could easily be based on a distant viewing of a pelican in flight. The large, swept back wings are self-explanatory and the darker top center is not inconsistent with the fact that pelicans in flight "tuck" their heads back. As commented in 'Birds of the World': "In flight, pelicans carry their heads well back on their shoulders, with the long beak resting on the folded neck". A further, distinctive connection, is Arnold's claim, "They didn't fly like any aircraft I had ever seen before. In the first place their echelon formation was backward from that practiced by our Air Force. The elevation of the first craft was greater than that of the last". This is a typical feature of American White Pelicans flying in formation. Consider also his statements that: "I observed the objects' outlines plainly as they flipped and flashed against the snow and also against the sky". "They fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their surfaces". In 'The Birds', by Roger T. Peterson (Time-Life International), he writes: "Much the simplest form of flight, certainly much less complicated than flapping or hovering, is gliding flight". "Swallows employ gliding flight, - several strong wing strokes and a glide. So do pelicans travelling in formation...". "Gliding saves energy, but gravity and air conditions determine how far a bird can skim before it must flap again". The parallel between Arnold's objects in echelon which "flipped and flashed", "fluttered and sailed", and a formation of pelicans in echelon "beating and gliding", as 'Birds of the World' describes their flight, seems apparent. As Don Baccus remarked, "I couldn't think of any bird that would show such a cadence and literally twinkle white while switching from soaring to flapping". Michael Price also confirmed, "Assuming he was looking at birds, the flipflop appearance of these birds would be visible whether higher, same altitude, or lower as the sun might be reflecting strongly and directly off white upper and/or underwing surfaces". There is some relevant information on a web site at: http://www.sazoo-aq.org/pelicans.htm Which includes the affirmation: "When flying, they seem to 'sparkle' as the light plays off of their white and black feathers". I'm sure these aspects can be quantified even further. Kenneth Arnold was perhaps after all on the right track when he stated: "They flew in a definite formation but erratically. As I described them at the time their flight was like speed boats on rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite that I once saw blowing in the wind. Or maybe it would be best to describe their flight characteristics as very similar to a formation of geese, in a rather diagonal chain-like line, as if they were linked together". Very similar to a formation of geese, but based on the above evidence, remarkably similar to a formation of pelicans, specifically American White Pelicans. If that should be the answer and Arnold mistakenly concluded the objects must be distant aeroplanes, it plays havoc with his estimated calculations. I obviously intent to come back to these and address Bruce, Don, Mark and Michael's recent comments. It may be necessary to do so with a new perspective. These are the somewhat unexpected results of my enquiries and further research. We can only consider the implications suggested by them and whether this does lean heavily towards the most likely explanation.
The UFO UpDates Archive Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 BWW Media Alert 971121 From: BufoCalvin@aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:56:52 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:45:47 -0500 Subject: BWW Media Alert 971121 Bufo Calvin, P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 E-mail: BufoCalvin@aol.com Website: http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/ BufoCalvin/index.html">BufoCalvin's Home Page</A> ) TAP (The Address Project) Bufo's WEIRD WORLD e-zine Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.ht ml">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert provided that attribution is made to http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make sure it is clear that you are forwarding it). November 21, 1997 I'll scrabble together what I can here. Please note: the e-mail address above is still the correct one to reach me. I did create one with Internet access so I could use it to send things from work, but I don't even really read it... ON-LINE Tuesday, OMNI-MAG ( <A HREF="http://www.omnimag.com/talk/">OMNI Prime Time</A> ) will do their regular interview with Kevin Randle, one of prime investigators of Roswell, and author of a bunch of books this year (I can send you URLs). It's on from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM Pacific. Saturday at 7:00 AM A&E repeats THE UNEXPLAINED episode on UFO CULTS. Friday at 4:00 PM, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL's "WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?" is "GHOSTS, ALIENS AND EMPERORS". MONTEL will have psychic Sylvia Browne on Thursday or Friday. 6:00 PM Friday, THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL runs LOCH NESS DISCOVERED, which includes coverage of the monster. Monday at 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM, THE LEARNING CHANNEL runs CASTLE GHOSTS OF ENGLAND. Arthur C. Clarke's programs this week on THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL include: Saturday at 2:30 PM, GIANTS OF EASTER ISLAND; Sunday at 6:00 PM, DRAGONS, DINOSAURS & GIANT SNAKES; Friday at 10:00 AM, GHOSTS, APPARITIONS & HAUNTED HOUSES; Friday at 10:30 AM, FAIRIES, PHANTOMS & FANTASTIC PHOTOGRAPHS (which includes the fairy photographs that inspired the recent movie A FAIRY TALE). The DISCOVERY CHANNEL is having a veritable INTO THE UNKNOWN festival: Sunday at 6:30 PM, LAKE MONSTER (about the monster of Lake Champlain); Thursday at 9:00 PM and Friday at 1:00 AM, CHINESE WILDMAN; Friday at 11:00 AM, GIANT SLOTH; and Friday at 11:30 AM, THUNDERBIRD. Well, that's all I can squeeze in right now... This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!" ____________________________ You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's WEIRD WORLD (which covers theories and happenings) the same way. Also, please let me know if there is something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the week before. _____________________________ **OPUS is the Organization for Paranormal Understanding and Support. I am an Executive Boardmember, and Director of the OPUS Educational Institute. OPUS encourages its officers and Network Associates to express their own opinions: however, it is important to note that I do not speak for OPUS in this piece or others presented under my own name. The new OPUS phone number is (510) 689-4198 ______________________________ Bufo's WEIRD WORLD BOOKS ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.htm l">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) I'm very excited about this! Some of you know, I ran a bookstore for years, and it has always been a love of mine. I get asked often to recommend books (I do write reviews for several publications) on these topics, and now I can do it and actually give you a source for them at the same time! This is being done in association with Amazon.com, which has an outstanding reputation for the five "S"s of internet shopping: selection, searchability, service, savings, and security. If there is any specific book you want (or topic in which you are interested), let me know and I will do the research and e-mail you a link you can use to check it out more (and order it if you want). I will be linking to books within the Media Alert, to make it more efficient for you. If you click on the link, you will be sent to that title
The UFO UpDates Archive Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: DevereuxP@aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:48:44 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:17:15 -0500 Subject: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] Greetings. Jerry Clark wrote: >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:18:38 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: re: solved abduction cases >Dear list, >For reasons unknown I can't get into Paul Devereux's >recent posting, so I'm having to respond in an independent >posting. >I guess the good news is that there is so little of substance >in it, beyond Paul's by now well-worn ax-grinding act, that >little comment is warranted. Suffice it to say I stand by >everything I've said. To Paul I'd simply say that your >emotional -- even fanatical -- commitment to a particular >reading of the UFO question has apparently led you to >chronic incivility, as not a few others, even individuals >more sympathetic to your beliefs than I am, have noted. In >other words, guy: chill out. Not all, or even most, dissents >from your treasured beliefs are personal attacks. By now >we've all figured out that you are VERY excited with and >defensive about your beliefs, that angry bees are always >circling in your bonnet. You don't have to keep >demonstrating it to the rest of us. >As for me, I tried to be as pleasant as I could under the >circumstances, to no avail, evidently. So you can go >stew elsewhere, Paul. >An excellent essay on "Earthlights and Tectonic Stress >Theory," by Chris Rutkowski, appears in the forthcoming >second edition of my UFO Encyclopedia. I encourage all >who are interested in what Paul's about, beyond all the >self-righteous bluster, to read it. >Cordially, >Jerry Clark Dear Jerry, I'll only make a couple of responses to this before moving on to more important matters: a)I think the record shows quite clearly that from my few sentences questioning your assertions on specific matters in one of your postings to Mendoza, Jerry, it has been you who has inflated the personalised verbiage. (And not only in your exchanges with me, let it be noted.) In the course of our exchanges I have indeed raised points of "substance", or, at least, reasonable importance. As to my ripostes to your charges, all I can say is if you don't like the echoes you get back, then stop making your noise. b)I find it breathtaking, Jerry, that while you have managed to avoid responding to any issue I have attempted to raise in our exchanges, you can now refer to one that was not so raised -- earth lights. Neither Mr Rutkowski nor earth lights are topics I have been trying to discuss with you. I have dealt with ELs and Chris Rutkowski on other occasions, and will doubtless do so in the future just as Chris will doubtless keep bashing away at his pet hate. All I will say on the topic here - as you raise it - is that unusual geophysical luminous and non-luminous phenomena do exist, they are undoubtedly a part of the material that passes through ufology's alimentary canal, and they just as certainly have not been digested by most ufologists - i.e. they have been under-recognised and under-researched. A small number of us have been doing a heroic job in raising funding for field and other research, have involved mainstream science, have already produced more than anecdotal results, but instead of that being acknowledged, we are almost automatically criticised or even derided. The evidence to hand to date most strongly supports geological-tectonic factors being implicated in the occurrence of such phenomena - and the Tectonic Strain Theory is only one strand of this evidence. If Chris Rutkowski does not like the TST or the association of tectonic factors with EL incidence, then fine - if he can shed new light on the mechanisms that produce ELs, I for one will be delighted and I will not stint my praise of him (and you can mark those words). But what is not logically acceptable is to say that if the mechanism isn't proven first, anomalous geophysical phenomena (aka 'earth lights') cannot exist until it is. Okay, that is all I have to say on either of these areas for this exchange. What I would like to do, if I may, is to move to the issues I have raised in our exchanges, and which so far have been ignored or dismissed by you without discussion ("you are dead wrong",etc.). I suggest we cut the crap, and turn to topic-focused exchanges. All right? Over time, and as time permits, I'll try to raise each of the ignored points individually - perhaps we'll get further that way.I'll focus in this posting with what is perhaps the most fundamental and in many ways most pressing issue - the dominance of ETH thinking within mainstream ufology. --------------------------------------------- THE ETH AS THE DOMINANT PARADIGM IN UFOLOGICAL THINKING. The first thing I want to clarify, in case I didn't do so sufficiently in in my last response, is that I think it is perfectly legitimate for the ETH to stay on the table as one of the possible explanations for some UFO sightings. With what I have learned so far, I do not think it is an explanation for any, but if the evidence should amount to proof in some cases, I will have no problems accepting it. I think there are definitely: Psychological UFOs Sociological UFOs Geophysical UFOs I'd add the ETH to that list as a possibility. But as someone who has seen anomalous luminous and dark aerial objects, and on one occasion a craft, I can say in total honesty I have not found it necessary to invoke the ETH to cope with any of them. As for alien abductions, I do not personally think the ETH is a legitimate option, though in many cases the experience itself is real for those reporting it. The reason I hold this view, is that a study of alien abductions without recourse to the ETH reveals evidence amounting to proof as to what the "alien abduction" experience actually is. I say this because the literature relevant to this finding is available to anyone who wishes to undertake the research -- at the end of the day, it is not a question of it being my opinion. As someone who has been within 20 feet of a prefectly "real-looking" non-human entity or alien, I can say the above without any fear whatsoever of people who would wish to claim they have had the abduction experience and I have not. (I am amazed that I have already made this deliberately provocative statement without there being the least ripple of interest by either Jerry or, apparently, more than a couple of people on this list.) It seems to me that there are two aspects to the question of the ETH in ufology: is the ETH truly the dominant paradigm, and if so, is it affecting thinking within ufology - i.e. is it actually inhibiting the range of knowledge that we could be establishing within ufology? Dealing with the latter possibility first, it is my contention, as I expressed in an early posting to you, Jerry, that it is indeed skewing several stands of research and inhibiting the disclosure of other possibilities. In this sense, it is acting like a self-fulfilling pattern of thought. As a matter of fact, I would go further: I think that within mainstream ufology anything that is not ETH-based in some form or other is viewed as non-ufological, and essentially of minor or no interest. Further still, if it was finally proven that the ETH is not the answer in ufology, I suggest that most people now attracted to ufology would go elsewhere and the subject would drop to a minor strand of intellectual curiosity within our culture, notwithstanding other important scientific and philosophical matters that might emerge in the ETH's stead. ALIEN ABDUCTION: I think we could set about raising the data within ufology itself (it has already been raised outside of ufology) to demonstrate that the alien abduction experience, for example, is just one modest strand of a broader literature relating to an extremely deep-seated human experience as old as the human mind. AERIAL PHENOMENA: In the case of things seen-in-the sky, while the ETH should stay on the table, it should not be as overbearing as it currently is and has been for nearly 50 years. It should be given nothing more than equal weighting with social, psychological and geophysical UFOs - and perhaps UFOs of a type we haven't even thought of as yet. After all, the ETH is still solely a matter of conjecture and anecdote (radar-visuals and physical traces can apply equally to geophysical UFOs as to ET craft). Also, a study of the history of ufology shows conclusively that there is not one, single hypothesis that can be called the ETH, as Dennis Stacy has pointed out in another posting. There is and/or has been a riot of manifestations of what should more properly be called the ET Motif, the ETM. I contend that all the above points are true, and observably so. The other aspect of the matter, however, concerns whether or not the ETH/ETM is actually dominant, colouring in one form or another most of the thinking and intellectual drive within ufology. I assumed this was also a matter of simple observation, yet you, Jerry, in an earlier posting, asked that we should agree to disagree over it, along with other issues I have raised. Your failure to treat the points I am raising as of some consequence to the future of ufological research - to apparently consider them to be not even worthy of discussion - placed me in something of a quandry. What could I do to demonstrate that the ETH/ETM as a disproportionate influence within ufology wasn't just a matter of opinion? Well, I suddenly realised that this list, being pretty representative of the areas of concern within ufology, and involving a good sample of ufologists, is in fact a potential research tool in itself, and can be used to settle the matter as to whether the ETH/ETM is dominant in most ufological thought or not. So, as a preliminary test, I took the first 100 postings of the list in my electronic in-tray - I have not selected them, etc., so it is effectively a random sample - and marked each one as relating to the ETH/ETM or not. 'Related' means literally that: postings that involve explicit or implicit discussion of ET concerns; postings that assume the ETH/ETM as a given, or that follow on from the starting point of a strand that was ETH/ETM oriented in one form or another (and this of course includes postings actually arguing *against* the ETH/ETM),etc. In short, anything that reveals the presence of the ETH/ETM in some way, shape or form in the intellectual environment of the posting. This is what I found. My UpDates sample of 100 postings started on 11/04 and ended 11/08. ETH/ETM-related: 62% Not ETH/ETM related: 38% This obviously indicates a dominance of ETH/ETM-related thinking within mainstream ufology. But in fact, the matter is more distinct than this result suggests. Many of the non-ETH/ETM related postings were, as it happened within the timing of this sample, to do with technical questions regarding the Mexico video. If I was being really strict, I would say that even those technical matters revolve around the implied claim that the video was showing a craft, but I let them stand as non-ETH/ETM. However, there were also 8 postings comprised, variously, of regional sighting listings, an obituary, a couple of Alf's Odd Odes. None of these items, while admirable in themselves, could be said to be a direct part of the discussion process going on. Therefore I think it is legitimate to exclude them from the sample. In which case, the figures would stand as: ETH/ETM related: 67% Not ETH/ETM related: 33% This very modest bit of research suggests that, despite its protean and unproven nature, the ETH/ETM is the most dominant paradigm operating within mainstream ufological thinking. (Bear in mind this specific result means *all* other ideas within ufology have to share out the 33% between them.) Even those not espousing the ETH/ETM are obliged to take time from what might be more productive lines of research to deal with it. In short, the ETH/ETM sets the agenda. And it is insidious. This means, therefore, that my contention that it is skewing thinking within ufology should be taken seriously and is a legitimate subject of discussion and consideration by those claiming to be UFO researchers. IMO, it cannot possibly be healthy for a single motif to take such a giant bite out of the energies going into the ufological sphere as a whole. It cannot possibly serve the purposes of objective research. I welcome comments from Jerry in the first instance, and, of course from anyone else who so wishes. But let us deal with the issues, and not get stroppy with one another. There is no debunking going on here, merely the consideration of what is now a demonstrated problem. To help such a happy situation to come about, I promise to keep out of the discussion as far as possible -- I'll only chip in if I feel some point of consequence is being missed, obscured or manipulated. Otherwise, I have said my piece on the matter. I'll add two further points before closing this posting, however: 1) Anyone can repeat my experiment and post their results. If we get a few of them, then we can find the mean percentages. If there are wild discrepancies, however, and special circumstances cannot be identified, it might be necessary for us to do a collective analysis of an agreed, selected sample. 2) With the New Year not so far away, could I make an **ET-FREE PLEA**, and suggest we take, say, a 14-day period in 1998 in which, just for the experience, we all agree to discuss ufological research *without recourse to the ETH/ETM* in any shape or form? It might prove a rewarding experiment. We could see if new avenues of thinking might open up or at least be enlarged, or find out if we are reduced to being helpless intellectual addicts without the ET fix. Perhaps the list would fall silent! Even UFO abductees could speculate what they think happened to them if they took the ETH explanation away. They could look closely at their experiences to see what flaws the ET explanation might have. Let's hear descriptions of abduction experiences and collectively discuss them and share the problems concerning them together, in an ET-FREE atmosphere. Just for once. What's 14 days in a lifetime? If there is interest in trying this, our revered Errol could designate the **ET-FREE** period for 1998. Hey - I'm nothing if not an idealist... Best wishes, Paul Devereux PS - Jerry, I trust your problems with your computer have been overcome by now. If they persist, then I'll be happy to send this directly to your electronic mailbox privately. It would be a
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: ETH &c From: DevereuxP@aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:51:39 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:44:28 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c Jim Deardoff wrote: >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:49:44 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >&c >The problem is that there is no branch of mainstream science >that inquires about UFOs, and therefore no appropriate >scientific journal to which to submit a paper on the topic. >This is no accident, of course, but is due to the ridicule >factor that developed from the early 1950s on.... <snip> >But then, with no branch of mainstream science existing >(in the U.S.) that deals with the UFO phenomenon .... <snip> >I got one such paper into the Quart. J. Roy. >Astronomical Soc. back in 1986, but to do so I dared not mention >the word UFO.... <snip> >There was a paper in _Science_, U.S.'s most prestigious science >journal, by Kuiper & Morris in 1977 called "Searching for >Extraterrestrial Civilizations" which was quite good as far as >it went. But the only way they could slip in a reference to >UFOs was in one sentence that went into an appendix. There they >were discussing the possibility that ETs (they never used the >ET abbreviation unless it was within SETI)...<snip> >Jim Deardorff Dear Jim, I think the problems in your reply here, and the prevailing ones I have seen on this strand, are two unquestioned assumptions: a)Ufology is a subject, and (b)it involves ET craft and the ETH. This really points up what I have been saying elsewhere on this list, that the ETH is so overweaning, is such a dominant paradigm, that it has become an automatic reflex - an *invisible assumption*. In truth, ufology is not a subject as such (it is a loose bag of bits - a little good, much indifferent, more bad) and mainstream science could not possibly deal with it as if it were. Secondly, most of what is written in ufology isn't up to the standards of mainstream scientific scholarship in any case, and would get rejected on those grounds alone. You cannot blame science for keeping most of ufology at bargepole length, quite honestly. The third point is that there is plenty of material out there in the scientific literature on aspects of ufology if one is not assuming that UFO=ET. I find ample material on the alien abduction experience in various areas of psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, and experimental brain/mind research, for instance. Of far more use, and much more scientific, than a shelf full of Hopkins, Macks, and suchlike. By the same token, there is much in the cutting edge of meteorology, geophysics, and so on, of prime importance to ufologists. If they researched worthily in these fields, they could contribute to the mainstream literature if they so wished. And even ET-wise, if they could produce excellent research, genuine scientific work, they would find their niche. Anyone with challenging new theories has a job in getting literature into the mainstream -- it is by no means special to ufology. I know people in other subject areas who reckon that to get a new paradigm into the peer-reviewed mainstream usually takes around 15 years. In my main field of research, archaeology, it took me 20 years. And the reason that happened was because I made a discovery that was incontrovertable and of some importance. It was good work. And the truth is I wasn't good enough earlier. What I'm trying to say, is that there is no conspiracy as such against ufology or ufologists. It is not just a question of terminology, but of conceptual outlook. There may, however, be an abiding prejudice regarding ufology on the part of the mainstream that makes breakthroughs unnecessarily difficult. But that is understandable, and is because of the way ufology conducts itself. Even on this list, we have seen calls for the cleaning up the godawful ETH mess being met with resistance, derision and dismissiveness. If ufologists are bitching about science ignoring them, perhaps they should put their own house in order. *It's up to us, not science.* Then perhaps we can get round to consistently better work, and start getting into the literature that matters. But that process starts here, in places like this list. (And while there are shafts of light here and there, I am afraid I do not see the gloom lifting yet awhile. But I'd love to be proved wrong.) Best wishes, Paul Devereux PS- But congrats, Jim, on getting a paper into the *Journal* of the Royal Astronomical Soc.!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 UFO Lighting [was: HOT SPOTS] From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:58:05 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:49:21 -0500 Subject: UFO Lighting [was: HOT SPOTS] > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/21/97 8:35 AM: > From: David Kirby/ Karin Dostal <lbear@rmi.net> > To: "'updates@globalserve.net'" <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: HOT SPOTS > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:01:21 -0700 > Airplanes use lights to identify themselves to other aircraft and > ground-based navigation agencies. If we assume that ufo's are > craft piloted by extra-terrestrials, externally visible lights > would seem a pointless feature, and a counter-productive one if > their surveillance of our planet is indeed clandestine. Most close cases make it clear that the lighting on UFOs has nothing to do with "light bulbs" as we know them, but that it typically represents areas or jets of luminosity. This is also typically substantiated by the best verified UFO photographs. Not all of the UFO light output is in the visible spectrum, as is shown by the Beaver Falls photos and the numerous cases of apparent UV burns. > Then again, why not turn the lights off altogether? It seems likely that while the objects demonstrate some ability to turn off the source of the luminosity, that there is a correlation between the structure and behavior of the luminosity and the behavior of the object. This indicates that the luminosity is a not completely avoidable side effect of some internal processes. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:42:51 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:03:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:16:10 -0800 >To: updates@globalserve.net >From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) >Subject: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available >As a known government agent and aspiring Man in Black, I feel an >obligation to support the work of my fellow operatives. Thus, I >have just accepted a clandestine shipment from Prometheus Books, >mouthpiece of the Buffalo Cabal. Among them are a number of >amusing and well-written works of skepticism. They are all a bit >pricey but are worth the cost if you have been attracted to any >of the cases they discuss. Below are a few that I have reviewed >so far. >All reviews are my own. These books are available from our >Research Center by phone (702-729-2648) or on-line shopping cart. >See more at the given URL. <snip> >UFOS: THE PUBLIC DECEIVED >By Philip Klass, $19.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/k/klassufo/ >Our favorite misanthrope tackles the belief that UFOs are being >covered up by the highest levels of the U.S. government. Klass >analyses dozens of popular claims prior to this book's 1983 >publication date, including the Travis Walton case, classified >CIA documents, UFOs over SAC bases and many alleged aircraft/UFO >encounters. Not surprisingly, Klass finds only fraud, fantasy and >misperception. Klass is an impassioned disbeliever - a religious >zealot of ufology's far right - and all of his writings and >investigations are colored by this ideology. He makes many of the >same mistakes of reasoning as the true believers - inferring the >whole from one detail, for instance, or liberally inserting his >own speculation where facts are lacking - but unlike the >believers, Klass also conducts solid research on occasion, and he >has dug up devastating information on many seemingly plausible >UFO claims. Unfortunately this book suffers from a lack of >footnotes or a bibliography, but most of those references can be >found in "pro-UFO" books like "The UFO Cover-Up," which examines >many of the same cases. Whenever reviewing an historical UFO >case, it is important to seek Klass's analysis to read the worst >that anyone can say about it. If the case holds up after a "Klass >attack," then it might be something worth pursuing. Regarding this 1983 book by Phil Klass...the title is appropriately chosen, but not for the reason Klass would think. He cleverly DECEIVED THE public with some of his explanations. I can UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVE that his explanation for one of the portions of the New Zealand sighting film (New Zealand sghtings of Dec. 31, 1978 -- made international news) violates physics. Furthermore I can prove that I demonstrated to him why it was wrong a year or more before he wrote his book. Yet, he went ahead and used his "explanation" anyway, writing as if anyone who questioned his explanation just didn't understand!!! Also, he tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader in his discussion of the Aug. 1980 Police Officer Johnson (Warren, Minnesota) police car damage case. Klass says in this book that 98% of sightings are misidentifications and 2% (give or take) are hoaxes. WHAT A CROCK!!! (This is also the book where he takes on Travis Walton and crew.)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Mexico City Video Analysis - Part Three From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:46:03 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:49:28 -0500 Subject: Mexico City Video Analysis - Part Three [I've tried to clean this one up too Bruce - a few lines I didn't touch - ebk] This is the third report on the Mexico City video. MORE MEXICO VIDEO ANALYSIS - PART 3 Thanks to a respondent who made his own measurements of the motion of the UFO I have discovered that my estimates of velocity,acceleration and rotation speed are wrong. I used a blowup version of the video to make the velocity and acceleration measurements. By comparing the time it takes (number of frames) for the UFO to disappear behind the first building I determined that the blowups had also been slowed down. The correct calculations and comparisons with the original calculations are shown below. FROM DIRECT VIDEO FROM BLOWUP 1.6x 7x frames to go behind building 20 frames 47 47 time is #frames times 1/30 sec times scale factor 20 x (1/30) = .67 sec 47 x(1/30) x 0.425= 0.67 0.67 sec 0.67 Velocity based on previous calculation using 1.6x and assuming 25 ft wide UFO 16.9 ft/sec Corrected velocity (use scale factor) 16.9/.425 = 39.7 ft/sec The velocity change (zero to 39.7 ft.sec) appears to take place in 1 frame of the direct video. Hence the acceleration is 39.7/(1.30) = 1191 ft/sec^2 which corresponds to 37 g's ( g = 32 ft/sec^2). If the acceleration took place in 2 frames the magnitude of the acceleration was 1/2 of this. THIS NUMBER SUBJECT TO FURTHER MODIFICATION. Because of the time scale factor change the wobble rate is about twice what was given before and the apparent rotation rate is about twice what was given before. NEW INFORMATION : I have been informed that the videographer is known, the original video exists, and there are 9 other witnesses. I cannot verify this information, it is what have been told. I was also told that one of the witnesses was at street level on the opposite side of the building where the UFO finally disappeared andthis witness claims that she saw the UFO "disappear." If so, this could explain why it was not seen in the video reappearing from behind the building.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Skywatch: Goodbye From: skywatch@wic.net (SKYWATCH) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 04:45:20 -0700 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:53:23 -0500 Subject: Skywatch: Goodbye The Colonel is gone now and I will be shutting down here this weekend after the lists are transfered to the new operators who will be sending out Skywatch from now on. I will type a letter he wanted sent out to everyone and email it before this computer is shut down. Thank you all, Carolyn
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:53:24 PST Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:12:32 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:55:11 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > I don't like the terms "ET" or "alien", because both imply an origin > somewhere other than Earth. Ultra Terrestrial comes close to being > the right word, but I think we need a new one. "Ultraterrestrial" comes nowhere near to being the right word. It's John Keel's synonyms for "demon." Ufology ought not to be an exercise in medieval supernaturalism or occultism. I see nothing wrong with the idea that UFOs originate "somewhere other than Earth" (certainly a less extraordinary hypothesis than one which argues the opposite [e.g., for the hollow earth, the earth's etheric analog, or whatever]), but I do feel that until we know more, we should simply call UFO beings "entities" or "humanoids." Phrases like "ET" should be left to purely theoretical discussions. Jerry Clark Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | 76750.2717 |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:15:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:36:02 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net, UASR@MyList.net > Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > I'm beginning to have problem with all these sightings. > I'm inherently a very linear thinker, so forgive me, > BUT: > - Why are flying triangles mostly only seen at night We don't know. There are some daytime sightings of triangular geometries, but not many. I suspect some percentage (size unknown) are mispercieved aircraft. I know that I have seen some video and photo material claiming to be FTs which are clearly aircraft. > - Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all > the headlights on They can't turn them off. They don't care if we see them. > - Why are these things mostly observed over high > population density areas, and not small to medium > settlements FT sightings have been in a variety of areas. The Hudson Valley sightings, for instance, were in areas ranging from high pop to rural. Also, don't forget, if there are no witnesses, or the witnesses don't report, you don't know what's being seen. We are far from having good national coverage of sightings. > If one flies at night to hide oneself, then the > lights should be off, no? If the "lights" are not lights but are an ionization side effect of some part of the operation of the object, then perhaps not. We know that UFOs can shut down their luminosity for limited periods at least without falling out of the sky, but there is a clear connection between UFO luminosity and operation (see Moreland-1959, Selma-1957 in my website chronological catalog http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufochron.htm for more details). > If one flies at night with the lights on, so one > can see where one is flying, I assume, This is probably not a likely reason for UFO luminosity. Again, see cases such as those mentioned above which suggest the luminosity is a side effect of the operation of the object. > then why > over a humonguous place like Phoenix, Arizona? "Ladies and gentlemen, down below we have one of the humans' large population centers. Observe the use of primitive incandescent lighting and internal combustion vehicles. Over the mountains, there, you can see where earlier today their primitive aircraft engaged in flare drops... Please feel free to take photos, and we have some souveniers for sale in the lounge." > If one flies at night with the lights on, over > Phoenix, Arizona, then why not during the day? Maybe they do. But maybe the big wing guys are nocturnal. I mean, really, any of this is speculation. We can't say why the UFO phenomenon behaves as it does without carefully examining the available information. Right now we are still largely in the descriptive stages - "Large formations or large single objects fly over population centers at night. We don't know why." We are not at the stage where the level of information allows us confidently to predict motives or behavior (except, perhaps, that many large formation sightings will occur over populated areas). ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:02:06 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:21:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:55:11 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:59:52 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities. But here's > >one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't > >locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal > >Experiences_. Though the report repeatedly states that they > >received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send > >out in the first place? Perhaps it was two or three times as > >many? My thought is that those who felt the subject was too > >silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were > >likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have > >responded negatively to most or all the questions. So their 2% > >estimate, granted that it was conservatively based on requiring > >positive responses to 4 out of 5 key indicator questions, might > >have been up to a factor of two too large. > My magazine does a reader survey every two years or so. Typically > send out around 20,000 surveys and get something like 2,000 back. > I'm told by the company that does our statistical analysis that > this is a much higher than average percentage of returns. We > tried to get more returns a couple of times by giving a gift to > everyone who sent back the form, but it made only a tiny difference > in the numbers we got back, so we stopped. I don't know details > of how the Roper Poll was done, but if they got back close to > 6,000 responses, they must have sent out 60,000 or more > surveys. Thanks for the info, Bob. I think that surveyors always ought to state the number of persons contacted who declined to respond, assuming they had some general idea of what it was they were declining. If the response rate in the Roper case was anywhere near as poor as you've found, the bias could be all the worse. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 22 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:18:19 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:24:39 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:41:28 -0600 (CST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:01:09 -0800 > > From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > > The mirror like flashes seem to rule out birds. > > However, let's assume geese. How fast can the fly? 60 mph? > > That is 1 mile/minute. Arnold was flying approximately > > perpendicular to the UFOs flight path. He timed the UFOs for > > about 2 minutes. so the flight of geese could have been about 2 > > miles in that. What about tail winds? Arnold comments on the > > great flying conditions. If he had cross-winds, they were not so > > great. > > So the length of the base line distance is two miles and Arnold > > is approaching the flight path at a 90 degree angle. For > > simplicity, put Arnold on the prependicular bisector of that the > > 2 mile baseline. The objects swept through around 80 degrees of > > angular displacement in that two minutes. Well, plotting > > Arnold's approximate position on a map of Washington state shows > > about that angle between the two land marks he cites. Again for > > simplicity's sake say that the angular displacement was 90 > > degrees. Okay, so Arnold is now one mile from the flight path. > > If we are dealing with geese, he should have crossed the flight > > path during his observation. > > Okay, Arnold and the geese were not standing still which > > influences the how much of the angle the geese swept through. > > The closer he gots to the geese's flight path the greater the > > angle seems. Still he should have crossed their flight path. > > The actual displacement of the geese is only two miles. The > > angular displacement argues that Arnold must be very close to > > their flight path. He should either recognized geese or cross > > their path. Now if the distance the objects traveled in two > > minutes is much greater than geese can fly, then you can start > > moving the the objects much farther away from Arnold. Geese > > don't seem to work. > > Well, maybe, despite the comments about the flight conditions, > > they did have a huge tail wind, so the baseline was much longer. > > Okay, fine. However, once Arnold turns to follow the objects he > > also has the advantage of the tail wind so he should, if they > > were geese, be able to see he was overhauling them. Not geese, > > again. > Also, wouldn't birds in June usually be flying back north, not > flying south? Since I am not an ornithologist, I am not sure where birds would be flying in June. I doubt that they would be migrating south. However, from my research for Project 1947, I have found birds and geese mistaken for UFOs flying in any number of directions. > But since this thread refuses to die I'll add my 2 cents of wild > speculation: George take you two cents back its counterfeit! You need a map and copy of Arnold's sighting report. I am using the ones on James Easton's site http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/arnold2.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/arnold.htm so I don't have to retype this stuff. (Thanks to John Powell and James Easton for posting these.) Next get out the map of Washington connecting Mineral and Yakima you get an almost West to East line. Connecting Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams you get, by eyeball, about 160 or 170 degrees, approximately north to south line. > Arnold is annoyed by a strange flash and tries to see where it > came from. He turns the plane, looking, until he spots something > ahead that looks like a group of planes. His heading is now > north rather than east. Arnold is heading east towards Yakima having made a turn at Mineral, Washington. From Bruce Maccabee's report: "He was near Mineral, Washington, about 22 miles west-southwest of Mt. Rainier and Yakima was about 80 miles ahead of him along a flight path that would take him just about 12 miles south of peak of Mt. Rainier. He leveled out onto his new flight path he was at approximately a 9,200 ft altitude. His sighting began within a minute or two of the turn. Sentences and paragraphs taken from his Air Force letter (11) are preceded by (L) and statements from his book (10) are preceded by (B)." >He sees that the objects are moving to > his right, and decides to see how fast they are going, not > realizing that it is actually a flock of birds flying north and > their apparent southward motion against the distant mountains is > simply due to his own airspeed. No, George none of what you say is correct. The objects are flying about north to south. Arnold speaking this time(L) "The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure flying and, as most pilots do, when the air is smooth and they are flying at a higher altitude, I trimmed out my airplane in the direction of Yakima, which was almost directly east of my position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and terrain. (L)" I observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft flying from north to south at approximately 9,500 ft elevation and going, seemingly, in a definite direction of about 170 degrees." > He determines that these planes > are moving incredibly fast, and decides to get a better look by > turning the plane completely around so that it is now heading > south in the direction he thinks they are flying, and he opens > his left window. No, George. If he is heading *south* Mt Rainier is to his rear in the north, and he can not watch the objects pass from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams and have a meaningful measurement of the time they took. The baseline is Mt. Rainer to Mt. Adams. He will not be able to see the last object start at Mt. Rainier and pass Mt. Adams if his plane is going north to south. He would also closing and depart effects in his determination of the speed. Even Captain Georgory and Hynek would have realized this in 1956 when they came up with the meaningless "inconsistancies" statement. > However, since he is now actually heading in > the opposite direction from the birds, he passes them and after > a brief closeup they quickly disappear from view. If he is going south and the objects are going south, he does not see them going in the oppostite direction. The last object disappears in the vincity of Mt. Adams. George, you need read Arnold's account and look at a map before you stick your two cents in. His distance and timing estimates only make sense if his flight path is perpendicular to the objects path. > But he could > definitely discern that they had no tails, since from his point > of view they would have been flying backwards. He then resumes > his eastward journey. -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: DRudiak@aol.com Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:48:11 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:48:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:41:28 -0600 (CST) >Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:31:54 -0500 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Also, wouldn't birds in June usually be flying back north, not >flying south? >But since this thread refuses to die I'll add my 2 cents of wild >speculation: >Arnold is annoyed by a strange flash and tries to see where it >came from. He turns the plane, looking, until he spots something >ahead that looks like a group of planes. His heading is now >north rather than east. There is nothing in Arnold's various retellings to indicate that he did this. He was flying east and initially continued east, observing the objects through the front cockpit window. Furthermore, the objects were initially a little off to his left at a shallow angle. Turning north would have turned it into a steep angle off to his right, worsening his view, not improving it. >He sees that the objects are moving to his right, and decides >to see how fast they are going, not realizing that it is >actually a flock of birds flying north and their apparent >southward motion against the distant mountains is simply due >to his own airspeed. He saw them flying to the right from the gitgo while he was headed east. Had they been flying north, they would have appeared to be moving left, not right. Further, turning north (which he didn't do) would have reversed their apparent direction of travel. >He determines that these planes are moving incredibly fast, He determined that right from the start. That's one reason why he found them anomalous. If he sees them flying south, on what he described as an intercept course with his own eastward trajectory, there was no reason for him to turn north, which only worsens his view. >and decides to get a better look by turning the plane >completely around so that it is >now heading south in the >direction he thinks they are flying, Wait a second. If they are geese and headed north at say, 50 or 60 mph and he turns north traveling at about twice that speed, then it is going to take him a little bit of time to catch up with their position. E.g., if they were 1 mile east and 1/2 mile north of his initial postion (placing them in the direction of Mt. Rainier), then it will take him 45 seconds to catch up. At this point, they will be directly off to his right and moving backwards relative to him to the south. But if he turns his plane completely around a this point, he will almost immediately catch up with them again, except this time they will appear to be moving BACKWARD in the OPPOSITE direction to the north >and he opens his left window. However, since he is now actually >heading in the opposite direction from the birds, he passes them >and after a brief closeup they quickly disappear from view. In a completely opposite direction from which he said they disappeared. In other words, he would lose sight of them as they appeared to disappear to the north, not to the south in the direction of Mt. Adams. Furthermore he would have to crane his neck clear around to the left and look backward over his shoulder to try to keep them in view, not easily follow them through his side window as they continued to move SOUTH over the ridge of the southern Cascades.. >But he could definitely discern that they had no tails, since >from his point of view they would have been flying backwards. >He then resumes his eastward journey. I can definitely discern you aren't familiar with the actual details of the report and haven't thought this through. The objects were always moving to the right, he turned his plane to the right (south) so he could open his pilot side window, and they disappeared to the SOUTH in the direction of Mt. Adams, or to his FRONT left. Your scenario has them moving backwards and disappearing to the NORTH, or at his left BACK, with Kenneth Arnold getting a contorted neck trying to keep them in sight. David Rudiak
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 UFO*BC: Dogs Save Earth! From: boliver@Direct.CA (Bill Oliver) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:04:21 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:57:38 -0500 Subject: UFO*BC: Dogs Save Earth! I had meant to share a ten second event in Surrey, [British Columbia] last Friday. It was about 9:00 at night and I had just taken my six dogs out to the backyard for a final constitutional. The black rural sky suddenly lit up with quite an amazing show of a dozen fire balls, with streaking tails behind each one. All the dogs and I looked up in wonder, and then one of the youngest barked to scare away the invaders. They heeded the warning and disappeared into the eastern sky. The next morning, the radio suggested that the display was caused by falling Russian space hardware. The dogs and I knew the truth - and the role that we had played in saving the Earth. Barrie
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Col Corso Lawsuit From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:27:18 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:05:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Col Corso Lawsuit This was my comments on the Col Corso Lawsuit > Subj: Col. Corso Lawsuit > Date: 97-11-20 15:20:24 EST > From: legion@MIRA.NET (John Stepkowski) > Sender: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM (Discussions > From: _LOS ANGELES TIMES_ (11-16-97) > "THE COURT FILES -- A Tale of Ghostwriters and > Alien Landings" > By ANN W. O'NEILL > THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE: When you're promoting your life story, > especially when that story turns into a bestseller about flying > saucers, it's not a good idea to let your son butt in on the press > junket, assault the publicist and threaten the life of the producer > who owns the movie rights. > That's allegedly what happened after Col. Philip J. Corso's > ghostwritten memoir, "The Day After Roswell," was published this > summer, according to a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. > Named as defendants are Col. Corso and his son, Philip Jr., accused by > producer Neil Russell of failing to promote the book after a dispute > over money. > The hardback spent three weeks in August on the _New York > Times_ bestseller list, rising to No. 12 before dropping off the > radar. A favorite of UFO buffs, it propounds that the laser, the > microchip and fiber-optics were developed from technology gleaned > from an alien spacecraft that crashed 50 years ago in the desert > near Roswell, N.M. > During a 21-year military career, Corso was a key intelligence > officer who served on Gen. Douglas MacArthur's staff in Korea and > as a national security advisor to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. > Russell says in his suit that he bought the rights to Corso's life > story in 1992, then decided it would be lucrative to publish a book > and then release a movie version. > The dispute began at a meeting in April or May when, the suit > states, Corso's son "demanded extraordinary amounts of money" pending > the book's release. > Afterward, the suit contends, Corso Jr. interfered with > interviews, assaulted Russell and a Simon & Schuster publicist, and > threatened Russell's life--all at the colonel's behest. The colonel, > meanwhile, is accused of trying to negotiate a better movie deal with > someone else. > Because of the Corsos' behavior, the suit alleges, Simon & > Schuster and its Pocket Books division canceled negotiations for > future book deals. You mean Corso et al were trying to milk the money wagon, then because of their antics, Simon & Schuster et al is not going to publish any more "future books" such as the one supposedy in the works about the NAZI time machine, and a book covering from 1950 to 1962 which allegedly details Corso's "personal" contact with an alien at or near White Sands/Ft Bliss area. I would surmise that none of this will appear on the ACC web site. Cheers, Robert
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:59 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:48:44 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >Greetings. <everything snipped except> >AERIAL PHENOMENA: In the case of things seen-in-the sky, while >the ETH should stay on the table, it should not be as overbearing >as it currently is and has been for nearly 50 years. It should be >given nothing more than equal weighting with social, >psychological and geophysical UFOs - and perhaps UFOs of a type >we haven't even thought of as yet. After all, the ETH is still >solely a matter of conjecture and anecdote (radar-visuals and >physical traces can apply equally to geophysical UFOs as to ET >craft). > Paul, With all due respect. Can I ask you to elaborate on how gephysical phenomena could have produced the Belgian radar-visual or shall I just log this one as bogus explanation 16? __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:30:40 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:20:11 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:14:14 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] <snip> >Whether their survey was by telephone, door to door, or through >the mail, my point is that a person who had no unusual or >paranormal experiences, or denies that he has, and who thinks >anything paranormal is dumb or goofy, would be more likely to say >"No, I'm not interested in answering your questions, click" than >a person who is open to the paranormal, due perhaps to having had >a paranormal experience. So this would tend to bias the results >of such a poll towards positive answers, but by how much and how >to avoid such bias are difficult questions to answer. My guess is that the Roper people didn't tell any potential respondents what the subject was in advance, so as to specifically avoid the type of bias you hypothesize. That is, after all, part of their job, as professionals. <snip> >> Just as we should be suspicious of anything you say, or am I >> wrong in thinking that Billy Meier somehow turned up a long lost >> manuscript, or was it merely translation, of one of the books of >> the Bible? Perhaps you would care to elucidate? <snip> >The Aramaic manuscript wasn't long lost, merely secreted away in a tomb >near Jerusalem for some 1900 years until Meier's ETs decided it was time >for it to be discovered & translated, and for Meier to become its >custodian and editor. This is to laugh, Jim! How is it that you yourself *know* this malarkey for a fact? Have you personally seen or examined the vaunted 1900-yr old manuscript, for example? Do you have any *proof* of its existence? No, you don't, but having entered into the realm of faith, little matters like proof no longer interest you. <snip> >It would seem to me that Dennis's feelings toward the Meier contactee >case, which carry over to any who report positive findings on the case, >may be due to the TJ document and its unacceptable implications for >Christianity. Gee, that's quite a presumption on your part, Jim. >> .... Do you honestly think India is any more >> monolithically Hinduistic than we are, say, Methodist? >Yes, it turns out they are. They're 82% Hindu (according to a Hindu I >heard speak recently), then in declining percentages Sikh, Christian, >Sufi, and last of all Buddhist, which surprised me. >Jim Deardorff This is a pedantic argument of your own. Maybe I should have said Christian, as opposed to Methodist. Maybe the Hindu that you heard speak recently passed along the information that Hinduism itself isn't monolithic, any more than Christianity is, but probably consists of countless sects. Christianity has long had a tradition of encounters with non-demonic entities, or haven't you heard of angels and the Virgin Mary? Again, you've offered no logical reason whatever why Americans would be more in need of abductions than any other culture or population. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts! From: XianneKei@aol.com [Rebecca Keith] Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:33:09 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:24:23 -0500 Subject: Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts! From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:02:06 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:21:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Thanks for the info, Bob. I think that surveyors always ought to > state the number of persons contacted who declined to respond, > assuming they had some general idea of what it was they were > declining. If the response rate in the Roper case was anywhere > near as poor as you've found, the bias could be all the worse. Since some people appear to be confused about the Roper Report, I am enclosing a brief portion of the Introduction, taken from "Unusual Personal Experiences: An Analysis From Three Major Surveys Conducted by the Roper Organization." Unusual Personal Experiences was published and copyrighted (1992) by the Bigelow Holding Corporation. "This summary presents the findings of research conducted for Bigelow Holding Company by The Roper Organization. Results presented in this summary are the summation of a question included in three separate waves of Roper's in-home omnibus service, Limobus [TM]. "Roper's Limobus [TM] service offers clients the ability to "tack-on" questions to the regularly scheduled in-home service, Roper Reports-. A limited number of omnibus questions are available each month in Roper Reports [TM]. Every effort is made to place questions, within the preset questionnaire, in such a way as to eliminate question order bias and allow the questionnaire to "flow" smoothly. "The Roper Reports [TM] questionnaire is a mixture of lifestyle, behavior, attitude, and opinion questions. Topics as diverse as Activities in Past Week, and Optimism/Pessimism About Our Country's Future form the vast majority of the Roper Reports [TM] questionnaire. "The three separate waves of Bigelow Holding Company's Limobus [TM] questionnaire were conducted in July, August, and September of 1991. Sample sizes in each wave were, respectively, 1,992, 1,983, and 1,972, resulting in a total of 5,947 respondents. "The technical appendix of this summary presents the methodology employed by The Roper Organization to produce a sample of respondents representative of the population of the continental United States. "While individual month readings for the question asked have a margin of sampling error of =B1 3%, the averaged total sample presented in this summary carries a =B1 1.4% margin of sampling error." end excerpt Of course, Dennis has already stated that the Roper Poll was conducted in person but now Bob Shell has confused matters some. Hope this helps straighten things out. Rebecca
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Clark and ETH From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:12 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:35:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH > From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:48:44 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? > >I guess the good news is that there is so little of substance > >in it, beyond Paul's by now well-worn ax-grinding act, that > >little comment is warranted. Suffice it to say I stand by > >everything I've said. To Paul I'd simply say that your > >emotional -- even fanatical -- commitment to a particular > >reading of the UFO question has apparently led you to > >chronic incivility, as not a few others, even individuals > >more sympathetic to your beliefs than I am, have noted. In No kidding, Jerry. Is this guy amazing, or what? > have been trying to discuss with you. I have dealt with ELs and > Chris Rutkowski on other occasions, and will doubtless do so in > the future just as Chris will doubtless keep bashing away at his > pet hate. All I will say on the topic here - as you raise it - is My pet hate? Paul, Paul, Paul ... there are many things I hate, but your EL theory barely ranks as one of my pet hates. Voicemail, maybe, but ELs, .... > that unusual geophysical luminous and non-luminous phenomena do > exist, they are undoubtedly a part of the material that passes > through ufology's alimentary canal, and they just as certainly > have not been digested by most ufologists - i.e. they have been > under-recognised and under-researched. A small number of us have > been doing a heroic job in raising funding for field and other Um - Paul ... you're calling yourself a hero? Aren't you patting yourself on the back a wee bit too much here? You certainly have managed to raise money for yourideas - and maybe others in ufology should take note of how ufology can be funded in such a manner. BTW, no one, not even me, is arguing that geophysical luminous and non-luminous phenomena don't exist. Geophysicists have shown that long ago. But it's just that part about them being part of ufology's esophagus or whatever ... We all know they are *part* of the overall UFO picture, but where you seem to fervently disagree is in the extent. Most ufologists recognize that a very few UFO reports may be due to natural phenomena. You appear to think many more may be. So where's the fuss? > research, have involved mainstream science, have already produced > more than anecdotal results, but instead of that being > acknowledged, we are almost automatically criticised or even That's funny. I've always acknowledged you, as well as others. Can't we disagree with you? > strand of this evidence. If Chris Rutkowski does not like the TST > or the association of tectonic factors with EL incidence, then > fine - if he can shed new light on the mechanisms that produce > ELs, I for one will be delighted and I will not stint my praise > of him (and you can mark those words). But what is not logically > acceptable is to say that if the mechanism isn't proven first, > anomalous geophysical phenomena (aka 'earth lights') cannot exist > until it is. OK, here's the nub of it all. No, I don't like the TST as a theory. There! I said it. I do not think it holds up to scrutiny and certainly is not appealing in terms of either science or methodology. Of course, neither are many theories. Remember the "glowing bugs" explanation for UFOs in the Uintah basin? Remember Klass' original papers about plasma UFOs? Remember the "mating hedgehogs" theory of crop circles? All nice theories which used case data to explain the reported sightings and effects, but all were lacking in one way or another. I didn't like those theories, either. OK. You are asking me to study and/or define the mechanisms which produce ELs. Fine. Of course, I live in a seismically-inactive area where ELs are not seen, so I don't have any data, like you do. Oh, I still receive UFO reports from around here, but I can explain most of them as airplanes and bolides and stars. How can I *not* doubt the EL and TST? Furthermore, I'm not a geophysicist. (And neither are you.) In order to properly analyze and test the data and EL theory, I'd need more resources and background. I also have many other projects and topics of interest, seemingly unlike you, so I cannot devote more time to the theory. Sorry. But maybe you'll "mark my words" some day, if I have the opportunity and resources to take yet another look. (Incidentally, I was just interviewed as the "token skeptic" for a CBC One radio special gushing admiration for the TST work of Persinger. It'll be aired in February. I was challenged to discount the TST as a viable explanation for the noted Falcon Lake CE2 case, where the witness was physically burned in a geometrical pattern, brush was set on fire, radioactive silver pieces were found at the site and the witness spent the better part of an hour observing and making detailed drawings of an apparently solid, metallic Hollywood-style saucer with cupola, intense lights, opening and closing doorway, and even some voices heard emanating from within. Was there quartz in the area? Yes. Therefore, according to the interviewer, who was biased in favor of Persinger, the case could be explained as a TST effect. I stated in no uncertain terms that there are many other, more probable explanations for the case, such as a hoax or a military aircraft, but> that the TST is stretching things in this case and would certainly be at least as likely an explanation as that of visiting, clumsy aliens. It is this this moulding and stretching of data to fit a particulat viewpoint which is the EL and TST problem, in my view.) > wrong",etc.). I suggest we cut the crap, and turn to > topic-focused exchanges. All right? Hear, hear! > way.I'll focus in this posting with what is perhaps the most > fundamental and in many ways most pressing issue - the dominance > of ETH thinking within mainstream ufology. Wait a minute, I thought you were going to cut the crap ... > THE ETH AS THE DOMINANT PARADIGM IN UFOLOGICAL THINKING. Yes, so? It's what's being hyped in the media, and most newbie ufologists adhere to what's trendy. Other, more seasoned ufologists, such as Stan Friedman, think that the ETH is a viable hypothesis for reasons he has explained in detail in many papers and some books. I make no excuses for ufology being mostly ETH-oriented. But you have to recognize it's not all like that, and the ETh has been examined and reworked many times over the years. I'm not a by-the-book ETHer, but I don't agree with Tipler, either, so I can't endorse a Tiplerian universe. The ETH has its problems, though, and certainly all the serious researchers on this list know about them. So don't act like Derrel Sims or Phil Corso and say that you alone have the answer and will save us from ourselves. Some great scientists who made earth-shattering discoveries also had modesty. But keep up the good fight! The CBC producer said you were a nice guy, and I believe him! Regards, -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca) University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada Note to Errol and Jerry: Tell me why I am bothering with this again? [Because you're a very patient, caring man who believes that everyone has an innate ability to eventually attain clarity? - ebk]
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:35:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony A strange bird is a pelican... It flies over 100 miles per hour when everitcan.... especially when trying to race a small airplane while flying southward past Mt. Rainier. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA try again!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:30:14 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:37:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out how high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and speed. If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) nearly at horizon level to him, then they would have been essentially at his level. And, I suppose Arnold could see the white bodies but not the bills/beaks. HAHAHAHA
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:02:54 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:41:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:02:06 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:55:11 -0500 >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c -Deardorff- >> >Your opinions pretty much bracket the possibilities. But here's >> >one question I have that should have an answer, though I couldn't >> >locate it within the Roper Report on _Unusual Personal >> >Experiences_. Though the report repeatedly states that they >> >received 5,947 responses, how many questionaires did they send >> >out in the first place? Perhaps it was two or three times as >> >many? My thought is that those who felt the subject was too >> >silly or foolish to bother wasting time on and respond to were >> >likely mostly the ones who, had they responded, would have >> >responded negatively to most or all the questions. So their 2% >> >estimate, granted that it was conservatively based on requiring >> >positive responses to 4 out of 5 key indicator questions, might >> >have been up to a factor of two too large. -Shell- >> My magazine does a reader survey every two years or so. Typically >> send out around 20,000 surveys and get something like 2,000 back. >> I'm told by the company that does our statistical analysis that >> this is a much higher than average percentage of returns. We >> tried to get more returns a couple of times by giving a gift to >> everyone who sent back the form, but it made only a tiny difference >> in the numbers we got back, so we stopped. I don't know details >> of how the Roper Poll was done, but if they got back close to >> 6,000 responses, they must have sent out 60,000 or more >> surveys. -Deardorff- >Thanks for the info, Bob. I think that surveyors always ought to >state the number of persons contacted who declined to respond, >assuming they had some general idea of what it was they were >declining. If the response rate in the Roper case was anywhere >near as poor as you've found, the bias could be all the worse. Jim, this would mean something if it meant something, that is, if it were even remotely relevant, but it isn't. See previous posts and below. >Jim Deardorff Jim & Bob: I'm going to ask the both of you to get it together one last time. The Roper organization did not send out more requests than they received responses to. They interviewed 6000 people, period. The responses they published are from those they interviewed, not from 10, 20, 50 or 60 per cent of the respondents to some mythical questionnaire. Now what is it about this that either of you don't understand? Let me repeat -- in slow motion -- the Roper organization interviewed 6000 people. They were not preselected as to whether they wanted to be interiviewed about this or that or not. They were interviewed cold once they agreed to be interviewed. Read the report, and address your comments accordingly. What both of you say above has no relevance to the issue whatsoever. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 The Roper Poll - David Jacobs Clarifies From: "David M. Jacobs" <djacobs@thunder.ocis.temple.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:21:30 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:49:18 -0500 Subject: The Roper Poll - David Jacobs Clarifies Hello Everyone, I thought I might peek into the List for a while to see how things are going. I am afraid that I probably will not be able to contribute much--especially in the coming months--but perhaps I can put in my two cents worth every once in a while. I am responding to Jim Deardorff and Dennis Stacy and others who were discussing the Roper Poll of 1991. I was not sure of who said what in the e-mail sent to me so I will be somewhat generic in my comments. The Roper Poll was an omnibus poll in which an actual person with clipboard in hand went to the homes of scientifically chosen randomly selected individuals. The questions asked about unusual experiences followed a series of questions about political opinions and other public matters. The poll did not include frivolous questions or questions about products or advertising. Thus, the seriousness of the questions about unusual experiences was inherent in the context of the other questions. As far as I am aware, the total number of people who were asked the questions were the ones who responded. I personally do not have knowledge of others who were asked and failed to respond, although I suppose that there must have been a few who remained silent during this part of the omnibus questioning. Roper informed us that there were three two-thousand person sweeps in the summer of 1991. I am not exactly sure why the number did not come out to exactly 6,000 people; perhaps these were the silent ones. Someone said that Hopkins and I "cooked" the numbers to make them more conservative. In a sense, this is correct. I have been quite open about this and I have written about it more extensively in my new book, THE THREAT, which will be in bookstores in a few weeks. In fact, if you read the Roper booklet carefully, we said that we accepted only those responses that answered positively to four or all five of Higher Indicator questions out of ten that were asked. Technically speaking, one could have answered affirmatively to eight of the ten questions and not made the final survey. By doing this, and thus being ultra-conservative, we were able to come up with a figure of 2% of the American population who had experiences consistent with the experiences that abductees reported having before they knew they were abductees. That is as close as we could get in trying to discern how many abductees were out there. All of this is in the Roper Poll booklet--none of it has been kept under our hats. I have talked about this at UFO conferences many times. Finally, I might add there there has been quite a lot of discussion about the questions asked in this poll. Most people are unaware that hundreds of people--abductees and nonabductees--were asked scores of questions over the previous five years that gave us a good indication of which questions were most effective to ask. Two of the questions were test questions to measure the urge to answer affirmatively, though falsely (the "Trondant" question), and one question helped us measure how accurate the poll would be (the UFO sighting question) because we had many other polls with accurate measurements of the answer. The Poll showed that less than 1% of the people answered the first affirmatively and none of their surveys were used the poll. The second showed us that only 7% of the people had seen a UFO--a very low number. Both these numbers showed us that this was going to be a conservative, accurate poll.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Arizona Boomerang Update From: SKvs <bradford@globalserve.net> [Sue Kovios] Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:02:14 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:45:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Arizona Boomerang Update >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:33 -0500 (EST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) >Subject: Arizona Boomerang Update >At the first Annual Skywatch International conference held in >Phoenix Arizona, held last November 15, 16. Bill Hamilton >presented a very interesting videotape of apparently two >"Boomerang" style objects sighted north of Phoenix. >Bill recieved a phone call just before he left for Italy last >week. A man was reporting he had videotaped two boomerangs back >in 1992.(snip) >The witness and his wife were out videotaping the moon on >November 27, 1992. They noticed a strange set of lights and >focused their camera on it. As they zoomed in a V-shaped >formation of lights is seen. With a large flashing object >following it. <snip> >Notice the spacing is similar to the 10:00 March event. >Here is a image attached file from the video. [NOV1BOM.jpg] First, I have an open mind and I've seen some pictures that definitely require some serious study, but when I looked at this picture, I decided I'd seen enough for myself. Black is a good background to disguise what's really there. When I converted it to a negative image, it looks like nothing more than a cut & paste to me. You might say being negative may reveal the truth :) Although I haven't seen the original video from where this came, I'm sorry but I can't buy this one as is. Sue Kovios No pienses que es imposible, confia en tu corazon, nada es lo que parece, el mundo es una ilusion. (translation: Don't think it's impossible, trust your heart, nothing is what it seems the world is an illusion.)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: DRudiak@aol.com [David Rudiak] Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:06 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:26:47 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:49:02 -0500 >Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:40:56 -0500 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >There seems to be compelling evidence that the unidentified >objects reported by Kenneth Arnold, may have been a flock of >American White Pelicans. "Compelling?" Hardly. All these bird explanations for the Arnold sighting are strictly for the birds unless they can substantially explain ALL major features of the report, not a few carefully selected ones. We could start with the specular appearance of the objects, described by Arnold like a mirror reflecting light, so bright that he found it almost blinding, and which attracted his attention to the objects to begin with. The sun was still fairly high in the sky toward Arnold's back in the west (time of sighting about 3:00 p.m. PDT). So it's very bright outside. We aren't dealing with birds flying around dusk or dawn reflecting sunlight and appearing to be relatively bright compared to the darkened sky. And Arnold reported them flashing brightly even against the very bright snowy backdrop of Mt. Rainier. How do "birds" do that? >Indigenous to Washington state, the American White Pelican >(Pelecan userythrorhynchos) is the largest bird in North America >and amongst the biggest in the world. A predominately white bird, >with black primaries and outer secondaries, it weighs up to 15 >kg, (33 lb) and it's massive wingspan can extend to 3 m (10 ft) or more. Pelicans are also very thick, stocky birds, yet Arnold reported that the objects when seen edge on looked like long dark lines against the snowy backdrop of Mt. Ranier. He estimated the length to thickness ratio at 20 to 1. Even if you play it VERY conservative here and assume he was an error here by as much as a factor of three, we still get length to thickness ratios of about 7 to 1. There seems to be no way in heaven to get the ratio down to something like 3 or 4 to 1, which it would have to be if Arnold had spotted pelicans in flight. And how could Arnold have been so confused between a long line and something which would look more like an oval viewed edge on? Even more serious are other geometrical shortcomings of the bird explanations which the bird theorists never seem to address. How far away would the bird be? The wings can't subtend more than about 3-4 minutes of arc, otherwise Arnold is going to rapidly deduce that they are birds with flapping wings. Yet they can't be too far away, or they are going to look like nothing but nondescript dots. Yet Arnold described some detail in the objects, which James Easton tries to integrate into his pelican theory. All of this ultimately puts distance constraints on how close and far away pelicans, or any other bird you can imagine, are going to be. Even with Easton's giant pelicans with ten foot wing spans, the furthest away they can be from Arnold is about 12,000 feet or he sees no detail. They're just dots, no matter what orientation they assume. And if the birds are smaller, or Arnold has less than perfect eyesight, then they are going to have to be closer than this, perhaps much closer, like in Kottmeyer's geese theory. This creates giant problems for bird theories, simply because the birds are going to be much too close to fit the sighting. Arnold is flying in their direction initially at nearly 2 miles per minute. He's going to be right on top of them in almost no time. As he approaches, they're going to loom rapidly in size, not stay at seemingly the same size like a truly distant object will. And the linear formation will also increase rapidly in angular size. Details of the birds will quickly emerge, especially the flapping wing motion. So in probably no more than half a minute, Arnold is going to know for sure that he's dealing with birds of one type or another. Let's assume to avoid this situation, Arnold very quickly turns right on a parallel course, or south, so he can open his pilot's window and observe them unimpeded by glass. Now we run into Bruce Maccabee's objection to the birds' theory. Arnold is flying at least twice as fast as the birds, so he's quickly going to outrun them. They will appear to move BACKWARD towards the NORTH. But Arnold reported them continuing to rapidly fly toward the SOUTH, or FRONTWARDS relative to Arnold, in the direction of Mt. Adams and disappearing in that vicinity. The details of their motion and the direction in which they ultimately disappear is thus ass backwards in Arnold's sighting than what would be expected from a sighting of birds. Birds are hardly a "compelling" hypothesis. Let's put some rough numbers on this to demonstrate how untenable the bird theory is. Suppose the giant pelicans are initially 10,000 feet away from Arnold or about 2 miles when he first spots them. From this distance he can't recognize them for what they are. Arnold sees them off to the left towards Mt. Ranier. From his eastward flight direction and angle with Ranier, this places the birds only about 1 miles north of his flight path. Let's also assume these are superfast pelicans who fly at 60 mph or 1 mile per minute. This means that if Arnold continues to fly eastward for only one more minute, he's going to run right into them as he intercepts their flight path. He's going to have to turn south on a parallel course, FAST, before he's gotten much closer. Let's say he finishes his turn in about 20 seconds, leaving him about 7500 feet away from their flight path. This is close enough that he can begin to make out some detail, but still not enough (we hope) that he can positively identify them as birds. Unfortunately for bird theorists, this quick turn to avoid identification also leaves the birds well in back of him. These very fast pelicans have only been able to fly about 1800 feet in those 20 seconds, so now they're about 30 degrees BEHIND Arnold. And as Arnold continues to fly south at about twice their speed, this situation just gets worse. So unless James Easton can somehow fit afterburners on his "pelicans" so that they can outfly Arnold and rapidly pass him heading south, the theory doesn't have even a bird leg to stand on. In fact, if you work it out, the "pelicans" are going to have to cover approximately 5 miles in Arnold's clocked 102 second period in which they flew the angular distance of about 80 degrees from Mt. Ranier in the North to Mt Adams in the South. In other words, they are going to have to be flying about 170 miles per hour. And this is the BEST case scenario. Even here, the "birds" aren't going to be much different in distance (about 9000 feet) when they disappear from what they were when Arnold first became aware of them (10,000 feet in the example). In other words, they should still be clearly visible to Arnold, yet they are not. They vanish in the distance, which suggests that the "birds" would have to fly much further in this period (and away from Arnold along his sighting line towards Mt. Adams), or much faster than 170 mph. These are really fast "birds" whatever the scenario. >The clue to possibly identifying the enigmatic objects remains in >Arnold's description of their flight characteristics. Often, >birds have a distinctive signature, the "jizz" as it's known, and >from this a bird's probable identity can be determined, even if >the sighting was inconclusive. >The appropriate people to consult were those familiar with bird >life in the Pacific Northwest and I asked some of them if they >would gave an informed opinion based on Arnold's descriptions. >Michael Price, suggested a "possible candidate species in the >area at that time of year (sporadically) whose color, size, >flight profile and proclivity for formation flight at sometimes >quite high altitude would even more produce *every* detail of the >phenomenon which Arnold observed: a flock of non - or failed - >breeder, southbound White Pelicans". Again with the absolutes. "Every detail?" Hardly. How about almost NO details of the phenomenon Arnold observed. >He added, "They'd have been large enough to visible for a good >distance, they fly in formation, and if the light were reflecting >just right off a large nearby glaciated peak, their comparatively >vast white underwing area would reflect a *ton* of light in >exactly the pattern described by Arnold". I've got to laugh here. Easton is arguing birds, meaning he's arguing they couldn't be anywhere near Mt. Ranier. Yet he's also trying to argue that they would reflect a "ton of light" off a "nearby glaciated peak." How's that again? Furthermore, Arnold was not flying underneath the birds, so where's the "vast white underwing area" reflecting light back in his face? Unless the birds are banking sharply left, he's simply not going to see it. >Richard Rowlett concurred: >"White Pelicans was the first thing that came to mind as I was >reflecting back on an ultra high-flying southbound formation I >saw a few years ago over the Barancas in western Durango, Mexico, >east of Mazatlan. It was a fluke that I detected them at all by >unaided eye. Even in the bins [binoculars], I was perplexed about >what they were for awhile, at first not even sure they were >birds. Strange lighting and angle it was. Note, this man is on the GROUND looking UP. Kenneth Arnold was up in the air and about the same level as the objects. Once again, when is Arnold going to see this "vast white underwing area" flashing blue-white light back at him from glaciers 20 miles away? >Don Baccus also commented to Michael Price: >"Michael, my first thought when I started reading your analysis >was white pelican. Several years ago, when training a good birder >in the finer details of splitting migrating hawks into species, >age, etc. at long distances at the beginning of the fall >migration season (i.e. training him to run our count), we saw >distant white "blurps" fading in and out of visibility many miles >north. "Many miles" means he can see no details, just a nondescript shape sporadically reflecting light back at him, little more than a dot. > This was at the Goshutes, i.e. on the Utah/Nevada border. >It was near sunset. It was obvious that the sun was reflecting on >their underwings. Again, someone on the GROUND, not up in the air. And the time of day was sunset, with a dimming sky to contrast against the reflected bird light. But Arnold's sighting was in bright daylight, when the sun was still high in the sky and off to the west. So unless these "pelicans" were frequently engaging in very sharp left banks exposing the underside of their wings to both the high westward sun and to Arnold, he simply wasn't going to see anything remotely like this. Further, if they were constantly banking like this, they're going to go nowhere fast. > They'd disappear momentarily and then reappear >in sequence. They were flying east-to-west and we first spotted >them somewhat to the northeast. I pegged them as white pelicans >almost immediately, as the whole cadence of the thing matched the >way white pelicans will soar in line (in this case - they'll also >'V' up), and rather than flap all at once, often will each begin >to flap as each reaches the position where the previous bird >began to flap. He recognizes the flapping and knows them for birds right away. Again, quite unlike the Arnold sighting. A far more serious objection, detailed below, is that based on Arnold's description of angular size of the formation, the birds would have been much to widely spread out to have engaged in this form of synchronized flapping. > Same with turning, etc. Of course, they'll also >do this in more of a synchronized formation, too, but I'm sure >you've all seen white pelicans flap and glide in the kind of >pattern I'm describing. >I couldn't think of any bird that would show such a cadence and >literally twinkle white while switching from soaring to >flapping". >Investigating this suggestion further, there are notable >correlations with Arnold's observations. But most of Arnold's observations DON'T correlate at all, totally overlooked by Easton and the other bird theorists. >Arnold claimed, "They flew like many times I have observed geese >to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were >linked together". >"...they numbered nine. They were flying diagonally in echelon >formation..." >In 'Birds of the World', by Oliver L. Austin Jr. p 42, he states: >"Pelicans fly in long lines, sometimes in a V formation, >sometimes abreast, sometimes in single file directly behind one >another. Most often they form a wide echelon, each bird slightly >behind and to one side of the next". In other words, like all birds flying in formation, they fly relatively close together to take advantage of the energy savings from formation flying. But compare this with the Arnold sightng. Arnold estimated the entire chain was about five miles long because they spanned the length of a five mile ridge in the Cascades about 25 miles away. That means the formation spanned a visual angle of .2 radians. Let's say the "pelicans" were 7500 feet away, so he can just make out some of the crude details (but again not too close, so that Arnold would immediately exclaim, "Aha, birds!"). If you scale the formation size to .2 radians, the nine "pelicans" are spread out over 1500 feet, or nearly 200 feet apart from one another. This is no longer a formation flight of closely spaced birds, but birds flying alone. Thus no synchronized flapping as described above, which would only take place for birds close together. So again, the Arnold sighting is completely inconsistent with the bird theory. >Arnold also mentions, "They were flying diagonally in echelon >formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first >four and last five". Discussing this with Michael, he agreed with >my assessment that this is standard behaviour in a flock and >wrote, "all line-abreast, diagonal and astern flocking birds >develop gaps and fill them in randomly". The gaps we are talking about, however, are on the order of 200 feet, not a few feet for a true bird formation. This also means the "pelicans" are going to have to do a lot more flapping to stay aloft rather than rely on the birds close in front to pull them along (the energy advantage of close formation flying). Arnold should see a lot of flapping if the birds are widely spread out like this. The California pelicans I see flying along the coast are flapping constantly. >What "startled" Arnold the most, he recalled, "was the fact that >I could not find any tails on them". Yes, this is all very fascinating, but how does Easton explain the other things in Arnold's sighting that don't even remotely fit? >Pelicans have "stumpy" tails, similar to the representation in >Arnold's later sketch showing one of the "objects". Arnold's >sketch now begins to make sense and could easily be based on a >distant viewing of a pelican in flight. The large, swept back >wings are self-explanatory and the darker top center is not >inconsistent with the fact that pelicans in flight "tuck" their >heads back. Which would mean that Arnold would have to be close enough to make out these details, but the fact that the wings were also flapping somehow totally escaped him. Furthermore, to see the "pelicans" as described above, they would to be very steeply banked relative to Arnold, who was up in the air at their level, not down on the ground looking up. A lot of banking and turning like this is not the description of birds flying very quickly from one place to another. Not that it really matters, because no matter how you massage the data, there is no way they could fly nearly fast enough to fit the sighting details. >As commented in 'Birds of the World': "In flight, pelicans carry >their heads well back on their shoulders, with the long beak >resting on the folded neck". Which shortens their apparent length, and worsens the length to thickness problem noted at the beginning. >A further, distinctive connection, is Arnold's claim, "They >didn't fly like any aircraft I had ever seen before. In the first >place their echelon formation was backward from that practiced by >our Air Force. The elevation of the first craft was greater than >that of the last". >This is a typical feature of American White Pelicans flying in >formation. Which is interesting, but doesn't exactly fix the other fatal flaws in the bird theories. >Consider also his statements that: >"I observed the objects' outlines plainly as they flipped and >flashed against the snow and also against the sky". >"They fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and >emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their >surfaces". Again, how exactly do you get "blue-white flashes" off of pelicans flying at approximately eye level with the sun high in the sky and nowhere near a glaciated ice field? On the other hand, the "blue white light WOULD be very consistent with distant objects flying right past Ranier where they could pick up blue-white light reflected off the ice. >In 'The Birds', by Roger T. Peterson (Time-Life International), >he writes: >"Much the simplest form of flight, certainly much less >complicated than flapping or hovering, is gliding flight". >"Swallows employ gliding flight, - several strong wing strokes >and a glide. So do pelicans travelling in formation...". >"Gliding saves energy, but gravity and air conditions determine >how far a bird can skim before it must flap again". Unfortunately, the "pelicans" would have been much too widely spaced (according to Arnold's description of the angular width of the formation), to have taken advantage of the energy-savings in formation flying. They would be flapping a lot, making them that much easier to recognize as birds. >The parallel between Arnold's objects in echelon which "flipped >and flashed", "fluttered and sailed", and a formation of pelicans >in echelon "beating and gliding", as 'Birds of the World' >describes their flight, seems apparent. Again very interesting, but if Arnold is close enough to see detail which Easton ascribes to pelican anatomy (seen from the top or bottom, not from the side), he's also going to be close enough to see flapping and will very clearly see the pelican wings delineated from the body. >As Don Baccus remarked, "I couldn't think of any bird that would >show such a cadence and literally twinkle white while switching >from soaring to flapping". >Michael Price also confirmed, "Assuming he was looking at birds, >the flipflop appearance of these birds would be visible whether >higher, same altitude, or lower as the sun might be reflecting >strongly and directly off white upper and/or underwing >surfaces". >From the side, Arnold isn't going to see much of an underside to anything. >There is some relevant information on a web site at: ><A HREF=http://www.sazoo-aq.org/pelicans.htm>http://www.sazoo- aq.org/pelicans.htm</A >Which includes the affirmation: "When flying, they seem to >'sparkle' as the light plays off of their white and black >feathers". "Sparkle" or is it really more like "flickering?" And remember, Arnold first noticed the specular reflection against the the very bright snowy backdrop of Rainier. I seriously doubt a flapping white bird against a bright background like this is going to "sparkle." >I'm sure these aspects can be quantified even further. Try quantifying further how you can fix the seemingly irreparable flaws in flight speed, flight direction, spread out formation, etc., etc. >Kenneth Arnold was perhaps after all on the right track when he >stated: >"They flew in a definite formation but erratically. As I >described them at the time their flight was like speed boats on >rough water or similar to the tail of a Chinese kite that I once >saw blowing in the wind. Or maybe it would be best to describe >their flight characteristics as very similar to a formation of >geese, in a rather diagonal chain-like line, as if they were >linked together". >Very similar to a formation of geese, but based on the above >evidence, remarkably similar to a formation of pelicans, >specifically American White Pelicans. >If that should be the answer and Arnold mistakenly concluded the >objects must be distant aeroplanes, it plays havoc with his >estimated calculations. But if they're "birds" it plays total havoc with the rest of Arnold's observations. Just tell us how Arnold can fly parallel to the "birds" yet have them outfly his plane and disappear to the south. >I obviously intent to come back to these and address Bruce, Don, >Mark and Michael's recent comments. It may be necessary to do so >with a new perspective. >These are the somewhat unexpected results of my enquiries and >further research. We can only consider the implications suggested >by them and whether this does lean heavily towards the most >likely explanation. Yes, please do consider ALL the implications of a bird theory, then get back to us. Then tell us if birds "lean heavily towards the most likely explanation." David Rudiak
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Col Corso Lawsuit From: Ktperehwon@aol.com [Karl T. Pflock] Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:19:19 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:35:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Col Corso Lawsuit >From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:27:18 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: Col Corso Lawsuit >You mean Corso et al were trying to milk the money wagon, then >because of their antics, Simon & Schuster et al is not going to >publish any more "future books" such as the one supposedy in the >works about the NAZI time machine, and a book covering from 1950 >to 1962 which allegedly details Corso's "personal" contact with >an alien at or near White Sands/Ft Bliss area. Not to mention THE DAY AFTER DALLAS: INSIDE THE WARREN COMMISSION, which Corso's co-author Birnes has been touting as their next book.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:40:34 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:53:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: fergus@ukraine.corp.mot.com [George Fergus] >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:41:28 -0600 (CST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:01:09 -0800 >> From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >> The mirror like flashes seem to rule out birds. >> However, let's assume geese. How fast can the fly? 60 mph? >> That is 1 mile/minute. Arnold was flying approximately >> penpendicular to the UFOs flight path. He timed the UFOs for >> about 2 minutes. so the flight of geese could have been about 2 >> miles in that. What about tail winds? Arnold comments on the >> great flying conditions. If he had cross-winds, they were not so >> great. >> So the length of the base line distance is two miles and Arnold >> is approaching the flight path at a 90 degree angle. For >> simplicity, put Arnold on the prependicular bisector of that the >> 2 mile baseline. The objects swept through around 80 degrees of >> angular displacement in that two minutes. Well, plotting >> Arnold's approximate position on a map of Washington state shows >> about that angle between the two land marks he cites. Again for >> simplicity's sake say that the angular displacement was 90 >> degrees. Okay, so Arnold is now one mile from the flight path. >> If we are dealing with geese, he should have crossed the flight >> path during his observation. >> Okay, Arnold and the geese were not standing still which >> influences the how much of the angle the geese swept through. >> The closer he gots to the geese's flight path the greater the >> angle seems. Still he should have crossed their flight path. >> The actual displacement of the geese is only two miles. The >> angular displacement argues that Arnold must be very close to >> their flight path. He should either recognized geese or cross >> their path. Now if the distance the objects traveled in two >> minutes is much greater than geese can fly, then you can start >> moving the the objects much farther away from Arnold. Geese >> don't seem to work. >> Well, maybe, despite the comments about the flight conditions, >> they did have a huge tail wind, so the baseline was much longer. >> Okay, fine. However, once Arnold turns to follow the objects he >> also has the advantage of the tail wind so he should, if they >> were geese, be able to see he was overhauling them. Not geese, >> again. >Also, wouldn't birds in June usually be flying back north, not >flying south? >But since this thread refuses to die I'll add my 2 cents of wild >speculation: >Arnold is annoyed by a strange flash and tries to see where it >came from. He turns the plane, looking, until he spots something >ahead that looks like a group of planes. His heading is now >north rather than east. He sees that the objects are moving to >his right, and decides to see how fast they are going, not >realizing that it is actually a flock of birds flying north and >their apparent southward motion against the distant mountains is >simply due to his own airspeed. He determines that these planes >are moving incredibly fast, and decides to get a better look by >turning the plane completely around so that it is now heading >south in the direction he thinks they are flying, and he opens >his left window. However, since he is now actually heading in >the opposite direction from the birds, he passes them and after >a brief closeup they quickly disappear from view. But he could >definitely discern that they had no tails, since from his point >of view they would have been flying backwards. He then resumes >his eastward journey. >-George Fergus Come on Folks. Do you actually understand how assanine you people sound? You would pull at any straw to prevent yoursleves from accepting the possibility that what Arnold reported was WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAW! You people are pathetic. I give up on the whole bunch of you... Oh, by the way....Please don't insult me by responding in your "unabated logic." Sheesh..... Mike.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Strange Dreams From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:33:43 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:02:35 -0500 Subject: Strange Dreams List members, I've had a series of really strange dreams. They're almost like instructional videos. I'm not sure of the setting but I'm either watching a large screen TV or working on a computer. Probably the latter since it is an interactive system. There is an instructor; however, I never see him. His messages are either aural or telepathic. It's very real and very technical; but, I am not told the purpose. The first one was about time. More precisely, it was about time tampering. The end result was a three step process whereby I could recognize an event which was the result of someone or something moving in time to alter reality. I don't consciously remember the details; but, it was a three step process and the first step was written in red. <G> All I remember was it was intuitively obvious once I had seen it. I have the feeling that I remember it on some level. The last dream was about dimension trapping. I can't really explain that phrase other than being locked in a dimension whereby I could turn 90 degrees and still be facing the same way. The implication was that there was a way to enter other dimensions beyond our three; but, we were intentionally trapped in our three. Again it was very detailed and I'm sure I remember it all on some level. These are absolutely the most bizarre dreams I have ever had. (except ET ones. <G>) I'm very curious if anyone else has been experiencing this in the past few days. Or, are these the first stages of dementia? Terry
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Reseacher Mark Rodeghier to discuss Abductions From: "Yvonne Hedenland" <VONNI_H@classic.msn.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 97 20:31:09 UT Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:04:58 -0500 Subject: Reseacher Mark Rodeghier to discuss Abductions Ufologist Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS joins MSN UFO Forum this Tuesday November 25, 6pm, Pacific time for an important review of the research his organization is doing on Abductions. This chat is available at http://forums.msn.com/UFO The Briefing Room chat can also be accessed by any IRC client. The chat server name is publicchat.msn.com and the room or channel name is #briefing.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Farmer shoots at UFO in 1972 From: jared@valuserve.com (Andromeda.net- Anderson, Jared) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:23:26 -0700 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:19:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Farmer shoots at UFO in 1972 This report came from the Sunday Independant which is a South African news source. Source: http://164.88.55.123/Archives/June97toJuly97/9707/8/ufop%7F.html By David Macgregor Grizzled Eastern Cape livestock farmer Bennie Smit still has the .303 rifle he used 25 years ago to fire 10 shots at an unidentified flying object that hovered over his farm and landed on it. But, after a quarter century of being the butt of vicious jokes and ridicule, Smit is reluctant to say conclusively that it was indeed an alien craft that landed amid thorn trees behind his dam. An acclaimed hunter in the rugged town of Fort Beaufort, Smit still shakes his head in disbelief when he recounts how the bullets bounced off the barrel-shaped ball of fire on a mild winter's morning in 1972. After a few "snorts" at the recently re-named UFO Bar in the town's hotel, the 67-year-old says he is convinced the brightly glowing UFO was a military spy craft that broke down over his farm. "Certain people, including professors and scientists, have ridiculed me over the years. I still don't believe in aliens and am sceptical they even exist - despite what I saw. It gave me goosebumps." But, a few gulps of red wine later, a more relaxed Smit says the military covered up the UFO incident. "I wanted to catch the UFO," he says, "and then we would have had real answers. It was on my farm for a week but I failed. If I was the only one that saw it, I would have been convinced I was either mad or drunk. At least five us saw it that Monday morning and we couldn't all have been mad." For Smit, June 27 1972 began like any other morning. He went into the bush to do some work and was surprised to see that the team of labourers had not arrived. "I saw smoke at another camp and decided they had confused my instructions and had gone to the wrong place ... and had made a fire to keep warm." Smit arrived at the camp and found his workers cowering in a shed and muttering about something in the bush. "When I saw it, my whole body got goosebumps. I sprinted home and got my .303 and told someone to call the police. I knew I was safe if I had my gun." Retired Fort Beaufort police station commander Pieter van Rensburg recalls how sceptical he was when Sergeant Piet Kitching burst into his office and said a UFO was on a farm outside town. "After the third time I decided to go to the farm with Piet and check on what was happening," Van Rensburg says. The policemen were greeted by a labourer and then they heard shots. Smit emerged from the thick bush, sweating profusely. "Bennie's first words were that he thought the UFO could be from outer space. I then joked that the Martians had come to steal his sheep. Then I saw it coming out of the trees and I did not want to believe my eyes." Smit gave his .303 to Kitching who fired at the craft to no avail. The trio then decided to cut a reed and tie a handkerchief on to the end of it so that one person could go into the thick bush while the others stood on a hill to guide him. "I was just as scared as the others and was relieved when Bennie decided to go into the bush with the stick," Van Rensburg says. Smit got within 15m of the craft before it flew off. Sitting in his retirement home in Port Alfred, Van Rensburg says he and Kitching were severely reprimanded after his superiors heard the frightened trio had fired at the craft. "All they really wanted to know was what Act we had used to decide to fire at the craft and one superior was not amused when I joked, 'the Stock Theft Act'. We were scared and had to decide in a split second what was best. If we had brought it down, and there were aliens inside, then we would have all been heroes." Shortly after the sighting, an army delegation from Grahamstown arrived at the farm and sealed it off for almost two days. Hordes of curious onlookers with picnic baskets were turned away from the farm but used a side road to get to Fort Fordyce, which borders the farm, and watched the metre-long craft from there. Smit and Van Rensburg both suspect there was a military cover-up but, to this day, still have no answers as to what the strange craft really was. "I was told to take samples and send them to Pretoria even though I did not have a clue as to what to do," Van Rensburg says. He dug out sods where the craft landed and offered to accompany the samples to Pretoria. The request was refused and he was told to send the samples by train. Apparently, the samples were lost before they got to Pretoria. A senior Port Elizabeth military officer confirmed this week that the samples never reached Pretoria. Major Daniel Muller, a spokesman for the Grahamstown military base, said last week that all officers at the 1972 scene had retired and all files had been destroyed. Van Rensburg says: "There were nine marks in the clay and the three-legged craft looked like it had landed there three times. "The marks were very deep - at least twice the depth my heeled shoes made. I weighed 90kg and hardly made a mark." The issue has still been not been resolved for Van Rensburg. "I really don't know what it was. If a scientist came tomorrow with proof and said it was aliens I would agree," he says. "If they said it wasn't, I would also agree. I still think the marks were not made by a human being." The UFO left the valley one week later. As the craft flew over the veld, a concrete reservoir "exploded", with chunks of concrete being thrown up to 25m away. Twenty five years later, the huge pieces still lie scattered in the bush. "Never in my life have I seen a reservoir broken like that ... it was very strange," is all Smit can say. The two men have shunned publicity over the years and have turned down requests to appear on American talk shows - all expenses paid. The decision to rename the watering hole at the Savoy Hotel (which Smit owns) the UFO Bar was made while Smit was away in France. He allowed the name change only after locals threatened a boycott. The sighting came 25 years after a UFO apparently crashed near an air force base outside Roswell, New Mexico. But there have also been several other UFO sightings over the years in the Eastern Cape. In November 1972, strange circular holes were found in a tennis court at a primary school in Rosmead. In the same year, Nasa dispatched a team to look for debris at Groendal where a strange craft had been spotted by farmer Hugo Ferreira. On May 24 1978, a glowing UFO that constantly changed colour was seen over Colesberg. In January 1979, scores of Hanover residents reported seeing strange lights that changed colour hovering over the town. - Eastern Cape News All Material =A9 copyright Independent Newspapers 1997
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Military Testing "Flying Saucer" In Georgia From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:46:53 +0200 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:29:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Military Testing "Flying Saucer" In Georgia >From the Augusta Chronicle (Georgia) at http://augustachronicle.com/stories/103197/tech_ufo.html Military testing flying saucer in Georgia Web posted Oct. 30 at 09:58 PM Associated Press FORT BENNING, Ga. -- The truth may be out there for UFO conspiracy buffs, but here military officials admit flying saucers have taken over the skies. The U.S. Army has been test-flying the CYPHER Unmanned Aerial Vehicle - a doughnut-shaped aircraft - for the past six years at the military post just outside of Columbus. CYPHER uses two sets of rotating blades that are mounted in the aircraft's center to propel the machine. Hence, giving the aircraft its whirring sound and UFO look. The aircraft's design allows it to hover over an area for as long as the fuel lasts. That capability distinguishes it from other unmanned aircraft currently being tested, said Mike Barnes, project director at the military post. CYPHER, which earned its name because of its ability to decode underground structures and secret tunnels, was created by Sikorsky Aircraft Inc. in Los Angeles. "The uses are absolutely endless,'' said test pilot Pvt. Brent Satterfield of Fort McClellan, Ala. "If we had a hostage situation, we could use an infrared camera (in the CYPHER) to find out where everyone is in the house, where the exits are, and then we can plan out a better plan of attack.'' The aircraft could also be used to drop off supplies to soldiers or disburse unruly crowds without subjecting pilots to danger, Barnes said. "We take these technologies and put them in the hands of soldiers and see if they can help them perform their mission,'' he said. But Barnes and military officials admit, it's the CYPHER's covert capabilities that make it even more appealing. Inside the CYPHER, a video camera and a navigation computer - similar to those used in cruise missiles - would allow the military to survey enemy territory and areas attacked by poison gas or other hazardous bombs. Sikorsky, which also manufactured the UH-1 Huey and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, also made room for a pilot onboard the CYPHER. During a test flight Tuesday, Spc. Jacob Terrell, 21, flew the CYPHER over a crowd of cardboard dummies and hovered 150 feet above the ground before releasing canisters of smoke - simulating tear gas. "It was just like a computer game. It's extremely easy to fly,'' Terrell said. If Army officials in Washington approve of the aircraft, CYPHER engineers say they can build the aircraft in a variety of sizes - from a 40-pound model that can be carried in a backpack to the size of a cargo helicopter. A price tag has not yet been set and officials would not comment on the price of the prototype. While military officials and Columbus police say they have yet to receive reports of UFO sightings when the CYPHER is tested, engineers and military officials laugh at theories fueled by the Internet and television shows, such as Fox's ``X-Files,'' that such technology is alien in origin. All Contents =A9Copyright The Augusta Chronicle Comments or questions? Contact the webmasters @ugusta.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:47:11 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:53:32 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:53:24 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> I don't like the terms "ET" or "alien", because both imply an origin >> somewhere other than Earth. Ultra Terrestrial comes close to being >> the right word, but I think we need a new one. >"Ultraterrestrial" comes nowhere near to being the >right word. It's John Keel's synonyms for "demon." >Ufology ought not to be an exercise in medieval >supernaturalism or occultism. I see nothing wrong >with the idea that UFOs originate "somewhere other >than Earth" (certainly a less extraordinary hypothesis >than one which argues the opposite [e.g., for the >hollow earth, the earth's etheric analog, or whatever]), >but I do feel that until we know more, we should >simply call UFO beings "entities" or "humanoids." >Phrases like "ET" should be left to purely theoretical >discussions. >Jerry Clark Jerry, Just because John Keel uses Ultraterrestrial as a synonym for demon, does not mean that Ufology has to connect to medieval mythology or occultism. Medieval mythology and occultism are just different attempts at understanding phenomena which we still do not understand today. I'm not saying that UFOs do not originate "somewhere other than Earth", but that we have no evidence of their origin whatsoever, and that we should not jump to the ET conclusion. I do think that the similarities of many of these humanoids to us is too high for coincidence, and that there is a relationship between them and us. Perhaps a distant one, but real nevertheless. I think that some, if not all, of them evolved right here on this planet, and have coexisted with us for millennia. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: natural.state@erols.com Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:58:28 -0600 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:55:23 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:08:07 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >From: natural.state@erols.com [Melanie Mecca] > >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:36:35 -0600 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > You mean to be shinin' on everyone who holds this view > >by asserting that they are weak-minded cowards of inferior > >processing power? > No, I don't think everyone who believes the ETH is wimpy, weak > minded, lily livered coward, etc. Many are quite gifted > intellectually. > However, there are those, and in large numbers, who want to > turn belief in UFOs into a new religion. Just listen to them > speak at UFO conferences, and you hear echos of a Southern > Baptist preacher. And look at their wide-eyed followers. They > are no different from moonies, or follower of Charles Manson, in > my opinion. They want to "BELIEVE" and follow. They want > someone else to do their thinking for them and reassure them > that when the ship hits the sand they will be carried away to > safety in gently glowing space ships. But your words indicated that everyone who thought the ETH was a good explanation for UFOs, encounters, etc. was ingenuous in that way - "I'm Prayin' to the Aliens" - "Save me, Space Brothers." It was a sweeping brush you used to paint that picture - I took exception to that. For example, fairies, demons, etc., referring to some other people's non-ETH views, don't seem to need structured craft to get about - neither do beings of light. If beings are solely multi-dimensional, why would they bother? Seems to me that's the biggest fallacy in the non-ETH view - not that it can't be true, but that it doesn't make much sense. > Well I don't buy into that. I think we need to wipe the sleep > from our eyes and stop creating new mythology. We need to > admit that we don't know who/what we are dealing with, don't > know their/it's agenda, and have no assurances that the > phenomenon is benevolent. I agree with that statement completely - we don't know their agenda, and we shouldn't assume that their (over-generalizing - there certainly seems to be more than one group running around) motives are benevolent. > >And, my pet peeve, are you also perhaps confusing (pick a term) > >multi-dimensional demonstrations with the point of origin of a > >species? Assessing cloaking abilities, shape-shifting, walking > >through doors etc. through a narrow-minded perspective, as if > >possession of those powers de facto proved that the origin of > >those beings could not possibly be through evolution in bodies > >on a life-bearing world? Your assertions seem to spring from a > >limited inner horizon, IMHO. > Where in the world did I say anything like that???????????? That was your implication, in my reading of your post. > I have not said that what we are dealing with are not extraterrestrial > biological entities. I have said that there is no reason to > limit ourselves to this one possibility when there are many > others, and we have no solid evidence to point toward or rule > out any of them. Maybe they are EBEs,and the ETH is certainly > one hypothesis to explain what is going on. But it is not the > only one, and I see no reason to limit our discussions to its > confines. The burr under my saddle stems from the fact that I'd like these lists to be places where we can try to piece together significance, motives, implications for humanity and the earth - work towards the MEANING of all this. Personally, I get tired of listening to complete sceptics arguing that the visitors are not here, that no one has ever been abducted, and so on. It would be lovely, although I now believe way too optimistic, to think we could accept certain premises and delve into the why, wherefore, and wither. Time's a-wastin', life is short, discernment is difficult, running in place is exhausting. Be nice to think we could help each other to divine the purpose and meaning of all this. Melanie Mecca
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts! From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:52:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:14:16 -0500 Subject: Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts! >From: XianneKei@aol.com [Rebecca Keith] >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:33:09 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: The Roper Report: Some Facts! >Of course, Dennis has already stated that the Roper Poll was >conducted in person but now Bob Shell has confused matters some. >Hope this helps straighten things out. > >Rebecca Rebecca, Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! I was just answering a question asked by Jim with some useful factual information. If this is confusing, I'm surprised. Bob P.S.: BTW, whereya been?? Missed ya.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:59:06 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:15:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:30:14 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out >how high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and >speed. >If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) >nearly at horizon level to him, then they would have been >essentially at his level. >And, I suppose Arnold could see the white bodies but not the >bills/beaks. >HAHAHAHA Bruce, I don't know about Alaskan white pelicans, but I have spent time watching Florida brown pelicans. They are never far from water, and, at least in my observations, don't fly very high. Also they skim for short periods of time, and then flap for a while, and then skim again. I don't recall Arnold mentioning any flapping. And wasn't there an independent observer on the ground who watched as they flew overhead, and mentioned that they drove his compass crazy?? Whadda we got, giant, metallic, highly magnetic pelicans???? Time to send for Mulder and Scully! Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:02:00 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:16:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:02:54 -0600 (CST) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Jim & Bob: >I'm going to ask the both of you to get it together one last >time. The Roper organization did not send out more requests than >they received responses to. They interviewed 6000 people, period. >The responses they published are from those they interviewed, not >from 10, 20, 50 or 60 per cent of the respondents to some >mythical questionnaire. Now what is it about this that either of >you don't understand? >Let me repeat -- in slow motion -- the Roper organization >interviewed 6000 people. They were not preselected as to whether >they wanted to be interiviewed about this or that or not. They >were interviewed cold once they agreed to be interviewed. >Read the report, and address your comments accordingly. What both >of you say above has no relevance to the issue whatsoever. >Dennis Duh, whazzat again, Dennis??? Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:09:43 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:17:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: DRudiak@aol.com [David Rudiak] >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:06 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com >>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:49:02 -0500 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:40:56 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>There seems to be compelling evidence that the unidentified >>objects reported by Kenneth Arnold, may have been a flock of >>American White Pelicans. >"Compelling?" Hardly. All these bird explanations for the Arnold >sighting are strictly for the birds unless they can substantially >explain ALL major features of the report, not a few carefully selected ones. Actually, what Arnold saw was a flock of confused Pterosaurs. These Pterosaurs, Quetzylcoatylus northropi specifically, had been time warped from the late Cretaceous by the impending crash at Roswell. Unknown to today's paleontologists, these pterosaurs were covered in iridescent metallic fur, which made them look like metal UFOs to Arnold. Hey, it makes as much sense as metallic pellicans!! Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: "S. Baldwin" <sblee@stc.net> [Susan Baldwin] Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:17:55 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:26:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all >the headlights on >Why are these things mostly observed over high >population density areas, and not small to medium >settlements They are observed by MORE people over a high population area but I would not say *mostly observed*. Check out http://www.isur.com case databases. Its chock full of sightings here in Georgia (US) over areas other than very populated Atlanta. You ask some excellent questions in the rest of your posting, I have wondered about those myself. Lights on the vehicles might prevent small planes from flying into them perhaps? Susan B.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 23 N.Y.Post, 11/23: "Clinton wanted UFO probe: Hubbell book" From: CloudRider@aol.com Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:29:00 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:08:03 -0800 Subject: N.Y.Post, 11/23: "Clinton wanted UFO probe: Hubbell book" "Clinton's secret UFO fascination: revealed in new book by close friend." (Page 12)...so reads front page blurb of N.Y. City's "real" newspaper this Sunday morning. "UFOlogists," listen up! - - - - + See: <http://nypostonline.com/> - - - - + New York Post, Sunday, Nov. 23, 1997 (Page 12)...excerpted: "Bill wanted UFO probe: Hubbell book" by Deborah Orin Washington Bureau Chief President Clinton was intrigued by UFOs and wanted to know if they really existed, says a new book the his golfing pal, disgraced Justice Department official Webb Hubbell. Hubbell says finding out about UFOs was one of the top priorities Clinton gave him in sending him over to a job as one of Attorney General Janet Reno's top deputies. "'Webb,' (Clinton) had said, ' if I put you over at Justice I want you to find the answers to two questions for me,'" Hubbell recounts. "'One, who killed JFK. And two, are there UFOs.' "Clinton was dead serious. I had looked into both, but wasn't satisfied with the answers I was getting," Hubbell adds. Hubbell describes his failure to find out about JFK and UFOs as a big regret when he had to resign as associate attorney general and pleaded guilty to bilking law clients of $482,000. Whitewater figure Jim McDougal has said Hubbell -- who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton and former White House lawyer Vincent Foster at Little Rock's Rose law firm -- "knows where the bodies are buried" on the land deal, but he stays pretty closed-mouth in the book, "Friends In High Places." The book touched off a courtroom battle when Whitewater counsel Ken Starr tried to subpoena early drafts. Starr backed off, and in any case Hubbell's book insists he can't remember much. But Hubbell does toss out a tantalizing aside in examining why Bill Clinton decided against running for president in 1988: a remark from Hillary that, "We've got to straighten up Whitewater." The book portrays Hillary Clinton as an ambitious woman who dreamed of succeeding her husband as Arkansas governor and paints Bill Clinton as someone unable to face his wife on whether she should use his last name or hers. (End excerpt...) - - - - + ADDITONAL "heads-ups": 1. Look for supermarket tabloids to sensationalize Hubbell's writings about "UFOs," as high-level "disconnection" effort by Rockefeller's minions, and Prince Hans Adam of Liechtenstein's intelligence community cronies in the U. S. A., continues to try and separate the "believer billionaires" from "Roswell" scams. 2. Hillary indirectly figures in another new book soon to hit the airwaves, but already should be in a bookstore near you. It is: "The Healing of America," by Marianne Williamson, who has decided that our nation might be worth saving, even if it was founded by "dead white men," but only if American values can be laundered through the "Course in Miracles" and the New Age. Another from the Simon & Schuster "secret school" of books including John Mack's "Abduction," Michael Drosnin's "The God Code," Philip Corso's "The Day After Roswell," Bill Broad's "The Universe Below," and profitable others in the 20-year "Global Mind Change" initiative aiming to reshape our planetary civics into a post-Cold War, post-modern, Joseph Campbellian cosmic culture that puts God back into the mythology box and replaces morality with the ethics-free techno-fascism favored by the same "old white guys" and energy moguls who PAY for all of the New Age and "UFOlogical" Space-Nazi belief systems, Ms. Williamson's "The Healing of America" even includes the texts of our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the U. S., so her readers can readily see where our imperfections as a democratic republic lie, all-the-better to remake America in the image of "the Goddess," and all of her acolytes here now. Included in that gaggle of geese we see Oprah listed, along with Yale "neo-feminist" Naomi Wolf and a list of "Williamson groupies" and fem-wiccan philosophers, most notably former Hillary Clinton "shaman" Jean Houston, to whom Williamson gives her highest praise and gratitude. The overlap between the "peacenik-aliens-are-here-to-reshape-Earth" UFO-nots and this particular cadre of anti-American, globalist philosophers is more than coincidental, and needs no "conspiratorial" spin to be evident to the discerning reader. Don't "look under the bed." Just read WHAT this woman is saying, as it ties into the other chaff coming out of Simon & Schuster...whose editor in chief is a Williamson & Oprah groupie, using her power to alter reality. This group ranges from The New York Times to Time-Warner (home of Cowboy Ted Turner and "Hanoi-Jane" Fonda, who just flew off to their Argentine ranch after hosting an "affair" in the Big Apple for the Native American Museum in Washington), to New York "glitterati illiterati" like ex-Apple-ite Whitley Strieber, "UFOlogical" hypno-priest Budd Hopkins and others of the Ivy League-Establishment set promoting cultural redesign. 3. Watch out for Clinton to be "destabilized" because of the stress, when some of his opponents (who appear to be "friends" like the Rockefellers and Establishmentarians, like Elliot Richardson and Bob Bennett...key players on Clinton's legal defense fund, in place to keep the "dirt" of the sex-capades off the cuffs of the "Big Boys" and their cartel shenanigans...by an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment...which regulates when a President of the U. S. can be declared "unfit" for office, citing physical or mental incapacitation. A team of "reputable" M.D.s and shrinks have been studying just such a scenario, under the aegis of the Jimmy Carter Center, with the study going on at the Bowman-Gray Medical Center over in Winston-Salem, N. C. 4. Also, just as an aside, families of French victims of TWA Flight 800 are upset with American investigators, according to news reports out of Franch this morning. Not disputing the assertion that "mechanical failure" contributed to the crash, the French families' organization is critical of the delay by US officials in coming to that conclusion, which the French say is partially because the U.S. wanted to protect aircraft maker Boeing while its large order from China (PRC) was in process. (Source: NY Post and other news publications, of 11/23/97.) - - - - +
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 45 From: Masinaigan@aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:53:47 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:57:58 -0500 Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 45 --------------------- UFO ROUNDUP Volume 2, Number 45 November 23, 1997 Editor: Joseph Trainor STRANGE LIGHTS SEEN ALL OVER WASHINGTON STATE Reports continue to pour in concerning the mysterious "Seattle Lights" that were seen after 9 p.m. in Washington state on Friday, November 14, 1997. Dale Goudie of the UFO Reporting and Information Service hotline reported receiving 44 calls from witnesses that evening. In Gig Harbor, Wash. (population 2429), a small town on Puget Sound seven miles (11 kilometers) north of Tacoma, June Akiyama and her friend Leslye Stewart were driving north on Highway 16 "when they saw bright lights in the sky. They and other motorists pulled off the road to watch." "It looked like a huge bottle rocket moving slowly across the sky," Akiyama said. In Tacoma, Wash. (population 176,664), a Police Department spokesman said, "We've had reports from Roy to Brown's Point." Tom Dyer of Lakewood "said he was in his car at the intersection of Gravelly Lake Drive SW and Washington Boulevard SW a little after 9 p.m. when his son spotted multicolored lights in the sky. When Dyer looked up, he saw three or four rows of lights... 'It looked like an oceangoing cruise ship,' he said." In Centralia, Wash. (population 10,809), a city on Interstate Highway 5 approximately 81 miles (130 kilometers) south of Seattle, "Frank Frazee said he and his family saw the lights moving across the sky. 'It looked like a falling star,' said Frazee's daughter, Janessa, 18, 'It was fire-colored, orange-reddish with a head that was white. It was cool.'" In Aberdeen, Wash. (population 18,739), a port city on Grays Harbor 108 miles (173 kilometers) southwest of Seattle, a witness spotted the lights at 9:07 p.m. "I moved to an exterior landing that just happened to be facing north," he said. "and couldn't believe what I saw. A large group of mixed-size objects, red-orange in color, were traversing the sky from west to east approximately 30 degrees above the horizon. Most of the smaller objects appeared to be 'spark like' in appearance...Two red-orange objects longer than the rest appeared to lead the smaller objects." Callers to KXRO Radio in Aberdeen reported "one entire streak of light." In Wenatchee, Wash. (population 17,257), a town on the Columbia River 147 miles (235 kilometers) east of Seattle, Mary S. reported, "I thought at first I was seeing a reflection of traffic (in the window). I saw (four of them) they were not moving that fast, and there was a definite formation. I told my husband to look, and he and my son ran out in the parking lot, just in time to see them disappear over the plateau, moving east. It is pretty ridiculous to expect anyone who saw it to believe it was ANYTHING that plunged into the Pacific. I could see them passing between me and the hills. I could see that the objects were between me and the towers. They were below the mountain top, in the valley. It was no optical illusion, and I had plenty of time to watch it." (See the News-Tribune of Tacoma, Wash. for November 15, 1997. Also, CNI News volume 3, number 18, part 1. Many thanks to Mike Lindemann for letting us quote from CNI News.) JUDGE SENDS JOHN FORD TO N.Y. MENTAL HOSPITAL A Suffolk County Court judge ordered ufologist John Ford, president of the Long Island UFO Network (LIUFON) to be sent to an upstate New York mental hospital on Thursday, November 13, 1997. Ford, 49, was arrested June 15, 1996 by police of Suffolk County, Long Island, "on charges that he was seeking to kill three officials by putting radium in their cars and lacing their toothpaste with radioactive material." The grand jury indicted Ford on charges of conspiracy and possession of radioactive materials. Ford has been held in jail without bail bond for the past seventeen months. "Three psychiatrists and a psychologist, two hired by District Attorney James M. Catterson Jr.'s office, examined John Ford and all four concluded that the former court officer (the defendant--J.T.) isn't competent to stand trial." "In one report, Robert H. Berger, director of Forensic Psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital Center (in New York City-- J.T.), said that while Ford seemed to understand his legal predicament, he thinks 'the criminal case against him is in reality an intelligence operation being run by the CIA together with the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.'" "Ford, 49, of Bellport (N.Y.) is charged with conspiring to kill Suffolk Couty Republican chairman John Powell, legislator Fred Towle (R-Shirley) and Brookhaven public safety director Anthony Gazzola by putting radium in their cars and toothpaste." "Ford is expected to be transferred from the Suffolk County jail in Riverhead to the upstate Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center in New Hampton (N.Y.) next week. He will return to Suffolk to face the criminal charges if doctors there determine he is competent to stand trial." "Ford's lawyer, John Rouse, has maintained that the only reason Catterson brought charges against Ford for the plot (was) that prominent Republicans were the target. 'If the threats were against you or I, John (Ford) would be walking the streets like an average citizen,' Rouse said." Ford and LIUFON had conducted an ongoing investigation of doings at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island since a UFO incident near the lab back in 1994. Ford reportedly "said he believed that visitors from outer space had crash-landed on Long Island and that government officials were hiding the aliens at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton." (See the Long Island newspaper Newsday for November 14, 1997, "Radiation Suspect is Delusional." Also the Deseret News of Salt Lake City, Utah for November 14, 1997. Many thanks to Janet Russell for the Newsday article.) (Editor's Comment: Although Ford has no criminal record, and the charge was not murder, he was denied bail at his first court appearance back in June 1996. Even though the DA's own mental health team said Ford isn't competent to stand trail, the prosecution refuses to drop the charges, as is customary in such cases. Sounds like this particular defendant is being railroaded. This looks like a job for Johnnie Cochrane.) "SEATTLE LIGHTS" SEEN IN IOWA THE SAME NIGHT On Friday, November 14, 1997, a witness was driving on Interstate Highway 80, just south of Brooklyn, Iowa (population 1,509), a town 64 miles (102 kilometers) east of Des Moines, when he spotted a few miles away "a horizontal row of seven or more steady white lights at about 40 degrees up from the horizon ascending at a 15-degree angle from the southeast to the northwest." The sighting took place at 7:30 p.m. Central time, four hours before the "Seattle Lights" event. "The lights would have crossed his path of travel if the 100 foot (30 meter) long object turned sharply and headed back east-southeast at a steeply-descending angle--almost in a dive. When the object tilted, showing one end lower than the other, he could see a portion of the surface illuminated by lights. At that point, the object was a quarter-mile south of I-80...He drove at 65 miles per hour to the end of the row of trees, at the end of which he expected to see the object sitting in the field. But when he reached that point, he saw that the object had simply disappeared." (Many thanks to Beverly Trout of Iowa MUFON for this report.) MYSTERIOUS BRIGHT FLASH SEEN IN CALIFORNIA A mysterious blinding flash was seen on Saturday, November 15, 1997, at 9:40 p.m., in Livermore, California (population 48,349), a city on Highway 580 40 miles (64 kilometers) east of San Francisco. John B. and his wife "both witnessed a very bright flash at the same time" as the "Seattle Lights" the previous evening. "We were walking our dog, and as I was looking down, I saw a momentary flash like a lightning flash illuminate the ground in the entire area. I quickly looked up and could still see the signature of the flash in the sky, maybe with a trail roughly horizontal to the horizon which seemed to be toward where the flash appeared or exploded. The trail looked similar to a meteor trail and quickly dissipated in one to two seconds." "My first thought was that it was some type of bizarre meteor which exploded or flashed in a single burst like a strobe light," John reported. "I am also suspicious that it could have been a laser test or a high-altitude target with the flash being generated by a laser burst" aimed at the flying target. John points out that his community is home to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which tests "extremely high-energy lasers" for "fusion experiments." (Email Interview) UFO SPOTTED BY TRIO NEAR BROOKSTON, MINNESOTA On Saturday, November 15, 1997, at 4:45 p.m., Dave Briscoe and two companions were out in the field near Brookston, Minnesota (population 450), a town on U.S. Route 2 about 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Duluth. "It does get dark real early up here," Skywatch member Dave Briscoe reported, "and Venus can be seen early, but this was the wrong place for Venus. The object was in the west-southwest (over the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation--J.T.) and extremely bright for the time of day. As I watched it, it veered to the left and right slightly, and then split in two. Both objects 'danced' in the sky, always the same distance from each other, first up, down, left and right. They then merged and were stationary (hovering) for the next five minutes." "Again splitting and remaining stationary, then recombining and moving slightly to the left, then slightly to the right." The trio watched the "pulsating light" for about twenty minutes "until clouds moved into the area, and it became undiscernable." He estimated the object's position at 72 degrees above the horizon." (Email Interview) (Editor's Comment: Chalk up another UFO sighting for the Lake Superior region. The last one was on October 5, 1997 over Thunder Bay, Ontario.) STUDENT VIDEOTAPES UFO IN SOUTHERN VERMONT Residents from Hoosick Falls, New York (population 3,490) eastward to Keene, New Hampshire (population 22,430) reported seeing "bright lights in the sky" from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Monday, November 17, 1997. The media explained the sightings as "Leonid meteors." The annual Leonid meteor shower reached its peak on Monday morning. But one college student in Shaftsbury, Vermont (population 700), on Route 7A 52 miles (83 kilometers) south of Rutland, obtained five minues of videotape of a UFO slowly crossing the night sky, heading for Glastonbury Mountain. The UFO was described as three dark objects with "green and blue lights." A friend who viewed the video told UFO ROUNDUP, "It took up to five minutes for the objects to completely cross the picture without his moving the location from which he was taping." (Estimated speed would be 55 miles per hour--J.T.) The three UFOs "were seen between 10 and 45 degrees above the horizon." (See the Albany, N.Y. Times-Union for November 18, 1997, "Shower in the Sky," and November 19, 1997, "One Meteor Caused Heavenly Shower." Many thanks to Jeff Cameron for this story.) (Editor's Comment: Vermont's Glastonbury Mountain has long been a UFO hotspot, with sightings dating back to 1909.) TRIANGULAR UFO SEEN BY CSETI MEN OVER THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL On Friday, November 14, 1997, at 10:05 p.m., a half-hour after the "Seattle Lights" event in the Pacific Northwest, Dr. Ted Lober and Tony Craddock of the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) were staked out at Craddock's beachfront home overlooking the Santa Barbara Channel in California. Both were using night vision equipment to sky watch. Dr. Lober was using a Model 63 ITT Night Mariner, while Craddock was using a Litton Model Nav3 Night Mate. Both devices offer light magnification of 30,000 to 50,000 power. "They both happened to be looking through their night scopes at Jupiter, which was about 10 degrees above the horizon and over the island of San Miguel." (westernmost of the Channel Islands, about 130 miles northwest of Los Angeles--J.T.) "Simultaneously they both saw a set of lights near Jupiter in the shape of a large triangle silently flying eastward over the Santa Barbara Channel. They followed it for about six seconds before it disappeared behind some trees. Both realized that the lights were the actual edge of a large craft that was not visible in their night scopes." A few seconds later, both men "saw the craft tilt slightly on its side so that its triangle shape could be clearly seen. (Dr.) Ted Lober counted five or six lights in the shape of a triangle" while Tony Craddock counted "an additional two lights in the center toward the rear, making it appear chevron or boomerang-shaped." "It was later estimated that the craft traveled through an arc of 75 degrees in about six seconds. It was estimated that this craft was at a distance of five to ten miles (offshore--J.T.) which would have meant it was traveling at 4,000 to 8,000 miles per hour." Both witnesses are members of CSETI. Dr. Lober is a professor of earth science at the University of New Hampshire. Craddock is president of a California petroleum company and coordinator of Santa Barbara's CSETI Working Group. (Many thanks to Steve Wilson Sr. for this report.) DAYLIGHT DISCS AGAIN ACTIVE IN CENTRAL ARIZONA On Monday, November 17, 1997, at 11:30 a.m., while on his lunch break in Scottsdale, Arizona (population 130,069), Skywatch member Rob King "saw two large silver objects traveling together near the clouds. One object suddenly stopped and hovered while the other silver object kept going. After maybe a mile of traveling, it reversed course and came back and parked next to the other object. Rob went inside and brought out two construction workers. They watched the objects and saw a large commercial jet approaching. They think the objects were about half the size of the jet. When the jet approached to within half a mile, they (the UFOs) both shot upward rapidly." One witness said "they shot off like bullets." The previous day, Sunday, November 16, 1997, Rob King "reported that while hiking on Camelback Mountain (near Phoenix, Arizona--J.T.) he saw a strange white object over Phoenix." Grabbing his 35 millimeter camera, Rob "shot three photos of the high-altitude object with a 1,500 millimeter telephoto lens." On Friday, November 14, 1997, Skywatch member Jeff Willis shot 15 minutes of videotape of a "Hockey Puck" (daylight disc) over Phoenix. The tape is now being evaluated by a team of investigators from Arizona MUFON. (Many thanks to Arizona Skywatch director Tom King for these reports.) TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS SEE UFO OVER AMES, IOWA On Tuesday night, November 11, 1997, two college students driving back to Ames, Iowa (population 45,775), a city on Highway 69 about 28 miles (45 kilometers) north of Des Moines, spotted a strange object in the sky. The pair from Iowa State University "saw a dark orange/amber globe of light at about 40 degrees up from the horizon, to the left of the roadway. At first they thought the light was resting on a 100-foot water tower nearby, but this proved not to be the case. They proceeded west and caught sight of a full circular orb now ahead of them and moving very fast. The object finally began to sink below the horizon, and the two men watched it disappear from view." (Many thanks to Beverly Trout of Iowa MUFON for this report.) from the UFO Files... 1952: GEORGE ADAMSKI MEETS ORTHON OF VENUS On November 20, 1952, George Adamski, 62, of Palomar Gardens, California, a short-order cook and part-time mystic, invited several friends to spend the day saucer-hunting in the Mojave Desert. In two cars, Adamski, his publicist Mrs. Lucy McKinnis, his landlady Mrs. Alice K. Wells, Mr. and Mrs. Al Bailey of Winslow, Arizona and Dr. and Mrs. George H. Williamson of Prescott, Arizona set off for Blythe, California, hoping to see a UFO. Morning's end found the party 10 miles east of Desert Centre, California. At about 12:15 p.m., the group saw a cigar-shaped object crossing the sky. Adamski then hiked into an arroyo, intending to set up his camera for a better shot. Alone in the arroyo, "he saw a flash in the sky and 'a beautiful craft appeared to be drifting through a saddle between two of the mountain peaks.' Then Adamski realized that a man was beckoning to him from the opening of a ravine about 450 yards (410 meters) away." In his book FLYING SAUCERS HAVE LANDED, Adamski described the newcomer as "about five feet, six inches (1.5 meters) tall , weighed about 135 lbs. and appeared--in Earthly terms--to be about 28 years old. He had wavy shoulder-length sandy hair. His skin was the color of a suntanned Caucasian's. He had an extremely high forehead, 'calm, gray-green eyes' that slanted slightly at the corners, high cheekbones, and a 'finely chiseled' nose...'The alien was wearing a single-piece, finely-woven, chocolate- brown suit with no visible fasteners or pockets, with a broad waistband and a close-fitting high collar. His shoes were ox-blood red, with blunt toes.'" By using "a mixture of hand signals and telepathy," the occupant reportedly told Adamski that his name was Orthon, and that he'd travelled to Earth from the planet Venus. He said several alien saucers had been "shot down by men of this world" and the time was coming when extraterrestrials would openly land on Earth. (See UFO--THE COMPLETE SIGHTINGS by Peter Brookesmith, Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 1995, pages 56 and 57.) (Editor's Note: In 1952, most people thought Venus was "Earth's twin." Now we know that the plant has a surface temperature hot enough to melt metal, with an air pressure equivalent to the bottom of one of Earth's oceans. Considering Venus's carbon dioxide cloud cover and runaway "greenhouse effect," it's unlikely that Orthon came from there. Also, it's been pointed out that four of Adamski's witnesses later recanted their 1952 testimony. Then again, Galileo Galilei recanted his views, too, before the Inquisition. It didn't change the fact that twenty-odd moons revolve around Jupiter.) FUN UFO WEBSITES: UFO Scotland just appeared on the Web. Dave Ledger hopes to make this site the central database for Scottish UFO sightings. Drop in and say hello to Dave at http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/dledger/ Looking for UFO pictures? Then visit the International UFO Museum and Research Center (IUFORC) website. Faeylyn Wylder has a great collection, including stills of the August 1996 Mexico City saucer. The URL is http://www.iuforc.com. "Intercepted," Dennis Balthaser's speech on alleged efforts by the U.S. government to conceal the facts of the 1947 Roswell case, is now available on the Web. Balthaser is the operations manager of the International UFO Museum and Research Center in Roswell, New Mexico. You can download his speech from http://www.iufomrc.com/intercept.htm Don't miss our parent site, UFOINFO. It's at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/ Back issues of UFO ROUNDUP can be downloaded from our website at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/ roundup/ That's it for this week. To our readers in the USA, enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner on Thursday. Don't forget to root for your old high school at the annual "Turkey Day" game with their arch-rivals. As for us, we'll be back--leftovers and all--next Sunday with more saucer news from "the paper that goes home-- UFO ROUNDUP." See you then! UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 1997 by Masinaigan Productions, all rights reserved. Readers may post news items from UFO ROUNDUP on their websites or in newsgroups provided that they credit the newsletter and its editor by name and list the date of issue in which the item first appeared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 UFO News Internatioal 32 From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 02:02:52 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:11:47 -0500 Subject: UFO News Internatioal 32 _____ ______ ___________________________ || | || // \ ___ ____ || | || || | |\ | | \ / / || | ||___ || | | \ | |___ \ /\ / |___ || | || || | | \| |___ \__/ | \____/ || ||_____/ ___________ __________/ _______________________________________ /_\ /_\ \ |I|n|t|e|r|n|a|t|i|o|n|a|l| / \ ___________________________ / \___________/\_______________ / =FF - 32 - Do abductees have B negative blood type? 2 Nick Redfern on Sightings 4 'UFO attacked our nukes' 5 Abduction Information Center up and running 5 Jack Shulman says he knows wherabouts UFO 8 Giant saucer in Germany 9 Chilean government committee will investigate UFOs 9 Readers' letters 11 Quotes " " " " " " " " " " 13 You can use UFO News International articles 13 - 1 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ************************************************************* Do abductees have B negative blood type? ************************************************************** Dear readers, this is an interesting opportunity to make some progress in abduction research. The following article states that 95 percent of abductees have the rare B negative blood type. What we have here is what in science is called a falsifiable hypothesis. So, let's see if we can confirm this claim. I want the readers of this newsletter who feel or know they have been abducted by aliens to inform me whether they have B negative or not. Since the number of readers has lately gone up to over 10,000, the sample will be large enough to be of significance. I will publish the results in one of the next issues in order to share the results with you and the research community. Anonimuty is granted. Thanks in advance. - HvdP _____ >From The People newspaper November 2, 1997 The invasion is over - now we're waiting for the screaming! The silent invasion has begun. Former military intelligence operative Philip Imbrogno claims he has the evidence. Drawing on his contacts in the CIA and US Air Force the has built up a terrifying dossier of alien abductions. He has researched the claims of thousands of people. Today Matthew Benn's presents their terrifying testimony. George and Maria have a daughter who is almost two. One day she brought out her doll and asked her mum to open its head. Maria asked her where she had seen something like that and the little girl told her mother: "they do it too daddy at night." George and Maria are not alone. Thousands claim to have been abducted by aliens. When scientific researcher Philip Imbrogno began to talk to the worried couple be discovered a chain of events that he believes will stun the world. Imbrogno served with US Special Forces in Cambodia on a secret CIA operation called Shadow. He used his CIA contacts to verify George and Maria's story. Then he followed up more people who claimed to have been kidnapped by aliens. Imbrogno discovered several chilling similarities. Most terrifying of all was that almost every one of these people shared the same rare blood group. - 2 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - Imbrogno placed the abductions on a map and found they all formed straight lines that pointed to the Hudson Valley outside New York. A CIA former colleague told him: "the invasion is over. All we are waiting for is the screaming." The alien invasion had begun quietly. Middle school head Douglas Harlow arrived at his office to find that every clock in the school was 10 minutes fast. "I couldn't figure it out," said Harlow. But it was not just the school clocks. Every electric clock in the town had gained 10 minutes. A spokesman for the Conneticut Light and Power Company blamed a power surge - even though shift supervisor Philip Gervais said there had been no surge. Then the witnesses came forward. Mrs Diane Duont, 40, was driving her car when she saw a large boomerang pattern of lights slowly moving through the night sky. She said: "I watched as these lights approached and I was surprised that I heard no sound at all. "The object then passed directly over my car and as I looked up I saw a dark mass blocking out the brighter night sky." Police and the local radio station were deluged with reports of the slow moving flying wing with white and red lights. Arnold Sprinster said the giant triangular shape was the size of a football pitch and took 10 minutes to pass over his car. "It looked like one of the space ships in the science fiction movies but this was real." Local police chief Herbert Peterson said: "if this thing can come here and do this, I want to know where the hell are our country's defences?" But Imbrogno believes it is too late to worry about defences - the aliens are already here. Imbrogno began his search for evidence by calling a general meeting in a valley town called Pine Bush. He asked people to write down any experience they had with UFOs. He was stunned. 40 percent of the people in the room had been in contact with aliens. George and Maria are so used to the night time visits from alien creatures that when they appear Maria tells her husband: "your friends are here." Bill, a 32 years old computer programmer who would not give his surname, saw the giant UFO in the Hudson Valley as he drove home from work late at night. He saw the space ship pass over his car but remembered nothing else about the incident until he had hypnosis. Bill relieved the ordeal. "There is someone standing in the road and he's walking towards the car. Who are you?" The alien replied: "Do not be fearful. We need you. You have been selected." Bill said: "I feel strange, like I am floating in air. It's all dark. I am now on this table and these guys are all around me. "They have large heads with long black eyes, the eyes are so black I can't see any pupils. They look like shark eyes. "The one that is near my head is moving some type of thing up and down the side of my head. It looks like a portable vacuum cleaner. "He is moving it closer and it is making my head vibrate, it feels like a drill going through my head. STOP, STOP, IT HURTS. - 3 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - "They are looking for something and they've found it. I can't hear them speak, but I know what they are saying. "He is telling me that they come from a place which is very ugly in comparison to ours and they would like to live here but they cannot." The next thing Bill recalls is finding himself back in his car one hour later than the last time he looked at his clock. A CIA source told Imbrogno that an alien craft landed at a US military base shortly after the Second World War. The aliens were dying out and needed humans to infuse fresh genetic material into their species. They offered new technology in return. The US government allowed the grey aliens to abduct people for genetic experiments. Imbrogno took blood tests from people who claim to have been abducted. The outcome astonished him - 95% had the rare B-negative blood type. He said: "people with B-negative blood may be off-shoots of the hybrid race that the aliens are trying to create." If that is true, the silent invasion has begun. _____ Abductees, don't forget to inform me about your blood type. - HvdP ************************************************************** Nick Redfern on Sightings ************************************************************** British UFO researcher Nick Redfern disclosed on Sightings of November 18 the contents of his new book 'A Covert Agenda'. Redfern told his host Jeff Rense that he is aware of at least three UFO crashes in the United Kingdom, the first one during the Second World War. The third was in 1974 in Wales. Just after this crash there was heavy activity of large black unmarked helicop- ters, indicating that the UK government was aware of the crash. In his book Redfern also discloses information about covert British government research into UFOs at an underground facility at Rudloe Manor. This facility is the command center of a world wide tracking effort by the British government, including a satellite network in space. Rudloe Manor would also contain acquired UFO technology. Redfern bases his research primarily on thousands of documents that have been released by the British government and on revelations by active and retired RAF officers. He believes that the amount of information that is coming out of the British government is indicative of a "green light" that is switched on somewhere to release more UFO information to the public. - HvdP - 4 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - ************************************************************** 'UFO attacked our nukes' ************************************************************** The People newspaper Date: 2nd November 1997 Britain's former military supremo is asking the government to investigate whether aliens fired laser beams at our nuclear arsenal. Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton, retired Chief of the Defence staff, wants the probe to be launched into the sighting of a UFO hovering over RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk. He has now tabled questions to the Ministry of Defence asking whether nuclear weapons stored at Woodbridge were struck by light beams fired from an unidentified aircraft. He claims that US Air Force personnel who saw the "attack" filed reports which are being covered up by the MoD. He said: "The Ministry has doggedly denied that anything untoward happened and I simply can't believe them." Defence minister Lord Gilbert refused to confirm or deny whether the base was equipped with nuclear missiles. He added: "There is no evidence to suggest that the Ministry of Defence received any such reports." The mysterious sighting happened in December 1980 and was picked up on RAF radar. Phantom jets were scrambled and pilots reported intense, bright lights in the sky. __|__ --_---_-- \\ \\ ************************************************************** Abduction Information Center up and running ************************************************************** >From John Velez Hello All, Well, it's open! I finally have enough of the AIC (Abduction Information Center) website up to open the doors officially. http://www.crossfields.com/~aic/index.html - 5 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - Whenever I tackle anything 'big' I always make it a point to surround myself with the very best people I can find. That way no matter how much -my input- screws things up there will always be someone smarter around to help get things back on track! <G> I've had some invaluable help from many people. I want to single out Pat Parrinello in particular because not only is he providing the bandwidth we are using, (via his Crossfields Inc.) but he is also responsible for setting up and creating all of the cool 'interactive' stuff that's available at the AIC website. Without Pat, there would be no AIC. Thank you ~many times~ Mr Parrinello! AIC The 'Abduction Information Center' has been set up to (hopefully) provide a 'sane' alternative to the myriad of 'poor content' or 'no content' websites dedicated to the subject of UFOs and abduction that are currently available on the Web. I have gone out of my way to collect and make available (for the 'experien- cers' themselves) all of the very best information that I could find. Anytime anybody has contacted me over the last five years with questions or seeking advice or information, my response has been to give them as varied a diet of the very best data/information that is available. Once they've accumulated enough information -they can make up their own minds- and try to answer their own questions! It is my firm belief that (most) people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. We don't need any 'leaders' or any stinking badges either! <G> AIC was created to provide the raw material to facilitate rapid absorption of (quality) information for those who may be in need of it. At AIC I have put together a collection of information that I wish had been available -to me- when I first started looking into all of this. AIC also offers people a place to speak freely (unburden themselves) without fear of ridicule or rejection. AIC will I hope (one day) be a 'home base' a kind of 'safe haven' where people can explore their experiences in an environment that is secure and conducive to serious self-examination. Among many many others, AIC will feature (exclusively) trans- cripts of interviews with the late Karla Turner, (that were generously donated to AIC by Mike Lindemann of CNI News.) Intimate, relaxed and informative conversations with Karla that have never appeared anywhere else. Also ready for immediate download are articles and papers from top people in the field who are just too numerous to list here. There are still 'reams' of information just sitting on my hard drive awaiting editing and a webpage at AIC to live on. - 6 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - Important, please. The AIC website -is not intended for the general public- or, curiosity seekers. It -is- intended specifically for those that suspect or believe they are abductees/abduction experiencers. (Boy, I'll bet ~that~ comment insures a good turnout! <G>) All kidding aside, the website is intended for abduction experiencers only. Sorry to the rest. I set up the 'Intruders Foundation' website with the 'public' in mind, and on it there are many links to other 'public' sites. AIC is the completely interactive 'private' website (for abductees only). It had always been only a dream of mine. Until now, AIC was my 'missing piece'. Now there's both a public site, and a private site to meet the needs of the experiencers themselves. To all 'experiencers': Pat Parrinello and I are offering (via AIC) an oportunity for you to meet and interact with others in real time and in a safe and protected environment. We will also feature private monthly discussions with some of the very best research people and writers in the field. You will be able to interact and talk to them yourself, ask them questions, and explore their different views first hand. There is a chatroom, an interactive e-mail list and archive, and of course the 'Heart" of the website, an ever growing library of the very best material available on the subject of UFO abduction. We can't promise that we'll actually do anything for you but, we can tell you what we won't do! We promise that we -will not- try to sell you: a. ...particular points of view, or preferences of one view over another. b. ...pet answers, c. ...belief systems, d. ...dogma, religion, or philosophy (New Age or otherwise!) e. ...claims that -we- have cornered the market on the truth. This website was set up to service the unique needs of abductees. It is as rock solid and stable a place as I could make it. If you can use -any- of what we have to offer please feel free to stop by and check us out on the web. http://www.crossfields.com/~aic/index.html - 7 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - All others: I would ask those who are not 'experiencers' to please indulge our request for privacy. As stated earlier there are already a myriad of excellent UFO and abduction related websites that are readily accessable to the general public. This one is ours. <G> Wish us luck. Peace, John Velez, Webmaster - AIC & Intruders Foundation Online jvif@spacelab.net ************************************************************** Jack Shulman says he knows wherabouts UFO ************************************************************** In an e-mail interview with Brazilian UFO researcher Jefferson Martinho, Jack Shulman, president of American Computer Company, said: 'We are engaging in a point by point recreation of exactly what happened during the past 5 months at this time, to see if we missed anything. It is difficult to tell what we believe, right now, because in the course of recreating things, we followed a lead that has convinced us we know exactly where the remains of the so-called UFO from Roswell are. We are also intent upon pointing out to the public that the term UFO was invented by a dilemma expert, who noted that a UFO could never be "identified", because then it would be an IFO. We believe the Roswell UFO, is, in reality, an IFO. Its identity will have to be proven, before we will further publicize it. Furthermore: we have isolated about three distinct teams of personnel of the National Security Agency who have been laying down a steady stream of false information in the ET Investigation Community for the past 25 years, since the days the Starpoint investigation surfaced in the midst of the Bell System, after Jack Morton was murdered. They are almost single handedly responsible for maintaining a cloud of disinformation about the Roswell matter intended to hide what COULD HAVE BEEN one or more technology transfer programs involving an other-worldly species that contacted the United States Government in 1945, 1947, 1952, 1955, 1963 and later. We believe that if this lead bears fruit, there will also be a completely different explanation for the end of World War II than has ever been contemplated before. The species in question are euphemistically referred to by the NSA and DoD as the "Time Skippers", and while, assuming they are real, and we are not - 8 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - being fed a line of disinformation by snitches we have employed, they are not exactly Time Travellers, they are capable of travelling great expanses of space, in violation of the laws of Time - in extremely short periods of time, but are still bound by a law of the natural universe that prevents them from arriving anywhere "before they started". They simply skip the time interval, supposedly, that it would take to travel tens of thousands of Light Years between stellar systems. Or so the story goes...' ************************************************************** Giant saucer in Germany ************************************************************** A US Army soldier's wife living in Germany, called her mother in the US to report a UFO. She said, that in the afternoon of October 22, 1997, numerous Army dependents saw a giant saucer UFO with lots of lights on its bottom, fly over a highway. The UFO made a lot of noise, flew low and moved slow enough for people to stop their cars and get out and look at it in astonishment. This occurred outside of a unnamed American Army base in Germany. This same person also told her mother that a friend of hers took a photo of the UFO. The daughter is married to an Army sergeant stationed at the base. We are attempting to verify this story. If anyone has further info please contact us. Thanks to John Thompson gin@wp-lag.mindspring.com (john c. thompson) ************************************************************** Chilean government committee will investigate UFOs ************************************************************** >From Luis C. Sanchez Perry This news appeared on todays newspaper "La Tercera" on the front page. This corraborates the mail I sent last week about a Cometee called CIFAE witch really is called now CEFAA. _____ Front Page : A big picture of a crashed UFO (drawing) "COMITEE WILL INVESTIGATE UFO's, All sightings of UFO's that are registered in our air space will be filed and studied by a special comision of Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil witch depends directly from the Fuerza Aerea Chilena (FACH). Page 7" - 9 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - Page 7 : Titles, "Project was impulsed by FACH General (R) Ramon Vega" "Aeronautica will have a comitee dedicated to UFO's" Text, "This organism will analize and clasify all incoming information coming from sightings occured over national air space. The Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil (DGAC) depending from the Fuerza Aerea de Chile (FACH), gave an historical step in the investigation of UFO's when creating the 'Comite de Estudios de Fenomenos Aereos Anomalos' (CEFAA). With this, DGAC joins other countries in the scientific investi- gation to try to find an explanation to this enigma. CHILE registers at world level one of the highest indexes of UFO sightings. Only this year there have been reported more than 60 cases in different points of the country. DIRECTRICES Until now the armed forces had kept a reserved position about this subject being only civilians the ones that gave their testimonies publicly. And with this information private investi- gators have made their own report files. The inventor of this project was the ex-chief commander of the FACH General (R) Ramon Vega, who was motivated by many sighting reports that came from inside the airworld, led him to create this comittee. To achieve this, before leaving the FACH he gave to the institu- tion the order to form this organ. That;s how on September 15, 1997 the General Director of DGAC FACH General Gonzalo Miranda, signed the decree that creates the CEFAA comitee. The mission of the CEFAA will be to gather, analyze, study and classify any information about anomalous phenomena registered over our airspace. For that reason a bulletin has been sent to all the military and official organs that report strange phenomena to report to the CEFAA comittee. CEFAA will not receive reports of any kind from civilian sources (no abductions, CE, video or photos), only from official sources. Rodrigo Fuenzalida, president of AION-Chile who is a participant of this comitee, informed that two report forms have been made for Radar Operators, Civil and Military pilots. The forms were based on forms used by the USAF pilots (made by Richard Haines, Phd. of NASA). The main idea is to find out if there is any danger or not to our airspace. ADVISORS - 10 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - CEFAA will be integrated by de Director of La Escuela de Aeronautica Civil, Col. Enzo Dinocera Garcia; the ex ATC Gustavo Rodriguez (has wide experience in UFO observation), and two specialists from the Weather Department and from Air Traffic Department. The CEFAA will also count with internal and external advisors in areas such as physics, astronomy and aeronautics. Also will have a close relation with AION who is integrated by many university profesionals and from other areas." Report done by UFO Journalist, Cristian Riffo M. A press conference is expected at any moment. Will keep you all informed. Saludos, Luis Sanchez Chilean Director Skywatch International *********************************************************** * e-mail : lsanchez@chilesat.net Fax : (56 2) 219-3314 * *********************************************************** ************************************************************** Readers' letters ************************************************************** To whom it may concern: Thank you for world.online, the info about UFO's. I have not had an encounter with one, and maybe never will, but I believe in them. I don't know what they are. Since you are passionate enough about them to put out a newsletter, I was wondering just who or what that you thought they were. I don't mean "exactly," but an idea; like "extra terrestrials," demons, or I don't know... My uncle saw what looked like a UFO last year across the river. It was the same night a big barn burnt, but he says it didn't look anything like a fire, other than the fact that it appeared to glow. Thanks, Ken ____ Ken, I think some of them are of extraterrestrial origin. - HvdP ____ - 11 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - Hello Henny, As usual I have enjoyed reading your original newsletter. I can't wait to get the next one. Only this time I felt rather annoyed over mr. Greer of CSETI. The only feature I admire of him is his dedication. His stories however are usualy unfounded and never supported by any hard evidence. I kept a close look on his attempts (Operation ..?..) in the USA to inform high positioned politicians and gouvernment workers about the UFO phenomena. As I can remember there were even some people present from the Dutch ambassy. The attendants supposedly have had hand-outs with pictures, a video and statements. Then I addressed CSETI to get a 'bundle' but they replied that it was not intended to hand out to the 'man on the street'. Now I ask you: what is their goal eventually? In your latest newsletter he tells us that they went out to the desert in America and have watched some extraordinary UFO activity there. Well very exiting. But where are the video tapes and pictures? I am waiting anxiously. By the way, do you already know a little more about the investi- gation of this UFO footage shot in Mexico last month? Fake or Real? When will it be available or aired? Good luck, Hendrik Rademaker ____ H: The footage seems real. ____ Dear Henny, I received your newsletter through the UFOR mailing list. Congratulations on a good, thoughtful publication and your stand against debunkers. A line must be drawn at some point between healthy cynicism and debunking! Attached is an ASCII copy of my SAMIZDAT newsletter, which does its best to cover information usually available only in Spanish and on subjects dealing exclusively with Latin America and Spain. Feel free to quote from it in your own newsletter. Very best wishes, and keep up the good work! Scott Corrales Editor: Samizdat and InterAlia newsletters Author: "Chupacabras and Other Mysteries" - 12 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - ************************************************************** Quotes " " " " " " " " " " ************************************************************** Not even UFO believers have faced the implications of what they believe. Greg Sandow ************************************************************** You can use UFO News International articles ************************************************************** . Make a selection from this issue for your web site. . Redistribute articles in your owns newsletter or Bulletin Board System. Conditions: . Please give credit to UFO News International and, if relevant, to the original source. . Articles may not be used for the express purpose of baseless debunking. Baseless debunking can be defined as attacking the validity of a report without including substantial grounds for the attack. Violations of this condition will immediately be followed by exposure on the main Internet UFO discussion forums. ************************************************************** Editor's notes: UFO News International welcomes: . your own UFO report . abduction experience . analysis or commentary Anonimity will be provided if needed. UFO News International also welcomes: . congress announcements . congress reports . notification of a change in your web site . information about your UFO organization All contributions to this newsletter must be in English. Grammar and spelling need not be perfect. In case of a change in your e-mail address, please notify me in advance, so that you can continue to receive UFOPals. If you haven't received this newsletter for more than three weeks, something must have gone wrong, so please contact me. Readers are encouraged to invite their friends, acquaintances and colleagues to subscribe to this newsletter. - 13 of 14 - - UFO News International 32 - The text of this newsletter can be transferred to your preferred word processor. First take care that this newsletter and your wordprocessor are both activated under a Windows operating system. Then select the text of the newsletter with the computer mouse, click on the copy command (Ctrl-C), change to your word processor and paste the text by clicking the Paste icon (suitca- se) into your word processor document. ______ /\ /\ \_\ /_/ \ " / \ _ / \ / ************************************************************** Date: November 20, 1997 Editor: Henny van der Pluijm Correspondents: Barry Chamish (Israel) Mike Stahl (Australia) UFOIC, http://www.ufoic.com, hosts: Henny van der Pluijm's UFO FAQ: http://www.ufoic.com/faq and the UNI archive: http://www.ufoic.com/faq/ufopals Personal website: http://www.worldonline.nl/~hvdp E-mail: hvdp@worldonline.nl Direct subscribers: 207 Copyright agreements: Subscribers Alien Research 50 Project Watchfire BBS NUN BBS Network, Netherlands. 100 UFO Online BBS - PDX, Portland, Oregon, USA. 75 UFOR Over 10,000 ______________________________________________________________ (C) Henny van der Pluijm, 1997. ______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Re: ETH &c From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:02:24 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:14:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Re: ETH &c > From: DevereuxP@aol.com > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:51:39 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: ETH &c > Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:49:44 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > >&c > >The problem is that there is no branch of mainstream science > >that inquires about UFOs, and therefore no appropriate > >scientific journal to which to submit a paper on the topic. > >This is no accident, of course, but is due to the ridicule > >factor that developed from the early 1950s on.... <snip> > >But then, with no branch of mainstream science existing > >(in the U.S.) that deals with the UFO phenomenon .... <snip> > >I got one such paper into the Quart. J. Roy. > >Astronomical Soc. back in 1986, but to do so I dared not mention > >the word UFO.... <snip> [...] > >Jim Deardorff > Dear Jim, > I think the problems in your reply here, and the prevailing ones > I have seen on this strand, are two unquestioned assumptions: > a)Ufology is a subject, and (b)it involves ET craft and the ETH. > This really points up what I have been saying elsewhere on this > list, that the ETH is so overweaning, is such a dominant paradigm, > that it has become an automatic reflex - an *invisible assumption*. > In truth, ufology is not a subject as such (it is a loose bag of > bits - a little good, much indifferent, more bad) and mainstream > science could not possibly deal with it as if it were. ... Hello Paul, Perhaps you mean that science wouldn't be able to deal with all of what makes up ufology as we know it, as a whole, because that involves so many different ways in which the paranormal enters in. Even if the ridicule factor could be removed from scientific investigation of UFOs and the paranormal, there'd be one branch of science trying to deal with how crop circles could be formed (and they would ignore the UFO reports that have so often preceded discovery of a new crop-circle region, or the animal mutilations). Another branch, astronomy, would try to deal with how UFOs and their occupants could get from there to hear in a feasible length of time, but they'd likely assume that ET science couldn't be so far along as to have found ways around the restrictions of relativity and rocketry; physical optics would try to deduce how UFOs can suddenly make themselves go invisible in the daytime, but in their peer reviewed papers they'd likely not permit discussion of the possibility that alien science could perhaps tap other dimensions we're unaware of, etc. But of course there's no branch of mainstream science to try to put it all together and deduce where they're from, why they're here, how much farther evolved are they than we (or how many centuries ahead of our science & technology that of the UFO occupants is), what all they want, etc. Only science fiction tries that, and science as spoken for by CSICOP doesn't wish to engage in anything that sounds like science fiction. > Secondly, > most of what is written in ufology isn't up to the standards of > mainstream scientific scholarship in any case, and would get > rejected on those grounds alone. In many cases, the best that can be done is to describe accurately and completely what the witnesses have reported and experienced, and then to look for common denominators, etc. Most of that lies outside the scope of the scientific method in the sense that we our unable to call forth UFO events at will, or to predict their occurrences, or to explain physical mechanisms behind "bizarre" events reported. (I.e., no repeatability as in a lab experiment, and no explanations of the paranormal available.) Although such limitations ought to be taken in stride by science, upon postulating that the phenomenon (ufology) involves alien intelligences, that doesn't happen because of the elements that keep the ridicule curtain in place. A key element there is the thought that that which hasn't happened before to modern man surely couldn't be happening right now. Another key element is the belief that 20th-century science must be close to the ultimate answers to the basic enigmas of science, so surely any aliens who might be millions of years ahead of us in their sciences shouldn't be much smarter than we are (i.e., gross egoism). > You cannot blame science for > keeping most of ufology at bargepole length, quite honestly. Perhaps not in the sense of blaming more individual scientists for not risking their reputations and livelihood by openly studying elements of ufology, when they have families to raise. To do this almost requires that the scientist be independently wealthy or already retired before trying to bring ufological matters to the attention of other scientists. It's a tough road that the PhD scientific UFO researcher has to hoe in continuing their scientific careers while persuing ufological topics. In doing this they have to be pretty careful of what they say to whom. The temptation is always present to debunk certain aspects of ufology, even though that may contradict some well witnessed reports, in order to win or maintain some acceptance from mainstream scientists and thus maintain their scientific reputations. > The > third point is that there is plenty of material out there in the > scientific literature on aspects of ufology if one is not > assuming that UFO=ET. I feel it's worse (less plausible) to assume that UFO aliens cannot have had origins that lie outside of the earth. There's no logic in demanding that anthropocentrism be built into ufology's postulates, or in complaining when the ETH is taken as a plausible starting point in the inevitable theorizing. > I find ample material on the alien > abduction experience in various areas of psychology, psychiatry, > neuroscience, and experimental brain/mind research, for instance. > Of far more use, and much more scientific, than a shelf full of > Hopkins, Macks, and suchlike. [...] There we part grounds irreconcilably, except for the scientific limitations already mentioned that prevent us from subjecting the UFO aliens to our own laboratory experiments. (Clandestine scientific studies upon crashed saucers, etc., are excluded here, since science isn't science if it is kept secret from all but a very few.) Science needs to be extended in its definition and methods so as to include the study of more advanced entities that may be around and exhibiting themselves, and not just the study of intelligences inferior to our own. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Col Corso Lawsuit From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:22:50 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:17:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Col Corso Lawsuit > From: Ktperehwon@aol.com [Karl T. Pflock] > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:19:19 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Col Corso Lawsuit > >From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:27:18 -0500 (EST) > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: Re: Col Corso Lawsuit > >You mean Corso et al were trying to milk the money wagon, then > >because of their antics, Simon & Schuster et al is not going to > >publish any more "future books" such as the one supposedy in the > >works about the NAZI time machine, and a book covering from 1950 > >to 1962 which allegedly details Corso's "personal" contact with > >an alien at or near White Sands/Ft Bliss area. > Not to mention THE DAY AFTER DALLAS: INSIDE THE WARREN > COMMISSION, which Corso's co-author Birnes has been touting as > their next book. Lets see the inside story of the Warren commission, how Corso was called in as a special technological consultant to the Warren commission based upon his 14 weeks as chief of the Army FT Division blah blah. How alien technology recovered from Roswell was really used to kill Kennedy, but it was covered up under orders from blah blah. Ah, Ha, the truth finally comes out. It was in fact a Gray alien that pulled the trigger of a very unearthly rifle on the grassy knoll. :) Cheers, Robert
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: The Roper Poll - David Jacobs Clarifies From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:19:14 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:19:30 -0500 Subject: Re: The Roper Poll - David Jacobs Clarifies > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:21:30 -0500 > From: "David M. Jacobs" <djacobs@thunder.ocis.temple.edu> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: The Roper Poll > Hello Everyone, > I thought I might peek into the List for a while to see how > things are going. I am afraid that I probably will not be able > to contribute much--especially in the coming months--but perhaps > I can put in my two cents worth every once in a while. > I am responding to Jim Deardorff and Dennis Stacy and others who > were discussing the Roper Poll of 1991. I was not sure of who > said what in the e-mail sent to me so I will be somewhat generic > in my comments. > The Roper Poll was an omnibus poll in which an actual person > with clipboard in hand went to the homes of scientifically chosen > randomly selected individuals. The questions asked about unusual > experiences followed a series of questions about political > opinions and other public matters. The poll did not include > frivolous questions or questions about products or advertising. > Thus, the seriousness of the questions about unusual experiences > was inherent in the context of the other questions. > As far as I am aware, the total number of people who were asked > the questions were the ones who responded. I personally do not > have knowledge of others who were asked and failed to respond, > although I suppose that there must have been a few who remained > silent during this part of the omnibus questioning. Roper > informed us that there were three two-thousand person sweeps in > the summer of 1991. I am not exactly sure why the number did not > come out to exactly 6,000 people; perhaps these were the silent > ones. Hello Dave, Welcome to the list! Thanks for filling us in on this information. It would seem, then, that the pollsters didn't tell the participant about the "unsusual aspects" portion of the poll in advance. In that case, the difference between 6000 and 5947 may indeed be indicative of the number who declined to participate further after this section of the poll was reached. In that case, however, the possible bias I was concerned about would indeed be negligible. I do notice that for some of the Report's questions there were 5946 responses obtained, and for others 5948, so I suppose they did have to accept some responses that overlooked answering a question, or where the respondent wasn't sure of which of two categories to place the answer in, etc. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:11:25 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:29:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Bruce wrote: >A strange bird is a pelican... Bruce, They certainly seem to do a remarkable impression of alien spacecraft flying in formation! Quite a talented bird. >It flies over 100 miles per hour >when everitcan.... >especially when trying to race a small airplane while flying >southward past Mt. Rainier. 100 miles an hour based on what? In his possible first interview, certainly one of the earliest he gave, Kenneth Arnold said: "I got down to Pendleton and I began looking at my map and taking measurements on it and the best calculation I could figure out, now even in spite of error, would be around 1200 miles an hour, because making the distance from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams, in, we'll say approximately two minutes, it's almost, well, it'd be around 25 miles per minute. Now allowing for air, we can give them three minutes or four minutes to make it, and they're still going more than 800 miles an hour". In your paper, "The Complete Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold, with Comments and Analysis", you state: "The distance from the flank of Mt. Rainier to the peak of Mt. Adams is about 45 miles (depending upon where on the flank one picks as the starting p point). Since the length of the "chain" of objects was about 5 miles (paragraph H above), the leading object was about 5 miles south of Mt. Adams when the last object passed Mt. Adams. Hence the total distance it (and the others) travelled was about 50 miles in 102 seconds. This corresponds to a speed of about 1,760 mph". Pick a number, any number... What if the "the length of the 'chain' of objects'" wasn't "about 5 miles"? Your reference to "paragraph H above", relates to a statement which Arnold made in his letter to the USAF, in which he says: "I observed the chain of these objects passing another snow-covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as the first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least five miles long". This is a subjective calculation, Arnold claiming he was watching "saucer like objects", when he may have been observing pelicans, something he apparently didn't account for. Do you think Arnold's mention of "saucer like objects" might have been influenced by the "flying saucer" hysteria his story was responsible for? Arnold of course never having originally claimed to see "saucer like objects" at all... >Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out how >high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and speed. I had already asked about this and in view of the uncertainty, I'm looking for a more definitive answer. A copy of "All You Ever Wanted to Know About the American White Pelican", would be useful, but in the absence of that, it's a case of asking various people who might be able to offer an informed opinion. I'm quite happy to do so as time permits, although I can't help wondering why it's apparently taken 50 years for such obvious enquiries to be made. Maybe if this scenario had already been examined by "ufologists" and proven to be impossible, there might be something to laugh about. >If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) nearly >at horizon level to him, then they would have been essentially at his >level. Not necessarily. This is also subjective and as Arnold comments in that early interview, "And, they seemed to flip and flash in the sun, just like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an angle from the sun that seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar looking things in such a way that it almost blinded you when you looked at them through your plexiglass windshield". It could therefore be argued that Arnold was looking down on the "tops of these peculiar looking things". >And, I suppose Arnold could see the white bodies but not the >bills/beaks. Obviously this is possible. So far as I know, he didn't have binoculars with him, or was blessed with telescopic vision. If you were observing a formation of birds at a considerable distance, would you clearly make out every detail? A million and one experienced birdwatchers might disagree. Kenneth Arnold was unquestionably a highly experienced pilot and his _original_ testimony should be given due consideration. The suggestion that Arnold's unidentified objects are perhaps consistent with the characteristics of American White Pelicans was not mine, and the factual correlations I took time to highlight, were a contribution to the investigation of this case. There are clear objections to this conceivable explanation; let's look at them in perspective and consider the respective merits. Introducing new evidence doesn't mean I'm on a mission to proselytise. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Strange Dreams From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:03:57 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:22:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Strange Dreams >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:33:43 -0800 >From: Terry Blanton <commengr@bellsouth.net> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Strange Dreams >List members, >I've had a series of really strange dreams. They're almost like >instructional videos. Hi Terry, Try not eating too close to bedtime and see if the nightmares don't stop. That wasn't intended as a joke or a put down as funny as it may sound as a response to your (serious) question. Sounds like nightmares Terry and nothing more. What's going on in your life, what are you putting off, or worrying about, those are the kinds of questions you should be exploring. Then take a look and see if the symbols in your dreams or the emotions you may be experiencing don't somehow tie into what's going on in your daily life or your past. Dreams are the clothing of deep subconscious thoughts and feelings in visual/sensorial garments. Look inside, all answers lie there! ;) John Velez John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts From: XianneKei@aol.com [Rebecca Keith] Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:46:37 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:58:02 -0500 Subject: Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:52:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:14:16 -0500 Subject: Re: The Roper Report: Some Facts! > Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! I was just answering a question > asked by Jim with some useful factual information. > If this is confusing, I'm surprised. No excuses! <g> Your information was indeed useful and probably factual, it just had absolutely nothing to do with the Roper Poll. > P.S.: BTW, whereya been?? Missed ya. I miss everyone as well. I've been lying low. Working hard and saving money for a return to the UK next spring. Rebecca
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:29:44 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:59:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:59:06 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Metallic pelicans? I think the pelicans swallowed meteors that were zipping by. This gave the pelicans extra speed and also made them magnetic.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:30:42 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:00:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: DRudiak@aol.com [David Rudiak] >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:06 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com >>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:49:02 -0500 >>Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:40:56 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>There seems to be compelling evidence that the unidentified >>objects reported by Kenneth Arnold, may have been a flock of >>American White Pelicans. >"Compelling?" Hardly. All these bird explanations for the Arnold >sighting are strictly for the birds unless they can substantially >explain ALL major features of the report, not a few carefully selected ones. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one around here whose thinking is not for the birds! I complement Mr. Rudiak for not being swayed by those who would grasp at straws...or in this case...pelicans. Note that Maccabee's FIRST RULE OF DEBUNKING is "Any explanation is better than none." OK, so we have had more than half a dozen explanations over the years PRECEEDING the relatively recent ornithological explanations. Since these new explanations have been offered one may logically conclude that the previous explanations were, in fact, no good. (else why a new one)/ Maccabee's SECOND RULE OF DEBUNKING: "If the first explanation seems unconvincing or is not generally accepted, try another." And this leads to Maccabee's FIRST COROLLARY OF DEBUNKING: If the second seems no more convincing than the first, try a third, etc., ad infinitum. Incidently, I a, surprised to see no "intelligent" discussion of the NEWEST class of Arnold explanations. This goose explanation has been around for several years. The pelican modification is of course the most recent version. The newest class of explanations is the METEOR EXPLANATION offered by the master of disguised ufology, Philip J. Klass, and published in the San Francisco Examiner by Keay Davidson last June. Davidson/Klass offered "lots of good reasons" why the meteor explanation should be accepted.....well, at least they thought there were good reasons. So, perhaps we should combine these explanations. Pelicans and geese are too slow. Meteors are too fast. BUT...a pelican that catches a passing (low altitude) meteor in its beak would be speeded up while the meteor would be slowed down (conservation of momentum) ...and they would meet in the middle at somewhat over 100 mph. Hmmm? How about it, guys? Have at it!
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: USDSCUBA@aol.com [Gordon Scott] Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:56:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > A strange bird is a pelican...It flies over 100 >miles per hour when ever it can....especially when >trying to race a small airplane while flying southward >past Mt. Rainier. Pretty funny stuff about the birds, however according to a close friend within the military at the time the vehicle as seen by Mr K. Arnold was a German made Gotha Go 229 IX being test flown for radar testing. These high performance aircraft were the same basic flying wing shape as described in his report, and were being tested during the time period. These Go 229 were almost invisible on radar due to the 17 mm plywood skin, and with twin Junkers Jumo 1890 pounds of thrust turbojet engines it was also quite fast. Reichsmarshal Hermann Goring was so impressed he wanted to mass produce these advanced aircraft. This allied information also helped Jack Northrop with his.Amercian designs. The Germans also had an aircraft known as project P-12 with a ram jet, (our own Air Force did the wind tunnel tests after the war). Designed much like our current SR-71 replacment aircraft. But why bother with such old news ? flying wings have been around since the 1930's and the rocket powered versions like the Me 163 B series flew in June of 1943. Invisible aircraft (visual) is also not a new idea, during WW II English heavy aircraft also had a crude systems long before the current fiber optic composite tech arrived. Perhaps we should be more concerned with the several secret bases of black triangle aircraft in Canada being flown by UN forces and paid for by Amercian tax dollars, or what the CIA has been purchasing for 26 Billion dollars ? There seems to be plenty of strange things going on right now don't you think ?
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:07:23 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:02:49 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:30:40 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:14:14 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > >> .... Do you honestly think India is any more > >> monolithically Hinduistic than we are, say, Methodist? > >Yes, it turns out they are. They're 82% Hindu (according to a Hindu I > >heard speak recently), then in declining percentages Sikh, Christian, > >Sufi, and last of all Buddhist, which surprised me. > >Jim Deardorff > [...] > This is a pedantic argument of your own. Maybe I should have said > Christian, as opposed to Methodist. Maybe the Hindu that you > heard speak recently passed along the information that Hinduism > itself isn't monolithic, any more than Christianity is, but > probably consists of countless sects. Dennis, He spoke of Hinduism as being quite monolithic in its basics, though the various gods/goddesses who are recognized depend upon local beliefs. > Christianity has long had a tradition of encounters with > non-demonic entities, or haven't you heard of angels and the > Virgin Mary? Again, you've offered no logical reason whatever why > Americans would be more in need of abductions than any other > culture or population. But it also has a biblical tradition of encounters with demonic entities. They're the ones you're gonna equate them to -- the bastards -- and not to the angels. Hinduism's Shiva (Destroyer God) portion of their Trinity isn't comparable to Christianity's "devil," but perhaps someone on the List will let me know if, among their many minor gods, a few would be treated like they were devils, and UFO entities equated to them. However, when the day comes that the UFO entities show up for sure for good, or maybe in force, I think the Hindu population will be able to accept this with less trauma than in the West, and will be able to recognize the similarity of the aliens with the gods/goddesses of their past traditions, and will be able to equate the vimanas of their sacred literature to UFOs. They'll then be able to recognize that if it happened before, long ago, and they survived, they can survive it again. But another reason I gave for the aliens inflicting abductions most heavily on the U.S., to expand upon it, was that the world's key superpower and leader in scientific innovations will need a maximal amount of preparation and education to prepare its populace for the final crumbling away of the UFO coverup. The U.S. dependence upon official science to tell the news media and government what to believe, regarding UFO events that can't be ignored, is of maximal strength. So quite possibly the aliens have to get themselves into the news, now and then, by allowing dirty deeds (abductions) to occur over some fraction of our population -- good deeds are less believable and less sensational. At the same time they can teach those who can accept it some things about the paranormal, which both our science and Christianity want to have nothing to do with, as well as getting across some messages concerning the environment, future cataclysms, etc. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Clinton Wanted UFO Probe (The New York Post) From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:43:08 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:07:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Clinton Wanted UFO Probe (The New York Post) Published on the site of The New York Post at November 23. URL: http://www.nypostonline.com:80/news/1095.htm BILL WANTED UFO PROBE: HUBBELL BOOK By DEBORAH ORIN President Clinton was intrigued by UFOs and wanted to know if they really existed, says a new book by his golfing pal, disgraced Justice Department official Webb Hubbell. Hubbell says finding out about UFOs was one of the top priorities Clinton gave him in sending him over to a job as one of Attorney General Janet Reno's top deputies. Clinton had said, "if I put you over at Justice I want you to find the answers to two questions for me," Hubbell recounts. "One, who killed JFK. And two, are there UFOs." "Clinton was dead serious. I had looked into both, but wasn't satisfied with the answers I was getting," Hubbell adds. Hubbell describes his failure to find out about JFK and UFOs as a big regret when he had to resign as associate attorney general and pleaded guilty to bilking law clients of $482,000. Whitewater figure Jim McDougal has said Hubbell - who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton and former White House lawyer Vincent Foster at Little Rock's Rose law Firm - "knows where the bodies are buried" on the land deal, but he stays pretty closed-mouthed in the book "Friends in High Places." The book touched off a courtroom battle when Whitewater counsel Ken Starr tried to subpoena early drafts. Starr backed off, and in any case Hubbell's book insists he can't remember much. But Hubbell does toss out a tantalizing aside in examining why Bill Clinton decided against running for president in 1988: a remark from Hillary that, "We've got to straighten up Whitewater." The book portrays Hillary Clinton as an ambitious woman who dreamed of succeeding her husband as Arkansas governor and paints Bill Clinton as someone unable to face his wife on whether she should use his last name or hers. Hubbell recounts that in 1981, after Clinton got beaten for re-election as Arkansas governor - a campaign in which his wife's use of her maiden name, Rodham, was an issue - he asked Hubbell to press her to change her name. He quotes Clinton as saying: "She needs to do this ... Webb, you're her friend. Will you talk to her about it?" Hubbell says he did so and Mrs. Clinton agreed - "but I suspect it hurt for some reasons she's never understood herself." Later in 1990, Hillary Clinton seriously talked of running to succeed her husband as Arkansas governor when Bill Clinton seemed bored with the job, he adds. "Hillary had actually floated her candidacy past Vince Foster and me in the event that Bill didn't run," writes Hubbell, then a law partner of Mrs. Clinton's and Foster's. "We questioned whether if the reason Bill wasn't running was he had been in office too long, voters would think they were just getting the same thing." Hubbell adds that Mrs. Clinton "talked about how it might energize a new generation of females in the state, and when she said that, I knew she was really thinking about it." Copyright (c) 1997, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of the New York Post is prohibited.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Skywatch: Colonel Steve Wilson Is Dead From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:01:51 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:08:32 -0500 Subject: Skywatch: Colonel Steve Wilson Is Dead Found at http://members.aol.com/starmanbh/swi.htm SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (snipped) On November 22, 1997 we were notified that the Founder of Skywatch International, Colonel Steve Wilson passed away from cancer. =BFWe are awaiting further words that he has directed to us and we will post here in the future. =BFSkywatch is currently being re-organized and will continue. =BFCheck back here for further announcements. (snipped) Last Updated: 11/23/1997
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 The passing of the Col. From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:34:03 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:10:31 -0500 Subject: The passing of the Col. *Please crosspost to Skywatch and any other related mail lists. John Velez >_____________________________________________________________ >From: The AIC Interactive Email Conference >_____________________________________________________________ >The Col from Skywatch has been in the hospital with cancer...he died >this week. >Britt Hello Britt, I lost my younger brother to cancer many years ago. It is -the- single most devastating disease (not only to the individual suffering from it, but to the immediate family and close loved ones as well) that is known to man. I am deeply grieved to hear that the Col. had to endure such a death. He was a good man and deserved better. In my dealings with him I grew to like him, and it now gives me a comforting feeling to know that he felt the same way about me. The Col. believed in what he was doing. You not only have to love a guy like that, you have to respect him for it. He'll be sorely missed by a great many. Please, express my heartfelt condolences to his survivors, loved ones, and to all the guys at Skywatch on behalf of myself and all of the members of AIC and the Intruders Foundation. Col., Godspeed and Peace, we'll all be seeing you again! Sincerely, John Velez, Webmaster AIC / Intruders foundation Online John Velez jvif@spacelab.net
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Hacker Who Broke Into NASA Computers Freed From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:32:59 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:28:41 -0500 Subject: Hacker Who Broke Into NASA Computers Freed Full story Hacker who broke into Nasa walks free The Times of London Sat, Nov 22 1997 Prosecutors say case was no threat to security, writes Stephen Farrell. A COMPUTER hacker charged with breaking into United States Air Force computers causing damage estimated at Pounds 300,000 walked free from court yesterday. Mathew Bevan, 23, smiled as he left Belmarsh Crown Court, southeast London, with representatives of a tabloid newspaper six months after a London teenager, Richard Pryce, was fined Pounds 1,200 for admitting similar offences. Prosecutors decided it was not in the public interest to pursue a costly case expected to last up to three months involving witnesses flown from America to give evidence against Bevan, the son of a Fraud Squad detective. The decision comes three and a half years after two hackers codenamed Kuji and Datastream Cowboy used the Internet to penetrate Rome Laboratories, the US Air Force's premier command and control research facility at Griffiss Base in New York. Sources close to the US investigation said the intrusions had "serious implications" but did not involve national security. According to a report to the US Senate Affairs Committee the intruders gained access in March 1994 to unclassified files held at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre and computers belonging to Lockheed. Pryce, then 16, from Colindale, North London, who went on to win a scholarship to study the double bass at the Royal College of Music, was fined after he admitted 12 charges of gaining unauthorised access under the Computer Misuse Act. Magistrates were told he "caused more harm than the KGB". Another institution allegedly penetrated by the pair was Wright- Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, where wilder elements among UFO conspiracy theorists believe alien spacecraft are secretly held. Bevan, who cheerfully acknowledges being obsessed with aliens, nevertheless denied three charges of gaining unwarranted access to USAF and Lockheed computers between March and May 1994. The charges related to the alteration of data by the alleged insertion of a "sniffer" program designed to gain access to systems. The investigation was carried out by Scotland Yard's Computer Crime Unit and the US Air Force's Office of Special Investigations (OSI). Initial charges of conspiracy against the pair were dropped at an earlier hearing. Pony-tailed Bevan, an X Files addict, obsessed with UFOs, lived a twin existence and saw himself as the Nick Leeson of the hacking world. An Admiral Insurance computer operator by day, at night he sat beneath posters of his fictional FBI heroes, Mulder and Scully, hacking around the world as real-life American investigators on his electronic trail suspected him of being one of the most sophisticated and dangerous hackers they had ever encountered. In an interview with The Times Bevan admitted gaining access to computers belonging to the US Air Force, Nasa and the defence contractors Lockheed, but adamantly denied ever altering data. He insists his motive was curiosity, not personal gain. "I was after information about UFOs. I just wanted to find evidence of all the conspiracy theories - alien abductions, the 1947 Roswell landings and Nasa faking the moon landings - and where better to look than their computer files?" he said. "The US Air Force posts details of its personnel and network addresses on the Internet so anything you want you can get if you know how. It was a challenge." One source close to the American investigation, however, said: "At one stage they were connected to Latvia and the South Korean Atomic Research Institute, which raised serious concerns about the former Eastern Bloc and information warfare." Bevan was 12 when he was given a Sinclair ZX81 for Christmas from his parents, Elaine, a nurse, and Thomas, a detective sergeant with the South Wales Fraud Squad. Despite spending up to 36 hours at a time on the keyboard the family telephone bills never exceeded Pounds 60 because he mastered the technique of "blue-boxing", gaining free calls by sending electronic pulses down the line to trick BT software into thinking a call was over. His Holy Grail was to prove that alien spacecraft are stored in conditions of strict secrecy at Area 51 of Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio - as suggested in the film Independence Day . Although he claims to have seen convincing evidence of their presence, no evidence is forthcoming. Pryce was arrested at his parents home in Colindale in May 1994 and Bevan in June last year. All his equipment was seized, leading, he admits, to withdrawal symptoms. "It is all about control, really. I'm in my little room with my little computer breaking into the biggest computers in the world and suddenly I have more control over this machine than them. That is where the buzz comes from. Anyone who says they are a reformed hacker is talking rubbish. If you are a hacker, you are always a hacker. It's a state of mind." Copyright 1997, The Times of London. All rights reserved. Republication and redistribution of The Times of London content is expressly pr ohibited without the prior written consent of The Times of London. The Times of London shall not be liable for errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:08:18 +0200 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:32:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever This is a combination of three replies, 2 posted to the list, one a private post that I have kept anonymous as I haven't specifically asked the mailer if I could use his/her name. I will just insert some comments here and there, but the points I'm trying to make are: - We have no scientific proof, evidence, or knowledge of what these FTs are - There are varying degrees of interpretation of the events/objects that are based on belief systems >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:17:55 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: "S. Baldwin" <sblee@stc.net> [Susan Baldwin] >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >They are observed by MORE people over a high population area but >I would not say *mostly observed*. Check out >http://www.isur.com >case databases. Its chock full of sightings here in Georgia (US) >over areas other than very populated Atlanta. Sorry, I'm no longer able to surf. Could you summarize the sightings as follows: - Time (as in 24 hour hh:mm) commonality - Night/ day? - Near to any known mil. base, power-station, whatever? >You ask some excellent questions in the rest of your posting, I >have wondered about those myself. Lights on the vehicles might >prevent small planes from flying into them perhaps? Good comment, but read on to see what others think. >Susan B. and >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0800 >We don't know. There are some daytime sightings of triangular >geometries, but not many. Reference sites? Case studies? >I suspect some percentage (size unknown) are mispercieved >aircraft. I know that I have seen some video and photo material >claiming to be FTs which are clearly aircraft. >> - Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all >> the headlights on >They can't turn them off. >They don't care if we see them. Have you proof of this? Why can't they turn them off? If they don't care, why not fly during the day? >> - Why are these things mostly observed over high >> population density areas, and not small to medium >> settlements >FT sightings have been in a variety of areas. The Hudson Valley >sightings, for instance, were in areas ranging from high pop to >rural. Also, don't forget, if there are no witnesses, or the >witnesses don't report, you don't know what's being seen. We are >far from having good national coverage of sightings. Fair enough, but we need to base any theories on investigated cases that have a fair chance of being "genuine" unidentified FTs. Therefore, the role of MUFON or whatever other organization willing to take up the role of international data collector, is to categorize and sort any and all reports. Field investigators, REGARDLESS of their organizational allegiances, must contribute to this database. >> If one flies at night to hide oneself, then the >> lights should be off, no? >If the "lights" are not lights but are an ionization side effect >of some part of the operation of the object, then perhaps not. We >know that UFOs can shut down their luminosity for limited periods >at least without falling out of the sky, but there is a clear >connection between UFO luminosity and operation (see >Moreland-1959, Selma-1957 in my website chronological catalog > http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufochron.htm >for more details). We "know" this? We have tested said flying craft, and have documented evidence that these craft produce some EM effect that is in the incandescent light intensity range of those seen in Phoenix? Have we testimony from an electronics expert that can tell us at what voltage these arc-light effects are produced? >> If one flies at night with the lights on, so one >> can see where one is flying, I assume, >This is probably not a likely reason for UFO luminosity. Again, see >cases such as those mentioned above which suggest the luminosity >is a side effect of the operation of the object. See my queries as well. I much prefer to think they use the lights as warnings. >> then why >> over a humonguous place like Phoenix, Arizona? >"Ladies and gentlemen, down below we have one of the humans' >large population centers. Observe the use of primitive incandescent >lighting and internal combustion vehicles. Over the mountains, there, >you can see where earlier today their primitive aircraft engaged in >flare drops... Please feel free to take photos, and we have some >souveniers for sale in the lounge." Now THAT is an interesting thought. Could explain a lot. >> If one flies at night with the lights on, over >> Phoenix, Arizona, then why not during the day? >Maybe they do. But maybe the big wing guys are nocturnal. I mean, >really, any of this is speculation. We can't say why the UFO >phenomenon behaves as it does without carefully examining the >available information. Aha! And there you say it yourself: "the available information". Do we have info of the right quality to formulate informed opinions? Shouldn't we do that first? >Right now we are still largely in the descriptive stages - "Large >formations or large single objects fly over population centers at >night. We don't know why." We are not at the stage where the >level of information allows us confidently to predict motives or >behavior (except, perhaps, that many large formation sightings >will occur over populated areas). Exactly. and >I'm replying privately rather than over the UFO Updates List because I've >discussed this sort of thing several times before on that list, and the >others might grow weary of it! Not at all, because NOTHING has been explained regarding the phenomena! >The aliens' reason would seem to be: deniability. If they fly at night, >then people can argue that what was seen might have been airplanes in >formation, or slowly falling flares, etc. So skeptics who would otherwise >be driven out of their minds -- literally crazy -- if they were forced to >face up to the truth all at once, can have a way out and thus preserve >their sanity. This reasoning implies that the aliens in charge of it all >are ethical to this extent, and have been, since 1947 and before. This is a presumption of alien intent. There are no ethics in abductions. Would you care to explain how the two issues can be brought together? >Yet they fly over populated areas (at night) just so that enough people >can see them to get some discussions going that might make it into the >newspapers. With what intent? >If they did this during the day, and allowed themselves to be visible to >all, it could be too much for even the staunchest negative skeptics to be >able to deny, and then the UFO coverup would suddenly be over, and all >panic and chaos could ensue. Millions of deaths could occur over the >world, of societies broke down, etc. The UFO coverup is a fact, is it? Global panic? >But I presume that it wouldn't be nearly so bad now, after 50 years of >such sightings and abductions, etc., if the UFOs were suddenly known and >pronounced to be here and real, as it would have been without those 50 >years of preparations that the ETs have allowed us. Then why still hide away at night? >Of course, the aliens can show their UFOs to more people in the daytime in >2nd or 3rd-world countries and still get away with it, because the U.S. >and the other major political powers then would just continue to ignore >it. Do you have proof that there are more sightings in 3rd-world countries? Would you say that the average Western person who lives comfortably in his 3 bedroom suburban house spends more time gazing at the sky than a subsistance farmer in Africa or India living in a mud and thatch hut? I'm sorry: nobody has started getting it yet: this FT phenomena is predominantly an American/UK thing: what we need to do is find the common denominator/s in each case or sighting. Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:58:58 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:33:53 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: natural.state@erols.com >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:58:28 -0600 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >But your words indicated that everyone who thought the ETH was a >good explanation for UFOs, encounters, etc. was ingenuous in that >way - "I'm Prayin' to the Aliens" - "Save me, Space Brothers." >It was a sweeping brush you used to paint that picture - I took >exception to that. For example, fairies, demons, etc., referring >to some other people's non-ETH views, don't seem to need >structured craft to get about - neither do beings of light. If >beings are solely multi-dimensional, why would they bother? >Seems to me that's the biggest fallacy in the non-ETH view - not >that it can't be true, but that it doesn't make much sense. Sorry if it sounded like I intended to include all ETH believers. That was never my intent. I have many friends who are convinced of the ETH, and I respect their right to that belief. I think they are wrong, but that's another matter. >The burr under my saddle stems from the fact that I'd like these >lists to be places where we can try to piece together >significance, motives, implications for humanity and the earth - >work towards the MEANING of all this. Personally, I get tired of >listening to complete sceptics arguing that the visitors are not >here, that no one has ever been abducted, and so on. It would be >lovely, although I now believe way too optimistic, to think we >could accept certain premises and delve into the why, wherefore, >and wither. Time's a-wastin', life is short, discernment is >difficult, running in place is exhausting. Be nice to think we >could help each other to divine the purpose and meaning of all >this. What about the possibility that in human terms the phenomena have no purpose or meaning? There are lots of things about the universe that we do not understand, and some physicists think there are also lots that we CAN'T understand. Things that do not operate within the frameworks of human logic, and are therefore totally beyond our understanding. Maybe some things just ARE, and don't exist for any purpose. Insisting on a meaning and purpose to the universe may well be the ultimate in anthropomorphizing. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Clark and ETH From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:55:29 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:39:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH > From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH (and ELs) > To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto) > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:12 -0600 (CST) > Note to Errol and Jerry: Tell me why I am bothering with this again? > [Because you're a very patient, caring man who believes that > everyone has an innate ability to eventually attain clarity? > - ebk] What??!! I'll deny that in public! That's supposed to be a well-guarded secret. What are you trying to do? Ruin my reputation? -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca) University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: ETH &c From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:27:53 +0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:37:41 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH &c >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:51:39 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: ETH &c Dear Paul, You wrote, >I think the problems in your reply here, and the prevailing ones >I have seen on this strand, are two unquestioned assumptions: >a)Ufology is a subject, and (b)it involves ET craft and the ETH. >This really points up what I have been saying elsewhere on this >list, that the ETH is so overweaning, is such a dominant paradigm, >that it has become an automatic reflex - an *invisible assumption*. >In truth, ufology is not a subject as such (it is a loose bag of >bits - a little good, much indifferent, more bad) and mainstream >science could not possibly deal with it as if it were. Secondly, >most of what is written in ufology isn't up to the standards of >mainstream scientific scholarship in any case, and would get >rejected on those grounds alone. You cannot blame science for >keeping most of ufology at bargepole length, quite honestly. The >third point is that there is plenty of material out there in the >scientific literature on aspects of ufology if one is not >assuming that UFO=ET. I have a formation in Biology, Environmental Sciences and Computers. I hate to be told I am un-scientific in my assumptions. I find very amusing what could be termed the "appropriation syndrome". Much as you see a child playing in sand grabbing his toys when someone threatens to even touch them, SOME "scientists" do the same with Science. This reaction to insecurity doesn't change the reality though: nobody owns Science. Science is an attitude. A scientist should be someone who pratices science. Don't mistake this with a fellowship or a title or a job. Science starts with the study of facts. Not the rebutal of them. The expression "Scientific fact" is a pleonasm. A fact is a fact. Sorry for "mainstream science" (allow me a giggle here) which is always pleased to throw the later like a glove at the face of a yokel. This attitude mimics the Victorian times: none dared to talk about sex. Did it mean nobody got horny ? As a spokesman for "mainstream science" you can surely answer the following questions: when was the last study on the views of "mainstream science" towards UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis? Who did it? What were the questions? What were the results? Serge Salvaille
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:59:13 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:43:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:59 +0100 (MET) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] > <everything snipped except> > >AERIAL PHENOMENA: In the case of things seen-in-the sky, while > >the ETH should stay on the table, it should not be as overbearing > >as it currently is and has been for nearly 50 years. It should be > >given nothing more than equal weighting with social, > >psychological and geophysical UFOs - and perhaps UFOs of a type > >we haven't even thought of as yet. After all, the ETH is still > >solely a matter of conjecture and anecdote (radar-visuals and > >physical traces can apply equally to geophysical UFOs as to ET > Paul, > With all due respect. Can I ask you to elaborate on how > gephysical phenomena could have produced the Belgian > radar-visual or shall I just log this one as bogus > explanation 16? Henny: An explanation of the Belgian cases as geophysical phenomena would be bogus explanation *17*. Mass hallucination is #16. Besides, haven't you been feeling all those earthquakes in Belgium over the past ten years? -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca) University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:06:58 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:43:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:11:25 -0500 From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Regarding... >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Bruce wrote: >A strange bird is a pelican... >Bruce, >They certainly seem to do a remarkable impression of alien spacecraft >flying in formation! >Quite a talented bird. >It flies over 100 miles per hour >when everitcan.... >especially when trying to race a small airplane while flying >southward past Mt. Rainier. >100 miles an hour based on what? I used 100 mph as as estimated speed of Arnold's plane. Since he flew southward parallel to these "birds" for a period of time, yet they managed to pull away from him (travel faster, other wise he would have noted the sighting line to the birds rotating to his LEFT...opposite direction of the rotation of a sighting line to objects traveling faster than the plane) I assume they must have been going faster than 100 mph. A STRANGE BIRD IS A PELICAN... perhaps it grabbed one of the Klass/Davidson meteors........to gain speed.....
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:46:58 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:45:06 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:07:23 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:30:40 -0600 (CST) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >> >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:14:14 -0800 (PST) >> >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] <everything snipped except> >But another reason I gave for the aliens inflicting abductions >most heavily on the U.S., to expand upon it, was that the world's >key superpower and leader in scientific innovations will need a >maximal amount of preparation and education to prepare its >populace for the final crumbling away of the UFO coverup. The >U.S. dependence upon official science to tell the news media and >government what to believe, regarding UFO events that can't be >ignored, is of maximal strength. So quite possibly the aliens >have to get themselves into the news, now and then, by allowing >dirty deeds (abductions) to occur over some fraction of our >population -- good deeds are less believable and less >sensational. At the same time they can teach those who can >accept it some things about the paranormal, which both our >science and Christianity want to have nothing to do with, as well >as getting across some messages concerning the environment, >future cataclysms, etc. >Jim Deardorff Guys, There is no proof whatsoever that the US is the focal point for alien abductions, whatever they are. Unless a comparative study is done, involving countries such as the USA, Brazil, France, Togo, Pakistan and Japan, we know nothing. What I know is that here in the Netherlands there is an abduction therapist who has 80 abduction cases. I have read a book by German writers Lammer and Sidla that mentions German children who claim to be abducted who recognize the little grays. Meanwhile abduction reports come in from technological countries like Australia and the UK as well as underdeveloped Colombia and stone age Papua New Guinea, where they will probably rather buy a few sets of underwear before they'll settle before their first television tubes with a bag of popcorn. I.e. no media contamination there and no "Americana". While the American mass media have spread the word about the abduction situation in the US, the reverse was not true so far. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:38:53 -0800 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:51:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:08:18 +0200 > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever:combined post in response to > replies > This is a combination of three replies, 2 posted to the list, > one a private post that I have kept anonymous as I haven't > specifically asked the mailer if I could use his/her name. > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0800 > >We don't know. There are some daytime sightings of triangular > >geometries, but not many. > Reference sites? Case studies? There is a good case with AF officers observing 3 delta shaped metallic objects in daytime, Ruppelt, p 24. This was an AF unknown. In most historical studies, triangular objects are a small percentage of configurations (UFO Evidence, Blue Book); since most UFOs are seen at night (Vallee, Fowler), daytime sightings of triangular configurations are bound to be extremely rare. > >I suspect some percentage (size unknown) are mispercieved > >aircraft. I know that I have seen some video and photo material > >claiming to be FTs which are clearly aircraft. > >> - Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all > >> the headlights on > >They can't turn them off. > >They don't care if we see them. > Have you proof of this? Why can't they turn them off? > If they don't care, why not fly during the day? These were speculative alternatives. Why can't they turn them off? Well, have you ever tried to make the exhaust coming out of your car not be emitted, and still be able to have the engine running? Doesn't work. Can a plane fly when its engines aren't emitting blasts of hot air? Can't happen. They do fly during the day. But as the studies cited above have shown, not often. Maybe the UFO source is nocturnal. Maybe they have a "prime directive" to be as little obvious as possible. Who knows? > >> - Why are these things mostly observed over high > >> population density areas, and not small to medium > >> settlements > >FT sightings have been in a variety of areas. The Hudson Valley > >sightings, for instance, were in areas ranging from high pop to > >rural. Also, don't forget, if there are no witnesses, or the > >witnesses don't report, you don't know what's being seen. We are > >far from having good national coverage of sightings. > Fair enough, but we need to base any theories on investigated > cases that have a fair chance of being "genuine" unidentified > FTs. Therefore, the role of MUFON or whatever other organization > willing to take up the role of international data > collector, is to categorize and sort any and all reports. > Field investigators, REGARDLESS of their organizational > allegiances, must contribute to this database. I don't think anyone would allege that anyone is not contributing to any database of reports. FUFOR, MUFON, and CUFOS all publish both significant cases and studies. I'm not sure what you're getting at. We all know that there are places in the world that have 0 UFO investigators per square mile. There are places that have 0 potential witnesses per square mile. We just don't know what's happening in those places. Let's be realistic. Very rural locations are places where the chances of sightings diminish greatly,even if UFO activity were on par or more than that in populated areas. > >> If one flies at night to hide oneself, then the > >> lights should be off, no? > >If the "lights" are not lights but are an ionization side effect > >of some part of the operation of the object, then perhaps not. We > >know that UFOs can shut down their luminosity for limited periods > >at least without falling out of the sky, but there is a clear > >connection between UFO luminosity and operation (see > >Moreland-1959, Selma-1957 in my website chronological catalog > > http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufochron.htm > >for more details). > We "know" this? We have tested said flying craft, and have > documented evidence that these craft produce some EM > effect that is in the incandescent light intensity range > of those seen in Phoenix? Have we testimony from an > electronics expert that can tell us at what voltage > these arc-light effects are produced? Jakes, there are some things we can know without having to test a captured UFO. If you checked the cases like the Selma case and the Moreland case, you would see a clear correlation of manuvers to luminosity. That, to me, means, we "know" that luminosity is tied to UFO operation and manuvers. The Moreland case is one of many, however, where, at least, visible light emanations from the object are apparently "off" yet the object continues to fly. Therefore there are only a few alternatives: 1) The luminosity is not a side effect of the system that supports the UFO in the air. 2) The luminosity is a side effect of that system, but can be shifted to non-visible frequencies (this is supported by photos such as the Beaver Falls PA photos, which show a cone of luminosity which was not visible at the time the photos were taken, and which apparently was emitting UV or IR). I think that in your comments about voltages, etc, you are still thinking of UFO lighting as big bulbs and spotlights. Research, including Bruce Maccabee's examination of the Gulf Breeze "blue beam" , the observations in cases such as the Moreland and Seaman cases, and many others, indicate that the lighting on UFOs is a byproduct of atmospheric ionization. This may be caused by a number of mechanisms, which may include the injection of electrons into the neighborhood of the surface of the object, or X-rays / gamma rays, or some other high intensity EM emissions. Hill has done some calculations in this regard. Vallee has found output from UFOs in the visible to be in the kilowatt to megawatt ranges. > >> If one flies at night with the lights on, so one > >> can see where one is flying, I assume, > >This is probably not a likely reason for UFO luminosity. Again, see > >cases such as those mentioned above which suggest the luminosity > >is a side effect of the operation of the object. > See my queries as well. I much prefer to think they use the > lights as warnings. You may think as you please. However, then you must answer the question of why the luminosity is correlated to manuvering, why close observations show luminosity, not light bulbs, and why UFOs would be concerned about collisions when they clearly have the performance to avoid any conceivable collision speed of man made aircraft or missiles. > >Maybe they do. But maybe the big wing guys are nocturnal. I mean, > >really, any of this is speculation. We can't say why the UFO > >phenomenon behaves as it does without carefully examining the > >available information. > > Aha! And there you say it yourself: "the available information". > Do we have info of the right quality to formulate informed > opinions? Shouldn't we do that first? I think we have the information. I think the analysis remains somewhat lacking, but there are tens of thousands of historical cases, each of which can add a piece to the puzzle, falsify hypotheses, etc. > Not at all, because NOTHING has been explained regarding the > phenomena! I don't agree. There are many things which have been able to be explained about UFOs. I would refer you again to Hill's book, which puts much of what it known in solid and quantitative form. I wish we had more people working at his level, but we don't. Still, that's no excuse for ignoring the vast amount of information at our disposal if we choose to look. > I'm sorry: nobody has started getting it yet: this FT phenomena > is predominantly an American/UK thing: > what we need to do is find the common denominator/s in each case > or sighting. I don't know how to interpret the last part of that sentence, but as far as I know, there is no study to support your conclusion. In fact, a number of excellent triangle sightings are from Australia and Belgium, among others. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:39:41 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:53:53 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto) >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:59:13 -0600 (CST) >> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:59 +0100 (MET) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >> <everything snipped except> >> >AERIAL PHENOMENA: In the case of things seen-in-the sky, while >> >the ETH should stay on the table, it should not be as overbearing >> >as it currently is and has been for nearly 50 years. It should be >> >given nothing more than equal weighting with social, >> >psychological and geophysical UFOs - and perhaps UFOs of a type >> >we haven't even thought of as yet. After all, the ETH is still >> >solely a matter of conjecture and anecdote (radar-visuals and >> >physical traces can apply equally to geophysical UFOs as to ET >> Paul, >> With all due respect. Can I ask you to elaborate on how >> gephysical phenomena could have produced the Belgian >> radar-visual or shall I just log this one as bogus >> explanation 16? >Henny: >An explanation of the Belgian cases as geophysical phenomena >would be bogus explanation *17*. Mass hallucination is #16. Hi Chris, Thanks for your input on my Bogus Hall of Fame. However, I just checked and found that mass hallu was actually number 5, in between the cultural aberration of French speaking Belgium and Aurora/Senior Citizen. But I found there were a few items missing as well, so in fact you alerted me to the danger of losing these gems of pseudo-science for all time, which would be a huge disservice to Ufology, to lend a line from the Duke. However, I expect new bogus to come up in time. Some people are so allergic to the facts that I'd rather team up with the Duke to form a salsa band and teach my sister's dog to dance the macarena before trying to convince them. Actually I was thinking if anyone can provide me Bogus Explanation 20 (BE 20) before Christmas, he/she would win the miniature white elephant. >Besides, haven't you been feeling all those earthquakes in >Belgium over the past ten years? Oh, I thought I had hallucinated them. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:17:31 +0000 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:06:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >From: "Julianne Presson" <earthwrk@doitnow.com> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:59:43 -0700 <big snip> >>>The 1994 >>>Collins definition is quite applicable. >[................] >folklore (fok=B4l=F4r=B4, -lor=B4) noun >1. The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and >practices of a people, transmitted orally. >2. The comparative study of folk knowledge >and culture. Also called folkloristics. >3. a. A body of widely accepted but usually >specious notions about a place, a group, or >an institution: Rumors of their antics became >part of the folklore of Hollywood. b. A popular >but unfounded belief. >- folk=B4lor=B4ic adjective >- folk=B4lor=B4ish adjective >- folk=B4lor=B4ist noun >- folk=B4loris=B4tic adjective >The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the >English Language, Third Edition copyright =A9 >1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic >version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. >All rights reserved. >>Something else I disagree with, well at least partially. There >>is *a* community in cyberspace but it is not a "real" community >>is the true sense of the world, after all is'nt life virtual >>enough for you?? >community (ke-my=A1=B4n=EE-t=EA) noun >plural communities >Abbr. com. >1. a. A group of people living in the same >locality and under the same government. >b. The district or locality in which such a >group lives. >2. A group of people having common interests: >the scientific community; the international >business community. >3. a. Similarity or identity: a community of >interests. b. Sharing, participation, and >fellowship. >4. Society as a whole; the public. >5. Ecology. a. A group of plants and animals >living and interacting with one another in a >specific region under relatively similar >environmental conditions. b. The region >occupied by a group of interacting organisms. >noun, attributive >Often used to modify another noun: community >problems; community facilities. >[Middle English communite, citizenry, from Old >French, from Latin comm=FAnit=E2s, fellowship, from >comm=FAnis, common. See COMMON.] >The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the >English Language, Third Edition copyright =A9 >1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic >version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. >All rights reserved. >>And you may have mine, said in the best possible terms. >>Whilst I seriously disagree with your beliefs Paul I don't have >>an axe to grind with you personally. >Sean why would you have a virtual axe to grid with anyone??? >Julie Julie Hi, Your posting has taken me a few days to work out. Either 1) you agree with Paul, but wish to say so very politely so to avoid my wrath (or "virtual axe" <G>) or 2) you are pointing out the fact that the American dictionary is different to the English dictionary and you are merely pointing out the difference so to explain Pauls point of view has a reference point. I do hope it is the latter but that is only by personal prefernce :-) As to why would I have a virtual axe to grind with anyone, well I hav'nt. :-) I merely mentioned the point that I don't have an axe to grind because in the past Paul and I have exchanged a few heated emails. Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 24 Re: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:51:18 -0700 Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:18:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:42:51 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:16:10 -0800 >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) >>Subject: Prometheus Skeptic's Books Available [...] >>UFOS: THE PUBLIC DECEIVED >>By Philip Klass, $19.95, http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/k/klassufo/ >>Our favorite misanthrope tackles the belief that UFOs are being >>covered up by the highest levels of the U.S. government. Klass >>analyses dozens of popular claims prior to this book's 1983 >>publication date, including the Travis Walton case... [...] >WHAT A CROCK!!! (This is also the book where he takes >on Travis Walton and crew.) The Klass section of the article at: http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/essays/walton.htm#klass discusses Klass' claims (from U:TPD and UA:ADG) on the Walton case in some detail, in case anyone is interested in how the smoke has settled off of that particular microwar in recent times. -- Geoff Price Geoff@CalibanMW.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:37:01 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 01:44:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony As there's a number of debatable points in Arnold's testimonies, for those interested in discussing them, perhaps we could go back over the issues separately. Firstly, can we agree a perspective on which to consider these points. In his radio interview, Arnold states: "I was approximately 25 to 28 miles from Mt. Rainier, I climbed back up to 9200 feet and I noticed to the left of me a chain which looked to me like the tail of a Chinese kite, kind of weaving and going at a terrific speed across the face of Mt. Rainier. I, at first, thought they were geese because it flew like geese, but it was going so fast that I immediately changed my mind and decided it was a bunch of new jet planes in formation". So Arnold is 25-28 miles from Mt. Ranier and notices a chain of objects, flying in echelon like geese, or pelicans <g>, and they're travelling across the face of Mt. Ranier. Can we assume the objects must therefore have been between Arnold's plane and those 25-28 miles to the mountain? However, in Bruce's "The Complete Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold...", he quotes from Arnold's letter to the Army Air Force (L) and his later book "The Coming of the Saucers", privately published in 1953 (B). Arnold now states: (L) "The sky and air was as clear as crystal. I hadn't flown more than two or three minutes on my course when a bright flash light reflected on my airplane. It startled me as I thought I was too close to some other aircraft. (B) "I spent the next twenty to thirty seconds urgently searching the sky all around - to the sides and above and below me - in an attempt to determine where the flash of light had come from. [...] Before I had time to collect my thoughts or to find a close aircraft, the flash happened again. This time I caught the direction from which it had come. I observed, far to my left and to the north, a formation of very bright objects coming from the vicinity of Mt. Baker, flying very close to the mountain tops and travelling at tremendous speed. (L) I observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft flying from north to south at approximately 9,500 ft elevation and going, seemingly, in a definite direction of about 170 degrees. (B) "At first I couldn't make out their shapes as they were still at a distance of over a hundred miles". [End] Is this apparent contradiction in the distance explainable? Could a flash have reflected off Arnold's plane from an object over 100 miles away? James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 RMIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video From: Shaver@online.pol.dk, Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:48:21 +0200 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 01:53:41 -0500 Subject: RMIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video Received from "alt.alien.visitors" November 24 at 20.27 local Danish time (GMT + 1 hour): [ Article reposted from alt.ufo.reports ] [ Author was Peter Petrisko ] [ Posted on 18 Nov 1997 23:43:01 -0700 ] MEN IN BLACK INTERCEPT 'PHOENIX LIGHTS' VIDEO FOOTAGE? (transcribed from a FOX10 NEWS (Phx.) report, 11/18 @9pm, reported by Jim Schnebelt) FROM THE FOX-10 '10 files'... (on screen: stock "Phoenix Lights" footage, of lights suspended in sky) voiceover: Months after this (March 13) sighting there are many questions regarding the strange lights over Phoenix. Is this a solid craft, or merely lights in an empty sky? What could be the conclusive evidence is now mysteriously missing. Richard Curtis claims his home video is proof that this sighting was a huge flying craft. And he claims his video shows a solid object in the sky passing over his home. (on screen: cut to head shot of Curtis.) Curtis: I saw the bottom part (of the craft) as it went over Phoenix, because the lights lit the bottom of it, and it partially blocked out the clouds and the stars. voiceover: Curtis called city councilwoman Frances Emma Barwood, wanting to show her the footage. (on screen: cut to head shot of Barwood) Barwood: He said he had it on two videotapes, and would I like them, so I said, "Of course I would.", and could he give me copies of them. He said he would. I told him how to get them to my office and to mark them 'personal and confidential'. (on screen: cheesy slo-mo video "re-enactment" of Men in Black walking about) voiceover: But before Curtis could send copies to Barwood, he's paid a visit by two mysterious men in black. Curtis:(voiced over MIB reenactments) They were dressed in black suits, with black hats and sunglasses. They asked me if I had tapes for coucilwoman Barwood, and I said "Yah, they're laying right here." They said, "We've stopped by to pick them up." So I said, "Great!" and just handed (the original tapes) to them. (on screen: cut to head shot of Barwood) Barwood: I didn't get them, and I have no idea who these two men were since I have just females working in my office. Its absolutely puzzling to me. (on screen: cut to slo-mo MIB, one of them now holding videotapes...(!) ) voiceover: Did the tapes ever exist, and if so were they proof of more than "lights" in the sky? And who were these mysterious Men in Black who allegedly took them? (as slo-mo MIB vid continues...) Curtis (voiced over): I think someone listened in on that phone call and wanted those tapes. Barwood (voiced over): I can't explain it. Its just eerie. Voiceover: The mystery continues. Jim Schnebelt, Fox-10 News. _________ end story, cut to anchor _________
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: DRudiak@aol.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:09:11 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:14:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:11:25 -0500 >Fwd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:29:35 -0500 >Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >>Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 >>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Bruce wrote: >>A strange bird is a pelican... Bruce, >They certainly seem to do a remarkable impression of alien spacecraft >flying in formation! James Easton seems to do a remarkable impression of a Ufologist Pflocking in formation with debunkers. Easton, still haven't dealt with some of the basic questions. How does a flock of "pelicans" or any other bird: 1. Quickly outfly an airplane going 110 mph on a parallel course? 2. Avoid being flown into by Arnold's plane on his initial intercept course and therefore quickly recognized (when they can be no more than 1-3 miles away when first sighted)? 3. Flash brightly in the sunlight with an almost blinding light even against a snowy backdrop? 4. Have a length to thickness ratio on the order of 10 or 20 to 1? 5. Be flying in a close packed flock of unrecognizable objects when they are stretched out over a visual angle of about 11 degrees or .2 radian? >Quite a talented bird. Quite a talented bird. What's your Aviary name? 8-) >>It flies over 100 miles per hour when everitcan.... >>especially when trying to race a small airplane while flying >>southward past Mt. Rainier. >100 miles an hour based on what? Based on the basic case report and some real simple math, which you obviously missed out on in high school. Arnold said he was flying on a parallel course headed south at 110 mph. Yet the objects passed his position flying a southward course between Mt. Rainier and Mt Adams. Even if these had been itty-bitty sparrows flying just outside his window, this means they had to flying faster than 110 mph. It only gets worse the bigger the birds and the further away they have to be to avoid recognition as birds (like seeing their wings flapping). For your giant white "pelicans," I gave an example of where they might have been about 7500 feet away. At this distance it might be possible to make out some crude detail, to try to fit your theory of how Arnold confused pelican anatomy with crescent-shaped saucers. Yet it might be just far enough that Arnold couldn't immediately recognize them as birds. (This is extremely doubtful, but I'm trying to give your pelican theory every bit of help that it can get.) At this distance, for the pelicans to cover the visual angle of 80 degrees between Rainier and Adams in Arnold's clocked 102 second period, they would have to be flying at 170 mph. And the further ANY flying object gets from Arnold, the faster it has to go to do this. (This is where basic math comes in. Try reviewing geometric scaling with distance.) >In his possible first interview, certainly one of the earliest he >gave, Kenneth Arnold said: >"I got down to Pendleton and I began looking at my map and taking >measurements on it and the best calculation I could figure out, >now even in spite of error, would be around 1200 miles an hour, >because making the distance from Mt. Rainier to Mt. Adams, in, >we'll say approximately two minutes, it's almost, well, it'd be >around 25 miles per minute. >Now allowing for air, we can give them three minutes or four >minutes to make it, and they're still going more than 800 miles >an hour". You just don't get it, do you? Arnold's figures hold for objects 25 miles distant. Closer objects will be computed to travel slower, but even next to his plane, their bare-bones MINIMUM speed will have to exceed 110 mph. What flock of birds travels >110 mph? Of course, they can't be right outside his window, or he knows their birds right away. They have to be much further away to the point where he can't see basic things like flapping wings. That means they have to be traveling well in excess of 110 mph. >In your paper, "The Complete Sighting Report of Kenneth Arnold, >with Comments and Analysis", you state: >"The distance from the flank of Mt. Rainier to the peak of Mt. >Adams is about 45 miles (depending upon where on the flank one >picks as the starting p point). Since the length of the "chain" >of objects was about 5 miles (paragraph H above), the leading >object was about 5 miles south of Mt. Adams when the last object >passed Mt. Adams. Hence the total distance it (and the others) >travelled was about 50 miles in 102 seconds. This corresponds to >a speed of about 1,760 mph". >Pick a number, any number... Are you really this dense, or are you just pretending to be? It's not a matter of arbitrary "picking" a number. It's what the required speed would have to be at a given distance given the details of the sighting. You really need a refresher math course. Speeds scale with distance. The MINIMUM speed is still in excess of 110 mph (Arnold's air speed), and the further away the objects actually are, the faster the COMPUTED speed will be. At 25 miles, they would be traveling at Arnold's 1700 mph. Two inches from his pilot's window they still have to be traveling at 110+ mph. >What if the "the length of the 'chain' of objects'" wasn't "about >5 miles"? Then the objects would be closer, be still going too damn fast to be birds. Sheesh! Further, the nine objects would be too far apart to be birds flocking together. Your linear "pelican" formation at 7500 feet would be strung out over 1500 feet. Again, that's where SCALING comes in. 1500 feet at 7500 feet distance covers an equivalent visual angle as 5 miles at 25 miles distance. So your "pelicans" would be flying approximately 200 feet apart from one another, hardly an example of birds in close formation flight. >Your reference to "paragraph H above", relates to a statement >which Arnold made in his letter to the USAF, in which he says: >"I observed the chain of these objects passing another >snow-covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as >the first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last >object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was >flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it >and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely >assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least >five miles long". >This is a subjective calculation, No, it's Arnold's description of an observed VISUAL ANGLE based on an identifiable landmark (the ridge): 5 miles of spread at 25 miles distance or 0.2 radians. Your flock of "pelicans" would still cover the SAME visual angle at closer distance and appear to span the same 5 mile distant ridge, only they would be closer together (again think geometric scaling). Unfortunately, your pelicans are going to be too damned spread out at even a much closer distance to be engaged in formation flying. > Arnold claiming he was watching >"saucer like objects", when he may have been observing pelicans, >something he apparently didn't account for. >Do you think Arnold's mention of "saucer like objects" might have >been influenced by the "flying saucer" hysteria his story was >responsible for? Do you think your inability to understand simple arguments might be influenced by the flying saucer debunking hysteria that seems to be epidemic among so-called British Ufologists? >Arnold of course never having originally claimed to see "saucer >like objects" at all... So? What difference does that make? >>Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out how >>high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and speed. >I had already asked about this and in view of the uncertainty, >I'm looking for a more definitive answer. A copy of "All You Ever >Wanted to Know About the American White Pelican", would be >useful, but in the absence of that, it's a case of asking various >people who might be able to offer an informed opinion. >I'm quite happy to do so as time permits, although I can't help >wondering why it's apparently taken 50 years for such obvious >enquiries to be made. Maybe because various people who've looked into it over the last 50 years ago had some basic reasoning ability and realized that a flock of birds couldn't outfly Arnold's plane. >Maybe if this scenario had already been examined by "ufologists" >and proven to be impossible, there might be something to laugh >about. We're laughing because the arguments against birds are so simple and devastating, and yet you just don't get it. You just plod on with a bunch of handwaving arguments instead of thinking through what people are trying to tell you. >>If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) nearly >>at horizon level to him, then they would have been essentially at his >>level. >Not necessarily. This is also subjective No, it's NOT "subjective," because he's again comparing the objects against known landmarks. If he's flying at 9200 feet, and the objects appear to be just skimming the peaks and ridges of the Cascade range, then we can again compute a worst-case figure for what their downward visual angle would have been. Assume Arnold was grossly in error on his estimated height, and the objects were really appearing to skim the Cascades at only 5000 feet instead of his estimated 9000-10000 feet. This still places them at a downward angle of only 2 degrees. This angle will be INDEPENDENT of whatever distance the objects happen to be. Arnold's subjective impression of distance doesn't enter into it at all. So if your "pelicans" were 10,000 feet away, this 2 degree downward angle translates into less than 400 feet difference in altitude between the "pelicans" and Arnold. Again SCALING. The "birds" would have been up around Arnold's altitude and he would have been looking at them from the side, not from the top or bottom. For God's sake, review your math! >and as Arnold comments >in that early interview, "And, they seemed to flip and flash in >the sun, just like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an >angle from the sun that seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar >looking things in such a way that it almost blinded you when you >looked at them through your plexiglass windshield". >It could therefore be argued that Arnold was looking down on the >"tops of these peculiar looking things" It could therefore be argued by YOU if you don't think about it. But he couldn't be looking down on the "tops of these peculiar things" and still have them appear to be skimming the top of the Cascades, which is a downward angle of only 2 degrees or less. >>And, I suppose Arnold could see the white bodies but not the >>bills/beaks. >Obviously this is possible. So far as I know, he didn't have >binoculars with him, or was blessed with telescopic vision. >If you were observing a formation of birds at a considerable >distance, would you clearly make out every detail? If he could see enough to describe them as crescent shaped or chopped in the back, then he is going to be close enough to clearly make out gross body features like wings, in particular flapping wings. Otherwise, if they are too far away, they are going to look like nothing more than nondescript dots with NO detail at all. That's why it is possible to put bounds on the distances that would likely be involved for an object of any size. >A million and one experienced birdwatchers might disagree. >Kenneth Arnold was unquestionably a highly experienced pilot and >his _original_ testimony should be given due consideration. His _original_ testimony has the objects passing by his plane on a southward course as they swung through the visual angle between Rainier to the north and Adams to the South. Therefore, whatever distance they were, they were outflying his plane, which was traveling at about 110 mph. What pelicans fly well in excess of 110 mph? His _original_ testimony has the objects strung out in a formation covering 0.2 radians or about 11 degrees. If they were pelicans, they would be flying too far apart to be flying in a formation. His _original_ testimony has them flying near the horizon, about even with the tops of the Cascade range, meaning his visual angle looking down on them would have been extremely shallow. He couldn't have had a top view of birds flying beneath him. His _original_ testimony describes details in the objects which places limits on their distance for an object of any given size. Not only would he have seen birds flapping their wings, he would have quickly flown into them on his original intercept course. You have yet to deal with any of these objections. And there are more, like his _original_ descriptions of bright specular reflection and length to thickness ratios, totally unlike that of birds. >The suggestion that Arnold's unidentified objects are perhaps >consistent with the characteristics of American White Pelicans >was not mine, and the factual correlations I took time to >highlight, were a contribution to the investigation of this >case. No problems bringing another theory to our attention. What's beginning to really bother some of us, however, is how you continue to blow off the very straightforward devastating objections that have been raised against it. >There are clear objections to this conceivable explanation; let's >look at them in perspective and consider the respective merits. Which you don't seem to be doing. No matter how much this is explained to you, you fall back on Arnold's report being nothing but subjective impressions poisoned by flying saucer hysteria. In other words, instead of dealing directly with the objections, you are resorting to stale debunking arguments. >Introducing new evidence doesn't mean I'm on a mission to proselytise. You could have fooled us James with statements like: >They certainly seem to do a remarkable impression of alien spacecraft >flying in formation! >Do you think Arnold's mention of "saucer like objects" might have >been influenced by the "flying saucer" hysteria his story was >responsible for? >There seems to be compelling evidence that the unidentified >objects reported by Kenneth Arnold, may have been a flock of >American White Pelicans." >Michael Price, suggested a "possible candidate species in the >area at that time of year (sporadically) whose color, size, >flight profile and proclivity for formation flight at sometimes >quite high altitude would even more produce *every* detail of the >phenomenon which Arnold observed: a flock of non - or failed - >breeder, southbound White Pelicans". Sounds like proselytizing to me. David Rudiak
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Re: MIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video From: Shaver@online.pol.dk, Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:57:54 +0200 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:33:07 -0500 Subject: Re: MIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video Received from "alt.alien.research" November 24 at 20.27 local Danish time (GMT + 1 hour): [ Article reposted from alt.ufo.reports ] [ Author was Peter Petrisko ] [ Posted on 18 Nov 1997 23:43:01 -0700 ] MEN IN BLACK INTERCEPT 'PHOENIX LIGHTS' VIDEO FOOTAGE? (transcribed from a FOX10 NEWS (Phx.) report, 11/18 @9pm, reported by Jim Schnebelt) FROM THE FOX-10 '10 files'... (on screen: stock "Phoenix Lights" footage, of lights suspended in sky) voiceover: Months after this (March 13) sighting there are many questions regarding the strange lights over Phoenix. Is this a solid craft, or merely lights in an empty sky? What could be the conclusive evidence is now mysteriously missing. Richard Curtis claims his home video is proof that this sighting was a huge flying craft. And he claims his video shows a solid object in the sky passing over his home. (on screen: cut to head shot of Curtis.) Curtis: I saw the bottom part (of the craft) as it went over Phoenix, because the lights lit the bottom of it, and it partially blocked out the clouds and the stars. voiceover: Curtis called city councilwoman Frances Emma Barwood, wanting to show her the footage. (on screen: cut to head shot of Barwood) Barwood: He said he had it on two videotapes, and would I like them, so I said, "Of course I would.", and could he give me copies of them. He said he would. I told him how to get them to my office and to mark them 'personal and confidential'. (on screen: cheesy slo-mo video "re-enactment" of Men in Black walking about) voiceover: But before Curtis could send copies to Barwood, he's paid a visit by two mysterious men in black. Curtis:(voiced over MIB reenactments) They were dressed in black suits, with black hats and sunglasses. They asked me if I had tapes for coucilwoman Barwood, and I said "Yah, they're laying right here." They said, "We've stopped by to pick them up." So I said, "Great!" and just handed (the original tapes) to them. (on screen: cut to head shot of Barwood) Barwood: I didn't get them, and I have no idea who these two men were since I have just females working in my office. Its absolutely puzzling to me. (on screen: cut to slo-mo MIB, one of them now holding videotapes...(!) ) voiceover: Did the tapes ever exist, and if so were they proof of more than "lights" in the sky? And who were these mysterious Men in Black who allegedly took them? (as slo-mo MIB vid continues...) Curtis (voiced over): I think someone listened in on that phone call and wanted those tapes. Barwood (voiced over): I can't explain it. Its just eerie. Voiceover: The mystery continues. Jim Schnebelt, Fox-10 News. _________ end story, cut to anchor _________ Date: 24 Nov 1997 12:15:00 -0700 From: Shaver Subject: MIB Intercept 'Phx Lights' Video Message-ID: <65cjnk$ppa@nntp02.primenet.com> Path: news1.tele.dk!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!www.nntp.primenet.com !globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!ptp
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 01:46:53 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:47:11 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:53:24 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >> I don't like the terms "ET" or "alien", because both imply an origin > >> somewhere other than Earth. Ultra Terrestrial comes close to being > >> the right word, but I think we need a new one. > >"Ultraterrestrial" comes nowhere near to being the > >right word. It's John Keel's synonyms for "demon." > >Ufology ought not to be an exercise in medieval > >supernaturalism or occultism. I see nothing wrong > >with the idea that UFOs originate "somewhere other > >than Earth" (certainly a less extraordinary hypothesis > >than one which argues the opposite [e.g., for the > >hollow earth, the earth's etheric analog, or whatever]), > >but I do feel that until we know more, we should > >simply call UFO beings "entities" or "humanoids." > >Phrases like "ET" should be left to purely theoretical > >discussions. > >Jerry Clark > Jerry, > Just because John Keel uses Ultraterrestrial as a synonym > for demon, does not mean that Ufology has to connect to > medieval mythology or occultism. Medieval mythology and > occultism are just different attempts at understanding > phenomena which we still do not understand today. Bob, If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly endorses occult and demonological notions which no post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific speculation about the possible nature of ET life with medieval speculation about demons, unless one believes late 20th century science is in no significant manner different from 12th century theology. Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Re: DISPATCH # 77 -- the weekly newsletter of From: ParaScope@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:17:22 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:39:22 -0500 Subject: Re: DISPATCH # 77 -- the weekly newsletter of DISPATCH # 77 -- the weekly newsletter of ParaScope S O M E T H I N G S T R A N G E I S H A P P E N I N G 11/24/97 Quote of the Week "The past is never dead. It's not even past.." -- William Faulkner ----------------------- Rant of the Week: "ParaScope is Run by the Government!" Every week we pick the wackiest, scariest, nastiest or funniest rant from the hundreds of letters received by us here at ParaScope headquarters, and present it to you as our Rant of the Week. This week, "John Doe" issues a strong caution against visiting online conspiracy sites, including ParaScope! Enjoy. "STOP visiting the Parascope site and all of its affiliates immediately! You are being monitored and surveyed by the government. That is right, the government, with the help of Parascope and several other related sites, are catigorizing and monitoring all your visits and activites. It has come to my attention that Parascope has been and is currently run by, or is working in very close proximity with our beloved government. Everytime that you sign on to Parascope, you are tagged and traced instantly, and this information is used to keep a close eye on all of us "truth-seekers." "If you are using AOL, you make it that much easier for them to track you. You see, everytime that you simply log on to AOL, your exact location is instantly tracked and logged, and then when you log onto Parascope, or use Aol internet browser or Internet Explorer, you are giving the government a direct route to your location and all the information that is on your computer. With every "cookie" that you accept, or don't know that you are accepting, you are giving them free reign to your computer. Parascope is the worst of all of these sites, because they are setup by the government, not just monitored by them. When you sign on to Parascope, either over the internet or through Aol, you are now being monitored. "It isn't just Parascope either, most of the major and especially the littler sites on the internet (ie. the Art Bell Web Page), they are all monitored twenty-four seven and you take great risk using them to conduct business. For instance, everytime that you use Parascope message boards or the message boards of the other sites, you are giving the government an exact location of places to monitor. E-mail and internet communication itself is a very unsafe place to conduct such types of communication, but when you use these heavily monitored sites, you are adding more fuel to the fire." "Just beware. There is nowhere that is safe for us and the business that we do. The post office is less monitored then the Internet. Heed this warning and stop using these highly monitored sites. Also, when Aol 4.0 and Windows 98 come out, we will have even less saftey. Be careful, or we will never find the truth." -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Something Special In Store Just in time for the holiday gift-buying season, you can now do all your parashopping online in our all-new, super-improved ParaStore! Get the latest books, videos and other ParaScope related merchandise with just the click of a mouse. Check out the new ParaStore and pick up a great gift item for that someone special. Look for the ParaStore buttons on the main pages of both our AOL and web sites. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Get the Message Part I If you're planning on posting a message to the ParaScope message boards on AOL, better do it while you still can! No, the government isn't shutting us down, but we are working with America Online to revamp the underlying technology behind our message boards, so they'll be out of action for a few days around the end of November and the start of December. You'll still be able to read all the old messages, but you won't be able to post for a few days, so avoid the Christmas rush and post your AOL ParaScope messages now...while you still can! -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Get the Message Part II For folks on our web site, we're considering setting up a system by which you can select a handle or nickname for posting a message and then password-protec t your name. This should solve the problem of some of our "less mature" message posters attempting to assume the identities of others. We want to know what you think about this idea, so let us know. Drop us a line at PSCPWhirl@aol.com with the words "message password" in the header with your thoughts on this matter. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Coming Up Next Week! Catch a number of great stories next week on a daily basis on America Online, or all at once next Friday on the web site, including updates to Conspiracy Newsline. The Price of Dissent: Ralph McGehee and the CIA The Central Intelligence Agency is not only a secretive spy service but also a close fraternity of powerful men who zealously guard their interests. For those CIA officers who break ranks, there is a price to be paid. Next week Dossier tells the intriguing, disturbing story of Ralph McGehee, who served the agency for twenty-five years, became disillusioned while stationed in Vietnam, and left the CIA to become one of the major public critics of the intelligence community. Now McGehee believes that some group -- perhaps current and former CIA officers -- is mounting a campaign to harass him for his dissent. Dossier editor Jon Elliston returns from a first-hand interview with McGehee to bring you his side of the story. --------------- UFO Cautionary Tales: Ghost Rockets Over Sweden In our third Cautionary Tale, we will turn back the clock to 1944, when a strange fiery object crashed in rural Sweden. The Swedish Army came and investigated, and discovered their neutral country had acquired foreign technology far in advance of anything else on earth. It turned out to be one of Hitler's experimental rockets, but it left an indelible mark on the public's imagination, one which was honed by the mysterious "ghost rockets" which flew across Sweden's skies in the years to come. The scenario established in Sweden was simple, but potent: a strange object falls blazing from the upper atmosphere. It crashes to earth in some remote spot, is found by the local inhabitants, and soon after is quickly spirited away by the military. Sound familiar? Join Nebula editor Paul B. Thompson for an all-new UFO Cautionary Tale. --------------- Fortean Slips: Like Death Warmed Over! A cadaverous collection of all-new Fortean Slips! This edition of ParaScope's dispatches from the paranormal fringe delves deep -- well, about six feet deep -- into some post-mortem tales that'll send you to your grave laughing. Run like hell from the Marathon Vampire, stretch out for a bit in an ecosystem-friendly coffin, tour some Web Site Gravesites and witness the truly bizarre tale of the Dead Parrot Revival. --------------- TWA 800: The Controversy Continues The CIA used a "video simulation" to conclude that witnesses to the crash of TWA Flight 800 didn't see a missile striking the plane -- they merely saw pieces of the plane disintegrating and jet fuel igniting before they heard the sound of the explosion. How thoughtful of them to take care of that lingering doubt for us. The CIA, of course, would NEVER lie, and these newfangled "video simulations" are never wrong, right? But for some reason, these *#&%@# conspiracy nuts just won't drop their wacko theories that maybe, just MAYBE, there was more to the crash than the government was willing to admit, for reasons stemming from own culpability in the disaster. As the FBI attempts to slam the door on TWA 800 for good, controversy over incident blazes on. We'll have an update on the latest news related to the case. --------------- Conspiracy Newsline Thousands protest the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia; NetAction report warns of Microsoft's rapidly-expanding global monopoly; Shirley Allen faces long confinement, massive "treatment" bills stemming from the "Roby Ridge" standoff; handwritten notes of Lee Harvey Oswald interrogation released and more conspiracy news. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Jane, Stop This Crazy Thing! Thought you were tough enough to handle the Dispatch and now you realize you're not? Starting to think you've made a wrong turn off the info highway? Well, we're only going to go over this once, so listen up! To unsubscribe yourself from Dispatch: 1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com 2) In the body of your mail, type: unsubscribe dispatch That's all there is to it! Likewise, to unsubscribe: 1) Send e-mail to: listserv@listserv.aol.com 2) In the body of your mail, type: subscribe dispatch ---------------------------------------- ParaScope 11288 Ventura Blvd., #904 Studio City, CA 91604 America Online -- keyword: parascope parascope@aol.com World-Wide Web -- http://www.parascope.com info@parascope.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Two New And Exciting TV Specials From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:30:26 +0200 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:44:00 -0500 Subject: Two New And Exciting TV Specials >From the PRNewswire: New Visual Entertainment Signs Agreement To Co-Produce Reality-Based TV Programming 06:30 a.m. Nov 24, 1997 Eastern SAN DIEGO, Nov. 24 /PRNewswire/ -_ New Visual Entertainment (OTC BULLETIN BOARD: NVXE) is pleased to announce it has completed an agreement with Reel Images, LLC to co-produce two reality-based TV specials centered around the physical evidence of extra-terrestrial existence and NASA's film and video archives. Additionally, New Visual, Reel Images and its broadcast company, Seven Star Entertainment, plan to work together to create from the NASA archives an NVX 3D product for special venue distribution. The Company reports that it will co-produce and share in the revenue generated from distribution of 26 episodes of programming that will be sold to foreign and domestic markets. The first two episodes, which have already received a tremendous amount of interest overseas, have booked pre-sales and are projected to gross just over $4 million per episode over the next 18 months. The three-way agreement stipulates that New Visual will maintain a 40% revenue share for each of the episodes and the Company anticipates receipt of revenues from foreign pre-sales by year end 1997. Former CBS producer, and now executive producer and president at Seven Star Entertainment, Chris Wyatt, will lead the "flat," 2D production effort. Wyatt previously produced the highly successful programs "Day and Date" and "UFO's Above and Beyond" while at CBS. Seven Star Entertainment has been granted open access to NASA film and video archives, a distinction held by no one in the world prior. This access to the vault revealed much highly classified footage never before seen by the public. The majority of the creative process will be performed at the Seven Star and Reel Images facilities in Encino, California, which includes advanced state-of-the-art digital editing and a complete audio composition studio. The alliance between New Visual, Seven Star, and Reel Images makes the process of producing the program virtually painless, as nearly all phases will be done in house. In a measure that illustrates the confidence that Reel Image, LLC has in the future of New Visual, it has acquired a significant amount of New Visual's stock, from the nvxe pool of shares outstanding. "We consider ourselves very fortunate to be a part of such an enormous project as this one," New Visual CEO Ray Willenberg, Jr. enthusiastically states. "I think this is one of those instances where being in the right place at the right time really makes the difference. When we began working with Barry L. Brewer, Reel Images' founder and CFO, we knew it was an intelligent move in order to help us accomplish our goals in our business plan, but we had no idea it would lead to this," he adds. "We expect this project to significantly and immediately change our position in the industry, while at the same time, potentially create an avenue for diversification," he concludes. New Visual Entertainment, Inc. is a true stereo 3D production company that specializes in 3D product development and distribution for home video, broadcast, and theatrical markets by utilizing proprietary technology for the creation and exhibition of 3-dimensional media. Reel Images is a production and distribution house positioned to create high quality Television and Film productions, TV Commercials, TV series, high- end motion picture 3D animation and visual effects. SOURCE New Visual Entertainment Copyright 1997, PR Newswire
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Aleevy] Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:49 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:42:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:17:55 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: "S. Baldwin" <sblee@stc.net> [Susan Baldwin] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > >Why fly something over Phoenix at night, with all > >the headlights on > >Why are these things mostly observed over high > >population density areas, and not small to medium > >settlements > They are observed by MORE people over a high population area but > I would not say *mostly observed*. Check out > http://www.isur.com > case databases. Its chock full of sightings here in Georgia (US) > over areas other than very populated Atlanta. > You ask some excellent questions in the rest of your posting, I > have wondered about those myself. Lights on the vehicles might > prevent small planes from flying into them perhaps? > Susan B. You know what they saw about those who don't remember history. One might say - Nah, those books were from the 1950s, those guys couldn't have really known anything, why bother with with that old stuff. Donald Keyhoe traced the evolution of the pattern of lights on UFOs over the years. In a nutshell, at first they didn't have any, and after some near misses and possible aerial collisions the UFOs started to sport various types of running lights. History can be useful, even entertaining. Gary
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:07:05 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:47:05 -0500 Subject: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder Greetings List Members, I guess ufology has no institution memory. About every six months someone "discovers" "THE RAND DOCUMENT"!!!! <Drum roll, trumpets!> George Kocher worked at RAND. He was interested in the UFOs. He wrote up a short paper for circulation within RAND. It was personal. It was not an official RAND document. Kocher got little or no response to his privately circulated document. One copy of it did make its way to Wright-Patterson. LTC Quintanilla wrote RAND a blazing letter. Once again, Quinanilla's letter was not an official ATIC response, but from Quintanilla's address and his personal opinion. Kocher's supervisor turned Quintanilla's letter over to Kocher. RAND never responded to Quintanilla. Kocher did not follow up on his paper. The matter went no further. Kocher confirmed all this in a letter to Dr. Hynek which is now at CUFOS with a copy of Quintanilla's letter. CUFOS made copies of Kocher's document available years ago. You can, I believe, still purchase copies from them. Ruppelt, I believe in his papers, mentioned that the chief of RAND in the early 1950s was hostile towards UFOs. Prior to that RAND had done a "Spaceship" study that COL McCoy requested in 1948. Parts of the study were used in the Project Grudge report. There were several RAND scientists who, like Kocher, had at one time or another a personal interest in UFOs. NICAP was in contact with one or two. However, over the years contact was lost with these people. There was one request from a scientist at RAND in 1965 to the Air Force for UFO material. The Air Force forwarded the request to Hynek. Nothing seems to have come of it. Again, it may have just been a personal interest item. The Kocher's document will probably now fade from sight, and in six months we can again go through another cycle of the great discovery of THE RAND DOCUMENT! Regards, -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 PROJECT-1947 : A case from the Korean conflict From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:20:08 -0800 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 08:39:05 -0500 Subject: PROJECT-1947 : A case from the Korean conflict Working on the Project 1947 EM Effects catalog, I came across the famous Korean conflict case first reported by the Lorenzens in "Flying Saucers". The case is an observation of two 600-700 foot discs at 1.5 mi or less, with physical effects, from 3 Navy aircraft. To the best of my knowledge, details of this case have never been substantiated beyond the original account. I decided to pursue the case in some detail, and determined that it was unlikely that the mission described occurred in September of 1950 as typically reported. Instead, it appears likely that the event occurred in October 1950, between the 10th and the 29th, on the east coast of Korea. The mission was probably flown by AD-4W Skyraider aircraft in what was known as a "road recce" to support the push into the northernmost part of Korea. If this is true, it was flown from a carrier in the Sea of Japan. This case has many interesting components: Object Appearance - "Coolie hat" shape with black filled circle on bottom, a row of pulsating copper-green to pastel color ports and a luminous red ring encircling the upper portion. Black circle remains apparently unaffected by object 'jittering'. Object Behavior - Flew up from behind aircraft, overshot 1.5 mi, paced aircraft, then manuvered over and under aircraft as if inspecting. Objects appeared to constantly 'jitter'. After some minutes of this behavior, objects departed back the way they had come at great speed, disappearing into the distance. Physical Effect - Radar traces, radar interference / radar screen 'blooming', radio interference (buzzing), sensation of heat, vibration transmitted to aircraft, gun camera film exposed / fogged, luminous dial paint excited. Anyone interested in more detail, including my reasoning, will find the case in the chronological catalog at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman/ufochron.htm dated 9/1950 Any comments or elaboration are welcome. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 25 It's all in the Mind... From: dgullick@interlog.com (David Gullick) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 97 01:02:20 Fwd Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 18:55:26 -0500 Subject: It's all in the Mind... Science proves mind's power over matter --------------------------------------- International News Electronic Telegraph Sunday 16 November 1997 Issue 906 Science proves mind's power over matter By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent External Links Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Psychoknesis - Koestler Parapsychology Unit Parapsychology Internet Resources Fortean Times UK Sceptics STARTLING evidence that the human mind can exert paranormal control over objects has been uncovered by researchers whose findings have confounded even hardened sceptics. Experiments conducted by a team at Princeton University are being hailed as the most convincing demonstration yet of so-called psychokinesis (PK), the supposed ability of thought to affect inanimate objects. Until now, most claims for the existence of PK have rested largely on anecdotes of poltergeists wrecking homes and demonstrations by stage performers such as Uri Geller, who claims to be able to bend forks by thought alone. Since the early Eighties Prof Robert Jahn and colleagues of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research project have been perfecting a series of tightly controlled laboratory tests of PK, to discover once and for all whether the phenomenon exists. The experiments focus on electronic random number generators, which produce an utterly unpredictable sequence of ones and zeroes. Subjects are asked to concentrate on a display showing the output of the generators, and try to change the numbers it produces. Left to themselves, the devices will produce equal numbers of ones and zeroes in the long run. If PK exists, however, it should reveal itself in a bias away from chance expectation as subjects "will" the output upwards or downwards. Now, after 12 years of experiments involving more than 100 subjects in thousands of trials, Prof Jahn and his team have uncovered astonishing evidence that the electronic devices can be controlled by thought. The human subjects proved capable of altering the output of the devices so much that the chances of getting such a bias by fluke alone is calculated to be less than one in 1,000 billion. "We believe that we now have pretty incontrovertible evidence for this phenomenon," Prof Jahn said. "These effects seem to be broadly spread among human operators - it seems to be a common ability." Past research into PK based on electronic devices has been criticised for not carrying out thorough checks to ensure that the devices are unbiased in the first place, and for relying too much on the success of a handful of subjects. The Princeton team insists that these criticisms are no longer valid: the effect appeared with different devices, all of which were thoroughly tested beforehand, and with many different subjects. Out of nine different sets of experiments, six showed statistically significant evidence for PK. In contrast, experiments using random number generators based on fixed mathematical formulas - which should be immune from psychic influence - did not produce any evidence for PK, exactly in line with prediction. "We would now lay claim to have the largest datasets and the most systematic experiments ever performed," Prof Jahn said. The Princeton evidence follows the discovery of equally impressive evidence for the existence of telepathy by researchers at Edinburgh University. Experiments by Prof Robert Morris and colleagues at the university's Koestler Parapsychology Unit suggest that people can mentally "transmit" images to others by thought alone. Until now, orthodox scientists have dismissed all such claims as the result of incompetence or fraud. However, even hardened sceptics now admit that these charges are becoming hard to sustain. "I have a lot more problems with these results as a sceptic," said Prof Stephen Donnelly, a physicist at Salford University and deputy editor of UK Skeptic. But Chris French, the head of psychology at Goldsmiths' College, London, and another long-standing critic of claims for the paranormal, said that he was concerned by the tiny size of the supposed psychic influence. "The effect sizes are so staggeringly small that some people would argue that any sensible person would prefer a non-PK explanation," he said. "There's also a worry that with the huge number of trials needed, conventional statistical theory starts to break down." But Prof Jahn said the data is now so strong that the arguments over the paranormal must move towards explaining how it works. "We don't see much point in continuing the collection of yet more data," he said. "We're setting up experiments to get a better comprehension of these phenomena." 8 February 1997: Animals have paranormal feelings too 22 January 1997: Editors of the paranormal in a flutter over angels and the lottery 23 November 1996: Playing the spoons (c) Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. "Electronic Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" are trademarks of Telegraph Group Limited. ===================================================================== For those who wish to follow-up, the URL is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk The HTM file is attached for convenience. djg -<Attachment #1, MINDMATT.HTM (12 Kb), application/octet-stream base64>-
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 The UpDates Server From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:28:40 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:28:40 -0500 Subject: The UpDates Server A couple of weeks of 'upgrading' the UpDates server was capped Monday by MCI's seeming inability to recognise globalserve.net . The result of which is a back-log of mail for the List. I'll try and catch up as quickly as possible. If you've had your posts bounce back to you, please
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:19:44 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:59:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: USDSCUBA@aol.com [Gordon Scott] >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 >>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >> A strange bird is a pelican...It flies over 100 >>miles per hour when ever it can....especially when >>trying to race a small airplane while flying southward >>past Mt. Rainier. >Pretty funny stuff about the birds, however according to a close >friend within the military at the time the vehicle as seen by Mr >K. Arnold was a German made Gotha Go 229 IX being test flown for >radar testing. These high performance aircraft were the same >basic flying wing shape as described in his report, and were >being tested during the time period. These Go 229 were almost >invisible on radar due to the 17 mm plywood skin, and with twin >Junkers Jumo 1890 pounds of thrust turbojet engines it was also >quite fast. Reichsmarshal Hermann Goring was so impressed he >wanted to mass produce these advanced aircraft. This allied >information also helped Jack Northrop with his.Amercian designs. >The Germans also had an aircraft known as project P-12 with a ram j>et, (our own Air Force did the wind tunnel tests after the >war). Designed much like our current SR-71 replacment aircraft. (Uh, oh. sounds like a modification of the Nazi UFO hypothesis.) Anyway, may I calmly suggest there were NO planes capable of supersonic flight (740 mph roughly) at that time. (Chuck Yaeger proved he had "the right stuff" in Oct. 1947.) Also, I would doubt that we had 9 flyable, plywood skin craft for "radar testing" flying near Mt. Rainier at the time. Any test craft such as that would have been operating over military bases or restricted areas. >But why bother with such old news ? flying wings have been around >since the 1930's and the rocket powered versions like the Me 163 >B. series flew in June of 1943. Invisible aircraft (visual) is >also not a new idea, during WW II English heavy aircraft also had >a crude systems long before the current fiber optic composite >tech arrived. Yes, why bother with old news of this type when it clearly has no bearing on the hard core of the UFO "problem." >Perhaps we should be more concerned with the several secret bases >of black triangle aircraft in Canada being flown by UN forces >and paid for by Amercian tax dollars, or what the CIA has been >purchasing for 26 Billion dollars ? >There seems to be plenty of strange things going on right >now don't you think ? Yes, indeed. As far as I am concerned, secret military craft are part of the modern-day noise. HOWEVER, the FBI was asked to investigate saucer sightings in 1947 and, before so doing, asked for assurance from the Air Force that there were no classified projects that could account for the early saucer sightings. The FBI was assured that there were no such projects in any of the armed forces.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: "Jason B. Unwin" <jbu@ris.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:33:20 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:19:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > From: USDSCUBA@aol.com [Gordon Scott] > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 > >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > > A strange bird is a pelican...It flies over 100 > >miles per hour when ever it can....especially when > >trying to race a small airplane while flying southward > >past Mt. Rainier. > Pretty funny stuff about the birds, however according to a close > friend within the military at the time the vehicle as seen by Mr > K. Arnold was a German made Gotha Go 229 IX being test flown for > radar testing. These high performance aircraft were the same > basic flying wing shape as described in his report, and were > being tested during the time period. These Go 229 were almost > invisible on radar due to the 17 mm plywood skin, and with twin > Junkers Jumo 1890 pounds of thrust turbojet engines it was also > quite fast. Reichsmarshal Hermann Goring was so impressed he > wanted to mass produce these advanced aircraft. This allied > information also helped Jack Northrop with his.Amercian designs. > The Germans also had an aircraft known as project P-12 with a ram > jet, (our own Air Force did the wind tunnel tests after the > war). Designed much like our current SR-71 replacment aircraft. > But why bother with such old news ? flying wings have been around > since the 1930's and the rocket powered versions like the Me 163 > B series flew in June of 1943. Invisible aircraft (visual) is > also not a new idea, during WW II English heavy aircraft also had > a crude systems long before the current fiber optic composite > tech arrived. > Perhaps we should be more concerned with the several secret bases > of black triangle aircraft in Canada being flown by UN forces > and paid for by Amercian tax dollars, or what the CIA has been > purchasing for 26 Billion dollars ? > There seems to be plenty of strange things going on right > now don't you think ? Sorry, but according to _Janes Encyclopedia of Aviation_ there is no such thing as a Gotha Go 229 IX. The closest aircraft conceivable were the Gotha Go 242 and 244. The 242 was a glider and the 244 was a powered version with 2 French built Gnome-Rhone 14M engines (pages 427-428). The only thing a Gotha was good for was target practice. Even the most primitive jets at the time would have utterly destroyed one. What is "Project P-12"? Who was the supposed manufacturer of such an aircraft? Ram jets have been around in theory for years but very few have been successfully flown much less deployed in number. The Me-163 was a tailess rocket plane that had only one shot at US bombers due to its lack of fuel to stay on station from its rocket engines. The Me 163 was also a sitting duck as it tried to glide back to its airfield with probably a couple US P-51 Mustangs hot on his tail! The bottom line is that true flying wing designs have been around for years but none until the B-2 Spirit have been deployed in any significant number. I believe there won't be more than 12-18 B-2s produced. The USAF doesn't have to justify its spending like Boeing or Airbus would if it had to make a viable commercial airliner. With the "experience" of 50 years of UFO sightings, we should have flying wings, triangles, and saucers flying all over the place if they were test vehicles for the USAF or the "military-industrial complex". The real money is in commercial aviation where companies like Boeing and Airbus could make tens of billions of dollars making airliners. If the flying wing or saucer shape worked, we would be flying in them from NYC to London by now. It is time to bury the "captured Nazi aircraft" myth. The designs never got off the drawing boards, never became real workable prototypes, and certainly never made it into production for the Luftwaffe. ( A good source of info on the failures of the Luftwaffe in the areas of technology, logistics, strategy, and training is the book _Strategy For Defeat The Luftwaffe 1933-1945_ By Williamson Murray Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, AL. It is available through the US Government printing Office)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Holiday Gift Ideas From: RSchatte@aol.com Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 05:35:04 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:25:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Holiday Gift Ideas ALIEN AUTOPSY GAME??????? --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Clean Fun for the Holidays Date: 97-11-25 05:22:46 EST From: AOL News Clean Fun for the Holidays LOS ANGELES, Nov. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- For a winning holiday season that is out of this world, and has all the bugs worked out, consider these creative, fun, and reasonably priced gift ideas that will produce cheers, chills and laughs: Aliens Invade the Holidays X-File fans and those who believe there are others out there should prepare themselves for the latest game from outerspace. The Alien Autopsy Game will have your whole family knee deep in extraterrestrial body parts. It takes a steady hand to remove the alien's organs. All it takes is one wrong move with the electronic probe and the alien releases a primal scream and flashing eyes that glow in the dark. Alien Autopsy is recommended for two to four players ages eight and up. It retails for $24.99 at gift and toy stores and in mail order catalogs nationwide. What's Bugging You? The Original Computer Bug -- the bug you want to have inside your computer, isn't just any old screen saver -- it's a "lifesaver" at work 'cause it lets you take fun breaks and get away from it all with humor and interactivity. Inside each package is a squeezeable toy bug that attaches to the side of your computer and a CD-Rom. Anybody who loads the Bug into their computer will hear and watch as the Bug woos his girlfriend over the internet, practices stand-up comedy routines, and parties with his friends. The Original Computer Bug is available by calling 1-888-FUNBUG8 (386-2848) or via the internet at: www.computerbug.com. The Computer Bug retails for $14.99. You'll Score Big Sportsfans can now lather up with their favorite NFL team. MGI's new line of NFL-licensed high quality body care products -- Team NFL, Game Day and Play Football collections -- can help fans shower, shave...and collect memorabilia from a favorite gridiron team. NFL Body Care products consist of everything from shampoo, anti-bacterial soap and football soap on a rope to men's travel dopp kits and kids' overnight kits. NFL Body Care products sport unique, one- of-a-kind collectible packaging, and can be found in select stores nationwide. For store locations, consumers can call 800-MGI-7553 ext. 243. For more information on any of these products, please contact Kristen Comley at Creative Media Marketing at 310-447-7181. SOURCE MGI USA, Inc. CO: MGI USA, Inc. ST: California IN: MLM CPR ENT HOU SU: PDT
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:19:37 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:49:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:11:25 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> <big snip> >What if the "the length of the 'chain' of objects'" wasn't "about >5 miles"? >Your reference to "paragraph H above", relates to a statement >which Arnold made in his letter to the USAF, in which he says: >"I observed the chain of these objects passing another >snow-covered ridge in between Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams, and as >.the first one was passing the south crest of this ridge the last . >object was entering the northern crest of the ridge. As I was >flying in the direction of this particular ridge, I measured it >and found it to be approximately five miles so I could safely >assume that the chain of these saucer like objects were at least >five miles long". >This is a subjective calculation, Arnold claiming he was watching >"saucer like objects", when he may have been observing pelicans, >something he apparently didn't account for. Let's see, now. Arnold had the impression the length of the chain was the same as the length of a 5 mile ridge at a distance of about 5 miles. If the Superpelicans were at 3,000 ft then the length of the line was about (5/20) x 3000 = 750 ft. At a distance of 3000 ft some 3 ft sized Superpelicans subtend an angle of about 1 mr. Allowing that Arnold could resolve better than 1 mr, he presumably could have detected wing beating effects. However, let's assume this distance and size anyway.. Arnold started timing when the first object passed the southern edge of Mt. Rainier. Objects, if initially at the distance of about 20 miles, traveled the distance of about 50 miles (45 +5) to disappear near Adams in a mere 102 seconds for a rate calculated at about 1760 mph. In so doing, the sighting line from Arnold to the ob jects rotated southward by about 65 degrees. The same angle would be crossed for objects initially at 3000 ft distance if they were traveling at about 1760 x 3000/(20 x 5280) = 50 mph. Hence here is a real speed number the Superpelicans must match. If they were closer the speed would be lower, but they would be more likely to be recognized as birds. Thus, at 2000 ft they were traveling at a mere 34 mph (at about 9200 ft). >Do you think Arnold's mention of "saucer like objects" might have >been influenced by the "flying saucer" hysteria his story was >responsible for? WHOA THERE... Sounds like a circular argument here. Which came first, Arnold's saucer description, or the newspaper reports of flying saucers and the subsequent "hysteria"? >Arnold of course never having originally claimed to see "saucer l>ike objects" at all... >>Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out how >>high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and speed. >I had already asked about this and in view of the uncertainty, >I'm looking for a more definitive answer. A copy of "All You Ever >Wanted to Know About the American White Pelican", would be >useful, but in the absence of that, it's a case of asking various >people who might be able to offer an informed opinion. >I'm quite happy to do so as time permits, although I can't help >wondering why it's apparently taken 50 years for such obvious >enquiries to be made. Perhaps because people were "happy" with the previous half dozen or more explanations and didn't feel the need for a new "explanation." But now that the previous explanations have been shown to be "doubtful" (doubted, would be a better word), we find "neoArnoldskeptics" proposing birds (Kottmeyer and followers) and meteors (Klass/Davidson) to replace mirages, clouds, haze layers, reflections on airplane window, motes in the eye, etc. >Maybe if this scenario had already been examined by "ufologists" >and proven to be impossible, there might be something to laugh >about. Perhaps, but the skeptics slipped up on their "duty" to explore all explanations. Instead they obeyed the First Rule of Debunking... outlined in a previous message.... and then they went on to the Second Rule and the Corollary. >>If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) nearly >>at horizon level to him, then they would have been essentially at >> his level. >Not necessarily. Oh yes, necessarily, unless you want to reject Arnold's claim that the objects seemed to be at about his altitude (but were actually more like 2 degrees below his local horizon). >This is also subjective and as Arnold comments >in that early interview, "And, they seemed to flip and flash in >the sun, just like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an >angle from the sun that seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar >looking things in such a way that it almost blinded you when you l>ooked at them through your plexiglass windshield". >It could therefore be argued that Arnold was looking down on the >"tops of these peculiar looking things". Yes, on the tops, but because the objects were TILTING a large amount as they flew. And, incidently, this strange flight pattern of tilting was also reported by Fred Johnson near Mt. Adams. He said he last saw them "standing on edge" while banking (turning ) into a cloud. >>And, I suppose Arnold could see the white bodies but not the >>bills/beaks. >Obviously this is possible. So far as I know, he didn't have >binoculars with him, or was blessed with telescopic vision. Yes, but this is further reason to keep the birds far from the plane in order to be sure Arnold wouldn't recognise them as birds. And the farther from the plane, the faster they must go. <snip> >The suggestion that Arnold's unidentified objects are perhaps >consistent with the characteristics of American White Pelicans >was not mine, and the factual correlations I took time to >highlight, were a contribution to the investigation of this >case. >There are clear objections to this conceivable explanation; let's >look at them in perspective and consider the respective merits. >Introducing new evidence doesn't mean I'm on a mission to >proselytise. Yes, let's set up all the straw men we can for knockdown. Then we can publish all the rejected explanations.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Arizona Boomerang Update From: memon@cyber.net.pk (Faisal Habib) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:35:29 +0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 03:12:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Arizona Boomerang Update >>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:33 -0500 (EST) >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) >>Subject: Arizona Boomerang Update >>At the first Annual Skywatch International conference held in >>Phoenix Arizona, held last November 15, 16. Bill Hamilton >>presented a very interesting videotape of apparently two >>"Boomerang" style objects sighted north of Phoenix. >>Bill recieved a phone call just before he left for Italy last >>week. A man was reporting he had videotaped two boomerangs back >>in 1992.(snip) >>The witness and his wife were out videotaping the moon on >>November 27, 1992. They noticed a strange set of lights and >>focused their camera on it. As they zoomed in a V-shaped >>formation of lights is seen. With a large flashing object >>following it. ><snip> >>Notice the spacing is similar to the 10:00 March event. >>Here is a image attached file from the video. >NOV1BOM.jpg >First, I have an open mind and I've seen some pictures that >definitely require some serious study, but when I looked at >this picture, I decided I'd seen enough for myself. >Black is a good background to disguise what's really there. >When I converted it to a negative image, it looks like nothing >more than a cut & paste to me. You might say being negative >may reveal the truth :) Although I haven't seen the original >video from where this came, I'm sorry but I can't buy this one >as is. I think you're right. When I got the image it didn't look right to me so I used LviewPro to enhance the brightness of the image. The image shows a distinctly seperate box. In my opinion its definitely a cut and paste job. If anybody wants an enhanced picture please let me know. Faisal
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Hundreds of them..... From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:47:42 +0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 03:35:36 -0500 Subject: Hundreds of them..... Hi Errol, Hi All I was speaking to a friend just the other day, mentioning that Paul Devereaux keeps moaning that everyone only talks about UFOs as being of the ETH origin these days and he asked what other explanations was there for them. A third person involved in the chat piped up "there must be literally hundreds of explanations for ufo's". Unfortuanatley I could not name one hundred let alone hundredS of them. So this made me stop and think, exactly how many seperate explanations for ufo's are there. We are not talking about variations on a theme but hard core seperate explantions, individually or collectively. Heres a list of what I came up with, I wonder how many more you more learned people can add to my list. In no particular order. 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets 2) Time travellors 3) Hollow Earth 4) Hollow moon 5) Atlantis 6) Multi-dimentional craft 7) Earth Lights 8) Glowing Bugs 9) Swamp Gas 10) Hullucinations 11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft 12) Day dreams/ Night dreams 13) Earths etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) 14) Interdimentional beings/craft from alternate futures 15) Ball lighting 16) Psi Phenomenom 17) Demons/Angels 18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) 19) Laser Lights 20) Meteors 21) Cumnolus Clouds <sp?> 22) Abnormal weather conditions 23) Apparitions 24) Kites 25) Model aircraft/helicopters 26) Ice crystals 27) Phosference in the atmosphere 28) Falling sattelite/space debris I ran out of ideas at this point so perhaps you could add any that I have forggten or not known about. -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 What type of cancer had the colonel? From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:27:16 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 03:38:25 -0500 Subject: What type of cancer had the colonel? Hi all, I have read about the passing away of Col. Steve Wilson. My condolences to all who knew and loved him. Since I read that he has died of cancer, I am very curious to know what kind of cancer. Does someone know? __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:15:49 PST Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 03:55:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] > From: DevereuxP@aol.com > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:48:44 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? > Greetings. > Jerry Clark wrote: > >From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:18:38 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: re: solved abduction cases > >Dear list, > >For reasons unknown I can't get into Paul Devereux's > >recent posting, so I'm having to respond in an independent > >posting. > >I guess the good news is that there is so little of substance > >in it, beyond Paul's by now well-worn ax-grinding act, that > >little comment is warranted. Suffice it to say I stand by > >everything I've said. To Paul I'd simply say that your > >emotional -- even fanatical -- commitment to a particular > >reading of the UFO question has apparently led you to > >chronic incivility, as not a few others, even individuals > >more sympathetic to your beliefs than I am, have noted. In > >other words, guy: chill out. Not all, or even most, dissents > >from your treasured beliefs are personal attacks. By now > >we've all figured out that you are VERY excited with and > >defensive about your beliefs, that angry bees are always > >circling in your bonnet. You don't have to keep > >demonstrating it to the rest of us. > >As for me, I tried to be as pleasant as I could under the > >circumstances, to no avail, evidently. So you can go > >stew elsewhere, Paul. > >An excellent essay on "Earthlights and Tectonic Stress > >Theory," by Chris Rutkowski, appears in the forthcoming > >second edition of my UFO Encyclopedia. I encourage all > >who are interested in what Paul's about, beyond all the > >self-righteous bluster, to read it. > >Cordially, > >Jerry Clark > Dear Jerry, > I'll only make a couple of responses to this before moving on > to more important matters: > a)I think the record shows quite clearly that from my few > sentences questioning your assertions on specific matters in one > of your postings to Mendoza, Jerry, it has been you who has > inflated the personalised verbiage. (And not only in your > exchanges with me, let it be noted.) In the course of our > exchanges I have indeed raised points of "substance", or, at > least, reasonable importance. As to my ripostes to your charges, > all I can say is if you don't like the echoes you get back, then > stop making your noise. Paul, I think what you need is a new rhetorical style, an emphasis on issues rather than on the alleged personal shortcomings of persons who presume to disagree with you. Is this asking too much? I do, however, appreciate the more moderate and thoughtful tone of the current posting, and on my end I apologize for past responses that may have sounded flippant or disrespectful. We need not agree, but we do need to respect each other's views if any productive discussion is to be conducted. > b)I find it breathtaking, Jerry, that while you have managed to > avoid responding to any issue I have attempted to raise in our > exchanges, you can now refer to one that was not so raised -- > earth lights. Neither Mr Rutkowski nor earth lights are topics I > have been trying to discuss with you. I have dealt with ELs and > Chris Rutkowski on other occasions, and will doubtless do so in > the future just as Chris will doubtless keep bashing away at his > pet hate. All I will say on the topic here - as you raise it - is > that unusual geophysical luminous and non-luminous phenomena do > exist, they are undoubtedly a part of the material that passes > through ufology's alimentary canal, and they just as certainly > have not been digested by most ufologists - i.e. they have been > under-recognised and under-researched. A small number of us have > been doing a heroic job in raising funding for field and other > research, have involved mainstream science, have already produced > more than anecdotal results, but instead of that being > acknowledged, we are almost automatically criticised or even > derided I will leave aside the issue of whether or not you are a "hero," except to say that most would feel this is for others, not you, to decide. You have done a good share of "deriding" yourself, so your complaints on this score border on the hypocritical, if they don't already cross well over into that territory. In any event, I have repeatedly said that all reasonable ideas, including yours, deserve to be heard. Even so, you cannot judge your own views above criticism, especially when you so freely voice critcism of others'. > THE ETH AS THE DOMINANT PARADIGM IN UFOLOGICAL THINKING. > The first thing I want to clarify, in case I didn't do so > sufficiently in in my last response, is that I think it is > perfectly legitimate for the ETH to stay on the table as one of > the possible explanations for some UFO sightings. With what I > have learned so far, I do not think it is an explanation for any, > but if the evidence should amount to proof in some cases, I will > have no problems accepting it. I think there are definitely: > Psychological UFOs > Sociological UFOs > Geophysical UFOs > I'd add the ETH to that list as a possibility. But as someone who > has seen anomalous luminous and dark aerial objects, and on one > occasion a craft, I can say in total honesty I have not found it > necessary to invoke the ETH to cope with any of them. And of course others, including scientists and other trained observers, have felt otherwise. I respect your opinion and your experience but feel no obligation to judge either as definitive. > As for alien abductions, I do not personally think the ETH is a > legitimate option, though in many cases the experience itself is > real for those reporting it. The reason I hold this view, is that > a study of alien abductions without recourse to the ETH reveals > evidence amounting to proof as to what the "alien abduction" > experience actually is. Again, a matter of continuing discussion. The ETH has to be considered as one possible reasonable interpretation of a small number of well investigated, multiple-participant cases. Other explanations simply lack compelling explanatory power in these instances. At the same time, as I have stated repeatedly, there is no reason to hold a dogmatic stance at this early stage of the discussion/investigation. The evidence that would settle the issue to the satisfaction of all observers is nowhere in sight. > I say this because the literature > relevant to this finding is available to anyone who wishes to > undertake the research -- at the end of the day, it is not a > question of it being my opinion. As someone who has been within > 20 feet of a prefectly "real-looking" non-human entity or alien, > I can say the above without any fear whatsoever of people who > would wish to claim they have had the abduction experience and I > have not. > (I am amazed that I have already made this deliberately > provocative statement without there being the least ripple of > interest by either Jerry or, apparently, more than a couple of > people on this list.) Somehow I have the sense that we're being set up here for a big anticlimax, but go ahead, tell the story, and let the rest of us judge its relevance. > It seems to me that there are two aspects to the question of the > ETH in ufology: is the ETH truly the dominant paradigm, and if > so, is it affecting thinking within ufology - i.e. is it actually > inhibiting the range of knowledge that we could be establishing > within ufology? As I have said before, the ETH -- which I happen to like, by the way -- has not been ufology's "dominant paradigm" since the mid-1960s. Anybody can determine that for himself or herself by reading this list, where we've actually had to endure a long, tedious exchange on whether Ken Arnold saw birds, for god's sake. One would like to think this was all done tongue in cheek, but this is the sort of thing that passes for thinking in influential corners of ufology these days. > Dealing with the latter possibility first, it is my contention, > as I expressed in an early posting to you, Jerry, that it is > indeed skewing several stands of research and inhibiting the > disclosure of other possibilities. In this sense, it is acting > like a self-fulfilling pattern of thought. As a matter of fact, I > would go further: I think that within mainstream ufology anything > that is not ETH-based in some form or other is viewed as > non-ufological, and essentially of minor or no interest. Further > still, if it was finally proven that the ETH is not the answer in > ufology, I suggest that most people now attracted to ufology > would go elsewhere and the subject would drop to a minor strand > of intellectual curiosity within our culture, notwithstanding > other important scientific and philosophical matters that might > emerge in the ETH's stead. I would like to know of a funded mainstream science investigation of UFOs and the ETH. I know the literature pretty well, and I've never heard of one. I doubt that one exists. The ETH has been the subject of hand-waving dismissal in the mainstream scientific literature but never of balanced, searching appraisal. One way to read your argument is that science's neglect of the ETH justifies its continued neglect. > ALIEN ABDUCTION: I think we could set about raising the data > within ufology itself (it has already been raised outside of > ufology) to demonstrate that the alien abduction experience, for > example, is just one modest strand of a broader literature > relating to an extremely deep-seated human experience as old as > the human mind. So you believe. And others disagree. The discussion continues, as well it should. > AERIAL PHENOMENA: In the case of things seen-in-the sky, while > the ETH should stay on the table, it should not be as overbearing > as it currently is and has been for nearly 50 years. It should be > given nothing more than equal weighting with social, > psychological and geophysical UFOs - and perhaps UFOs of a type > we haven't even thought of as yet. After all, the ETH is still > solely a matter of conjecture and anecdote (radar-visuals and > physical traces can apply equally to geophysical UFOs as to ET > craft). It is a myth that the ETH dominates ufology. I have my theories about why the ETH lost that dominance, when probably it ought not to have, but I'll save that for a piece I intend to write in the future. I'll say this much: I expect the ETH to enter mainstream science probably within two generations, for reasons that have little to do with what goes on inside ufology. Meantime, it seems to me your dispute is with all scientists who think ETs exist and could visit here, even if they happen to reject the idea that it's happening now. The ETH is so consistent with many streams of exobiological/SETI theory that you ought to put aside your unique obsession with ufologists and take on ETI theorists in mainstream science. > Also, a study of the history of ufology shows conclusively that > there is not one, single hypothesis that can be called the ETH, > as Dennis Stacy has pointed out in another posting. There is > and/or has been a riot of manifestations of what should more > properly be called the ET Motif, the ETM. Actually, I agree and write as much in my just published The UFO Book. Only a small number of ufologists have formulated a detailed, comprehensive ETH. Most writers have patterned their ideas, and only sketchily, after speculations current in current mainstream science (I here exclude contactees and other extremists, obviously). Interestingly, in the 1950s Keyhoe and Menzel shared many ideas in common about ETs, disagreeing in good part only about whether they were actually visiting at the moment. Much post-1947 ETH theorizing -- up till the mid-1960s or so -- reflected what might be called post-Lowellism, which still had a small constituency among astronomers. As I have said more than once in this space, the finest writing on the ETH is by Michael D. Swords. ETH-bashers ignore him to a man or woman. Tellingly, I should think. > I contend that all the above points are true, and observably so. And so you believe. And others disagree. The discussion continues. > The other aspect of the matter, however, concerns whether or not > the ETH/ETM is actually dominant, colouring in one form or > another most of the thinking and intellectual drive within > ufology. I assumed this was also a matter of simple observation, > yet you, Jerry, in an earlier posting, asked that we should agree > to disagree over it, along with other issues I have raised. Your > failure to treat the points I am raising as of some consequence > to the future of ufological research - to apparently consider > them to be not even worthy of discussion - placed me in something > of a quandry. What could I do to demonstrate that the ETH/ETM as > a disproportionate influence within ufology wasn't just a matter > of opinion? I have never said your ideas are not "worthy of discussion." I have said the contrary. I just happen to think you're wrong -- though interestingly so, which is more than I can say for many UFO theorists. > So, as a preliminary test, I took the first 100 postings of the > list in my electronic in-tray - I have not selected them, etc., > so it is effectively a random sample - and marked each one as > relating to the ETH/ETM or not. 'Related' means literally that: > postings that involve explicit or implicit discussion of ET > concerns; postings that assume the ETH/ETM as a given, or that > follow on from the starting point of a strand that was ETH/ETM > oriented in one form or another (and this of course includes > postings actually arguing *against* the ETH/ETM),etc. In short, > anything that reveals the presence of the ETH/ETM in some way, > shape or form in the intellectual environment of the posting. > This is what I found. > My UpDates sample of 100 postings started on 11/04 and ended 11/08. > ETH/ETM-related: 62% > Not ETH/ETM related: 38% An imaginative reading, I should think. Most posters don't refer to specific theories about UFOs, The exchanges usually are about specific or general issues. The ETH receded in power and influence in the mid-1960s, with the rise of occult ufology as proposed by Keel and Vallee. Today the ETH has stiff competition from occultists, psychosociologists, debunkers, and TST/earthlighters. I confess I don't understand your particular obsession, but to each his or her own. Most rank-and-file ufologists I run into seem to hold some version of an occult theory about UFOs and reject the ETH. Vallee and Keel hold greater sway over many modern ufologists than do Keyhoe and Lorenzen (to more than a few, barely remembered historical figures). > This very modest bit of research suggests that, despite its > protean and unproven nature, the ETH/ETM is the most dominant > paradigm operating within mainstream ufological thinking. (Bear > in mind this specific result means *all* other ideas within > ufology have to share out the 33% between them.) Even those not > espousing the ETH/ETM are obliged to take time from what might be > more productive lines of research to deal with it. In short, the > ETH/ETM sets the agenda. And it is insidious. And so you believe. Others disagree. The discussion continues. > This means, therefore, that my contention that it is skewing > thinking within ufology should be taken seriously and is a > legitimate subject of discussion and consideration by those > claiming to be UFO researchers. IMO, it cannot possibly be > healthy for a single motif to take such a giant bite out of the > energies going into the ufological sphere as a whole. It cannot > possibly serve the purposes of objective research. Lighten up, Paul. Ufology's universe strikes me as more pluralistic than your own. Meantime, best of luck in your research endeavors, the results of which all thoughtful ufologists, including the undersigned, will be following with interest. I also encourage our readers to spend not just 14 days but 365 of 1998 in following their thoughts where logic and evidence take them. If we're to take 14 days off, let us take them off from credulity, dogma, and sloppy thinking -- errors that are hardly the sole property of proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Cordially, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: natural.state@erols.com [Melanie Mecca] Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:34:30 -0600 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:02:01 -0500 Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 07:58:58 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <76750.2717@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > >From: natural.state@erols.com > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:58:28 -0600 > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis <snip> > What about the possibility that in human terms the phenomena have > no purpose or meaning? There are lots of things about the > universe that we do not understand, and some physicists think > there are also lots that we CAN'T understand. Things that do not > operate within the frameworks of human logic, and are therefore > totally beyond our understanding. Maybe some things just ARE, and > don't exist for any purpose. > Insisting on a meaning and purpose to the universe may well be > the ultimate in anthropomorphizing. Got to keep tryin', man, dontcha think? Without understanding and interpretation, we cannot evolve to loosen our conditioned responses, improve mental flexibility, or gain emotional acceptance of some of the wackiness hanging out in the universe. Absolute proof is not necessary to entertain possibilities and cover some inner ground. Guess I'm maintaining that it's more useful to ourselves as individuals to take a possible (or likely, or very likely) assumption, such as the ETH, and attempt to derive the implications. Otherwise we're like the duped protagonists in the Rocky Horror Picture Show, living "in a world without meaning." Not a fun place, IMO. Melanie Search for other documents from or mentioning: natural.state |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: BWW Media Alert 971125 From: "Bufo Calvin" <bufoc@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:29:16 PST Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:38:28 -0500 Subject: Re: BWW Media Alert 971125 Bufo Calvin, P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Internet: bufocalvin@aol.com Website: http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin.html ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (Permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert for non-commercial purposes provided that attribution is made to http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin.html. If you forward this, please make it clear it is coming from you. We request that you do not send it to strangers unsolicited.) November 25, 1997 I wanted to jump in and give you what some of the weekly shows are doing this week. STRANGE UNIVERSE (for more info, go to http://www.strangeuniverse.com) Tuesday, November 25, 1997 Astronaut and paranormal believer Dr. Edgar Mitchell. Other astronauts also comment; a supposed Mars landing in 1962; Prophet Yahweh and UFOs; Crop Art; and Mark Hamill Wednesday, November 26, 1997 Visible Woman (a woman whose dead body was sliced into thousands of layers to make a website); Dharma Warriors (an alleged secret group within the Pentagon); Elysium (nudist colony started in the 1960s); A meditation group inside the walls of the Pentagon that's reportedly the force behind some major world events; Big Hole, Big Foot, Big Bats (a sort of a round-up) Thursday, no show for Thanksgiving Friday, special on THE BURNING MAN Festival SIGHTINGS ON THE RADIO (for more info, go to http://www.sightings.com) Tuesday LIVE FROM CANADA: Bill Oliver: Canada UFO Report Pending Wednesday "Anthony": As Child Abducted By U.S. Military Michael Lindemann: Weekly UFO/ET Update Benjamin Creme: Maitreya -- The New Age Messiah? Thursday "Frank": Amazing April UFO Encounters At Area 51 Dr. Bruce Goldberg: Men In Black Friday Sherry Steiger: Ghosts, Spirituality, and the Paranormal "Tara": Abducted As An 8 Year Old Child This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!" ____________________________ You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's WEIRD WORLD (which covers theories and happenings) the same way. Also, please let me know if there is something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the week before. _____________________________ **OPUS is the Organization for Paranormal Understanding and Support. I am an Executive Boardmember, and Director of the OPUS Educational Institute. OPUS encourages its officers and Network Associates to express their own opinions: however, it is important to note that I do not speak for OPUS in this piece or others presented under my own name. The new OPUS phone number is (510) 689-4198 ______________________________ Bufo's WEIRD WORLD BOOKS ( <AHREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.htm l">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books</A> ) I'm very excited about this! Some of you know, I ran a bookstore for years, and it has always been a love of mine. I get asked often to recommend books (I do write reviews for several publications) on these topics, and now I can do it and actually give you a source for them at the same time! This is being done in association with Amazon.com, which has an outstanding reputation for the five "S"s of internet shopping: selection, searchability, service, savings, and security. If there is any specific book you want (or topic in which you are interested), let me know and I will do the research and e-mail you a link you can use to check it out more (and order it if you want). I will be linking to books within the Media Alert, to make it more efficient for you. If you click on the link, you will be sent to that title on Amazon. You do =not= have to buy it at that point! You may, but the option is yours.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Nazi Saucers Described In Atom Bomb Classic From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:56:54 +0200 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:40:09 -0500 Subject: Nazi Saucers Described In Atom Bomb Classic Found in the news section of the Sci-Fi Channel's "Sightings" page. URL: http://www.scifi.com/sightings/web082197/news.html NAZI SAUCER! Milton Keynes, England, it's not the kind of place where we expect to get new information on real life flying saucers. But after our recent report on a shaped aircraft in Canada, top secret American saucer projects and Germany's development of craft like this during World War II, a SIGHTINGS Researcher received A letter from viewer D. Robin Stowell. A typesetter by trade, Stowell alerted us to the book, Brighter Than A Thousand Suns. An authoritative history of the race to build the first Atomic Bomb. Stowell typeset the original manuscript nearly forty years ago. And never forgot this brief reference to a Nazi Saucer that could out-maneuver any allied aircraft. Four decades after publication, Stowell found a copy of the out of print reference book and confirmed what he had long remembered. The footnote describes German Saucers that were forty five yards across, capable of reaching speeds over Mach One and climbing to an elevation of nearly eight miles. Some experts believe that these Nazi Saucers could have been responsible for the legendary Foo Fighter sightings over Europe late in World War II. But if they were, it still does not explain Foo Fighters spotted over the Pacific during the same period.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder From: Ktperehwon@aol.com [Karl T Pflock] Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:31:30 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:24:17 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:07:05 -0800 >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> >Subject: Re: UFOR: Thorough vs paranoid.... (fwd) >To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >I guess ufology has no institution memory. About every six >months someone "discovers" "THE RAND DOCUMENT"!!!! <Drum roll, >trumpets!> >> Anyone wanting the full story on why Kocher wrote his paper and some of the significant material therein will find same in my article in THE ANOMALIST 5. I interviewed Kocher at length for the article; interestingly enough, I was the first UFO researcher since 1968 to do so. Given the on again, off again controversy over his paper, doesn't that seem a tad odd? Hmmmm..... Maybe more folks in this field prefer "mysteries" to answers. >CUFOS made copies of Kocher's document available years ago. >You can, I believe, still purchase copies from them. Not quite, Jan. The CUFOS copy lacked the last two pages of text and all the appendix material and source notes. However, I've managed to get a complete copy, which is available from Yrs Trly or, more easily from Arcturus Books. Once again, see my article in THE ANOMALIST 5. Search for other documents from or mentioning: ktperehwon | jan |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Ruppelt - Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:49:57 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:26:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Ruppelt - Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:38:53 -0800 > > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:08:18 +0200 > > From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever:combined post in response to > > replies > > This is a combination of three replies, 2 posted to the list, > > one a private post that I have kept anonymous as I haven't > > specifically asked the mailer if I could use his/her name. > > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > > >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:23:00 -0800 > > >We don't know. There are some daytime sightings of triangular > > >geometries, but not many. > > Reference sites? Case studies? > There is a good case with AF officers observing 3 delta shaped > metallic objects in daytime, Ruppelt, p 24. This was an AF > unknown. > In most historical studies, triangular objects are a small > percentage of configurations (UFO Evidence, Blue Book); since > most UFOs are seen at night (Vallee, Fowler), daytime sightings > of triangular configurations are bound to be extremely rare. Mark, Your reference to Ruppelt on page 24. Ruppelt's "The Report On Unidentified Flying Objects" was published in many editions. I have both the Ace Book paperback, 1956 and the Fieldcrest Publishing 1965 version and neither has this reference on page 24. Which edition are you referring to and what chapter and paragraph? Thanks, Gary Alevy Search for other documents from or mentioning: galevy | mcashman |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:22:21 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:31:51 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:46:58 +0100 (MET) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:07:23 -0800 (PST) > >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] > <everything snipped except> > >But another reason I gave for the aliens inflicting abductions > >most heavily on the U.S., to expand upon it, was that the world's > >key superpower and leader in scientific innovations will need a > >maximal amount of preparation and education to prepare its > >populace for the final crumbling away of the UFO coverup. The > >U.S. dependence upon official science to tell the news media and > >government what to believe, regarding UFO events that can't be > >ignored, is of maximal strength. So quite possibly the aliens > >have to get themselves into the news, now and then, by allowing > >dirty deeds (abductions) to occur over some fraction of our > >population -- good deeds are less believable and less > >sensational. At the same time they can teach those who can > >accept it some things about the paranormal, which both our > >science and Christianity want to have nothing to do with, as well > >as getting across some messages concerning the environment, > >future cataclysms, etc. > >Jim Deardorff > Guys, > There is no proof whatsoever that the US is the focal > point for alien abductions, whatever they are. Unless > a comparative study is done, involving countries such > as the USA, Brazil, France, Togo, Pakistan and Japan, > we know nothing. > What I know is that here in the Netherlands there > is an abduction therapist who has 80 abduction > cases. I have read a book by German writers Lammer and > Sidla that mentions German children who claim to be > abducted who recognize the little grays. Meanwhile > abduction reports come in from technological countries > like Australia and the UK as well as underdeveloped > Colombia and stone age Papua New Guinea, where they > will probably rather buy a few sets of underwear > before they'll settle before their first television > tubes with a bag of popcorn. I.e. no media contamination > there and no "Americana". > While the American mass media have spread the word about > the abduction situation in the US, the reverse was not > true so far. Hello Henny, You're right, the proof isn't there, and these were just my impressions. Have you any UFO patron there like our Robert Bigelow here in the U.S. who might fund a very similar poll that would ferret out UFO abductees? Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:33:52 +0200 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:34:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:38:53 -0800 <Very selective snip, but with relevance to the rest of Marks' reply:> >I don't think anyone would allege that anyone is not contributing >to any database of reports. FUFOR, MUFON, and CUFOS all publish >both significant cases and studies. I'm not sure what you're >getting at. What I'm getting at, and I'm sure that most on the list will agree, is that there is a requirement for a centralised, coordinated database that must be used for abductions, sightings, and other encounters and/or manifestations. Why? Well, there is a plethora of data mining packages out there, that can be run against MS Access on Windows or even Oracle on UNIX. By setting up relationships and keyed links between database records/rows/reports, one will be able to retrieve a list of reports for, say, Arizona, or a list for any specific night, or a combination of several parameters like geographic, timezone, or key-word descriptive fields. This would be ideal in analysing trends, hot-spots, flight-paths, and so on. We're not talking about huge amounts of data here: The main reports and studies can be held on hard-copy or near-line storage like Zip drive or CDR, but with cross-reference codes that are kept as a field in the database, where and if applicable. Investigators and organizational volunteers that will keep the database updated will have to work with, and according to, a standardised categorisation system, probably very like the current CE1-whatever (Hynek?) specification that is pretty much generally in use in any case. A user-friendly GUI can be set up with, say, Visual Basic for the keying in of reports, and inserts into the database will be validated against the database for possible duplicate entries (check for date, time, town/city, reporter name), and then the relevant indexes will also be rebuilt to allowed indexed searches. There are multi-dimensional database mining tools also available that will extend the range of database relationships almost endlessly. Why hasn't this been done already? In terms of dollars, we're not talking about a lot here, but the returns to the study of the UFO phenomenon will be significant. Jakes E. Louw +27 12 311-2668 082 923 6144 louwje@telkom.co.za
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Arizona Boomerang Update From: edwards@amigo.net (TIM EDWARDS) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:28:33 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:02:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Arizona Boomerang Update >From: memon@cyber.net.pk (Faisal Habib) >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Arizona Boomerang Update >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 06:35:29 +0500 >>>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:26:33 -0500 (EST) >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>From: xalium@netwrx.net (Tom King) >>>Subject: Arizona Boomerang Update >>>At the first Annual Skywatch International conference held in >>>Phoenix Arizona, held last November 15, 16. Bill Hamilton >>>presented a very interesting videotape of apparently two >>>"Boomerang" style objects sighted north of Phoenix. The witness and his wife were out videotaping the moon on >>>November 27, 1992. >><snip> >>>Notice the spacing is similar to the 10:00 March event. >>>Here is a image attached file from the video. >>NOV1BOM.jpg >I think you're right. When I got the image it didn't look right >to me so I used LviewPro to enhance the brightness of the image. >The image shows a distinctly seperate box. In my opinion its >definitely a cut and paste job. If anybody wants an enhanced >picture please let me know. >Faisal Sure its going to show a separate box. Tom King did a slight enhancement and pasted it by the raw footage. I seen the footage [Bill Hamilton's- second or third generation] during the Skywatch Conferance in Phoenix. It is very impressive. The audio seems to support what the witnesses are videotaping. They are taping the moon and pan down to the lights. You can almost begin to see its a solid structure in this generation for a few frames with no enhancement. This footage has just came forward and is just being analyzed. Give them a chance. Don't know of many reseachers who get pictures out on the web this fast after receiving them. Go to http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/chapterhouse/novboom/novboom.htm http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm to see more of it without the enhancement paste and a report. Tim Edwards
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS: UFO Quotes Quiz From: Mark Pilkington <markp@SYZYGY.CO.UK> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:58:21 -0000 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:30:32 -0500 Subject: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS: UFO Quotes Quiz Hi All, Here's a fun competition that should tax your saucer-addled brains even further. Can you match the quirky quotes to the UFO authors? There's a *small* prize for the winner, so get puzzling! Visit the compo at http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/news/quirkcomp.html Mark Pilkington Magonia Online http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Never before have so few been in a position to make fools, maniacs, or criminals of so many. Aldous Huxley 1952
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:37:11 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:38:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Aleevy] > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:49 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > You know what they saw about those who don't remember history. > One might say - Nah, those books were from the 1950s, those guys > couldn't have really known anything, why bother with with that > old stuff. > Donald Keyhoe traced the evolution of the pattern of lights on UFOs > over the years. > In a nutshell, at first they didn't have any, and after some near > misses and possible aerial collisions the UFOs started to sport > various types of running lights. > History can be useful, even entertaining. Gary - While I agree with the tenor of your comments, I can't agree with the collision light hypothesis. There are a number of cases from long before the "near collision" era which describe objects sporting running lights. Among them, from Magonia 7 Jun. 11, 1881 0400 The two sons of the Prince of Wales, one of them the future king of England, were cruising aboard "La Bacchante" when an object resembling a fully lighted ship was seen ("a phantom vessel all aglow"). Between Melbourne and Sydney at sea (Australia). (Fort 637; Anatomy 12). 20 Apr. 15, 1897 2100 A passenger train on the Wabash line, going toward Quincy, was followed by a low-flying object for 15 min between Perry Springs and Hersman. All the passengers saw the craft, which had a red and white light. After Hersman it flew ahead of the train and disappeared rapidly, although the train was then running at 65 km/h. Perry Springs (Missouri). (190). 30 Apr. 26, 1897 Approximate date. A lawyer was surprised to see a lighted object fly over. His horse was scared and nearly toppled the carriage. When the main light was turned off, a number of smaller lights became visible on the underside of the dark object, which supported an elongated canopy. It went down toward a hill to the south, 5 km from Aquila. When the witness was on his way back one hour later he saw the object rising. It reached the altitude of the cloud ceiling and flew to the northeast at a fantastic speed with periodic flashes of light. AquilaHillsboro (Texas). (195). According to Hynek's UFO Experience demographics, one can see that military cases, on which Keyhoe relied heavily, tend to be DD cases. Perhaps there was just a selection effect of some kind which led Keyhoe' to his conclusion. There was also a tendency among early authors to be looking for a grand design in the report patterns - a master plan unfolding - which may have helped to lead him to his conclusion. Unfortunately, from our vantage point 50 years in the future, where we have access to cases both before and after those available to him, and we can see that the presentation of UFOs has not varied greatly in terms of the presence or absence of either discrete lighting or luminosity. Further, given that UFOs typically are both faster and more agile than terrestrial aircraft, one would think the onus for collision avoidance would be on them. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:27:42 -0600 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:08:23 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Bob, >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly >endorses occult and demonological notions which no >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with >medieval speculation about demons, unless one >believes late 20th century science is in no significant >manner different from 12th century theology. >Jerry Clark Jerry... Unfortunately John Kep's ideas are not thought of as "half-baked" by the average "religious" person in this country. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in this country, the primary explaination for "UFOs" and their "alien" occupants is indeed "demonic." Remember, a couple of months ago when "Pat Robertson" came out on his 700 Club and announced that UFOS were Demonic in nature and anyone who professed to Investigate them or believe in them were guilty of blasphamy and should be stoned to death? Well, unfortunately, this man speaks with the same tongue as the orthodox religionist. Now, I am not by any means saying ALL religions and their followers profess this doctrine, but many do. Having a background in the Baptist religion, I know how many of the people I work and associate with feel about UFOs. Just thought I would add to the conversation, Jerry. Remember, not everyone believes the scientific doctrine. REgards, Mike
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:39:51 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:12:17 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly >endorses occult and demonological notions which no >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with >medieval speculation about demons, unless one >believes late 20th century science is in no significant >manner different from 12th century theology. >Jerry Clark Are you sure Keel coined this term??? He certainly is not who I first heard it from, and the context in which I first heard it was as part of the suggestions that so called ETs were, in fact, a development of earthly evolutionary processes. I believe that 12th century theology/demonology was very different from late 20th century science. But I'm nut sure that our science is all that much closer to really understanding the universe. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:08 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:17:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >As there's a number of debatable points in Arnold's testimonies, >for those interested in discussing them, perhaps we could go back >over the issues separately. >Firstly, can we agree a perspective on which to consider these >points. >In his radio interview, Arnold states: ..... >"I was approximately 25 to 28 miles from Mt. Rainier, I climbed >back up to 9200 feet and I noticed to the left of me a chain >.which looked to me like the tail of a Chinese kite, kind of . >weaving and going at a terrific speed across the face of Mt. >Rainier. I, at first, thought they were geese because it flew >like geese, but it was going so fast that I immediately changed >my mind and decided it was a bunch of new jet planes in >formation". >So Arnold is 25-28 miles from Mt. Ranier and notices a chain of >objects, flying in echelon like geese, or pelicans <g>, and >they're travelling across the face of Mt. Ranier. >Can we assume the objects must therefore have been between >Arnold's plane and those 25-28 miles to the mountain? The were flying along a track which obviously took them between Arnold and the mountain. >However, in Bruce's "The Complete Sighting Report of Kenneth >Arnold...", he quotes from Arnold's letter to the Army Air Force >(L) and his later book "The Coming of the Saucers", privately >published in 1953 (B). >Arnold now states: >(L) "The sky and air was as clear as crystal. I hadn't flown more >than two or three minutes on my course when a bright flash light >reflected on my airplane. It startled me as I thought I was too >close to some other aircraft. >(B) "I spent the next twenty to thirty seconds urgently searching >the sky all around - to the sides and above and below me - in an >attempt to determine where the flash of light had come from. [...] >Before I had time to collect my thoughts or to find a close >aircraft, the flash happened again. This time I caught the >direction from which it had come. I observed, far to my left and >to the north, a formation of very bright objects coming from the vicinity of Mt. Baker, flying very close to the mountain tops and >travelling at tremendous speed. >(L) I observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft flying >from north to south at approximately 9,500 ft elevation and >going, seemingly, in a definite direction of about 170 degrees. >(B) "At first I couldn't make out their shapes as they were still >at a distance of over a hundred miles". [End] >Is this apparent contradiction in the distance explainable? Contradiction? Error in distance estimate, maybe. We have a time development if events here. When first detected by a flash they were seen to the north of Rainier. apparently, if Arnold places them in a direction toward Mt. Baker. Now one does not know what flight path they were on, but if you imagine they were going in a straight line past Rainier to Adams, which is approximately 170 deg as estimated by Arnold, then, on a map, project this line north of Rainier. Now start at Mineral, Washington and draw a line toward Mt. Baker, which is at the Washington- British Columbia border. This sighting line of arnold intersects the hypothetical roughly 170 straight path about 50 miles from Arnold's plane. I suggest that this is the more likely distance than the 130 miles from Arnold to Mt. Baker. Now, if Arnold's sighting line had actually been some degrees south of Mt. Baker then the objects were closer. (get map, try yourself). >Could a flash have reflected off Arnold's plane from an object >over 100 miles away? Let's make it 50 miles away. It is still a very bright flash. At this point it is necessary to determine what Arnold meant by a "flash on his plane" Was it so bright that he actually saw light reflected off his plane? I doubt it since this was full daylight and the objects were very distant. On the other hand, if the light entered his eye directly it could be quite bright IF THE OBJECTS REFLECTED LIKE MIRRORS, which is what Arnold seemed to imply. When you look at a mirror reflecting the sun you are actually looking at the sun(!), just from a different direction than directly toward the sun. If the angular size of the mirror is smaller than the sun's angular size (i.e., less than about 8 milliradians or about 1/2 degree), then you are looking at a piece of the sun. Suppose we imagine a roughly circular object sufficiently flat and shiny to appear as a mirror and let its diameter be 80 ft. Then at 50 miles the angle is 0.3 milliradians. The fraction of the sun which this small angle represents is about (0.3 mr/8mr)^2 = 0.0014. (Squared because it is the area of the mirror divided by the area of the suns disc that determines the reflected solar "flux.") So you get roughly 0.14% of the sun's light being reflected. (Note: no spherical divergence here since the surface was assumed to be flat; if a curved surface then the fraction must be reduced somewhat). Now, the solar disc is about 1-2E5 times brighter than the sky (for experts: B = luminance = (1 to 2)E9 cd/m^2 for sun, and B = 1E4 cd/m^2 for bright sky near the horizon; these numbers change with atmospheric conditions and the elevation of the sun and are approximate. E# represents 10 raised to a power, 10^#). Hence 0.0014 of the solar disc is still more than a hundred times brighter than the sky. Although one does not know the exact conditions of sy brightness, nor the exact reflectivities of these objects, this calculation does suggest that the reflection would be easy to see even over a distance of 50 miles.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:17:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:11:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:33:52 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever -Reply >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> >>Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:38:53 -0800 ><Very selective snip, but with relevance to the rest of >Marks' reply:> >>I don't think anyone would allege that anyone is not contributing >>to any database of reports. FUFOR, MUFON, and CUFOS all publish >>both significant cases and studies. I'm not sure what you're >>getting at. >What I'm getting at, and I'm sure that most on the list will >agree, is that there is a requirement for a centralised, >coordinated database that must be used for abductions, sightings, >and other encounters and/or manifestations. Why? Well, there is a >plethora of data mining packages out there, that can be run >against MS Access on Windows or even Oracle on UNIX. By setting >up relationships and keyed links between database >records/rows/reports, one will be able to retrieve a list of >reports for, say, Arizona, or a list for any specific night, or a >combination of several parameters like geographic, timezone, or >key-word descriptive fields. This would be ideal in analysing >trends, hot-spots, flight-paths, and so on. >We're not talking about huge amounts of data here: >The main reports and studies can be held on >hard-copy or near-line storage like Zip drive >or CDR, but with cross-reference codes that are >kept as a field in the database, where and if >applicable. I wish your scenerio was true, but I have to disagree. Yes, the goal of central storage of this genre's data, with cross-referenced access would be ideal. But that goal is far more challanging than you seem to realize. Who is going to go through all of the data and digitize it for storage? How would you key (or index) this data? Who will have the responsibility for maintaining the data and making it available? But perhaps most importantly, who is actually going to use this data? I am actually arguing the other side of this issue in another arena, but felt that the obstacles presented here are indeed formidable. As I have had pointed out to me, Jerome Clark has written three volumns of The UFO Encyclopedia, which are not inexpensive. They are thought to be excellent research tools, and yet they have only sold a couple of hundred copies, with another 100 thrown in for various libraries. Admittedly, there are very few of us that have several hundred dollars to spend on this "hobby", but that raises the issue of who the massive compilation you suggest will be aimed at, and how many copies will actually be sold. >Investigators and organizational volunteers that will >keep the database updated will have to work with, and >according to, a standardised categorisation system, >probably very like the current CE1-whatever (Hynek?) >specification that is pretty much generally in use in >any case. If you can get researchers and volunteers to actually work together in this genre, that will be a first. Perhaps you will first have to define how this genre will be studied as a "science", but that would in itself be a first. >A user-friendly GUI can be set up with, say, Visual Basic >for the keying in of reports, and inserts into the >database will be validated against the database for >possible duplicate entries (check for date, time, >town/city, reporter name), and then the relevant >indexes will also be rebuilt to allowed indexed >searches. >There are multi-dimensional database mining tools >also available that will extend the range of >database relationships almost endlessly. No one can argue that the technology isn't available, and has been at some level for many years. NICAP was actually performing this task in the 50's and 60's, and the UFO Coalition seems to be moving toward that goal. However, we now have an international genre and I'm not sure how you would incorporate it all together (which would be the ultimate goal). >Why hasn't this been done already? >In terms of dollars, we're not talking about a >lot here, but the returns to the study of >the UFO phenomenon will be significant. In terms of man hours, you are talking about quite a bit. And since few are going to be willing to give up their data for free, there would be a cost involved that has yet to be determined. If you want to discuss data storage and organization further, we can do so. But I'm not sure it belongs here. The goal you have outlined is admirable, but probably unattainable. However, I believe it would be possible for research groups to market portions of their data in a form that could be sold to the masses. This could be used offset some of the other CD-ROMs of questionable data that others are putting out in tabloid form, and could help to provide needed funding for further research. This new medium, which can incorporate sound and video clips into the media, is ideal for this type of project. But don't underestimate the cost in doing it right. Steve PS- I want to wish everyone a happy and safe Thanksgiving holiday.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Nazi Germany and advanced flying machines From: "R.Bull" <RAB@cadcentre.co.uk> [Robert Bull] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 14:02:00 GMT Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:19:44 -0500 Subject: Nazi Germany and advanced flying machines >From: "Jason B. Unwin" <jbu@ris.net> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:33:20 -0800 >>From: USDSCUBA@aol.com [Gordon Scott] >>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >>Pretty funny stuff about the birds, however according to a close >>friend within the military at the time the vehicle as seen by Mr >>K. Arnold was a German made Gotha Go 229 IX being test flown for >>radar testing. These high performance aircraft were the same >>basic flying wing shape as described in his report, and were >> being tested during the time period. These Go 229 were almost >>invisible on radar due to the 17 mm plywood skin, and with twin >>Junkers Jumo 1890 pounds of thrust turbojet engines it was also >>quite fast. Reichsmarshal Hermann Goring was so impressed he >>wanted to mass produce these advanced aircraft. This allied >>information also helped Jack Northrop with his.Amercian designs. >>The Germans also had an aircraft known as project P-12 with a ram >>jet, (our own Air Force did the wind tunnel tests after the >>war). Designed much like our current SR-71 replacment aircraft. >Sorry, but according to _Janes Encyclopedia of Aviation_ there is >no such thing as a Gotha Go 229 IX. The closest aircraft >conceivable were the Gotha Go 242 and 244. The 242 was a glider >and the 244 was a powered version with 2 French built Gnome-Rhone >14M engines (pages 427-428). The only thing a Gotha was good for >was target practice. Even the most primitive jets at the time >would have utterly destroyed one. What is "Project P-12"? Who was >the supposed manufacturer of such an aircraft? Ram jets have been >around in theory for years but very few have been successfully >flown much less deployed in number. The Me-163 was a tailess >rocket plane that had only one shot at US bombers due to its lack >of fuel to stay on station from its rocket engines. The Me 163 >was also a sitting duck as it tried to glide back to its airfield >with probably a couple US P-51 Mustangs hot on his tail! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nazi Germany and advanced flying machines. The most advanced aircraft to enter Luftwaffe service were the jet-powered Messerschmitt Me 262 and the rocket-powered Me 163. Also the less well-known, jet-powered Arado Ar 234. All conventional aircraft (ie wings and tailplanes) with conventional engines. More advanced was the Horten Ho IX flying-wing jet fighter, one prototype of which flew as a glider only, the other powered prototype crashing after only two hours of flight testing. The Ho IX was to have entered production as the Gotha Go 229, but was never flown before the Americans overran the plant. [Was to have had Junkers Jumo 004Bs of 1980 Ibs (900 kg) thrust, not 1890.] Most advanced of all was the Messerschmitt P. 1101 swept-wing jet fighter, which was only partially completed when the Americans captured it in April 1945. (This was eventually rebuilt as the variable-geometry Bell X-5, flying in America in 1951.) ------------------------------------------------------------- (The above from memory. I can dig out my reference source if anyone is interested.) Rob Bull
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Ruppelt - Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:11:57 -0800 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:20:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Ruppelt - Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 11/26/97 5:26 AM: > From: galevy@pipeline.com [Gary Alevy] > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:49:57 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: Ruppelt - Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > > There is a good case with AF officers observing 3 delta shaped > > metallic objects in daytime, Ruppelt, p 24. This was an AF > > unknown. > Your reference to Ruppelt on page 24. Ruppelt's "The Report On > Unidentified Flying Objects" was published in many editions. I > have both the Ace Book paperback, 1956 and the Fieldcrest > Publishing 1965 version and neither has this reference on page > 24. Which edition are you referring to and what chapter and > paragraph? Hardback copy, copyright 1956, Library of Congress 56-5444, Doubleday. p 24 starts on the second full para ("But here is a 'good' UFO report...) of the page, which is in the first chapter. Hope that helps. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:50:16 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:24:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? Dear List, About a week back, Jerome Clark made an intervention in my exchange with Sean Jones concerning folklore and ufology, but I've accidentally managed to banish it into the ether! Anyhow... Dear Jerry, I can only take your intervention as meaning that you literally believe that an alien planetoid-sized craft did accompany the comet Hale-Bopp, and that all that is told about Grays and Roswell, etc., is the literal truth. No storytelling, hyping, mytholigising of past events, and the rest that makes up the stuff of folklore. Thank you. It was an enlightening insight into the state of your ufological thinking. Best wishes, Paul PS - As your intervention was minus about four-fifths of my posting to Sean, in which I unpacked my comments about folklore in ufology, am I correct in assuming you still have technical problems with your computer? (Otherwise, I'd be forced to conclude that your posting was for no other purpose than gratuitous sarcasm.)Should I send you the full tract?
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:47:43 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:24:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH (and ELs) >To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto) >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:12 -0600 (CST) Chris, I'll snip your personal and emotional comments because I don't want to get into that. I'll also snip most of your well-rehearsed views about earth lights and the TST, as in all my exchanges with Jerry Clark, I have not been promoting that argument at all, but trying to deal with broader matters. I will only note that you do openly accept the existence of earth lights, but that our area of disagreement seems to be that you think I over-emphasise their incidence in UFO reports. Fine, we'll agree to disagree. However, just for the record, let me state clearly that I think *most* UFO reports relate to misidentified mundane objects, psychosocial perceptions, and hoaxes and lies,probably more or less in that order. I think of what little is left, quite a high proportion of genuine sightings do relate to geophysical anomalies, especially when lights at night are involved, daylight disks and globes, and, on rare occasions, in exotic close encounters. There may well be other phenomena in the mix, too. These may be ET in nature, or may be something we have not even guessed at as yet -- that is really the nub of my plea that we do not rely so extensively on the ETH/ETM. I'll now just pick up on a couple of specific other points you made. >....I'm not a geophysicist. (And neither are you.)... Indeed I'm not. But, like you, I am intelligent and do my homework. Also, I work with people who *are* geophysicists and who can give me technical advice. Anyone working within ufology is soon working outside their specialism. >....I also have many other projects and topics of interest, >seemingly unlike you... What a ridiculous thing to say, Chris. Out of my 18 or so books,two are on earth lights, and one is on ufology. Hardly an overweaning obsession. About 10 percent of my research time goes into earth lights -- like you, I wish it could be much more than that. If it seems to you I spend more time and involvement on the subject area than I actually do, it must simply be because I work very hard and to great effect. (So thank your lucky stars that I am not funded to spend more time on the topic - or you and Jerry and the rest of the CUFOS mafia would be in even more trouble than you already are!) Like you, I have many other areas of interest and involvement. My main area of interest, research and writing, is archaeological. My growing area of involvement is consciousness research, and I work with professionals in that area and am just starting to come out with writings on that front. My love is art (I was trained as a painter.) Oh yes, and as Jerry has noted elsewhere, I enjoy being in nature -- that's the artist in me, I guess. Is all that okay with you? >>...I'll focus in this posting with what is perhaps the most >> fundamental and in many ways most pressing issue - the >>dominance of ETH thinking within mainstream ufology.... >Wait a minute, I thought you were going to cut the crap ... I was raising a perfectly legitimate topic, and, moreover, went on to *prove* the point (neatly snipped by you.) But of course, I suppose from your point of view it is abuse to even question the ETH, even though, as you claim, your are not a closet ETHer.... >...I make no excuses for ufology being mostly ETH-oriented. But >you have to recognize it's not all like that.. I didn't say it was all like that. I said the ETH is the dominat paradigm. And so it is. Fact. >...I'm not a by-the-book ETHer.... Then what kind of ETHer are you, Chris? Do I see your nose peeping out of the closet? >...So don't act like Derrel Sims or Phil Corso and say that you >alone have the answer and will save us from ourselves. Some >great scientists who made earth-shattering discoveries also had >modesty. What on earth are you talking about, Chris? How can I be linked with the likes of Sims and Corso? Where are your emotions (I won't even ask about your mind) at? All I suggested was that we relax our ETH fixation in order to think around the enigma a little better (more widely and feely)than we are doing. The one thing I wasn't doing in my argument was pushing any particular angle. It is most telling that even that modest suggestion should touch a nerve in you. >...The CBC producer said you were a nice guy, and I believe him! Yes, well... why not? I get on delightfully with many people. Just because I challenge the likes of you and Jerome Clark doesn't make me a demon, even if I am demonised by Jerry and, sometimes, by you. Those demons are in your heads, not here at this keyboard. Regards, Paul
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 26 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: "skyeking@aye.net" <skyeking@aye.net> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:57:31 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:14:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:47:42 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Hundreds of them..... > Hi Errol, Hi All > I was speaking to a friend just the other day, mentioning that > Paul Devereaux keeps moaning that everyone only talks about UFOs > as being of the ETH origin these days and he asked what other > explanations was there for them... Heres a list of what I > came up with, I wonder how many more you more learned people can > add to my list. > In no particular order. > 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets > 2) Time travellors > 3) Hollow Earth > 4) Hollow moon > 5) Atlantis > 6) Multi-dimentional craft > 7) Earth Lights > 8) Glowing Bugs > 9) Swamp Gas > 10) Hullucinations > 11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft > 12) Day dreams/ Night dreams > 13) Earths etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) > 14) Interdimentional beings/craft from alternate futures > 15) Ball lighting > 16) Psi Phenomenom > 17) Demons/Angels > 18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) > 19) Laser Lights > 20) Meteors > 21) Cumnolus Clouds <sp?> > 22) Abnormal weather conditions > 23) Apparitions > 24) Kites > 25) Model aircraft/helicopters > 26) Ice crystals > 27) Phosference in the atmosphere > 28) Falling sattelite/space debris > I ran out of ideas at this point so perhaps you could add any > that I have forggten or not known about. Okay. How 'bout some hitherto unknown luminescence conjured up by plate techtonics, and one of my faves: Colonel Gordon Cooper's "high flying seed pods," to quote those silly boys in the military. Oh, and let's not forget holograms (they're not just meant for cereal boxes anymore). And finally: Horny badgers. No, that's crop circles. I forgot... Jerry Washington SD KY/MUFON
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Scientists Describe Asteroid Impact From: RSchatte@aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:35:43 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:01:01 -0500 Subject: Scientists Describe Asteroid Impact --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Scientists Describe Asteroid Impact Date: 97-11-26 13:11:08 EST From: AOL News Scientists Describe Asteroid Impact .c The Associated Press By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - An asteroid that tumbled through space for eons blasted into the sea off Antarctica more than 2 million years ago with the force of ``a cosmic bomb,'' a multinational team of scientists said in a research paper published Wednesday. Striking the Bellingshausen Sea with the explosive power of 100 billion tons of TNT, the asteroid Eltanin blew a column of water 3 miles high and punched a temporary ``oceanic crater'' in the sea, according to the paper, which appeared in the British science journal Nature. The researchers estimate the asteroid was at least six-tenths of a mile and possibly up to 2 1/2 miles in diameter. The blast in the ocean did not leave a crater on the seabed, but a similar strike on land would have left a hole 9 to 25 miles across. Eltanin, the only asteroid ever known to have hit water, triggered waves 65 to 130 feet high, ``devastating mega-tsunamis'' that swamped the coasts of South America and Antarctica. ``The tsunami ... destroys enormous, large areas. ... In the Pacific Rim there are signs of such things,'' one of the lead researchers, Rainer Gersonde of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday. Sediment spread up to 2,500 miles away and dust, vapor and salts wafted around the world. Enough debris and hot vapors were emitted to possibly damage the Earth's ozone layer, the researchers said. ``The dust and vapor probably caused a major change in climate, but whether that persisted or was for just a few years, we just don't know,'' said Karsten Gohl, a geologist from Macquarie University in Sydney who worked on the project. There is no evidence that the climatic change caused the extinction of any species. New seismic and deep-sea surveys conducted in 1995 by the German research ship Polarstern enabled the scientists to accurately date the blast to the late Pliocene period, 2.15 million years ago, and to gauge its effects. The blast was well after the Northern Hemisphere's Ice Age began but ``close to one of the strongest cooling events in this time period,'' the researchers' paper said. ``It might be that this strong cooling was related to the impact,'' Gersonde told the AP. The fallout from the blast may explain the ``Sirius enigma,'' the puzzle of why marine fossils are found high above sea level in the Transantarctic Mountains. The researchers believe fallout from the steam and vapor cloud dropped micro-fossils directly on the mountains, an idea that geologist Peter Barrett at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, called ``reasonably plausible.'' David Harwood at the University of Nebraska, an expert on the Sirius fossils, conceded that the fallout theory ``has potential'' but said some Sirius deposits do not fit the model. He is among those who think moving ice sheets may have scoured fossil deposits and redeposited them in unexpected sites. The Eltanin impact was a medium blast, as asteroids go. About 65 million years ago, a 6-mile-wide asteroid crashed into an area near Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, creating a 112-mile-wide crater. Some scientists believe this event kicked up enough dust to blot out the sun, killing more than 80 percent of all animals on Earth and leading to the extinction of the dinosaurs. But rocks far smaller than Eltanin can cause massive damage: A meteorite only 150 feet across created Arizona's Meteor Crater, 4,000 feet wide and 600 feet deep. A rock just 30 feet across, hitting Earth from outer space, releases energy equal to about five Hiroshima-sized bombs. Although the Earth's surface is 70 percent water, Eltanin is the only asteroid to strike the ocean that scientists know about, compared with about 140 known to have hit land, Jan Smits of the Research School of Sedimentary Geology at Amsterdam's Vrije University noted in a commentary on the research in Nature. ``Where might the traces of these events be hiding?'' Smits asked. Besides Gersonde, in Germany, researchers on the project included Frank Kyte at the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCLA and scientists from the Department of Geology at the University of Salamanca in Spain; Macquarie University's School of Earth Sciences in Sydney; and the U.S. Naval Research Lab in Washington. Eltanin is named for the U.S. research ship that brought up deep sea samples in 1965 that later were found to contain iridium, an element in asteroids. AP-NY-11-26-97 1307EST Copyright 1997 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: DevereuxP@aol.com Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:53 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:10:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:55:54 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >>From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:21:02 -0500 (EST) >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >>Ufology is now two generations old in its present form.... >In my understanding a generation is fifty years, taking it that >"modern" ufology started with Kenneth Arnold, how do you make >it two generations?? So if I am 50, and my son is 25, then we are the same generation? As for the rest of your responses, I think Julie's quiet intervention requires no more to be added from me. Cheers, Paul
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Stephen Hawking On UFOs From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:35:56 +0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:12:59 -0500 Subject: Stephen Hawking On UFOs 27. November 1997 06.53.45 alt.alien.visitors Item From: saucer@bellsouth.net@bellsouth.net,usenet Subject: Stephen Hawking comments on ufos To: alt.alien.visitors Well I finally heard Stephen Hawking comment on UFOs. At the end of one of the Stephen Hawking's Universe shows he says that if UFOs are actually aliens or people from the future like some people think, then he expects it would be more obvious and more nasty than it apparently is. I'm not sure what he means by nasty, the 2 ideas that come to mind are; he expects them to take over or he doesn't think they'd survive the trip. I like Stephen but I disagree with his approach to this. I think one should base there assumptions (if they make any) on the available evidence instead of throwing it out when it doesn't match preconcieved ideas. It seems as if Stephen has excluded the possibilty that aliens might go about things differently than he supposes. Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:53:45 -0600 From: "Alex P. LeClair" <"saucer@bellsouth.net"@bellsouth.net> Subject: Stephen Hawking comments on ufos Message-ID: <65iqo6$7t0$1@news.clt.bellsouth.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Search for other documents from or mentioning: stig_agermose | saucer |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:35:08 +0100 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:19:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >From: USDSCUBA@aol.com [Gordon Scott] > >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 01:34:15 -0500 (EST) > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >>Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 23:27:36 -0500 > >>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >> A strange bird is a pelican...It flies over 100 > >>miles per hour when ever it can....especially when > >>trying to race a small airplane while flying southward > >>past Mt. Rainier. > >Pretty funny stuff about the birds, however according to a close > >friend within the military at the time the vehicle as seen by Mr > >K. Arnold was a German made Gotha Go 229 IX being test flown for > >radar testing. These high performance aircraft were the same > >basic flying wing shape as described in his report, and were > >being tested during the time period. These Go 229 were almost > >invisible on radar due to the 17 mm plywood skin, and with twin > >Junkers Jumo 1890 pounds of thrust turbojet engines it was also > >quite fast. Reichsmarshal Hermann Goring was so impressed he > >wanted to mass produce these advanced aircraft. This allied > >information also helped Jack Northrop with his.Amercian designs. > >The Germans also had an aircraft known as project P-12 with a ram > j>et, (our own Air Force did the wind tunnel tests after the > >war). Designed much like our current SR-71 replacment aircraft. Hello Gordon and Bruce, The Gotha was produced by the Germans for one reason, lack of aluminum. The Germans were desparate. The fact that the Gotha was partially invisible to radar was an accident of design, not intentional. Don't forget radar was primitive in its infancy and easily fooled. The British and Allies were well aware of the value of plywood as a material that did not reflect radar wave propagation from discovering that their older aircraft such as the Tiger Moth rainer, mostly fabric and wood, did not show up well on radar and its own Mosquito interceptor/ bomber made of steam molded plywood [made right here in Nova Scotia and Ontario as a matter of fact] did not reflect back all of the microwaves beamed at it. The fact is none of these aircraft were capable of the speeds clocked by Arnold. The Gotha was not produced in large numbers. If you did capture a few from the Germans when the war ended, why in the name of heavens would you be testing them in the Cascade Mountains and where did 9 of them come from and what is the point of testing nine at once. and where the heck is the radar to test against them in the mountains. You know it seems there are a more than a few attempts at pounding a square peg into a round hole re the Arnold sighting. People keep coming up with solutions but to only 3 or 4 of twenty points. None of them match up. Everyone should be familiar with Occum's(sp) Razor by now which states "... that all things being equal the simplist explanation is usually the right one". Don't you think that in the Arnold case that for once that principle works in our favour. > (Uh, oh. sounds like a modification of the Nazi UFO hypothesis.) > Anyway, may I calmly suggest there were NO planes capable of > supersonic flight (740 mph roughly) at that time. (Chuck Yaeger > proved he had "the right stuff" in Oct. 1947.) Also, I would > doubt that we had 9 flyable, plywood skin craft for "radar > testing" flying near Mt. Rainier at the time. Any test craft > such as that would have been operating over military bases or > restricted areas. Do you know that it was years before the American's came up with a decent ejection seat for jet aircraft let alone coming up with sophisticated high speed tailess aircraft. I don't want to ruffle any feathers but the US was just not a front runner in jet design for many years and it was well into the fifties before they caught up. We have got to stop thinking that all things were possible after the war, that one technological wonder after the other was being discovered there, at least in the aviation field. It was not so. America's strength was in her leaps in electronics not in jet design. That was the field of the Russian's, the British and here in Canada. If you call me on this you are going to get miles of email about it. Don't worry, by the sixties the US had caught up and were passing everybody but the Russians. > >But why bother with such old news ? flying wings have been around > >since the 1930's Not true flying wings, without tails. and the rocket powered versions like the Me 163 > >B. The thing took off [leaving its wheels behind] went straight up, manouvered for about 4 minutes at 550 mph then came in and landed on a belly skid. Great machine for mountain flying and still not fast enough to match Arnold's calculated speeds. > >Perhaps we should be more concerned with the several secret bases > >of black triangle aircraft in Canada being flown by UN forces > >and paid for by Amercian tax dollars, or what the CIA has been > >purchasing for 26 Billion dollars ? Where the hell did this one come from? > >There seems to be plenty of strange things going on right > >now don't you think ? > Yes, indeed. As far as I am concerned, secret military craft are > part of the modern-day noise. HOWEVER, the FBI was asked to > investigate saucer sightings in 1947 and, before so doing, asked > for assurance from the Air Force that there were no classified > projects that could account for the early saucer sightings. The > FBI was assured that there were no such projects in any of the > armed forces. Good point Bruce, but then my paranoia kicks in. I'm sure that the US had many different exotic secret plans in the hopper, but none of them capable of doing what Arnold saw. What was really concerning the USAAF/USAF was that they could not eliminate the Russians as a possible culprit for the outbreak of UFO sightings. If it wasn't the Russians then the alternative was a mindblower. Occum's Razor. Don Ledger P.S. Check out this latest from NASA/Boeing re tailess aircraft. Don't forget, this is 1997 technology. Too bad they just didn't tap into all of that German technology that's been laying around since Arnold's time. I snipped a great deal of it. RELEASE: 97-276 TAILLESS FIGHTER FLIGHT TESTS COMPLETE; PREVIEW FUTURE FIGHTER TECHNOLOGY The NASA/Boeing X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft successfully completed its flight research program -- demonstrating the feasibility of future tailless fighters achieving agility levels superior to today's best military fighter aircraft. The project goals are to develop and demonstrate enhanced technologies to improve the maneuverability and survivability of future fighter aircraft. "All of our project goals were met or exceeded," said Mark Sumich, X-36 project manager at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. During the final flight phase, the X-36 project team examined the aircraft's agility at low speed/high angles of attack and at high speed/low angles of attack. "We also achieved the final flight's goal to expand the X-36's speed envelope up to 206 knots (234 miles per hour)," Sumich said. "The aircraft's stability and handling qualities were excellent at both ends of the speed envelope." Ames and the Boeing Phantom Works developed the technologies required for a tailless fighter beginning in 1989. In 1993, the Phantom Works proposed the remotely piloted aircraft technology demonstration to validate the technologies in a real flight environment. In 1994, Phantom Works began fabrication of the two aircraft in its rapid prototyping facility in St. Louis. NASA and Boeing are full partners in the project that was jointly funded under a roughly 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement. The combined program cost for the development, fabrication, and flight testing of the two prototype aircraft is approximately $20 million. Ames leads the X-36 program; Dryden is hosting the program and providing range support. -end- Search for other documents from or mentioning: dledger | usdscuba |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:40:46 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:21:57 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder >From: Ktperehwon@aol.com [Karl T Pflock] >Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:31:30 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder >Anyone wanting the full story on why Kocher wrote his paper and >some of the significant material therein will find same in my >article in THE ANOMALIST 5. I interviewed Kocher at length for >the article; interestingly enough, I was the first UFO researcher >since 1968 to do so. Given the on again, off again controversy >over his paper, doesn't that seem a tad odd? Hmmmm..... Maybe >more folks in this field prefer "mysteries" to answers. >>CUFOS made copies of Kocher's document available years ago. >>You can, I believe, still purchase copies from them. >Not quite, Jan. The CUFOS copy lacked the last two pages of text >and all the appendix material and source notes. >However, I've managed to get a complete copy, which is available >from Yrs Trly or, more easily from Arcturus Books. Once again, >see my article in THE ANOMALIST 5. And we all know where to get The Anomalist 5, don't we? Thass right: Dennis Stacy PO Box 12434 San Antonio Texas 78212 $9.95 plus $2.50 s/h, checks payable to Dennis Stacy. I should point out that Kocher investigates a little known classic UFO case, one in which the object has writing on the outside yet! It's also a classic demonstration of how a UFO case should be investigated. And you get five more feature articles in the same issue -- free! Actually, Fortean Times #105 (December) just arrived in the mail this morning, and I note that they've got a very good review of The Anomalist 5 in same by co-editor Bob Rickard. There's also a good plug of same in the accompanying "Fortflash" newsletter that goes to subscribers. End of horn-blowing -- until The Anomalist 6 comes out early next year. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: MIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video From: William.Hamilton@pcsmail.pcshs.com Date: 26 Nov 1997 17:41:15 UT Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:23:22 -0500 Subject: Re: MIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video >From: Shaver@online.pol.dk, Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:48:21 +0200 >Subject: Fwd: MIB Intercept 'Phoenix Lights' Video >Received from "alt.alien.visitors" November 24 at 20.27 local Danish >time (GMT + 1 hour): >MEN IN BLACK INTERCEPT 'PHOENIX LIGHTS' VIDEO FOOTAGE? >(transcribed from a FOX10 NEWS (Phx.) report, 11/18 @9pm, reported by >Jim Schnebelt) >FROM THE FOX-10 '10 files'... >(on screen: stock "Phoenix Lights" footage, of lights suspended in sky) >voiceover: Months after this (March 13) sighting there are many >questions regarding the strange lights over Phoenix. Is this a >solid craft, or merely lights in an empty sky? >What could be the conclusive evidence is now mysteriously >missing. >Richard Curtis claims his home video is proof that this sighting >was a huge flying craft. And he claims his video shows a solid >object in the sky passing over his home. Many Phoenix eyewitnesses report seeing solid objects but we have not seen any videos showing them. If the video Richard Curtis took on that night showed lights attached to a solid object, it would have been very compelling evidence. Bill Hamilton Search for other documents from or mentioning: william.hamilton |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 UFO Sighting - Report From: brazel@webtv.net (Clint Stone) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:55:37 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:31:17 -0500 Subject: UFO Sighting - Report The following account was sent to me by a man named Jamison Honeycutt. I thought it may be of interest to some of you. Feel free to comment. _________ From: JAMISON SHAN HONEYCUTT <jhoney@naxs.com> To: "'brazel@webtv.net'" <brazel@webtv.net> Subject: UFO Sighting. Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:12:32 -0800 To whom it may concern, When I was 12 years old a neighbor friend of mine and I went outside to see Haleys Comet. I did see the comet but then at the end of my street I saw a small fire colored orange ball (about the size of a basketball) coming straight for me and my friend. It had come from the hill top from the west of my home. (I live in the mountains of Virginia about 20 miles or less from Kentucky). At first I wasn't afraid, I was kind of shocked, but I soon noticed it was coming straight at us, about power line level. It was moving very slowly and I started getting scared. It stopped right above me and my friend. Then I decided to run. I took off running and my friend just stood there frozen. I began to panic, and I was yelling at him to run home. But he didn't. So I just picked up a handful of rocks and threw it at the ball. The ball made a shaking movement like it was aggitated then at an extremely fast rate shot straight up into the air at about mountain top level and went straight west again from where I saw it come. My friend and I ran all the way back to his house which is about 100 to 200 ft from my home. We ran into his back bed room and later decided to tell our parents but they didn't believe us and said it was our imaginations. But I know what I saw and last year I asked my friend if he remembered anything about that night and he still remembers everything the way I do. I can honestly say that I have never been so afraid in my whole life from that time on. Well if you have any questions about it just tell email me and I will enlighten you. I am not some idiot from the mountains, I have a BS degree in Environmental Health from EKU. I would also not want my name mentioned if you decide to tell the story to others. I am curious if anyone else has seen a similar object like mine. I will tell you it looked exactly like one of the objects in the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" I am sure someone has to have seen something similar if Steven Spielburg made one for a movie. Sincerely, Jamie _________ Clint Stone brazel@webtv.net http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ufohome
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Ultimate UFO database From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:15:15 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:37:52 -0500 Subject: Ultimate UFO database >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:33:52 +0200 >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever <snip> >What I'm getting at, and I'm sure that most on the list will >agree, is that there is a requirement for a centralised, >coordinated database that must be used for abductions, sightings, >and other encounters and/or manifestations. Why? Well, there is a >plethora of data mining packages out there, that can be run >against MS Access on Windows or even Oracle on UNIX. By setting >up relationships and keyed links between database >records/rows/reports, one will be able to retrieve a list of >reports for, say, Arizona, or a list for any specific night, or a >combination of several parameters like geographic, timezone, or >key-word descriptive fields. This would be ideal in analysing >trends, hot-spots, flight-paths, and so on. >Jakes E. Louw >louwje@telkom.co.za Mr Louw has hit the nail squarely on the head here. I believe that total data sharing and a single massive UFO, etc. database is the MOST NEEDED item in all of Ufology. If FUFOR or somebody is willing to fund the effort, I for one and I know many more will be happy to lend my efforts at getting this data to them. There is so much information out there that only small groups of investigators are privy to that it literally stunts our efforts to analyse and investigate. I have seen many web sites out there that take in sighting reports that they keep, go uninvestigated and never are openly shared with the rest of Ufology. WHAT A WASTE!!!!!!! A UFO database clearinghouse for reports is the best tool we could possibly have and the #1 item to put on all of our agendas. I don't understand why it hasn't been done before. Powerful computers have been around since the early 80's. I don't mean to undermine those efforts that have been made (such as the Hatch database), but that is just the tip of the UFO iceberg. I am an investigator with Minnesota MUFON and I thought when I joined that MUFON already had such a database, with open access and info from all possible sources. Boy was I totally wrong! I think we have all really dropped the ball here and we need to get this effort started pronto! There are NO EXCUSES. It MUST BE DONE. PERIOD. All the reports we get at MN MUFON are on our website for anyone to read as well as our investigation reports as they become available. If every state did this and forwarded other reports they get to the relevent org's for investigation, especially in a TIMELY manner, we would magnify our effectiveness by orders of magnitude. I already do this, on my own time, at my own expense. NO EXCUSES. Lets get our acts together. Consider my hat thrown into the ring. How about the rest of MUFON, FUFOR, CUFOS, etc, etc.? Are you listening? Joel Henry ***************************************************** Minnesota MUFON Webmaster Minnesota MUFON Web Page= http://www.wavefront.com/~jhenry/index.html
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:39:51 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:48:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:47:42 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Hundreds of them..... > Hi Errol, Hi All > .... Heres a list of what I > came up with, I wonder how many more you more learned people can > add to my list. > In no particular order. > 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets > 2) Time travellors > 3) Hollow Earth > 4) Hollow moon > 5) Atlantis > 6) Multi-dimentional craft > 7) Earth Lights > 8) Glowing Bugs > 9) Swamp Gas > 10) Hullucinations > 11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft > 12) Day dreams/ Night dreams > 13) Earths etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) > 14) Interdimentional beings/craft from alternate futures > 15) Ball lighting > 16) Psi Phenomenom > 17) Demons/Angels > 18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) > 19) Laser Lights > 20) Meteors > 21) Cumnolus Clouds <sp?> > 22) Abnormal weather conditions > 23) Apparitions > 24) Kites > 25) Model aircraft/helicopters > 26) Ice crystals > 27) Phosference in the atmosphere > 28) Falling sattelite/space debris Sean, There are an almost endless number of mundane explanations that have been put forth to try to explain individual sightings, such as advertising airplanes and weather balloons (how did you omit that?). But besides your 1), the ETH can encompass 2), 5) and 6) also. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:14:02 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:50:32 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:27:42 -0600 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Bob, > >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, > >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly > >endorses occult and demonological notions which no > >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility > >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO > >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses > >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- > >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven > >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific > >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with > >medieval speculation about demons, unless one > >believes late 20th century science is in no significant > >manner different from 12th century theology. > >Jerry Clark > Jerry... > Unfortunately John Kep's ideas are not thought of as "half-baked" > by the average "religious" person in this country. I can't speak > for the rest of the world, but in this country, the primary > explaination for "UFOs" and their "alien" occupants is indeed > "demonic." Remember, a couple of months ago when "Pat Robertson" > came out on his 700 Club and announced that UFOS were Demonic in > nature and anyone who professed to Investigate them or believe in > them were guilty of blasphamy and should be stoned to death? > Well, unfortunately, this man speaks with the same tongue as the > orthodox religionist. > Now, I am not by any means saying ALL religions and their > followers profess this doctrine, but many do. Having a background > in the Baptist religion, I know how many of the people I work and > associate with feel about UFOs. > Just thought I would add to the conversation, Jerry. > Remember, not everyone believes the scientific doctrine. > REgards, Mike Mike, You make a good point. In fact, fundamentalist Christian writers on UFOs often cite Keel's work, and he gets quoted not infrequently in such literature. Of course such writers ignore Keel's further assertion that God is just another ultra- terrestrial. I have no quarrel with anybody's religious beliefs so long as I'm not being compelled to agree with them. Of course Keel is not propounding religious doctrine but offering what is supposed to be a serious hypothesis about the nature of anomalous and paranormal phenomena. In that secular context his ideas are profoundly irrational and deeply paranoid. Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:24:34 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:52:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? > To: updates@globalserve.net > From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:50:16 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? > Dear List, > About a week back, Jerome Clark made an intervention in my > exchange with Sean Jones concerning folklore and ufology, but > I've accidentally managed to banish it into the ether! Anyhow... > Dear Jerry, > I can only take your intervention as meaning that you literally > believe that an alien planetoid-sized craft did accompany the > comet Hale-Bopp, and that all that is told about Grays and > Roswell, etc., is the literal truth. No storytelling, hyping, > mytholigising of past events, and the rest that makes up the > stuff of folklore. > Thank you. It was an enlightening insight into the state of your > ufological thinking. > Best wishes, > Paul Hi, Paul, Sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity to tweak you. It seemed to me that you were using the word "folklore" as if it held some meaning unique to ufology, and specifically as a polite way of characterizing all opinions and phenomena not to your liking. Folklore applies to all aspects of human life. To assert that there is folklore about UFOs is about as enlightening as offering the observation that in all communities there is gossip. Cheers and (if you are in the USA) best Thanksgiving wishes, Jerry
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerry Clark] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:40:19 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:56:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) > From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:47:43 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: whatever > >From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> > >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH (and ELs) > >To: updates@globalserve.net (UFO UpDates - Toronto) > >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:16:12 -0600 (CST) > Yes, well... why not? I get on delightfully with many people. > Just because I challenge the likes of you and Jerome Clark doesn't > make me a demon, even if I am demonised by Jerry and, sometimes, > by you. Those demons are in your heads, not here at this keyboard. > Regards, > Paul Paul, Reading something like the above, one doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Just a couple of days ago you spoke of yourself as a hero. Now you tell us you're a victim. Are we to admire your courage or to pity your persecution? As I have said before, my friend, you need a new rhetorical style. If you truly believe that those of us who simply find your arguments unpersuasive are "demonizing" you or are (as you implied in a recent posting to Chris Rutkowski) full of hate, it's not just your theories that are in serious trouble. You're sounding less and less like a researcher/colleague and more and more like a prophet whose unceasing complaint is that he has not received the honor and adoration that are his due. Sort of, I fear, like a St. Paul the Baptist. C'mon, guy. Lighten up! Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:46:43 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:59:22 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:39:51 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, > >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly > >endorses occult and demonological notions which no > >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility > >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO > >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses > >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- > >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven > >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific > >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with > >medieval speculation about demons, unless one > >believes late 20th century science is in no significant > >manner different from 12th century theology. > >Jerry Clark > Are you sure Keel coined this term??? He certainly is not who I > first heard it from, and the context in which I first heard it > was as part of the suggestions that so called ETs were, in fact, > a development of earthly evolutionary processes. > I believe that 12th century theology/demonology was very > different from late 20th century science. But I'm nut sure that > our science is all that much closer to really understanding the > universe. > Bob Bob, Yup, John Keel did coin the term. See the discussion on pages 511-12 of my High Strangeness (UFO Encyclopedia #3). Keel drew the bulk of his ideas from early UFO-era occultists N. Meade Layne and Trevor James Constable, but "ultraterrestrial" (along with "superspectrum") was his unique contribution to the vocabulary of supernaturalist ufology. We know an enormous more about the universe than we did in the 12th century. We can concede that we have much to learn without disparaging the huge progress in knowledge accumulation over the course of the scientific revolution. Among Keel's un-endearing qualities is his anti-intellectualism. In some deeper sense his quarrel is not with ufology and ufologists (as much as he despises both) but with the post-medieval world. Best, Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:58:26 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:01:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:17:24 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:33:52 +0200 > >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever -Reply > >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> > >>Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > >>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:38:53 -0800 > I am actually arguing the other side of this issue in another > arena, but felt that the obstacles presented here are indeed > formidable. As I have had pointed out to me, Jerome Clark has > written three volumns of The UFO Encyclopedia, which are not > inexpensive. They are thought to be excellent research tools, > and yet they have only sold a couple of hundred copies, with > another 100 thrown in for various libraries. Admittedly, there > are very few of us that have several hundred dollars to spend on > this "hobby", but that raises the issue of who the massive > compilation you suggest will be aimed at, and how many copies > will actually be sold. Steve, Where did you get the idea that my UFO Encyclopedia has sold only "a couple of hundred copies"? In fact, this ridiculously expensive set (nearly $300 retail) sold several thousand. (Early next year will see the publication of the Encyclopedia's much-revised, expanded second edition, at $125.) Meantime, according to a list I saw yesterday, my The UFO Book -- a trade paperback abridgement of the Encyclopedia -- is the fourth best-selling "New Age/Parapsychology" (sic) title in the country right now. Best Thanksgiving wishes, Jerry Clark Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | steve | louwje |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:57:28 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:33:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:08 -0500 >From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Bruce wrote: >>Is this apparent contradiction in the distance explainable? >Contradiction? Error in distance estimate, maybe. We have a time >development if events here. When first detected by a flash they >were seen to the north of Rainier. apparently, if Arnold places them >in a direction toward Mt. Baker. [....] >Now start at Mineral, Washington and draw a line toward Mt. Baker, >which is at the Washington- British Columbia border. This sighting >line of arnold intersects the hypothetical roughly 170 straight path >about 50 miles from Arnold's plane. I suggest that this is the more >likely distance than the 130 miles from Arnold to Mt. Baker. Now, >if Arnold's sighting line had actually been some degrees south of Mt. >Baker then the objects were closer. >(get map, try yourself). Bruce, I had already looked at a map and tried to plot the courses, essentially as you suggest. Although I could make some sense of Arnold's statements, I found it impossible to quantify what the true perspective was. As noted, there seems either a contradiction or, if you prefer, maybe an error in distance estimate here. And that's indicative of the overall problem with Arnold's estimates of distance and speed. >>Could a flash have reflected off Arnold's plane from an object over >>100 miles away? >Let's make it 50 miles away. Which again, is changing Arnold's evidence. If we can't even establish the original perspective without doing so, then any maths are not going to be based on a scientific basis, merely speculation and not necessarily without a bias. >Was it so bright that he actually saw light reflected off his plane? >I doubt it since this was full daylight and the objects were very >distant. Well, that's another problem then. I agree Arnold's later claim seems improbable, if not impossible, and I wonder if a more realistic account is given in the early interview when he said, "they seemed to flip and flash in the sun, just like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an angle from the sun that seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar looking things in such a way that it almost blinded you when you looked at them through your plexiglass windshield". Noticing flashes of light through his windshield, is somewhat different to light reflecting on his aircraft from objects over a hundred miles away. Initially, Arnold didn't mention any "flashes" reflecting on his aircraft at all. >On the other hand, if the light entered his eye directly it could >be quite bright IF THE OBJECTS REFLECTED LIKE MIRRORS, which is >what Arnold seemed to imply. [...] Appreciate you taking time to set out the calculations, however, if we are accepting the objects were probably some 50 miles, or approximately half the distance closer than Arnold later claimed, then we're still speculating. The crux of the argument is what would rule out Arnold's objects being a formation of birds. Arnold is timing the apparent speed of the objects by observing their relative distance between two mountains, Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Adams, some 50 miles south of Mt Rainier. In order to make accurate calculations, Arnold needs to be consider his own position relative to these mountains, his airspeed, how distant the objects are and their altitude. At best, he can only guess the relationship between all of these factors. Is there evidence he may have miscalculated. It seems there are clear indications that's the case. As you note in "The Complete Sightings...": "Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? The answer to this question lies in the fact that Arnold inferred the altitude by observing that the objects appeared to be almost exactly on his horizon (i.e., level with his altitude). But it is very difficult to determine the exact horizon from an airplane. In this case, the angle (the "depression angle") between exact horizontal and his downward sighting line to the mountain peaks south of Mt. Rainier was very small. The depression angle from Arnold's plane at 9,200 ft altitude to the top of a 5,500 ft high mountain at a distance of 20 miles (105,600 ft) was about 20. Such a small angle would be difficult to detect from an airplane. So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had looked up the actual altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt Rainier he would have revised his statement". Which we must assume he didn't. You also note: "Arnold provided an estimate of size in an indirect way: he stated that they appeared to be comparable to the spacing of the engines on a DC-4 (4 engine propeller driven, 117 ft wingspan, 94 ft length, 27 ft height) which he had seen at a distance which he estimated as 15 miles. He estimated the engine spacing to be 45 - 50 ft, although 60 ft would have been a better estimate. By this means he was essentially providing an angular size for the objects: the equivalent of about 60 ft at 15 miles. He reported the size of the objects as 45 - 50 ft by comparison with the airplane as if the plane had been at the same distance as the objects. However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a correction for the distance difference is necessary". And further that: "In his letter Arnold included a sketch which shows the leading edge being nearly a semicircle, with short parallel sides and with the rear being a wide angle convex (protruding) V shape that comes to a rounded point at the trailing edge. His drawing suggests that the objects were nearly circular overall. He wrote on the sketch that "they seemed longer than wide, their thickness was about 1/20th of their width." His suggestion that their width (or length) was about twenty times greater than their thickness may be an exaggeration. The sketch he drew of how they appeared "on edge" has the dimensions 4 mm wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to 1/11. (It is typical for people to overestimate length to width ratios.) Although he did not mention it in his letter, he later stated (e.g., in his book) that one of the objects had a somewhat different shape. His book shows an illustration in which the object has a semi-circular front edge and a read edge that consists of two concave edges that join at a rearward pointing cusp at the center of the rear edge. This is the problem... "he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects" "However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a correction for the distance difference is necessary". "The sketch he drew of how they appeared 'on edge' has the dimensions 4 mm wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to 1/11". And if we're also saying it's improbable that light reflected onto the aircraft from objects over a hundred miles away, or they were originally observed at that distance at all, it just gets worse. >Let's see, now. Arnold had the impression the length of the chain >was the same as the length of a 5 mile ridge at a distance of about >5 miles. Impressions aren't science and as we've seen, Arnold's impressions, albeit with the best intent, are highly questionable. >If the Superpelicans were at 3,000 ft then the length of the line was >about (5/20) x 3000 = 750 ft. This is also appreciated, but it's conjecture. >>Do you think Arnold's mention of "saucer like objects" might have >>been influenced by the "flying saucer" hysteria his story was >>responsible for? >WHOA THERE... Sounds like a circular argument here. Which came >first, Arnold's saucer description, or the newspaper reports of >flying saucers and the subsequent "hysteria"? Come now, Bruce, you know that Arnold didn't describe objects which looked like "flying saucers", but that, as he said in the radio interview": "They looked something like a pie plate that was cut in half with a sort of a convex triangle in the rear". And later confirmed in his book, "As I put it to newsmen in Pendleton, Oregon, they flew like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water. They fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their surfaces". To find Arnold refer in his Blue Book report to, "the chain of these saucer like objects", seems unquestionable evidence that he almost felt obliged to confirm they were like "saucers". An objective viewpoint would realise that Arnold's experience suggested to him that he may have witnessed some unusual aircraft and that his comments about the objects' flight characteristics were taken out of context and magnified by the media. Magnified to such mythical status that Arnold conceivably was swept along with the tide. If I'm not mistaken, he never stood up to explain that he had hadn't actually claimed to have seen objects which looked like "flying saucers". >>Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out how >>high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and speed. According to some folks who work with wildlife projects monitoring pelicans, the typical airspeed is 20-25 mph, although they, "soar marvellously on thermals and glide effortlessly". It was also confirmed that, "These birds are quite reflective when flying overhead - big bodies and wingspans 9 - 10 feet and white except for wingtips makes for quite a reflective area". >>>If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) >>>nearly at horizon level to him, then they would have been >>>essentially at his level. >>Not necessarily. >Oh yes, necessarily, unless you want to reject Arnold's claim that >the objects seemed to be at about his altitude (but were actually >more like 2 degrees below his local horizon). "Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? [...] "the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects". Your own conclusions, Bruce. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this cordially. I don't mind in the least if anyone thinks the evidence is sufficient to scoff at the very likelihood that 50 years of belief is undermined by a new, and contentiously fitting candidate for the media's "flying saucers". So long as it doesn't degrade to obnoxious personal remarks. I wouldn't even consider responding to any such comments. I have no fears or concerns about whether Kenneth Arnold may have mistakenly identified a formation of birds, or otherwise. As I said to you at the outset, we'll never prove what Kenneth Arnold witnessed, but in the light of an interesting suggestion, it's maybe a worthwhile exercise to look at the story in more detail and see if a case can be made for the explanation being a formation of pelicans. It's not an explanation I would necessarily want to find most likely, but I would ask, where are the hard facts to the contrary, that this conceivable explanation can not possibly be true? I don't believe I've seen them yet. Facts are a wonderful thing. Like a safety net, always there to fall back on. Let's reaffirm some of them. When migrating, Pelicans commonly fly in echelon formation. Kenneth Arnold described his unidentified objects as, "flying diagonally in echelon formation with a larger gap in their echelon between the first four and last five". Pelicans and geese both fly in such formations. Arnold described the unidentified objects thus: "I, at first, thought they were geese because it flew like geese". "They flew like many times I have observed geese to fly in a rather diagonal chain-like line as if they were linked together". Pelicans are exceptionally large birds which show an expanse of white, likely to be reflective from a brilliant light source. Comparative to Arnold's comments that the objects, "flipped and flashed against the snow and also against the sky" and "fluttered and sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright blue-white flashes from their surfaces". It's a compelling correlation. Is it not? Perhaps way too seriously so for an "ology" which might benefit from being capable of taking a less fundamentalist view of itself and being open to having a laugh about the probabilities. But maybe they were indeed, in this instance, flying saucers from outer space. James. ~^~ ~^~ ~^~ ~^~ ~^~ ~^~ ~^~ ~^~ ~^~
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:39:56 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:34:52 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:27:42 -0600 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >Bob, > >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, > >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly > >endorses occult and demonological notions which no > >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility > >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO > >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses > >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- > >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven > >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific > >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with > >medieval speculation about demons, unless one > >believes late 20th century science is in no significant > >manner different from 12th century theology. > >Jerry Clark > Jerry... > Unfortunately John Kep's ideas are not thought of as "half-baked" > by the average "religious" person in this country. I can't speak > for the rest of the world, but in this country, the primary > explaination for "UFOs" and their "alien" occupants is indeed > "demonic." Remember, a couple of months ago when "Pat Robertson" > came out on his 700 Club and announced that UFOS were Demonic in > nature and anyone who professed to Investigate them or believe in > them were guilty of blasphamy and should be stoned to death? > Well, unfortunately, this man speaks with the same tongue as the > orthodox religionist. > Now, I am not by any means saying ALL religions and their > followers profess this doctrine, but many do. Having a background > in the Baptist religion, I know how many of the people I work and > associate with feel about UFOs. > Just thought I would add to the conversation, Jerry. > Remember, not everyone believes the scientific doctrine. > REgards, Mike I might also add that those who have experienced some of the things John Keel talks about and have seen such things as "phantom" UFOs have a lot more respect for Keel's theories than some of the "half-baked" theories some of the so-called UFO scientists put out. There's more to life than science can presently explain. John K. Search for other documents from or mentioning: john.koopmans | mchristo
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Ultimate UFO database From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:03:55 -0600 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:37:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Ultimate UFO database > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:15:15 -0600 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> > Subject: Ultimate UFO database > >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:33:52 +0200 > >From: Jakes Louw <LOUWJE@telkom.co.za> > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever > NO EXCUSES. Lets get our acts together. Consider my > hat thrown into the ring. How about the rest of MUFON, FUFOR, > CUFOS, etc, etc.? > Are you listening? > Joel Henry Courage, vision, and common sense -- God bless you, sir! Lehmberg@snowhill.com Explore the Alien View? http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/arecibo/46/ "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, while burning at the fundamentalist's stake for the want of a data base. Search for other documents from or mentioning: lehmberg | jhenry |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Help for an Indonesian Author From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle] Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:09:41 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:11:54 -0500 Subject: Re: Help for an Indonesian Author Dear Mr. Nur Agustinus : Here are some of my thoughts to answer your questions. I hope that you find them of use. > How with the statement of some people who conclusion the >UFO is satan? UFOs are manufactured craft in the same fashion that are airplanes and cars. There is no evidence that Satan is involved with the phenomenon. > Why UFO crash in Roswell, 1947? No one is really sure why it crashed. There have been a number of theories. Some believe that some sort of combination of natural phenomenon and mechanical failure. The why isn't that important at the moment. Why near Roswell is. If you study the history of the region, you see that the first atomic weapon was detonated about a hundred miles from Roswell. In 1947 rocket research was being conducted at White Sands, again about 100 miles from Roswell. Nuclear research was being conducted at Los Alamos about 200 miles from Roswell. And, the only nuclear strike force in the world was based at Roswell. If you are a space faring race, the things that could adversely affect you were happening around Roswell. You'd be in the region to learn how dangerous the threat was. The crash was an accident. > What happend and what cause make that UFO crash? > Some trouble in their engine? > Shutdown by US military force? >Alien error? >Sabotage? >UFO battle (dog fight) with other UFOs and shutdown? >or? >Maybe, they are run escape from their colonies or desertion and >want joint with us (political asylum)? We really have very little information on the motivations of the aliens. I believe the crash was the result of a combination of alien error and environmental factors but that is just opinion. I have seen no persuasive evidence that US forces shot it down, that there was any sort of battle or dogfight. >We know an UFOs crash and down in Roswell at July, 2, 1947. >Before the crash, two objects (UFOs) reported at Corona, Lincoln >County, New Mexico (at time 9:50). They were flying fast. But we >know about 48 kilometers from Corona, one UFO crash (down) at >Roswell. Actually, based on documentation I've seen, I believe the crash occurred on July 4, 1947. The sightings of an object over Roswell on July 2 and out near Corona on July 2 are of no importance to understanding the crash. The July 2 date, according to Bill Moore, came from the Roswell sighting by Dan Wilmot. Although that might be the craft that crashed, it didn't crash until July 4, based on the interviews I've conducted with the men who were on the site picking up the pieces. >What happend with that UFO (crash UFO)? What happend with the >other UFO? I believe there was a single craft, not two. The craft was retrieved by American military forces and transported first to the base at Roswell and then on to Wright Field, later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. >If true before the crash were two UFOs, so, why the other UFO >not rescue? One craft or two, it is clear that there was no real rescue effort. Who can say why? Maybe they realized the crew was dead and the craft smashed, so they didn't care. Maybe they did it on purpose (using already dead companions) as a nonthreatening way of announcing their presence to the world. Without a dialogue with the alien creatures it is very hard to speculate about their motives. >Why the alien body left there by their friends (if they are >their friends)? See above. > I think, they were in air combat. One escape from the other. > One shutdown the other. And the winner go away... Your theory is as good as anyone else's at the moment. I hope these answers help you. KRandle author: UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL, THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL, A HISTORY OF UFO CRASHES, CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Posting Rules for UFO UpDates From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:18:05 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:18:05 -0500 Subject: Posting Rules for UFO UpDates Posting Rules To help current and future readers of UFO UpDates' posts and the UFO UpDates Instant Archive software at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates please observe the following rules when posting to the List. 1. Line-length Please make your lines no more than 70 characters long ------------------------This line is 70 characters--------------------- Longer lines are wrapped by various pieces of software along the Net and leave awkward and eye-jarring line lengths. 2. Attribution When responding to a message from the List, _always_ include the four line 'header' from the body of that message at the start of _your_ message - eg.: >Date: 01 Jan 97 00:00:01 EST >From: Genghis@mukluk.com <Bob Bobberts> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Grays are Grey Area Again - it's at the beginning of the 'body' of the message you are responding to. 3. Quoting _Always_ quote from the message to which you are responding. Quotes should come _before_ you key your response. Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the first character. It should look like this: >Start each quoted line with a 'greater-than' sign (>) as the >first character. It should look like this: Keep quoted material from previous messages to a minimum: Just quote enough text to let people know what you are referring to. Messages that do not utilize the required quoting protocol or contain excessive quoting will not be posted to UpDates. The Archive software will automatically italicize these lines. Visit the Archive page and take a look. Most modern E-Mail software will allow the user to click a 'Reply' button and automatically open a new window, with the message being responded to inserted with universal quote-mark (>) at the beginning of each line. When 'Reply' is clicked, some E-Mail software will insert a line which states: On 01 Jan 97 at 00:00:01 EST, UFO UpDates wrote: If your program does this, please remove it - UFO UpDates did not _write_ the message - it merely posted it to the List. 5. Don't send 'personal' responses to the list that should be sent directly to the original author. Send a message to the list only if it contains new information that you want _everyone_ to see. Messages that contain what the List Moderator considers to be personal attacks or 'flames' will not be posted to the List. Those messages will be forwarded to the person they refer to for their information. 6. URLs (Web Site addresses) _must_ include 'http://' and be on one line. The Archive software will make the URL a 'click-able' link to that address in your archived message. ------------------------------------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:23:35 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:27:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:24:34 PST > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? > Folklore applies to all aspects of human life. To > assert that there is folklore about UFOs is about as > enlightening as offering the observation that in all > communities there is gossip. You know, I've wanted to comment on the folklore thread. Thanks for reminding me, Jerry. My view is that Ufology may have a folklore, in the sense of enduring and frequently repeated stories which serve to remind us of why this subject is worth investigating. There are other stories as well, which seem to have a certain kind of value that is separate from their usually non-existent factual content, in the same sense that a good, cautionary SF tale has value. But Ufology is not alone in either of these aspects. Climbers swap their scary and triumphant stories, stories which remind them of the value of their pursuit and caution them on its dangers. Some of the stories are personal, some are true and some are not. Nonetheless, the mountains still exist, the record of first ascents exists, and actual climbers exist. Engineers and software developers likewise have similar stories. Yet bridges exist, computer programs exist, and so on. In short, the presence of a folklore is, as Jerry rightly points out, an attribute of any culture, including those which are transnational and have no genetic relationship among their members. Many of the UFO stories have a powerful and fascinating aesthetic. That's part of the reason that we are interested in the subject. Who can read a well-documented case and not feel moved in some fashion? Certainly even those who seize on any explanation for a UFO case, no matter how ill-fitting, are likewise moved by the power of what such a case suggests - and they will resist it, regardless of the cost to reason and truth. However, the odd thing about good UFO cases when we try to view them as folklore or purely as stories is that they are lacking in the typical structure. They do not have a good climax. They almost never have any kind of resolution. There is seldom if ever any moral tone to the story (except in the occasional case where the witness is punished by society for daring to have the observation, but this is not part of the story, it is part of the context of the story). And they seldom give us any explicit insight into the phenomenon they describe. Comparing them to fairy stories, such as one might find in Evans-Wentz, for instance, demonstrates that UFO stories have a very different structure as well as content. There is, nonetheless, a "UFO culture". Actually, there are several UFO cultures. One is the culture of witnesses - a silent, underground culture of people who have seen something unusual. Some of them know others, but most are isolated and some are persecuted. Another is the culture of researchers, which has some overlap with the culture of witnesses. There are many factions in the research culture, and their conflicts are often played out in the journals, books and mailing lists of UFO culture. Each of these cultures can certainly claim their share of heroes and tragic figures. But again, so can any culture. It is the nature of a culture that heroes and tragic figures serve to bind members together in a shared set of values. In summary, yes, Ufology, like every other endeavor and experience which humans have and share, has its own culture and that culture has a binding folklore. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise. But this does not diminish the objective reality of the UFO. Certainly, fact and fiction in this field mix in unexpected and novel ways. But there are tools for weeding out the wheat from the chaff. Some researchers fail to use those tools. There's a reason for that, and I think it stems from the activities of those like Klass, Menzel, and Kottmeyer, and the way their data distorting explanations affect researchers. I think it is possible that the silent rationale among researchers for accepting bad and occultish data comes from a fear of making the same mistake that debunkers make - cutting away real data because of prejudice. I have seen that argument made several times. Still, just because the line between good and bad data is harder to draw than in some sciences does not mean we should not make the effort. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Ultimate UFO database From: Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@cc.UManitoba.CA> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:34:58 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:33:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Ultimate UFO database > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:15:15 -0600 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: joel henry <jhenry@wavefront.com> > Subject: Ultimate UFO database > >What I'm getting at, and I'm sure that most on the list will > >agree, is that there is a requirement for a centralised, > >coordinated database that must be used for abductions, sightings, > >and other encounters and/or manifestations. Why? Well, there is a > >plethora of data mining packages out there, that can be run > >against MS Access on Windows or even Oracle on UNIX. By setting > >up relationships and keyed links between database > >records/rows/reports, one will be able to retrieve a list of > >reports for, say, Arizona, or a list for any specific night, or a > >combination of several parameters like geographic, timezone, or > >key-word descriptive fields. This would be ideal in analysing > >trends, hot-spots, flight-paths, and so on. > Mr Louw has hit the nail squarely on the head here. I believe > that total data sharing and a single massive UFO, etc. database > is the MOST NEEDED item in all of Ufology. If FUFOR or somebody > is willing to fund the effort, I for one and I know many more > will be happy to lend my efforts at getting this data to them. > to put on all of our agendas. I don't understand why it hasn't > been done before. Powerful computers have been around since the > early 80's. > I don't mean to undermine those efforts that have been made (such > as the Hatch database), but that is just the tip of the UFO > iceberg. > I am an investigator with Minnesota MUFON and I thought when I > joined that MUFON already had such a database, with open access Hi. Just thought I'd jump in here to note the databases that are already available in one form or another. The old Saunders UFOCAT is available from CUFOS on disk, containing some 100,000 entries, if I am not mistaken. (Help me out here, Jerry.) I *think* Smith's UNICAT is out, too (?). I began entering UFO data into computers back when I needed punch cards to do it. *That* was tedious ... but I still managed to enter the 500+ cases I had from my area and create MANUFOCAT. I've since upgraded from FORTRAN to WATFIV to dBASE to LOTUS to ACCESS and EXCEL. MANUFOCAT has been available as a text file for some time now, and may soon be in ACCESS and EXCEL as I have just had an assistant start to learn how to enter the data. I hope to have all 1000+ cases online next year. In Canada, I have been haranguing all known active UFO investigators and researchers since 1988, trying to get them to provide/share their UFO case data. It's like pulling teeth. But somehow, I've managed to produce annual surveys of Canadian UFO activity that have generated meaningful statistics and information. This year, all participants will be getting electronic copies of the report and the actual database. Oddly enough, most of the participants are *not* MUFON reps. Most are independents or breakaways from major groups. I hear what you're saying. I also have to laud the work of Paul Ferrughelli, who *is* catalogiung MUFON case data and creating statistical reports. His annual studies have been available for about as long as the Canadian studies. I wonder why his work is never featured at conferences, when he is doing such a great job of studying UFO data, rather than the usual featuring of speakers speculating wildly about alien characteristics and whatnot. Finally, I must note that there is a vast source of UFO data online. Since 1995, I have been working with Roy Rice adding all UFO reports made *online* to a mas ter database that is accessible via ftp and WWW. It's at: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/r/rmrice/ufo/reports The reports are there in more than 50 separate files of about 20-50K each, covering cases reported directly to me, taken from Updates, CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS, NUFORC, Roundup and especially cases reported where they *should* be reported: in alt.ufo.reports. I think the most recent batch I put in there is from October 1997. This source of info is readily available for anyone with the initiative to peruse and extract data for research. So far, even though it's been available for more than two years, no one has looked at it in this way. There are many other sources of UFO data. But getting enough ufologists to agree to shed their cloaks of proprietariness (this is *mine*, not *yours*!) is a problem. I have enough of a problem getting the dozen or so Canadian researchers to work together (and there are many who simply refuse to cooperate); I can only imagine how hard it would be to get a worldwide database with meaningful data and some level of standardization. Remember the warnings of Allan Hendry regarding UFO databases? Well, those are still valid today, unfortunately. This is *not* a simple issue, but I would agree that it is something ufology should be working more on instead of pursuing more speculative topics, regardless of their popularity. -- Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@cc.umanitoba.ca (and now, also: Chris.Rutkowski@UMAlumni.mb.ca) University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada Search for other documents from or mentioning: rutkows | jhenry |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:51:17 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:34:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:58:26 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Phoenix lights, FTs, whatever >Steve, >Where did you get the idea that my UFO Encyclopedia has sold only >"a couple of hundred copies"? In fact, this ridiculously >expensive set (nearly $300 retail) sold several thousand. (Early >next year will see the publication of the Encyclopedia's >much-revised, expanded second edition, at $125.) Meantime, >according to a list I saw yesterday, my The UFO Book -- a trade >paperback abridgement of the Encyclopedia -- is the fourth >best-selling "New Age/Parapsychology" (sic) title in the country >right now. >Best Thanksgiving wishes, >Jerry Clark Sorry for the confusion. I related two comments made by someone into a single thought, and that appears to have been in error. The thrust of my comment remains true (IMHO), but I certainly wouldn't want to give an inaccurate sales figure for what many have described as an excellent work. I will add that I've seen Clark's "The UFO Book" at area bookstores and it is priced right. For those who can't find it at their local bookstore, it is also available through 'www.amazon.com' and 'www.books.com'. There seems to be a call for the centralization of UFO data, and I should have said that such a compilation would only be of interest to a couple of hundred serious researchers, and not to the public at large. On the other hand, I think that it's incumbant on researchers to provide a counterpoint to the tabloid "trash" that seems to fill the cable channels (and air waves) these days. Steve
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Romanian UFO - OVNI - OZN Site From: "Manoliu Valentin" <manovale@starnets.ro> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:59:51 +0200 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:40:33 -0500 Subject: Romanian UFO - OVNI - OZN Site Mr. Errol Bruce-Knapp, Visit http://cinor.starnets.ro/ufo at TERRA INFO TOURISM BUCHAREST, ROMANIA Available now in English, and soon in French and Romanian: UFO-OVNI-OZN *UFOs IN ROMANIA *LINKS *UFO MOVIES *THE SECRETS OF THE FREE ENERGY AND HOW TO BUILD A UFO *and many others.... NEWS-NOUVELLES-STIRI Best regards, Valentin Manoliu
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:02:12 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:42:33 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >From: DevereuxP@aol.com >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:53 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >>>Ufology is now two generations old in its present form.... >>In my understanding a generation is fifty years, taking it that >>"modern" ufology started with Kenneth Arnold, how do you make >>it two generations?? >So if I am 50, and my son is 25, then we are the same generation? Paul if you are an archaeologist as you claim you will know that when a "generation" is referred to is means fifty years. >As for the rest of your responses, I think Julie's quiet intervention >requires no more to be added from me. In other words you can't answer any of my questions or reply to any of my observations with reasonable answers. -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | devereuxp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:57:44 +0000 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:45:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:39:51 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Hundreds of them..... >Sean, >There are an almost endless number of mundane explanations that >have been put forth to try to explain individual sightings, such >as advertising airplanes and weather balloons (how did you omit >that?). But besides your 1), the ETH can encompass 2), 5) and 6) >also. >Jim Deardorff Jim I also missed plasma craft (ie Carlos Diaz) which is why I put at the end, "what I've missed or forgotten". The basic issue that I am trying to get across, without insulting anyone, is that when people say "there must be hundreds of explanations for UFO's" I don't think that there are hundreds. There are loads of variations on a theme but outright separate explanations I doubt very much that there are a hundred explanations. I'll tell you what Jim, everyone for that matter, I'll put my money where my mouth is, if anyone can name one hundred seperate explanations for UFOs either individually or collectively I will buy them a bottle of thier favourite drink! The first person to email me with a hundred plus list gets the bottle, being that you now have the first thirty that should'nt be too difficult. -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | deardorj |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 BWW Media Alert 971127 From: BufoCalvin@aol.com Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 11:09:52 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:46:45 -0500 Subject: BWW Media Alert 971127 Bufo Calvin P O Box 5231, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Internet: BufoCalvin@aol.com Website: http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin ( <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/B ufoCalvin/index.html">BufoCalvin's Home Page</A> ) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (permission is granted to reproduce or redistribute this edition of Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Media Alert provided that attribution is made to http://members.aol.com/bufocalvin. It is good etiquette to check with strangers before you e-mail them something. If you forward this, please make sure it is clear that you are forwarding it). November 27, 1997 Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers! Here's the schedule for tomorrow's annual "Phenomenathon" on THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL: 09:00 AM Assignment Discovery--Discover Magazine Islands of Mystery; Science Mysteries; 10:00 AM PhenomathonACC's World of Strange Powers: Ghosts, Apparitions and Haunted Houses; 10:30 AM PhenomathonACC's World of Strange Powers: Fairies, Phantoms and Fantastic Photographs; 11:00 AM PhenomathonInto the Unknown: Giant Sloth; 11:30 AM PhenomathonInto the Unknown: Thunderbird; 12:00 PM PhenomathonStrictly Supernatural: Astrology; 01:00 PM PhenomathonStrictly Supernatural: Tarot; 02:00 PM PhenomathonStrictly Supernatural: Seance; 03:00 PM PhenomathonWould You Believe It? - Strange Collections and the Macabre; 04:00 PM PhenomathonWould You Believe It? - Ghosts, Aliens and Emperors; 05:00 PM PhenomathonBeyond Bizarre: Snakes, Mummies and Rocks That Move; 06:00 PM PhenomathonLochness Discovered; 07:00 PM PhenomathonAliens - Are We Alone?; 09:00 PM PhenomathonAlien Abduction - The Real Story; 10:00 PM PhenomathonIn the Grip of Evil; 11:00 PM PhenomathonWould You Believe It? - Spirits, Robbers and the Dead ; 12:00 AM PhenomathonBeyond Bizarre: Vampires and Other Pets; 01:00 AM PhenomathonWould You Believe It? - Castles, Tombs and Leonardo; 02:00 AM PhenomathonBeyond Bizarre: Bodies - Dead and Alive This is Bufo saying, "If =everything= seemed normal, that =would= be weird!" ____________________________ You can stop receiving this from me just by asking (note: it is commonly redistributed, and I can't control you getting it from those sources) by e-mail at BufoCalvin@aol.com. You can also subscribe or unsubscribe to Bufo's WEIRD WORLD (which covers theories and happenings) the same way. Also, please let me know if there is something in the media you think I should cover. Deadline is Tuesday, the week before. _____________________________ **OPUS is the Organization for Paranormal Understanding and Support. I am an Executive Boardmember, and Director of the OPUS Educational Institute. OPUS encourages its officers and Network Associates to express their own opinions: however, it is important to note that I do not speak for OPUS in this piece or others presented under my own name. ______________________________ <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/weirdware/books.html">Bufo's WEIRD WORLD Books </A>I'm very excited about this! Some of you know, I ran a bookstore for years, and it has always been a love of mine. I get asked often to recommend books(I do write reviews for several publications) on these topics, and now I can do it and actually give you a source for them at the same time! This is being done in association with Amazon.com, which has an outstanding reputation for the five "S"s of internet shopping: selection, searchability, service, savings, and security. If there is any specific book you want (or topic in which you are interested), let me know and I will do the research and e-mail you a link you can use to check it out more (and order it if you want). I will be linking to books within the Media Alert, to make it more efficient for you. If you click on the link, you will be sent to that title on Amazon. You do =not= have to buy it at that point! You may, but the option is yours.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: "skyeking@aye.net" <skyeking@aye.net> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:23:33 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:35:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... Subject Re: UFO UpDate: Hundreds of them..... Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:57:31 -0500 From: "skyeking@aye.net" <skyeking@aye.net> To: updates@globalserve.net References: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:47:42 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Hundreds of them..... > Hi Errol, Hi All > I was speaking to a friend just the other day, mentioning that > Paul Devereaux keeps moaning that everyone only talks about UFOs > as being of the ETH origin these days and he asked what other > explanations was there for them... Heres a list of what I > came up with, I wonder how many more you more learned people can > add to my list. > In no particular order. > 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets > 2) Time travellors > 3) Hollow Earth > 4) Hollow moon > 5) Atlantis > 6) Multi-dimentional craft > 7) Earth Lights > 8) Glowing Bugs > 9) Swamp Gas > 10) Hullucinations > 11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft > 12) Day dreams/ Night dreams > 13) Earths etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) > 14) Interdimentional beings/craft from alternate futures > 15) Ball lighting > 16) Psi Phenomenom > 17) Demons/Angels > 18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) > 19) Laser Lights > 20) Meteors > 21) Cumnolus Clouds <sp?> > 22) Abnormal weather conditions > 23) Apparitions > 24) Kites > 25) Model aircraft/helicopters > 26) Ice crystals > 27) Phosference in the atmosphere > 28) Falling sattelite/space debris > I ran out of ideas at this point so perhaps you could add any > that I have forggten or not known about. Okay. How 'bout some hitherto unknown luminescence conjured up by plate techtonics, and one of my faves: Colonel Gordon Cooper's "high flying seed pods," to quote those silly boys in the military. Oh, and let's not forget holograms (they're not just meant for cereal boxes anymore). And finally: Horny badgers. No, that's crop circles. I forgot... Jerry Washington SD KY/MUFON
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:43:47 PST Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:08:02 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:39:56 -0800 > From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:27:42 -0600 > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > From: Michael Christol <mchristo@mindspring.com> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > > >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:59:46 PST > > >To: updates@globalserve.net > > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > >Bob, > > >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, > > >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly > > >endorses occult and demonological notions which no > > >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility > > >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO > > >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses > > >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- > > >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven > > >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific > > >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with > > >medieval speculation about demons, unless one > > >believes late 20th century science is in no significant > > >manner different from 12th century theology. > > >Jerry Clark > > Jerry... > > Unfortunately John Kep's ideas are not thought of as "half-baked" > > by the average "religious" person in this country. I can't speak > > for the rest of the world, but in this country, the primary > > explaination for "UFOs" and their "alien" occupants is indeed > > "demonic." Remember, a couple of months ago when "Pat Robertson" > > came out on his 700 Club and announced that UFOS were Demonic in > > nature and anyone who professed to Investigate them or believe in > > them were guilty of blasphamy and should be stoned to death? > > Well, unfortunately, this man speaks with the same tongue as the > > orthodox religionist. > > Now, I am not by any means saying ALL religions and their > > followers profess this doctrine, but many do. Having a background > > in the Baptist religion, I know how many of the people I work and > > associate with feel about UFOs. > > Just thought I would add to the conversation, Jerry. > > Remember, not everyone believes the scientific doctrine. > > REgards, Mike > I might also add that those who have experienced some of the > things John Keel talks about and have seen such things as > "phantom" UFOs have a lot more respect for Keel's theories than > some of the "half-baked" theories some of the so-called UFO > scientists put out. > There's more to life than science can presently explain. > John K. John, I'm sure few on this list would dispute that. Certainly not I. It's John Keel's theories that are half-baked, not the extraordinary phenomena that happen to human beings and that science has yet to explain or even address in any meaningful way. There surely is a middle course between the materialist's dogmatic rejection and the supernaturalist's naive desire to "explain" phenomena via forces and mechanisms that the theorist (in this case Keel) can't even prove exist. Jerry Clark Search for other documents from or mentioning: clark | john.koopmans |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: "S.L. Baldwin" <sblee@stc.net> [Susan Baldwin] Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:45:10 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:08:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:57:44 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hundreds of them..... >talking about variations on a theme but hard core seperate >explantions, individually or collectively. Heres a list of what I >came up with, I wonder how many more you more learned people can >add to my list. >In no particular order. > 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets > 2) Time travellors > 3) Hollow Earth > 4) Hollow moon > 5) Atlantis > 6) Multi-dimentional craft > 7) Earth Lights > 8) Glowing Bugs > 9) Swamp Gas >10) Hullucinations >11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft >12) Day dreams/ Night dreams >13) Earths etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) >14) Interdimentional beings/craft from alternate futures >15) Ball lighting >16) Psi Phenomenom >17) Demons/Angels >18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) >19) Laser Lights >20) Meteors >21) Cumnolus Clouds <sp?> >22) Abnormal weather conditions >23) Apparitions >24) Kites >25) Model aircraft/helicopters >26) Ice crystals >27) Phosference in the atmosphere >28) Falling sattelite/space debris > > I ran out of ideas at this point so perhaps you could add any >that I have forggten or not known about. How COULD you forget the two most common explanations! Geese has it all been in vain? 29) Weather Balloons 30) Venus and my personal favorite: 31) The source is a fruitcake Susan
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:34:16 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:08:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:02:12 +0000 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >>From: DevereuxP@aol.com >>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:53 -0500 (EST) >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >>>>Ufology is now two generations old in its present form.... >>>In my understanding a generation is fifty years, taking it that >>>"modern" ufology started with Kenneth Arnold, how do you make >>>it two generations?? >>So if I am 50, and my son is 25, then we are the same generation? >Paul if you are an archaeologist as you claim you will know that >when a "generation" is referred to is means fifty years. I am not an archaeologist, and also not quite 50 (but too close for comfort), and have never heard that a generation is defined as 50 years. If you could quote a source on that, it would be interesting. There may well be an accepted definition involved here, but it's not listed as such in "The American Heritage Dictionary". The closest that I could find was "5. The average time interval between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring". However, I would add that the definition for "generation gap" is probably more relevant, and is defined as "The differences in values and attitudes between one generation and the next, esp. a generation of adolescents and that of their parents." Given the metamorphosis that UFOlogy has gone through in the past 50 years in regard to changes in how it is generally viewed, IMHO there may be several "generation gaps" that could be identified. Search for other documents from or mentioning: steve | tedric |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Mars Face From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:43:20 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:08:20 -0500 Subject: Mars Face From the Austin Chronicle, Thursday 27 Nov, 1997, Page A38 Austin, Texas MARS PROBE TO CHECK THAT FAMILIAR "FACE" By Faye Flam The Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA - With the Mars Global Surveyor in orbit around the red planet, NASA plans to try to update its fuzzy photos of the so-called "Face on Mars", an image made famous by supermarket tabloids. Photos sent back from Mars by NASA's 1976 Viking mission showed a milelong hill that looked like an upward-staring face. Some people who saw the images believed they were looking at an ancient structure carved by space aliens. Michael Malin, who is in charge of the cameras on the Mars Global Surveyor, said the public's interest in the original photos had been so great that NASA planned to take new shots of the face as part of its current survey of Mars. The taxpayers are footing the bill, he says, and if they want the face, NASA should try to give them the face. Much of the interest in the face on Mars has been stirred up by Boston-based engineer Mark Carlotto. Carlotto has developed techniques used by the military to pick out human-made structures from natural ones. He said that when he applied these techniques to the Mars photos, he found that the face and surrounding hills are more likely to have been made by intelligent beings than to be a natural geologic structure that just happens to look like a face near some vaguely pointy hills, as NASA asserts. The builders, Carlotto said, could be indigenous Martians, some unknown race of superintelligent humans, or extraterrestrial builders from a distant world. The Mars face has attracted a small cult following that communicates via Internet discussion groups. Carlotto has published a book on the subject, "The Martian Enigmas". Some believers claims there's a full-blown conspiracy in which NASA is purposely shielding the public from the truth. Carlotto suggests that NASA scientists are just too skeptical and stubborn to take these structures seriously. Global Surveyor scientist Malin argues that Carlotto's image- processing technique didn't scan a large enough swath of Mars' landscape to determine whether the so-called face and pyramids were not ordinary, natural structures. If he had looked further, he might have found that every 10th hill looked equally unnatural for his methods, Malin said. Malin said that, by addressing the face issue, he has inadvertently gotten caught in the controversy. He has changed his telephone to an unlisted number because he was getting so many calls from followers of Carlotto and others interested in the face on Mars. With Mars Global Surveyor, Carlotto said, there is finally a chance to settle the issue. "It would be a shame if we didn't take advantage of it." He said the Viking photos show hints of teeth and other fine-scale features that, if photographed more closely, might make the face look so obviously alien-sculpted that even NASA skeptics such as Malin will have to concede. It won't be easy for NASA to settle the issue, Malin said. One of the Global Surveyor's cameras, known as the high-resolution camera, will pick out objects just a few meters across. But NASA can't point this camera, which is fixed to the craft. To capture the face, the craft will have to fly directly over it. For that reason, "we can't make any promises", said project leader Arden Albee. He and his colleagues will need to get lucky to get a picture of the face that's any sharper than the 20-year-old pictures from Viking, Albee said. Malin said the new photos, no matter how good, still might not settle the issue. The hill might still look like a face. END
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: {84} part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:10:12 +0100 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:08:25 -0500 Subject: Re: {84} part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network >Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:39:05 +0000 >From: United Kingdom UFO Network <ufo@holodeck.demon.co.uk> >Subject: {84} part 1 - United Kingdom UFO Network >To: UFO@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > ______ _______ ____ >------ / / // ____// |---------------------------------------------- > U K / / // ___/ / / ' Nov 8th, 1997 > / / // / / / / N E T W O R K part 1 Issue 84 >--- (_____//__/ -- (_____/------------------------------------------------ >The United Kingdom UFO Network - a free electronic magazine with >subscribers in over 40 countries. Hi Errol and List, When this came up a month or so back, I wondered allowed then whether the pilots were going to let the FAA's TSB comments go by. The United Kindom UFO Network had this posted a few days ago. I missed the first time I went through their 3 part series. **************************************************************** PILOT: UFO WASN'T WEATHER BALLOON An unidentified object narrowly missed a SWISSAIR Boeing 747 while the aircraft was at 23,000 feet, passing in air space between Philadelphia and New York, on Aug 9, Swiss radio reported this morning. Major newswires are taking the story and moving it. The pilot described the object, which passed within 50 yards of the aircraft, as "white, elongated and without wings," and strongly rejected U.S. explanations that the object was a weather balloon, the radio report said. The object was moving at very high speeds, Swissair spokesman Erwin Schaerer tells the NTSB. The plane was Zurich-bound, from Philadelphia. AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE is reporting that there may be passenger witnesses to the incident... **************************************************************** I thought it deserved to be spotlighted. Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 SETI From: "pcs" <pcstuart@pathcom.com> [Paul Stuart] Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 22:01:05 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:41:36 -0500 Subject: SETI Hello List, Here is the URL for a SETI type project that some may find interesting. Others may not. Your choice. http://www.bigscience.com/setiathome.html Regards, Paul Stuart
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Belgian Radar-Visual From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 03:53:19 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:38:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual >From: "Philippe Piet van Putten" <abp1@uol.com.br> >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>, >Subject: Belgian vs Brazilian Radar-Visuals >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 03:12:15 -0200 Hi Philippe, A few weeks ago a post from you went by virtually unnoticed. >Dear colleagues and friends, >I'm sorry, but Belgium WAS NOT the first to officialy recognize a >radar-visual UFO tracking. >The first case I've heard of happened in Brazil, when the >Lt-Air-Brigadier Octavio Julio Moreira Lima (Ministry of >Aeronautics) disclosed during a press conference that Brazilian >Air Force (FAB) fighters were sent on an interception mission >(May 19, 1986) against 21 unidentified "points" plotted on radar >scopes. The FAB pilots had visual contact with such luminous >"points". >The case is mentioned in my Encyclopedia of UFOs and Anomalous >Aerospatial Phenomena. Do you have some material on this in ASCII, WordPerfect, Word or HTML format? I would be very happy to see it. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Clark and ETH From: "John W. Ratcliff" <jratclif@inlink.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 05:21:17 -0700 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:44:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH I've been sort-of-kind-of-barely following this recent discourse on big bad old ET versus big bad old Casper the ghost. This hoary rhetorical debate betwixt Clark, Randle, and some other members of this group who take "Zen philosophy as Quantum Mechanics" pamphlets a tad bit too literally. First we have to dispense with semantics. The term ET brings up one image in our minds, ghosts and demons another. Both bound by cultural mythos, one more modern, the other more ancient. Both mean the same thing, ineffectual words used in a pathetic attempt to describe the ineffible. Last I checked, Jerry, Kevin, we was still calling them there things (U)FOs, U as in "unidentified." I don't recall anybody ever actually identifying one of them flying gizmo in any sort of concrete way, with the exception of numerous exposed hoaxes, liars, and scam artists. In all that time I still never did get me one of them there product brochures for one of those hardcore manufactured sports model UFOs. Meanwhile, I don't find the *TERMS* "angel", "alien", "ghost", "demon", "fairy", "goblin", "grey", "reptoid", "Elohim", "giants in those days", or any other concoction some contactee has coined in a desperate attempt to explain the inexplainable, particularily satisfactory. Admit the admissible. These UFOs is weird unexplained stuff that serve to act as a prod in our minds, stirring the intellectual pot as it were, providing enough mythos to further fuel the fires for this millenialist landscape. Isn't it enough just to admit that somethine we don't know, can't explain, does in apparent fact, intrude on our shared view of reality? And that this is, in itself, pretty remarkable and downright interesting? In many decades (some would say thousands of years), the critters flying these crazy contraptions have seemed content to operate at the fringes of our social structures and have never bothered to deal with us openly, directly, honestly, equally, fairly, or in any way as one self-respecting sentient species to another. Let's remember what side we are on afterall. Demons, aliens, whatever. They ain't our friends, let's start with that. John
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:01:47 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:53:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Regarding... >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:35:08 +0100 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony Don wrote: >You know it seems there are a more than a few attempts at pounding >a square peg into a round hole re the Arnold sighting. People keep >coming up with solutions but to only 3 or 4 of twenty points. None >of them match up. Don, The difficulty with Arnold's story is that there are imponderables and it's unlikely we'll never quantify them. With any report, it's not necessarily true that all of the account is accurate, perhaps rarely so, and it may be impossible to explain all the evidence. >The fact is none of these aircraft were capable of the speeds clocked >by Arnold. The Gotha was not produced in large numbers. If you did >capture a few from the Germans when the war ended, why in the name >of heavens would you be testing them in the Cascade Mountains and >where did 9 of them come from and what is the point of testing nine >at once. and where the heck is the radar to test against them in the >mountains. As we know, Kenneth Arnold later produced a sketch of one of the objects which was apparently different from the others. I'm still not sure which one of the nine objects this was supposed to represent, i.e., where it was in the echelon and also why he didn't impart this potentially important information to the Army Air Force at the time. However, there's a striking resemblance with the object portrayed in that later sketch and a Horton GO 229 A-1. I've uploaded a superb illustration of an 229 A-1 to my web site at URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/ho229A-1.jpg I've been curious about this marked resemblance since becoming aware of it some time ago. But as you say, nine of them? I would like to get Arnold's story straight on this. If we take at face value, his reported claim (I don't suppose anyone has a copy of Arnold's book they would like to loan me?) that this object was different from the others, then of course we only have one of them and eight of something else. Still doesn't really make any obvious sense and, so far as I'm aware, there's no evidence in the historical record re any such secret testing of captured German aircraft. I've also uploaded to my website, an illustration of a Horton Ho-1X A Series aircraft, which, as it doesn't show the two jet engines, resembles Arnold's sketch even more. It's at URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/ho_ix_v1.jpg It seems the Horton GO 229 A-1 and Ho-1X A Series were essentially the same project. Arnold's sketch is also similar to a Northrop "flying wing", but I've long thought the most obvious objection to Arnold's objects being a known aircraft was the trouble which Arnold innocently caused. The "flying saucer" hysteria which followed the media's attention to his story was a major headache for the USAF, and 50 years later still is, albeit to a lesser extent. It seems inconceivable that if the Army Air Force, and subsequently the USAF, knew the explanation, that they wouldn't have done _something_ to indicate this, somehow reassured the public without disclosing the full facts and saved themselves much expense and continual grief. It's strange though, that there is such a close match between Arnold's sketch and the aircraft envisaged under the abortive Horten "flying wing" project. Perhaps even stranger is how some other German designs equally resemble witness sketches of the Hudson Valley "boomerang". For a new perspective on contemporary triangular, or wedge-shaped, 'UFOs', there's also an interesting image on my web site at URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/p12.jpg Visions from half a century past. James. E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 27 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 00:24:39 -0800 Fwd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:56:49 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:43:47 PST > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > > Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:39:56 -0800 > > From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> > > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c <snip> > > I might also add that those who have experienced some of the > > things John Keel talks about and have seen such things as > > "phantom" UFOs have a lot more respect for Keel's theories than > > some of the "half-baked" theories some of the so-called UFO > > scientists put out. > > There's more to life than science can presently explain. > > John K. > John, > I'm sure few on this list would dispute that. Certainly > not I. It's John Keel's theories that are half-baked, > not the extraordinary phenomena that happen to > human beings and that science has yet to explain or > even address in any meaningful way. There surely > is a middle course between the materialist's dogmatic > rejection and the supernaturalist's naive desire to > "explain" phenomena via forces and mechanisms > that the theorist (in this case Keel) can't even prove > exist. > Jerry Clark Jerry: A very good answer, and I appreciate your open approach to exploring a middle course towards the more "non-physical" aspects of the UFO phenomenon. I know you have had a lot of concerns regarding this side of the phenomenon before, and it is encouraging to see you start to take a closer look. It will be difficult, because there are few tools available to traditional science when it comes to exploring what appears to be contained forms of energy, or "lesser" forms of matter, guided by some form of intelligence. Even though Keel might have been "stretching" his theories, you can appreciate his difficulty with dealing with this side of the subject. I suppose all pioneers have to start with a log cabin <G>. John Koopmans
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Debunker's Bogus Explanations [was: Hundreds From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:07:12 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:26:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Debunker's Bogus Explanations [was: Hundreds >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:45:10 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: "S.L. Baldwin" <sblee@stc.net> [Susan Baldwin] >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Hundreds of them..... >>Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:57:44 +0000 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hundreds of them..... >>talking about variations on a theme but hard core seperate >>explantions, individually or collectively. Heres a list of what I >>came up with, I wonder how many more you more learned people can >>add to my list. Let's call this the Debunker's Bogus Repository. And let me add my two cents. >>In no particular order. >> 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets >> 2) Time travellors >> 3) Hollow Earth >> 4) Hollow moon >> 5) Atlantis >> 6) Multi-dimentional craft >> 7) Earth Lights >> 8) Glowing Bugs >> 9) Swamp Gas >>10) Hullucinations >>11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft >>12) Day dreams/ Night dreams >>13) Earths etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) >>14) Interdimentional beings/craft from alternate futures >>15) Ball lighting >>16) Psi Phenomenom >>17) Demons/Angels >>18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) >>19) Laser Lights >>20) Meteors >>21) Cumulus Clouds >>22) Abnormal weather conditions >>23) Apparitions >>24) Kites >>25) Model aircraft/helicopters >>26) Ice crystals >>27) Phosference in the atmosphere >>28) Falling sattelite/space debris >29) Weather Balloons >30) Venus >31) The source is a fruitcake 32) Geese 33) American White Pelicans 34) Jupiter 35) Triangular balloons (sometimes with supersonic capability) 36) American secret aircraft 37) Atmospheric diffractions 38) Lies 38) Convoluted memories __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Mars Face From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:18:16 +0100 Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:43:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Mars Face > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:43:20 -0600 (CST) > From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net> > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Mars face > >>From the Austin Chronicle, Thursday 27 Nov, 1997, Page A38 > Austin, Texas > +-+-+-+ +-+-+-+ +-+-+ +-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This newspaper story has to be a textbook case in how to write an article about the "alien field" without actually stepping into the cow pies in that field. One might say its like fighting bullshit with bullshit. I'm going through this story like my grammer teacher use to go through my compositions. MARS PROBE TO CHECK THAT FAMILIAR "FACE" By Faye Flam The Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA - With the Mars Global Surveyor in orbit around the red planet, NASA plans to try to update its fuzzy photos of the so-called "Face on Mars", an image made famous by <supermarket tabloids.> * Well now, right off the bat, Faye has catagorized those that give some creedence to the "face" as being at the level of the Tabloid Reader. It's a brilliant use of condemnation by association. Photos sent back from Mars by NASA's 1976 Viking mission showed a milelong hill that looked like an upward-staring face. Some people who saw the images believed they were looking at an ancient structure carved by < space aliens >. *Whoo, this gal is good. Space aliens. Wow, that one ranks right up there with "little green men" doesn't it. It is a sexest world isn't it. Who says they can't be "little green women".? Michael Malin, who is in charge of the cameras on the Mars Global Surveyor, said the public's interest in the original photos had been so great that NASA planned to take new shots of the face as part of its current survey of Mars. The taxpayers are footing the bill, he says, and if they want the face, < NASA should try to give them the face >. * Okay, we cut away to a picture of a very patient Father NASA patting smiling but gullible/ignorant/great unwashed Joe/Jane public on their heads. Much of the interest in the face on Mars has been stirred up by Boston-based engineer Mark Carlotto. Carlotto has developed techniques used by the military to pick out human-made structures from natural ones. He said that when he applied these techniques to the Mars photos, he found that the face and surrounding hills are more likely to have been made by intelligent beings than to be a natural geologic structure that just happens to look like a face near some vaguely pointy hills, as NASA asserts. The builders, Carlotto said, could be indigenous Martians, some unknown race of superintelligent humans, or extraterrestrial builders from a distant world. The Mars face has attracted a small < cult > following that communicates via Internet discussion groups. Carlotto has published a book on the subject, "The Martian Enigmas". The word cult is another buzz word which brings up negative images of those such as the Heavens Gate suicides or any potential unstable and explosive group of people. People not in control. Some < believers > claims there's a full-blown conspiracy in which NASA is purposely shielding the public from the truth. Carlotto suggests that NASA scientists are just too skeptical and stubborn to take these structures seriously. For believers read fanatics. Global Surveyor scientist Malin argues that Carlotto's image- processing technique didn't scan a large enough swath of Mars' landscape to determine whether the so-called face and pyramids were not ordinary, natural structures. If he had looked further, he might have found that every 10th hill looked equally unnatural for his methods, Malin said. Malin said that, by addressing the face issue, he has inadvertently gotten caught in the controversy. He has changed his telephone to an unlisted number because he was getting so many calls from < followers > of Carlotto and others interested in the face on Mars. By using the word followers we can maintain the cultist or relgious fanatic feel, as if Carlotto has gained high priest status, a position I'm sure that Carlotto has no taste for. With Mars Global Surveyor, Carlotto said, there is finally a chance to settle the issue. "It would be a shame if we didn't take advantage of it." He said the Viking photos show hints of teeth and other fine-scale features that, if photographed more closely, might make the face look so obviously alien-sculpted that even NASA skeptics such as Malin will have to concede. It won't be easy for NASA to settle the issue, Malin said. One of the Global Surveyor's cameras, known as the high-resolution camera, will pick out objects just a few meters across. But NASA can't point this camera, which is fixed to the craft. To capture the face, the craft will have to fly directly over it. For that reason, "we can't make any promises", said project leader Arden Albee. < He and his colleagues will need to get lucky to get a picture of the face that's any sharper than the 20-year-old pictures from Viking, Albee said. Albee sending up the old trial balloon. He says it first so he can say I told you so later. Who then could prove otherwise? Malin said the new photos, no matter how good, still might not settle the issue. < The hill might still look like a face. > What an absolutely brilliant line. He saying well of course it "looks" like a face, we agree about that, but that as far as it goes. It will always be a hill that "looks" a face. Between Albee and Faye Flam, the two have done an absolutely fabulous job of putting paid to the Face in Cydonia. I don't know where I stand on this possible alien artifact on Mars but I think it a little too pat to be blowing it off at this juncture. No one knows one way or the other so why is NASA, et al, using questionable language to downplay it and where is Flam coming from. She could just as easily done an interesting piece without doing a soft character asassination on those who think that the face is real. Or is she just playing the hard boiled, you can't pull the wool over my eyes, reporter. I picked on this story because I'm tired of reporters who have their tongues so firmly jammed in their cheeks while they write these story that they haven't got enough skin left over to get a figurative hard on for anything that requires imagination. I've got the Flu and it's making me cranky. Don Ledger END
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: Dave Everett <deverett@idx.com.au> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:55:54 +1100 Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:04:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:39:41 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >Actually I was thinking if anyone can provide me Bogus >Explanation 20 (BE 20) before Christmas, he/she would >win the miniature white elephant. Alien Spacecraft. Dave Everett.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Video Evidence 'Valueless'? From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:19:00 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:27:00 -0500 Subject: Video Evidence 'Valueless'? There is a very interesting article in the November issue of Advanced Imaging magazine. (Page 59). The article is about a new computer software app from the British firm Harlequin called Panoptica. Panoptica has the ability to generate full motion sequences on video from just a single still frame. It does this seamlessly, and can combine elements from different images, both still and motion. Basically it is the first commercially released example of motion image processing programs which will allow users to to in motion what has become standard in still imaging. "Central to its capabilities is its ability to extract the camera pointing (and therefore motion) characteristics from the original sequence by source frame analysis alone. Panoptica is thus largely driven by a reconstruction of the geometric relationships between the original camera, and the projection of the frame images on its focal plane. This information is used to derive a virtual, resolution-independent, description of the entire scene originally filmed. After this, a virtual camera can traverse the generated model, executing entirely new camera moves, at a new focal length, optionally different tilt........." This means that just about any motion sequence could be generated with this program, and if done properly would be undetectable as an artificial sequence. Those interested in more detail can visit Harlequin's web site at: http://harlequin.co.uk Bob Shell
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:15:19 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:17:14 -0500 Subject: Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Geoff Price sent a useful posting responding to an earlier one of mine, for which I thank him: >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:56:32 -0700 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Geoff Price <Geoff@CalibanMW.com> >Subject: Re: that ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis <snip> >I believe such things as ball lightning or geomagnetic phenomena >may very well get mixed in with what is generally referred to as >the raw UFO data. I find such phenomena terribly interesting >and I'm delighted that folks such as yourself are investigating >them. >But when you refer to such things in the context of "the" UFO >problem, I have trouble being bothered to give them the time of >day. Why? It relates back to Greg's point above. I had no >interest in UFOs prior to a sighting of an initially unlit, >structured, rotating and then anomalously accelerating >disc-shaped thing about ten years ago. I don't have a serious >expectation that the source of this effect was a geomagnetic >light of some kind, or that some kind of radiation provoked the >identical hallucination in myself and another observer (although >I will cede the technical possibility.) >In previous posts, you've ceded that there may be some phantasms >out there that do appear as structured "craft"-like things, but >that this is probably such a rare and ineffectual phenomena as >to be unstudyable or without import. Still, it is precisely >*this* UFO problem that a lot of us are interested in, precisely >because of its strangeness and potential significance. And I >think you can make a pretty decent case that this phenomenon >is at least real and physical (plenty of the time :). >That said, I'm all for alternatives to the (literalist) ETH, >such as the possibility of strange "psi"-type phenomena etc. Dear Geoff, I hear what you say. But I suggest that we cannot decide to be interested in just that one bit we think is the "core" UFO issue. If we do, how can we separate it from the psychosocial UFOs, geophysical UFOs and mundane misperceptions? We have to work along a broad front, because the the UFO problem is a broad phenomenon, much of it sociological in nature. So it is not good research protocol to dismiss, say, geophysical phenomena as somehow less important than something else you think is more important, especially when that geophysical phenomenon may itself comprise much of what is genuinely reported in UFO sightings, and, moreover, may also have exotic characteristics that we do not yet understand, and which may (I repeat *may*) have a bearing on that something-more-important core you think the UFO problem is about. Having said that, yes, indeed, I did see a craft, in the early 1950s. You'll recall that it appeared and disappeared anomalously, but when 'present' it could be seen by a friend and I as seemingly very physical in appearance. It was a dirigible-type airship of huge proportions. I could see the ribbing in the sunlight, the gondola and the steering tackle in detail. It was a several hundred feet up in the air, about half a mile away. But not only did it disappear oddly, there was also no such craft flying in Britain at that time. Now, you will have to forgive me, but I have never thought that the thing I saw could ever be interpreted as an ET craft -- I really do not see ETs traversing the cosmos in a version of early 20th-century human technology! So I saw an apparently (that is an important word for all of us) solid craft that was anomalous but wasn't in any obvious sense an ET craft. Now, some people see disks,spheres, rotating tops, shiny cubes, and full-blown spaceships. It could be that the ETs are occasionaly seen in their spaceships, and that some other completely strange phenomenon produced my airship. But I really doubt it. It seems to me that we are dealing with something of a more enigmatic nature than visiting ETs. I actually thing the "core" mystery that you are so keen on to be deeper than the ETH - that is just the best the popular mind can come up with in the present cultural and technological climate. The ETH is nothing more than that. I would have thought that if anything, the sort of phenomena you and I have seen, for examples, could be better explained by some notion of spontaneous time travel (past and future memories, if you like) - or temporally-'loose' imagery of some kind. (Also, as an aside here, geophysical phenomena can look like metallic disks and even lumps in the daylight sky too - so these are another phenomena that might get mixed in with some genuine sightings of this even more exotic kind. There is also a pitch black aeroform, that I suspect is linked with earth lights phenomena.) The reason I call for a downgrading of the ETH is simply because so much energy is going into it there isn't sufficient effort by enough people going into looking at other possibilities (and I an NOT promoting just earth lights here - they have their place, and a better one than they are accorded by the ufological mainstream, but there are other mysteries to solve too). More than that, it might be 'jamming' other approaches -- ie. doing actual harm. >I would agree that the ETH is not a hypothesis in the sense of >your proverbial falsifiable hypothesis for straightforward
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) From: KRandle993@aol.com [Kevin Randle] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:20:24 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:29:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) > Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 05:21:17 -0700 > From: "John W. Ratcliff" <jratclif@inlink.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) >I've been sort-of-kind-of-barely following this recent discourse >on big bad old ET versus big bad old Casper the ghost. This >hoary rhetorical debate betwixt Clark, Randle, and some other >members of this group who take "Zen philosophy as Quantum >Mechanics" pamphlets a tad bit too literally. >> Excuse me, but leave me out of this debate. I have not commented on it and have no plans to do so. KRandle
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:38:16 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:32:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) >Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 05:21:17 -0700 >From: "John W. Ratcliff" <jratclif@inlink.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) >I've been sort-of-kind-of-barely following this recent discourse >on big bad old ET versus big bad old Casper the ghost. This >hoary rhetorical debate betwixt Clark, Randle, and some other >members of this group who take "Zen philosophy as Quantum >Mechanics" pamphlets a tad bit too literally. >First we have to dispense with semantics. The term ET brings up >one image in our minds, ghosts and demons another. Both bound by >cultural mythos, one more modern, the other more ancient. Both >mean the same thing, ineffectual words used in a pathetic attempt >to describe the ineffible. >Last I checked, Jerry, Kevin, we was still calling them there >things (U)FOs, U as in "unidentified." I don't recall anybody >ever actually identifying one of them flying gizmo in any sort of >concrete way, with the exception of numerous exposed hoaxes, >liars, and scam artists. In all that time I still never did get >me one of them there product brochures for one of those hardcore >manufactured sports model UFOs. >Meanwhile, I don't find the *TERMS* "angel", "alien", "ghost", >"demon", "fairy", "goblin", "grey", "reptoid", "Elohim", "giants >in those days", or any other concoction some contactee has coined >in a desperate attempt to explain the inexplainable, >particularily satisfactory. >Admit the admissible. These UFOs is weird unexplained stuff that >serve to act as a prod in our minds, stirring the intellectual >pot as it were, providing enough mythos to further fuel the fires >for this millenialist landscape. >Isn't it enough just to admit that somethine we don't know, can't >explain, does in apparent fact, intrude on our shared view of >reality? And that this is, in itself, pretty remarkable and >downright interesting? >In many decades (some would say thousands of years), the critters >flying these crazy contraptions have seemed content to operate at >the fringes of our social structures and have never bothered to >deal with us openly, directly, honestly, equally, fairly, or in >any way as one self-respecting sentient species to another. >Let's remember what side we are on afterall. >Demons, aliens, whatever. >They ain't our friends, let's start with that. >John John, Glad to know you have been lurking. We need some cool, sane heads like yours in this conversation. I don't think anyone could have expressed the whole problem better. Bob
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Mars Face From: JJ Mercieca <mufor@maltanet.net> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:29:18 +0100 Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:33:02 -0500 Subject: Re: Mars Face >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 19:43:20 -0600 (CST) >From: Brian Cuthbertson <brianc@fc.net> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Mars face >The Mars face has attracted a small cult following that communicates >via Internet discussion groups. Carlotto has published a book on the >subject, "The Martian Enigmas". Put us on the same level as Heaven's Gate or other crazy cults so that the public ignores us or at worst demands that we be stopped for "our own safety". Great. >Malin said the new photos, no matter how good, still might not >settle the issue. The hill might still look like a face. What?!? So no matter what the photographic evidence that MGS takes including close-ups of teeth, eyeballs, eyelashes ... clearly manufactured blocks of stone, etc, etc ... it's still a hill that looks like a face? I'm not sure I can understand his reasoning. Regards, JJ Mercieca Malta UFO Research http://www.mufor.org/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Mars Face From: Ufojoe1@aol.com [Joe Murgia] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:10:12 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:53:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Mars Face >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:18:16 +0100 >From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Mars Face Don, How right you are regarding the press and "The Face on Mars". If you can believe it, the article in question is one of the BETTTER ones done to date in the mass media. I can't believe they actually mentioned one of the independent researchers(Carlotto) by name. > >From the Austin Chronicle, Thursday 27 Nov, 1997, Page A38 > Austin, Texas >Much of the interest in the face on Mars has been stirred up by >Boston-based engineer Mark Carlotto. Not true in my opinion. While Carlotto is one of the most qualified researchers, with regards to photo analysis, to get involved with the Mars research, his name is not the one that usually comes up when people mention Cydonia. Richard Hoagland, no matter what you think about his other theories, is the person people usually think of when they hear about Cydonia. Stanley McDaniel is a close second. > >Some < believers > claims there's a full-blown conspiracy in which NASA is purposely shielding the public from the truth. Carlotto suggests that NASA scientists are just too skeptical and stubborn to take these structures seriously. I believe Hoagland is behind this conspiracy theory that has circulated around the web. In his defense though, he never has claimed that NASA is behind the "conspiracy", he has said that he believes a small group of higher-ups within NASA may be calling the shots as the regular NASA workers do their jobs honestly. >Malin said the new photos, no matter how good, still might not >settle the issue. < The hill might still look like a face. > >What an absolutely brilliant line. He saying well of course it >"looks" like a face, we agree about that, but that as far as it >goes. It will always be a hill that "looks" a face. Actually Don, As far as I know, Malin has never even admitted that the "hill" looks like a face until that statement. He has claimed, along with all of the other debunkers and NASA for that matter, that a trick of light and shadow is responsible for the hill's apparant face-like image. In "The Martian Enigmas", Carlotto does a great job of showing that this is not the case. Even the late Carl Sagan said that NASA's trick of lighting statement was an "unfortunate error". > Between Albee and Faye Flam, the two have done an absolutely >fabulous job of putting paid to the Face in Cydonia. What else is new? >I picked on this story because I'm tired of reporters who have >their tongues so firmly jammed in their cheeks while they write >these story that they haven't got enough skin left over to get a >figurative hard on for anything that requires imagination. I'm past the point of frustration. Here is a part of the story from the Tampa Tribune that the other papers edited out. "Much of the interest in the Face on Mars has been stirred up by Boston based engineer Mark Carlotto, who came to the University of Pennsylvania last week to spread the word that the somber-looking face and nearby bumps in the landscape are artificial structures." Bumps? There's a lot more than bumps. If you read Carlotto's book, you will have doubts that he is spreading the word that these objects ARE artificial. He says throughout the entire book that he believes that the objects MAY be artificial and that they deserve to be looked at closer. Of course, I wasn't present at this lecture but I doubt Carlotto has changed his tune after all of these years. He's been very careful about what he says regarding Cydonia. "In a lecture sponsored by Penn's bioengineering department, he said he had long pleaded with NASA to take a closer look using the high resolution camera aboard Global Surveyor." At least the U of Penn's bioengineering department has an open mind. I'll write Carlotto and see what he thinks about the article. Joe Murgia Tampa, Florida
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: AP: Purple Blotches Mystify NY Town From: Kenny Young <task@fuse.net> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 14:10:08 -0800 Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:58:12 -0500 Subject: Re: AP: Purple Blotches Mystify NY Town Purple Blotches Mystify NY Town The Associated Press November 28, 1997 GATES, N.Y. (AP) -- It's a plane! No, it's a bird! At first, aviation officials thought the purple blotches that appeared overnight on people's homes and cars in this Rochester suburb were left by airplane lavatory fluid falling from the sky. But an analysis of a splotch on one of the homes almost certainly rules that out, said Jim Peters, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration. The answer seems to be a bit more straightforward: droppings from berry-eating birds. Not everyone believes that. Some residents point out that the splatters are unusually large for birds. On the chance that some lavatory fluid may have leaked, the FAA is still contacting all the airlines that had planes coming in or out of Rochester a week ago when a dozen splatters were reported. End of article -- UFO Research http://home.fuse.net/task/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 28 Re: Clark and ETH From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:54:30 PST Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:28:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH > Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 05:21:17 -0700 > From: "John W. Ratcliff" <jratclif@inlink.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs) > I've been sort-of-kind-of-barely following this recent discourse > on big bad old ET versus big bad old Casper the ghost. This > hoary rhetorical debate betwixt Clark, Randle, and some other > members of this group who take "Zen philosophy as Quantum > Mechanics" pamphlets a tad bit too literally. > First we have to dispense with semantics. The term ET brings up > one image in our minds, ghosts and demons another. Both bound by > cultural mythos, one more modern, the other more ancient. Both > mean the same thing, ineffectual words used in a pathetic attempt > to describe the ineffible. > Last I checked, Jerry, Kevin, we was still calling them there > things (U)FOs, U as in "unidentified." I don't recall anybody > ever actually identifying one of them flying gizmo in any sort of > concrete way, with the exception of numerous exposed hoaxes, > liars, and scam artists. In all that time I still never did get > me one of them there product brochures for one of those hardcore > manufactured sports model UFOs. > Meanwhile, I don't find the *TERMS* "angel", "alien", "ghost", > "demon", "fairy", "goblin", "grey", "reptoid", "Elohim", "giants > in those days", or any other concoction some contactee has coined > in a desperate attempt to explain the inexplainable, > particularily satisfactory. John, I guess you have "barely followed" the exchange. My point has been all along that our knowledge of the UFO phenomenon is tentative at best. Therefore, we ought not to refer to UFO beings or entities as "ETs" in anything other than purely theory-driven discussions. In this latter context, I also argue, the ETH is a reasonable working hypothesis, though hardly proved. Essentially, I argue for a pragmatic approach in which investigation, research, and documentation are our primary focus. It's only through this approach that one day we'll have the answers. Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:44:54 PST Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:59:10 -0500 Subject: Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:15:19 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis > explained by some notion of spontaneous time travel (past and > future memories, if you like) - or temporally-'loose' imagery of > some kind. Oh, dear. Of course the evidence for these sorts of loopy "explanations" is somewhere between nil and nonexistent, and they're interesting only because they come from somebody who routinely alleges that the ETH has no basis in evidence. You have to decide, Paul, whether you want to be a scientist or a mystic. It seems to me that you're blurring the distinction all the time. > The mental state or states I am discussing are also - *in part* > - the subject of David J. Hufford's "The Terror that Comes in > the Night", which you may have noticed Jerome Clark refer to a > couple of times recently (and in some pretty peculiar ways too, > if I may say so). 'Fraid not, old chap. Hufford and I are mutual admirers. (See his kind words about me and my approach on the back cover of High Strangeness.) When my review of his The Terror That Comes in the Night was published in Fate in 1983, he told me I was just about the only reviewer who seemed to grasp the point of the book. (Others read it, in common [I gather] with Paul, as an exercise in reductionism, when in fact it was devastatingly critical of reductionist explanations of anomalous phenomena as counter to the spirit of truth-seeking in science.) By the way, I recommend The Terror to anyone seeking to understand the sorts of cultural biases implicit in beliefs and arguments such as those Paul habitually reflects and employs. If anybody is using Hufford strangely, it's Paul here. Hufford once wrote me a hilarious letter parodying the theories of Michael Persinger, one of Paul's heroes. Hufford is not -- by any stretch -- on your side of the argument, my friend, and it ill behooves you to imply otherwise. Jerry Clark
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 18:21:40 -0500 (EST) Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:06:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] Henny wrote: >Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:10:59 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH [Solved Abduction Cases?] >>From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:48:44 -0500 (EST) >>To: updates@globalserve.net >>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? <snipped> >Paul, >With all due respect. Can I ask you to elaborate on how >gephysical phenomena could have produced the Belgian >radar-visual or shall I just log this one as bogus >explanation 16? Henny, Geophysical/earth light phenomena can reflect radar echoes, and radar-visual instances occurred during the Hessdalen light phenomena outbreak in the '80s. So that in and of itself isn't a problem for the earth lights approach. However, if a triangular object with lights on (as opposed to a triangular formation of lights) was repeatedly zooming around the Belgian skies, then I doubt if it was a geophysical phenomenon. If it was from some other world, then it was an ET craft, but from what I've been reading on this list the ET status of the object has yet to be actually established, notwithstanding certain rumours and strongly-held opinions and beliefs. Hey, Henny, how about giving your entrained neurological firing patterns a rest even if only for a few minutes? Allow yourself to consider that the ET explanation *could* be Bogus Explanation 17... Best wishes, Paul Devereux
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 FYI - Boylan Wriggling From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:54:03 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:54:03 -0500 Subject: FYI - Boylan Wriggling Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo sent the following, yesterday. It is posted for your information only and for follow-up posts from subscribers who were involved with the Boylan posts in the early days of this List and over on Fido's UFO & Odyssey/BAMA. (Ed. Stewart, John Powell, Don Allen & John Velez) Geoffrey's heart is in place - I'm not sure about his access to _all_ the information regarding Boylan's 'Case'. The Boylan Ban still applies on this List - none of his messages will be posted - no Boylan-based discussion. For further info see: Boylan loses license to practice psychotherapy. Reports in Sacramento Press, Aug. 7, 1995 at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/license.txt California Board of Psychology report detailing Boylan's license revocation at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/revoke.txt You can also check out the reasons for the Boylan Ban starting at: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/ Errol Bruce-Knapp, Moderator. __________________________________________________________ From: "Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo" <nextwave@cape.com> To: "N I M N E T" <nextwave@cape.com> Subject: - N I M A L E R T - Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:07:10 -0500 Dear NimFriends~ Claude DiDomenica is a friend of mine. If you are in like spirit, could you please circulate this? Dr. Boylan deserves it. What if happened to you? Thank you! Geoffrey Nimmo ~The Next Wave~ Cape Cod o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o -FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- Media Contact: Claude DiDomenica UFOnetwork 781/ 440-0011 E-mail: boylan-petition@ufonetwork.com ___________________________________ "E-Petition Drive Begins to End Governmental Harassment Reported by UFOlogist " ___________________________________ UFOnetwork Launches Unique E-Petition on its Website ******************************************************************* November 27, 1997 -- Norwood, Massachusetts, USA -- UFOnetwork, an Internet content provider, today unveiled an international electronic petition (E-petition) campaign. The purpose is to end governmental harassment reported by noted UFO author, researcher and psychology instructor, Dr. Richard Boylan, of Sacramento, California. "The electronic petition campaign is twofold," according to Claude DiDomenica of UFOnetwork, Webmaster and creator of Dr. Boylan's Website. "First, an 'Open Letter to the Community' details the harassment by the government which Dr. Boylan has reported. Second, there is an E-petition, 'Letter to California Governor Pete Wilson' asking him to put a stop to this harassment. These articles will be distributed across the Internet and placed on the Website for Dr. Boylan at: http://www.ufonetwork.com/boylan/ DiDomenica further explained that anyone who would like to support Dr. Boylan in this effort can 'sign' the petition. It will automatically be E-mailed to Governor Wilson and other government officials. DiDomenica is optimistic about the response to this petition. His interest began when he read some articles about Dr. Boylan and the harassment Dr. Boylan has reported from the government. This prompted a Website, created and donated by DiDomenica that has gotten over 4,000 visits in its first six months. "My goal is to generate enough public pressure on Governor Wilson to encourage him to reverse the ruling of the Psychology and Behavioral Science Board in California. This punitive de-licensing retaliation, which Dr. Boylan reports he sustained for going public with his research into extraterrestrial encounters, has cost him more than just his reputation." Dr. Boylan predicted, "Just like 72 years ago, when John Scopes, a biology teacher, was unjustly convicted for teaching evolution in a Tennessee school, I believe that one day soon, public opinion will also compel my vindication for going public with my research that extraterrestrial encounters are real, and that governmental agencies have been ruthless in covering up that fact." DiDomenica adds that a Legal Defense Fund for Dr. Boylan has been set up to finance an appeal to the federal courts of the California agencies' punitive actions against Dr. Boylan. He notes, "There is also a plea for pro-bono legal counsel on Dr. Boylan's Website. We are hoping an experienced attorney will step forward and go to bat for him." UFOnetwork is a division of Children's Animated Television (CAT), a progressive 501-C-3 non-profit organization that applies technology and animation to produce educational videos for children and teens on difficult social issues such as AIDS, diversity, substance abuse and violence. http://www.ufonetwork.com/boylan/ # # #
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Boylan Wriggling From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:02:14 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:03:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Boylan Wriggling Hello Errol, You may post this to UpDates if you so wish. Ed Stewart ---------- UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote: > Gentlemen, > This bothers me - > ebk >> From: "Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo" <nextwave@cape.com> >> To: "N I M N E T" <nextwave@cape.com> >> Subject: - N I M A L E R T - >> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:07:10 -0500 >> Dear NimFriends~ >> Claude DiDomenica is a friend of mine. >> If you are in like spirit, could you please circulate this? >> Dr. Boylan deserves it. What if happened to you? <snipped> It bothers me too. BTW, it should also bother Clark Hathaway/Julie Presson who are on your list. Clark Hathaway is an ex-patient of Boylan. He almost had a heart attack under hypnosis with Boylan during a Boylan session since Boylan would not stop the session. Needless to say, Clark is not too enamored with Boylan and his "therapeutic" methods. I visited the Boylan site and see that he still hasn't a clue as to who I am since he is still falsely compelled to describe me as "another retired Air Force contract operative" and "...did work at the same high-security Air Force base as the Colonel", presumedly from earlier posts Boylan is referring to this Colonel Ebert and Beale AFB. The facts are that I never retired from the Air Force and I was never an Air Force contract operative, nor have I ever worked at Beale AFB. Boylan knows this for a fact, but it doesn't fit into his scenario of alleged "government harrassment". The facts are that I was one of about 70,000 civil service employees working for the Air Force Logistics Command for a total of 17 years at McClellan AFB, Wright-Patterson AFB, Vandenburg AFB and about one year with Military Airlift Command at Travis AFB until 1985. I have never made a secret of my civil-service career with the Department of Defense, nor what my specific duties were with them. But, as we all know, every government worker, or ex-worker, every military person, or veteran, and every person that disagrees and/or offers contradictory evidence is nothing but a lackey for the ufo-coverup government. By now they must number in the millions and millions. (GRIN) What Boylan is somewhat correct about is that I did post complete TV transcripts from the local TV news programs that broadcast not only his initial license revocation, but also his appeal before the Superior Court (part of the due process Boylan has taken that he conveniently left out of his "open letter"). Incidentally, these were posted to FIDONET, not the Internet as Boylan alleges. Turns out that this alleged "contract operative" did not have access to the Internet at the time. I guess even the "UFO cover-up government" with its billions and billions of cover-up dollars to "harrass" Boylan is not immune to government budgetary cuts. (GRIN) The Superior Court of the State of California upheld 6 of the 7 reasons why Boylan's licenses should have been revoked and concurred with the Board decision that Boylan was gross negligent in his practice. I also posted the complete judge decisions from the Board and the Superior Court Judge (again, to FIDONET, not the Internet). I used to operate a BBS in Sacramento until the advent of the Internet and have since shut it down. They are public documents available to anyone (as also the complete court records of this case) who wishes to go to the Sacramento Court building and read them. An interesting note, that is supported by the court record for anyone with the inclination to wish to verify it, is that during the closing arguments before the Superior Court of the State of California the District Attorney noted that not one shred of evidence of government harrassment was ever introduced by Boylan's attorney to the Superior Court Judge. Also, Boylan's attorney's closing arguments not only did not challenge the District Attorney's comment regarding alleged government harrassment, but did include a plea for mercy and consideration to the Superior Court judge based on the fact that Boylan was part of the 60s generation and part of the "Berkeley" community where "nudity" was part of the "scene" with the implication that Boylan was a "victim" of his generation background and therefore should receive special consideration by the judge in his determination. Also, contrary to Boylan's "open letter" on the Internet, Boylan's attorney pleaded for merely suspension/time under supervision instead of revocation of licenses. Interesting plea by one's own attorney defending an alleged innocent man. (GRIN) Apparently, the Judge for the Superior Court of the State of California did not concur with Boylan's attorney plea and reconfirmed the revocation of Boylan's licenses. I made it a point of being present at the closing arguments session. Also present was Clark Hathaway, an ex-Boylan patient and abductee/experiencer who sat next to me on the front row. (Since Clark has broken off his support for Boylan, Boylan has also accused Clark of being some kind of "government operative".) I made a comment to Clark that it was probably a great embarrassment to the 20 or so "Boylan supporters" who were also present to find out that "government harrassment" was not even an issue backed by any evidence during his appeal to the Superior Court of the State of California, but was simply a ploy of Boylan's directed at the UFO community for money, support and sympathy and left out of the Court room altogether. (GRIN) Also, I noted during my visit to Boylan's "open letter", that for the UFO community, Boylan still calls his ex-patients "homely, grossly obese, lesbian, poor or welfare-dependent, drug/alcohol abusers, who had been suing for money." I think it is imperative to note that during the closing arguments to the Superior Court Judge, Boylan's attorney, Richard S. Linkert, apparently did not feel the above to be accurate or to be a prudent strategy to employ before the judge. Boylan's attorney Linkert, in the closing arguments, described one of Boylan's ex-patients and witness against him as "bright, well-educated, degreed, young woman." But then again, this was in the Superior Court of the State of California with Judge Thomas M. Cecil presiding, not on the Internet before the UFO community pleading for money, support and sympathy. (GRIN) For anyone wishing to explore this further, take the time out to read Boylan's appeal decision before the Superior Court of the State of California (a step in the due process that Boylan has "conveniently" left out of his Internet appeal for money, support, and sympathy. Boylan's case and his loss of his licenses had nothing to do with UFOs or his belief system. Anyone that was present at the closing arguments session before the Superior Court of the State of California, or has bothered to read the public record available at the Court House in Sacramento is well aware of that fact. It had everything to do with the competence of a therapist with sexually abused patients and how one treats sexually abused patients in therapy. That is why the Board revoked his licenses and Superior Court Judge Thomas Cecil upheld that revocation after Boylan exercised his due process and appealed the Board decision before the Superior Court of the State of California. Interesting that Boylan's courtroom strategies are not congruent with his Internet appeals for money, support and sympathy. Ed Stewart PS. I know that ORTK has been previously duped by Boylan and given him $200.00 in the past towards his "legal fund". Hopefully, future contemplating "contributors" will take the time out to review the actual Court Records on this case before throwing out their money. _____________________
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Open Letter To Senator Strom Thurmond From: pharaoh <pharaoh@web2000.net> [Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo] Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:26:58 -0800 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:17:53 -0500 Subject: Open Letter To Senator Strom Thurmond OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR THURMOND Dr. Willy Smith UNICAT Project unicat@worldnet.att.net November 1997 Only recently was I able to obtain a copy of the press statement released on June 5, 1997 by the office of Strom Thurmond, U.S Senator for South Carolina. In this release by Chris Kelley Cimko, titled RIGHT FOREWORD, WRONG BOOK, the Senator is disturbed by the foreword appearing under his name in the first edition of THE DAY AFTER ROSWELL. He claims the foreword was written for a second book, presumably also authored by Lt. Col. Philip Corso. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that nobody is aware of the existence of this second book, the Senator is admitting that he wrote the foreword for a book which he had not bothered to read, apparently believing that it was correct to do so, as he based his pen work on an outline allegedly provided by the author, who at this point of the Senator's discourse has become simply "Mr. Corso". This is a nice and convenient explanation that many, including myself, were ready to accept offhand, that is, until looking more closely at Senator Thurmond's background. It is for me inconceivable that a person with the integrity and outstanding career of the Senator would write a foreword without reading the book; if he did not want to preface a book about UFOs, he simply would have said so and sent Lt. Col. Corso to look for another sponsor. That is the first anomaly in the press release. The second and more significant anomaly is the insistence that the Senator does not "believe" in UFOs, their technology, and its possible application to win the Cold War. I will only remark briefly here about the incorrect use of the verb "believe". One believes in God, or in the United States, or in speaking the truth, but for scientific matters, the question is not of belief, but of knowledge. Doesn't the Honorable Senator know such a fundamental thing? He certainly must. A man of his experience, a man capable of switching from an obsolete party to another party more in tune with the actual needs of the United States, surely knows the difference between beliefs and knowledge. But perhaps he is literally correct when he states that "he does not believe that the United States is in possession of such vehicle (an UFO) and that he does not believe there has been any government cover-up of a UFO crash". In an admirable play on words, like the good politician he is, he omits to tell us that he doesn't believe because HE KNOWS, as a person in his position undoubtedly has access to all classified pertinent information. Is there a hidden message in the press release? Moreover, in the suppressed FOREWORD, which very few persons have bothered to examine, no mention is made of UFOs! All that we read there refers to the character, personality and distinguished career of the author, documented facts which would fit any book written by Lt. Col. Corso, be it on UFOs, science fiction or poetry. Why then does the Senator feel the compulsive need to disclaim his belief in UFOs? Or perhaps the Senator did not read the foreword, very likely penned by a member at his staff, until it became a matter of public debate? Or worse maybe the withdrawal of the FOREWORD indicates that the Senator no anger believes that Lt. Col. Corso is an honorable American? And even a more dangerous question comes up: did the Senator approve of this press release that apparently tarnishes his image? I think the Senator must come forward and answer those and other crucial questions honestly, as speaking with forked tongues is a characteristic of the so called "liberals". Senator Thurmond has created an anomaly, and the reasons that prompted him to do so are sine dublo not the ones claimed. It is up to him, and him only, to resolve this delicate issue for the good of his party and of the United States. The more one reflects on the above facts, the more puzzling the matter becomes. It is also increasingly evident that the publishers of the book benefited extremely from the Senator's retraction, and so far no-body has found fault with the merits of Lt. Col. Corso detailed in the suppressed FOREWORD. A book that could have passed into oblivion has become a point of controversy, has sold out several editions, and has placed the Roswell incident once more in the limelight. To what purpose? Magna est veritas et prae valet Dr. Willy Smith UNICAT Project unicat@worldnet.att.net November 1997
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:58:35 +0100 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:32:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:01:47 -0500 > From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Don wrote: > >You know it seems there are a more than a few attempts at pounding > >a square peg into a round hole re the Arnold sighting. People keep > >coming up with solutions but to only 3 or 4 of twenty points. None > >of them match up. > Don, > The difficulty with Arnold's story is that there are > imponderables and it's unlikely we'll never quantify them. > With any report, it's not necessarily true that all of the > account is accurate, perhaps rarely so, and it may be impossible > to explain all the evidence. <Snipped my stuff for brevity> > As we know, Kenneth Arnold later produced a sketch of one of the > objects which was apparently different from the others. I'm still > not sure which one of the nine objects this was supposed to > represent, i.e., where it was in the echelon and also why he > didn't impart this potentially important information to the Army > Air Force at the time. > However, there's a striking resemblance with the object portrayed > in that later sketch and a Horton GO 229 A-1. > I've uploaded a superb illustration of an 229 A-1 to my web site > at URL: > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/ho229A-1.jpg > I've been curious about this marked resemblance since becoming > aware of it some time ago. Hello James, I had a look at them, and as you say they are impressive. You know if I had seen them 20 years ago and not knowing then what I know now about the K.A. sighting I might have gone for that explanation. But none of these aircraft would have been capable of supersonic speed in 1947. The first aircraft, the Horton Go 229 A-1, has a wing built to pile up shock waves ahead of it, but that is not the biggest drawback. The intakes on those jets are just not capable of channeling air into the engines at Mach 1 or speeds above 550-600 miles per hour. The shock waves created around the inlets would effectively stall the compressors, making it impossible for them to produce thrust. What would have been needed was variable geometry anti-stall fences at the ingest ducts to solve that problem. Avro Canada had to come up with that solution for the Arrow to get Mach one then Mack two in '57. > But as you say, nine of them? > I would like to get Arnold's story straight on this. If we take > at face value, his reported claim (I don't suppose anyone has a > copy of Arnold's book they would like to loan me?) that this > object was different from the others, then of course we only have > one of them and eight of something else. > Still doesn't really make any obvious sense and, so far as I'm > aware, there's no evidence in the historical record re any such > secret testing of captured German aircraft. > I've also uploaded to my website, an illustration of a Horton > Ho-1X A Series aircraft, which, as it doesn't show the two jet > engines, resembles Arnold's sketch even more. It's at URL: > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/ho_ix_v1.jpg > It seems the Horton GO 229 A-1 and Ho-1X A Series were > essentially the same project. I'd make a guess and suggest that the Ho-1X was a test bed for the 229. It was probably a glider. It has an X in the model series number. > Arnold's sketch is also similar to a Northrop "flying wing", but > I've long thought the most obvious objection to Arnold's objects > being a known aircraft was the trouble which Arnold innocently > caused. We've been around that "flying wing" scenario many times already. We're talking a scaled down testbed aircraft [5 in all, with propellers] that had trouble getting out of its own way. They only produced three true bombers with jets and they didn't get over 400 mph. <Snipped for brevity> > It seems inconceivable that if the Army Air Force, and > subsequently the USAF, knew the explanation, that they wouldn't > have done _something_ to indicate this, somehow reassured the > public without disclosing the full facts and saved themselves > much expense and continual grief. Well that's one of the arguments that has plagued us for years. And I think the reason is very simple. They didn't have and don't have stuff that can do what people are reporting that these things are doing. Remember, by their own admissions back in the fifties, the US, the UK, Canada and NATO were sure that the UFO phenomenon was something cooked up by the Soviets to confuse the free world just before an eminent attack. the UFO sightings before hand were thought to be done by small conventional aircraft, flashing lights and what have you in an attempt to set up a cry wolf attitude with our military so that when the real thing came, nobody would pay any attention to it. Definite proof of aircraft flying at over Mach 1, Mach 2 or even 5, must have scared the hell out of them. > It's strange though, that there is such a close match between > Arnold's sketch and the aircraft envisaged under the abortive > Horten "flying wing" project. > Perhaps even stranger is how some other German designs equally > resemble witness sketches of the Hudson Valley "boomerang". Well you know, if you are trying to increase speed in an aircraft without increasing the power [ and thereby increasing weight and fuel consumption, more wieght] one of the ways to do it is to get rid of drag. The tail section [empennage] on any aircraft is a drag. You got a couple of wings sticking out in the wind back there and a vertical stabilizer as well. Those horizontal stabilizers are there to create a doward pressure [negative lift] on the tail section to insure the nose does not pitch down, and because it does create negative lift it is not helping to keep the aircraft aloft. Even the fuselage stretched to the rear to support them creates friction drag. If you can get rid of all of them then you reduce drag and get increased speed. It was a worthy venture for the times. Everyone, it seems, was trying to get rid of the empennage. So if you do succeed then you end up with just a wing but in order to maintain stability you have to have some way of getting that cantilever effect to keep that nose [or leading edge] pitching up so you sweep the wings back and affix small control surfaces similiar to elevators at the tips and "voila" you got some pitch control. You ALSO have something that looks like a "boomerang". > For a new perspective on contemporary triangular, or > wedge-shaped, 'UFOs', there's also an interesting image on my web > site at URL: > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pulsar/p12.jpg This image intrigues me but not because it might have any relationship to Arnold's "skipping saucers", but because it looks like a lifting body, similiar to the experimental lifting bodies that NASA experimented with while designing the Shuttle. But this one is a combination of both lifting body and jet propulsion [what do you want to bet Ramjet] with the nose intake duct having the same general shape as the F-100 Super Sabre. The attention to drag reduction and cleaness of design is really quite modern looking. Nice URLs James. Regards Don Ledger
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Corso/Monsanto Seeds From: "Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo" <nextwave@cape.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:25:24 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:37:49 -0500 Subject: Corso/Monsanto Seeds 'Monsanto Seeds' by Kenny Young With the July, 1997 publication of PHILLIP J. CORSO'S �Day After Roswell�, the retired Lieutenant Colonel who served under Eisenhower introduced the public to the concept of the �seeding� of American industry and corporations with exotic technology derived from recovered extraterrestrial vehicles. In the midst of the hype and furor over the Corso publication, I couldn�t help but temper my disbelief in serious consideration of his claims, because of a bizarre encounter that I have been absorbed in for nearly two years. In the spring of 1995 I received a phone call from a resident of Springfield, Ohio. �I wanted to tell you about certain reverse- engineering projects conducted on flying saucer components,� stated the voice on the other end of the phone line. The caller had tracked me down after a statewide Associated Press newspaper article was published in a Springfield, Ohio newspaper. The article had portrayed me as a �UFO skeptic� who questioned the possibilities of extraterrestrial visitations. �I�m listening,� I replied to the caller, expecting an outlandish or delusional account to commence. To my surprise, the gentleman on the other end of the line sounded cognizant, sane and knowledgeable. �A friend of mine was an employee at Monsanto Research Corporation, on Nicholas Road near Dayton, Ohio...� INTERESTING INTERVIEW The caller, who claimed to be formely of the military, and I had agreed to meet for lunch at a restaurant south of Dayton, Ohio within two weeks. I had contacted two acquaintances, Carla and Lois, who shared my interest in accounts of the bizarre, and we all thought it intriguing to meet the informant and receive his news. We left Cincinnati with plenty of time to spare, and reaching the Dayton area an hour before our appointment, decided to venture to The Monsanto Research Complex, the focal-point of the drama. Having been given directions to the facility by the informant, we found the complex easily. Situated near Interstate 75 south of Dayton, Ohio, on Nicholas Road, the facility is now operating under the name of Quality Chemical, and from the road appears to be several big, box- shaped buildings surrounded by fencing. The top-halves of the windowless buildings are riddled with air ducts, protruding ventilation shafts and metal railings. Approaching the main gate, a security guard put down his sandwhich and hitched his pants up around his big belly. �Can I help you?� �I am conducting a research project on corporations in this area, and was curious to know if this facility was once called Monsanto Research?� I asked just to break the ice, even though I already knew the answer. �Yes it was, several years ago.� �Do you know what type of research projects were done here?� I asked, hoping for something juicy. �Nope, but it was some classified project from Wright Patterson Air Force Base.� Carla and Lois thanked the security officer after we had gleaned everything possible from him (including details of several large fires occurring years prior). Driving away, we were unanimously impressed by the statement from the watchman regarding a classified Air Force project. Even though unaware of the specific activities performed at the facility he was guarding, the officer had provided �soft corroboration� of Air Force affiliation, an affiliation we were now on our way to verify through the offerings of a mysterious whistle-blower who would later be known as �The Phantom Informant.� We met the gentleman as he waited in his car outside the restaurant. Parking next to him, we greeted one another and entered the restaurant. Telling the gentleman of our recent experience with the security guard, he smiled with a self-assured grin and said, �That�s interesting.� �Tell us about this friend of yours,� came the question from Carla after food was ordered. �He�s dead, now... but he used to work at Monsanto and had a security clearance,� said the former miltary officer. �Evidently, as the story goes, parts and components from a flying saucer was taken to the Monsanto and kept there for a number of years. The situation was kept quiet, and suprisingly, extensive security precautions had been deemed unnecessary. The low-intensity security provided a good cover for the highly classified project.� �Where did this flying saucer come from?� came the next obvious question. �I don�t know, but we�ve all heard stories about Roswell,� said the informant as he sought to deflect the anxious questions and stay on his point. �Anyhow, there were a number of other operations at the facility that had also been going on, and there had been several accidents over the years. One involved a chemical explosion which resulted in a large fire.� Carla chanced a quick glance to Lois, recalling the earlier statement from the security guard. �One particular accident occurred as a result of experimentation with gravity waves. This person was injured and taken to the Miami Valley Hospital where he was held a while for observation. He was released later in the evening, but for a while he was said to be disoriented. �Much of the reverse-engineering research was regarding gravity waves. In fact, at one point, I was told of a rod or baton-like instrument that could be pointed at a heavy block of concrete... When they would point this rod at the block, they could lift it up into the air... almost magically. �There was also some nuclear materials that were produced at the location, and they were taken discretely by the truckload to Jackass Flats for burial and disposal. The whole facility was contaminated at one time.� �Did this contamination have anything to do with the components?� I asked, trying to home-in on the UFO discussion. �I�m sure some of it could have,� he replied with uncertainty, giving us the impression that he wasn�t seemingly a �know-it-all.� �But the real story is the man that came in.� Mysterious Visitor �According to my late friend, apparently there was a certain person who visited Monsanto under armed escort. He had paid numerous visits, about a half-dozen times from the late sixties to the early seventies. This well-dressed person had a security clearance to get in, and was allowed to interact with the employees there.� The term "INTERACT" caused eyebrows to raise, as The Phantom Informant paused to allow his enigmatic comment to sow the seed of curiousity. �He talked to them,� the informant clarified, �but he wasn�t a regular person. This individual would talk with the workers and discuss certain matters about routine job duties and inspections, and more cryptically, would discuss matters about their own personal lives. He knew things he wasn�t supposed to know.� �What do you mean �he wasn�t a regular person�?� asked Carla intensely. �I mean he wasn�t a regular person. He looked normal, just like you or me, even wore a nice business suit, but he wasn�t a regular person. He had talked to the people, and when he did, he ruined them. He knew things he shouldn�t have. He talked with my friend, and whatever he said that day traumatized him for the rest of his life.� �How so?� �I don�t know, but his widow told me that from that day forward he sat up on the edge of his bed at nights... in a cold sweat, and wondered about that man. He said �that man knew everything about me.� �Everything.� With a meaningful stare, the informant emphasized his point and gazed at Lois and Carla with a hypnotic assurance. �He knew certain unthinkable details about each person that nobody else could.� The Phantom Informant seemed to relish holding his captive audience under his spell. Breaking his rhythym, I broke in, �Are you saying this was an alien?� �I don�t know,� he huffed as he looked downward and talked in my direction without making eye-contact, as if half-angry that I made such a suggestion. �All I�m saying is that he wasn�t a regular person.� Not satisfied with gleaning these details from a second-hand source, I sought after more details of the deceased gentleman in question. I was told that the wife of this worker talked to the informant on plenty of occassions, for they had been acquaintances through their mutual association with the worker, and continue to talk years after the death of the worker. After his passing, the wife told the informant that her husband would suffer sleepless nights, agonizing in a mixed state of disbelief and fear. The wife had told of the problems the worker had for years after encountering the mysterious stranger, and had been greatly disturbed. She felt that he had an almost obsessive fear of the man. He talked of the good and honest character of his friend, and told of how his wife would be hesitant to discuss this issue, which she deemed �sensitive.� The informant did not reveal whether he had an occasion to meet this shadowy figure. He did allow that any worker was forevermore effected by the well-dressed visitor, who held great power and abilities. At one point in the discussion, he stated that he couldn't be sure if this person was part of the government or the military, but knew that this was a very 'powerful' individual, and briefly wondered �where this individual is today.� During the conversation, both Carla and Lois became entranced by the stories, as the informant spoke with methodological assurance, and closed each sentence with uncanny and unnerving eye-contact. The account, if true, remains unverifiable at present, eluding that special corroborative element which would advance this tale above the realms of rumor, hearsay or even disinformational fiction. However, with the recent implication of Monsanto by retired Col. Phillip Corso in his book two years later, and with the recent admissions by Bell Labs and American Computer Company, which also draws reference from the allegations of Corso, the bizarre tale of the reverse-engineered parts and components from The Monsanto Research Complex may simply be another piece in a warped and convoluted puzzle that is too strange to be true, and if true, too difficult to believe. End of article Inquiries have been made with OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration.) regarding any citacions that would have been issued against MONSANTO RESEARCH LABS on Nicholas Road for over a twenty five year period, and the response was that there was NONE ON FILE. History; The Monsanto Research Corporation, which operated this lab where the diving suit was developed, promoted a nuclear-powered coffee pot. Such a pot would perk for 100 years relying only on its self-contained plutonium-238 heat source. The plutonium in each pot (1/5th of an ounce) would contain 10 million lethal doses of plutonium. The project was abandoned.* [*] H. Peter Metzger, THE ATOMIC ESTABLISHMENT (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1972 pg. 227). Internet references: Active and Transitional/Inactive Nuclear Weapons Research, Development, Detailed descriptions of past and present U.S. nuclear weapons research, development, testing, and production, and naval nuclear propulsion facilities, including amounts of ... http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/SITES.HTM (Size 4.1K) Web-site Not Accessible Other: Monsanto Research was affiliated with E, G & G and I also have the resumes of several former employees, as was available from internet. Within data listed, it specifies they held �Q-level� security clearances. Also affiliated with Mound Applied Technologies ====== Mr. Curtis Nielsen Plant Manager, Quality Chemical Inc. 1515 Nicholas Road Dayton, OH 45418 September 9, 1997 Dear Mr. Curtis Nielsen; This letter is regarding our investigations of a special project which is said to have been handled at your facility a number of years ago when it was operated by the Monsanto Research Corporation. We have spoken with a gentleman who advised that parts and components of an aircraft �of unknown origin� had been delivered to the Nicholas Road facility under a special contract from Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, where these parts and components had been reverse-engineered and tested. The components, which were said to have been from a crash-landed object, were duplicated at the Monsanto/Nicholas Road facility and then re-assembled at another location. We have been advised that an employee sustained a serious injury during one experimental procedure, and was taken to Miami Valley Hospital for observation. Furthermore, a current employee of your facility has acknowledged to some of our associates that at one time, a highly classified Air Force contract from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base had been ongoing at the Nicholas Road facility for a number of years. He stated that he �couldn�t discuss the project,� but described accidental explosions and chemical fires which related to the project. This letter to your office is to ask if you had knowledge of - or could clarify the above accounts. Would there be any way you could refer me to others who may also assist with my inquiries, and how might we also acquire the medical documents regarding the job-related injury relevant to the classified project? In addition, could you please advise as to the nature of the activities conducted at the Nicholas Road facility during the 1960 and 1970s time-frame, and where the records might be stored? Does the present Quality Chemical operation retain documents or information relevant to previous accidents/fires and work-related injuries? Our investigations seek to acquire statements from both Quality Chemical and Monsanto Research regarding this matter, as those who have expressed this information also convey great concern about these projects and their implications. In addition, We would be happy to respect any requests for anonymity if privacy concerns are expressed. Could you please reply by Fax at your earliest convenience to: 513-351-4951 Your help with this serious inquiry is deeply appreciated. Respectfully, KENNY YOUNG Tri-State Advocates for Scientific Knowledge 2477 Hudson Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45212 Faxed Tuesday, September 9, 1997 to 931-262-6418 Comment: The above fax/letter to QUALITY CHEMICAL was afforded no response, and a phone call to the receptionist, requesting contact with the supervisor, was not productive, as no return call was forthcoming. -- UFO Research http://home.fuse.net/task/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:35:15 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:25:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:45:10 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: "S.L. Baldwin" <sblee@stc.net> [Susan Baldwin] >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Hundreds of them..... >How COULD you forget the two most common explanations! >Geese has it all been in vain? >29) Weather Balloons >30) Venus >and my personal favorite: >31) The source is a fruitcake >Susan Hi Susan I'm sory but I have a lousy memory, thanks for the giggle. -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 PBS Show On Cronkite's UFO Experience From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:22:31 +0200 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:27:44 -0500 Subject: PBS Show On Cronkite's UFO Experience Posted On the site Of the New York Post November 26 1997. URL: http://www.nypostonline.com:80/112697/gossip/1208.htm NEAL TRAVIS' NEW YORK By NEAL TRAVIS And that's the way it wasn't BEFORE Robin Leach struck gold with "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous," he labored - as so many of us did - in the yoke of strange old Gene Pope, the late publisher of the National Enquirer. In Pope's day, stories were often somewhat enhanced and celebrities sometimes felt burned. Like Walter Cronkite, who on Monday taped "Crossing the Line," the popular PBS show hosted by Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder, for a program to air in January. On the tape, Cronkite dusts off his favorite story about dealing with the mother of all supermarket tabloids. Cronkite recalls that several decades ago, the Enquirer ran a cover story claiming to have interviewed him about his sighting of a UFO. The reporter was Robin Leach, and Cronkite says he called Leach in high dudgeon. What was this "interview" nonsense? Cronkite demanded to know. Leach wasn't at all fussed. He reminded America's Most Trusted Man that he (Leach) had approached Cronkite when the CBS anchor was leaving a function with Henry Kissinger. Well, yes, Cronkite recalls saying, but the interview consisted of just one word. It's a nice story, but other reporters who were there at the time suggest Walter's account is something of a champagne dream. They clearly recall that Cronkite spoke at least several sentences to Leach as the intrepid reporter trailed him down the hall. Whatever did occur, Cronkite must have called the Enquirer's Pope, because Leach got canned as a correspondent without a chance to defend himself. As things turned out, it was the best thing that could have happened to Leach, who's now as rich as most of his interview subjects. When he and Cronkite see each other at parties, they always smile and nod. (snipped)
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 X-Files Anderson On 'The UFO Cover-Up' From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:33:17 +0200 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:29:44 -0500 Subject: X-Files Anderson On 'The UFO Cover-Up' >From the site of the New York Post. URL: http://www.nypostonline.com:80/gossip/1262.htm First found: 28 Nov 1997 PAGE SIX By RICHARD JOHNSON with Jeane MacIntosh and Sean Gannon <snipped> Gillian shares her X-treme theories UFO-hunting "X Files" star Gillian Anderson isn't stretching too much when it comes to aliens. Anderson, who donned a whacked-out "Bride of Frankenstein" look courtesy of David LaChapelle for an Allure photo spread, told the mag she believes extraterrestrials have definitely landed - and the authorities, straight out of an "X Files" script, are covering it up. "It would shock the hell out of me if the government had never been involved in a UFO cover-up and if there was not life on other planets," she says. Why would the Feds do it? To keep control. "The concept of other beings more powerful than us human beings places the public in a state of fear," she states. "The government no longer has the same kind of control." As for aliens, Anderson believes they seem hostile because they are projections of our own negative vibrations. "They vibrate on another energy level than we do," she says earnestly, adding they are "adaptable" to our beliefs. On a more credible note, she apologetically predicts, "This is going to make me sound like a complete nut." Meanwhile, back on earth, Anderson, who's starring in an "X Files" movie, is soon to appear in "The Mighty" opposite Sharon Stone in which she plays a biker chick who's living with portly rocker Meat Loaf. As for her TV show, Anderson says fans are so obsessive that secrecy on the set has become paramount - with all scripts shredded before they are thrown in the trash. <snipped>
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Fyffe (Alabama) Sightings February 1989 And Still From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:45:35 +0200 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:31:18 -0500 Subject: Fyffe (Alabama) Sightings February 1989 And Still Alabama Live: A 24 hour informative site just about Alabama for Alabamians all at your fingertips. Nowhere else can you find such detailed information on such a variety of topics. http://www.al.com/books/legends/ufo.html - size=BF32.1K November 29, 1997 The Winter Of The UFOs By Elaine Hobson Miller Excerpt from Myths, Mysteries and Legends of Alabama For Donna Saylor, the daylight hours of February 10, 1989, passed very pleasantly. Her sister, Cathy, and brother - in - law, Bryan, were visiting from Tennessee, and while the men fished at one of the ponds on the Saylor farm, Donna and Cathy went shopping. Their husbands caught a mess of bream for supper, and the women caught some good winter sales. About the only wrinkle in the visit was the cold Bryan developed. His nose was red and sore, his head was stopped up, and he had a terrific headache that threatened to keep him awake all night. And there was no aspirin in the house. "My sister and I went to Fyffe to the grocery store about 7 o'clock to get some Alka - Seltzer Plus," recalls Mrs. Saylor, a resident of the Grove Oak community near Fyffe, Alabama. "About 7:30, when we were two miles from our house, we saw this bright, white light in the sky just over the trees. We watched it as we drove home, and it didn't appear to be moving. We kept trying to figure out what it was." Cathy commented that it must be a street light, but Mrs. Saylor pointed out that they were on top of a mountain, in a rural area that had no street lights, and with no towns or houses any higher up than their community. Besides, the closer the women got to the object, the larger it appeared. It was not until they turned off County Road 76 onto the dirt road where the Saylors live that they realized just how big it was. "We stopped the car at a clearing at the beginning of the dirt road, about two - tenths of a mile from our house," recalls Mrs. Saylor, who had just moved into her new log home at the time. "We hadn't realized when we first spotted it that it was so close to our house. It seemed to be hovering between ours and the one across the road. It was so big, it was like viewing a satellite dish from about 50 yards away. It wasn't really round, though. It was an oblong, white light, enormously bright." An eerie stillness enveloped the women when they turned off the car's motor. Even the crickets were silent, as if listening for any sound from the sky. They heard nothing. Suddenly, the light blinked out, as if a light switch had been turned off. The object vanished, instantly and noiselessly, and without so much as a vapor trail. It left two stunned women in its invisible wake. "It just about scared my sister to death," Mrs. Saylor says. "My comment was, 'Where the heck did it go?' My sister said, 'I don't care, let's just get to the house right now.' " More aggravated than scared, Mrs. Saylor wished she had had more time to study the object. Her thoughts were jumbled as she drove the short distance to her house, but she knew she was not crazy and she had not been hallucinating, either. "When we got to the house, Cathy jumped out and ran inside to tell our husbands what we had seen," Mrs. Saylor says. "They were on the couch and in the recliner, watching television." While the men retrieved a pair of binoculars from the gun cabinet upstairs, Mrs. Saylor walked over to their pickup truck and got the two pair she and her husband used to check the livestock on the 600 - acre farm they managed. The group spotted the object again, way off in the distance. >From where they were standing, it looked like it was over Collinsville, about 20 miles southeast from Grove Oak and down off the mountain top. "In two or three minutes, it had gone that far," Mrs. Saylor says, incredulously. Passing the three pairs of binoculars around, the four took turns watching the object in the cold, clear, February sky. Although they could see the object and its colored, blinking lights without the binoculars, they could not make out its shape except through the lenses. "Everything we saw was so clear, and we watched it long enough that we had time to discuss it," Mrs. Saylor says. "It was long and had a slight curve to it, like a crescent moon. Every few minutes, it would turn, and we'd see that it had a bright light in the center, with a red light on each tip of its curve. "When it would turn, it looked like it was spraying green lights, like they were revolving around it or down its sides. We'd say, 'Oh, look, it's doing it again, can you see those green lights?' "We felt like it was turning away from us, and while it was turning, it looked like a big ball with green lights coming out of the bottom, kind of like fireworks." After staring at the object for 15 to 20 minutes, Mrs. Saylor decided to call the local police and find out whether anyone else had reported the strange light show. Five minutes after she hung up the phone, the dispatcher called Mrs. Saylor back to let her know that the police chief and assistant chief had left to check out her report, but might be delayed because they had spotted the object themselves and were following it. "She said that since I had called, she had received other calls about the lights," Mrs. Saylor says. "We were relieved about that. We knew we were seeing something, and we felt better that the police took it seriously, too." Fyffe Police Chief Junior Garmany, a 22 - year - veteran of the force, had just returned from making his early - evening rounds when the dispatcher took Mrs. Saylor's call. "Fred asked if I wanted to go with him and look for it, and I said okay," Garmany told a newspaper reporter. As Garmany and Assistant Chief Fred Works drove south on Alabama 75, their car radio started crackling. Law enforcement officers from Geraldine and Crossville, as well as the county sheriff's department, had spotted the brightly lit object, and were keeping each other informed as to its whereabouts. "It's headed your way, Junior," a voice spat out of the pastoral darkness. Garmany and Works were somewhere in the Gilbert's Crossroads area when they first spotted it, and they immediately gave chase. Twelve to 15 miles later, on County Road 43, they realized it was right up ahead of them. They stopped, turned off the engine and the radio, and got out of the patrol car. As the object approached, it seemed to be large, dark and flat. It flew right over them, without making a sound, flying so close the men could have read its identifying marks or numbers, had there been any. "We figured it was going about 300 or 400 miles an hour," Garmany told reporters. He estimated the craft's altitude at 1,500 feet. "It had three white lights along the bottom, shining up on itself." Finding the object difficult to describe, Works said it was sort of triangular - shaped. Garmany described it as more of a heart shape, or similar to a stingray. "The lights on the bottom illuminated it," he was quoted as saying. "They didn't shine down. I wasn't scared. It didn't act in an aggressive manner. If it wanted to get us, it had the drop on us. I don't know if it was from outer space, or if it was something the U.S. government was testing. But whatever it was, it wasn't a plane or a blimp or a helicopter. It was just an unidentified flying object." When comedian James Gregory says everyone who sees UFOs lives in a mobile home, he's poking fun at a stereotypical picture held by UFO skeptics. But Garmany, Works and the Saylors are not backward country hicks who have drunk too much of their own moonshine. They are sober, literate, hard - working people who saw some strange sights that they cannot fully explain. They were not alone. That same Friday night, the DeKalb County Sheriff's Department received 11 calls from excited witnesses in mountainous northeast Alabama. One such call came from a Lickskillet resident who told the dispatcher, "You better get a deputy over here quick. I don't know what it is, but it's scaring the hell out of my bird dogs." State Troopers and police officers in other DeKalb County towns also reported seeing the UFO. Like the Fyffe police, however, none of the area law enforcement agencies had an explanation. At first, they speculated about a weather balloon or a military aircraft. A check with the National Weather Service at Nashville, Tennessee, revealed that weather balloons, while sent up daily at 5 p.m. CST from various points, routinely would have burst by 7 p.m. Officials at Birmingham and Huntsville airports, Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery and at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville could add nothing to clarify the situation. The next night produced more sightings and more calls to the police. "Around the same time Saturday night, or maybe an hour later, we saw the same object again," Mrs. Saylor reveals. "Only this time, it was in the northern sky instead of to the southeast. That's when we thought it might be some kind of flight out of Huntsville, but it wasn't." Again, she called the Fyffe police. "I know you all will think I'm crazy, but we're seeing that UFO again tonight," she told the dispatcher. Fred Works and a patrolman drove out to the Saylor house, and they saw the object again, too. By this time, the Saylors had enlisted the aid of a neighbor who had a telescope, so they had an even better view. "The patrolman said it was probably a planet," Mrs. Saylor remembers. "I said that's fine, but an hour ago it was over here, and planets don't travel like that." Over the weekend, the local press called the Saylors, and a story about the sightings appeared in a Fort Payne daily on Monday. Larger newspapers picked up the story, and crowds started flocking to Fyffe in droves. Downtown took on a carnival atmosphere for the next few weeks, as UFO fever struck the small town (population 1,400) like the California gold rush. Over - enthusiastic teenage boys would whoop and point to the sky, shouting, "There it is. It's a UFO." Local entrepreneurs started selling UFO T - shirts, and one night, the local fire chief built a bonfire so people could warm their hands. By day, callers from all over the United States lit up the police department switchboard asking for directions. On Friday nights, traffic would be bumper - to - bumper, with license plates from Tennessee, Georgia, Florida and all parts of Alabama. Some nights, visitors outnumbered the locals more than two - to - one, as thousands of enthusiastic skywatchers lined the town's main thoroughfare like birds on a telephone wire. Sometimes, their vigilance was rewarded. "It was oval or round, and it had rotating lights in the center," one woman said in describing what she saw one Friday in late February. "It was hovering in the distance, with its lights changing from green to yellow or orange." Speaking for most of the people standing around her, she added, "We were all anxious and happy. Everybody was wanting to use the binoculars." It was the town's celestial mood that prompted the printing of the T - shirts, which depicted the UFO flying over a police car, with a red - haired officer pointing toward the sky. Fred Works just happens to have red hair. Several dozen shirts were sold for $10 each, with part of the proceeds going to the local fire department. Others were not so generous to the local authorities, who became the butt of several jokes. After a newspaper reporter misinterpreted Mrs. Saylor's UFO description as "banana - shaped," someone stuck Christmas tree lights into a banana and hung it by a string in the police station, right over Works's desk. "If I had known the kind of ridicule we were going to get, I'd have kept my mouth shut," said Chief Garmany. "And I'd have shot Fred if he'd opened his." About two or three months later, when she thought all the hoopla had quieted down, Donna Saylor was stunned to see the "Fyffe banana" resurface on TV's "Good Morning, America." The program broadcast a scene from a soccer game in Australia, where a stadium full of fans wore banana - shaped, foam hats with the word "Fyffe" printed across the front. "It blew my mind," Mrs. Saylor says. "I thought, 'What is this world coming to?' " Later that same day, she received several calls from radio stations in London, England, whose reporters interviewed her over the air. Patiently, she answered all their questions, but when the third station called, she could not suppress her bewilderment any longer. "I said, 'Why now? Are you that far behind on the news?' "He said, 'Ma'am, you don't understand, this is about the Fyffe banana.' "I said, 'Wait a minute,' and I corrected him about the crescent shape of the UFO. When I finished talking, he said, 'What kind of label do you have on your bananas?' "I told him Chiquita and Dole. He said the bananas in England had a label that said 'Fyffe.' That's why they were so interested in the story. I couldn't help but laugh." Over the next few weeks, at least 100 people reported seeing the UFO, some describing its white lights as "blinding." "It went over the Rodentown community where my sister lives, and she told me later that there was such a bright white light that it lit up the inside of her house and hurt her eyes," one woman told a newspaper reporter. Police dispatcher Shelia Smith saw the object one night, after a rescue squad worker called her to the front of the police station about 8 o'clock. "I couldn't see a shape, but I did see the lights - red and green," she told a Birmingham Post - Herald reporter. "They just flickered and then went away. It's weird." Ms. Smith, who said it was her second sighting but her first without binoculars, added that a radio station reporter spotted the UFO that same night, and that a television crew from Mobile also was at the police station when the object appeared. A gas station attendant said he saw the object flying toward nearby Geraldine. "I called the police there and told them to go outside and look, but they said they didn't see anything," Ms. Smith said. Teri Baker, co - owner of Rainsville's Weekly Post newspaper, snapped a series of four time - lapse photographs that caused a run on the issue in which it was published. "If you look at her pictures in sequence, the object moved right to left, then up," says Carey Baker, Teri's husband and co - owner of the newspaper. "What's funny about that, I believe people who saw it remembered it moving left to right, instead. Like everything else that happened up here, I don't have any idea what that meant." In one of the photos, there is an airplane coming across the sky, and because of the time - lapse photography, it looks like a piece of thread with knots tied in it, Carey Baker says. "The pattern of the light (UFO) and airplane were totally different," he says. "You can tell distinctly which is the aircraft. Its movement was a straight line, and the other object's wasn't." His only personal "out of the ordinary" experience was the time he saw a spiraling light moving across the sky. "We were fortunate enough that a fellow here videoed it," Baker says. "I thought I could probably identify the other things I saw." Baker only printed about 1 percent of the sighting reports he heard. "We tried to have some form of back - up before we went to press with a report - more than one, sometimes more than two people from different areas, or a group of people from one area that had seen basically the same thing," he explains. The sightings brought national and international media attention, too. Some of it was not very flattering. The television program "Inside Edition" aired an episode on Fyffe, but many townspeople felt it poked fun at them. Due to the number of sightings, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) visited the small community. Headquartered in Sequin, Texas, MUFON is an organization of mostly civilian volunteers who investigate UFO incidents that happen near their communities. Alabama - based MUFON volunteer Jeff Ballard spent several days in Fyffe, watching the night skies and interviewing witnesses. "At first, I thought what the people were seeing was some type of lighter - than - air military craft," says Ballard, an electrical engineer who works in Huntsville. "But when I checked, I found we're still not much farther advanced with those than we are with regular blimps." Despite a lifelong curiosity with UFOs and six years as a MUFON investigator, Ballard has yet to have a personal sighting. "The general rule is the UFOs are seen when Jeff Ballard is not," he jokes. But he takes other peoples' reports seriously, and keeps an open mind. "There were a number of sightings in Fyffe, some fairly credible," he says. "There were a lot that were of the distant light type, which are hard to pin down. They could be planets or stars. But there were sightings of a 300 - foot craft hovering silently above ground. That's hard to dismiss." He says he found the progression of events in Fyffe very interesting. "These are small - town folks who are very open," he says. "We'd talk to one person, and end up with five more interviews out of one visit. For a while, I thought we would be talking to 100 people before we were through. Then "Inside Edition" threw a wet blanket over everything. Their report was so silly. You wouldn't believe the effect it had. It changed the town's whole attitude. People got suspicious and defensive, and began to clam up with any outsider." According to Ballard, MUFON has three categories for UFO sightings - military aircraft that may be experimental; stars or planets; visitors from other worlds. "There's the distinct possibility we're being visited by aliens," he says. Admitting such a prospect is unnerving and exciting at the same time, he says he's not alone in feeling that way. "I don't know what it was," says Donna Saylor. "I'm swaying between the possibility our government is experimenting with something, and visitors from outer space. I don't rule out intelligent life from other planets. I have a harder time not giving that theory some credit, because of the unusual circumstances around here." She says the sightings are still going on, but few people report them anymore. "My attitude is that if everyone hides it for fear of ridicule, we'll never get any answers," she reasons. "If lots of people report it, the authorities have got to investigate." Chief Garmany has mixed feelings, too. "No one was able to explain what me and Fred saw," he says. "I still say it's a UFO, and nobody has been able to explain it away." Garmany believes that, while hysteria may have resulted in some of the unsubstantiated sightings, the majority of the people who called his station really saw a UFO. "I think they might have seen aircraft or something man - made in some instances," he says. "The reports were so numerous at one time, we couldn't confirm all of them. I believe the people that called us really saw something, but in some cases our situation probably turned their heads toward the skies, and they might have seen objects they really didn't see or couldn't explain." As a Fyffe businessman pointed out, a UFO is a flying object that is unidentified or unusual in its actions or flight pattern. Fyffe's flying object certainly fit that definition. One thing is for sure. The people around Fyffe watch the skies a lot more these days. Like others who have had such encounters, they continue to monitor the heavens on clear nights, as if drawn by some invisible force. "Once you see something like that, you don't ever quit watching the skies," says Mrs. Saylor. "When I'm traveling at night, if I'm not driving, I'm looking out the window and up at the skies. I'm fascinated by what might be up there." From: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk (Stig Agermose) Sender: Stig_Agermose@online.pol.dk To: updates@globalserve.net Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 11:45:35 +0200 Subject: Fyffe (Ala.) Sightings February 1989 And Still Organization: Politiken On Line X-Gateway: NASTA Gate 1.18 for FirstClass(R) Alabama Live: A 24 hour informative site just about Alabama for Alabamians all at your fingertips. Nowhere else can you find such detailed information on such a variety of topics. http://www.al.com/books/legends/ufo.html - size=BF32.1K November 29, 1997 The Winter Of The UFOs By Elaine Hobson Miller Excerpt from Myths, Mysteries and Legends of Alabama For Donna Saylor, the daylight hours of February 10, 1989, passed very pleasantly. Her sister, Cathy, and brother - in - law, Bryan, were visiting from Tennessee, and while the men fished at one of the ponds on the Saylor farm, Donna and Cathy went shopping. Their husbands caught a mess of bream for supper, and the women caught some good winter sales. About the only wrinkle in the visit was the cold Bryan developed. His nose was red and sore, his head was stopped up, and he had a terrific headache that threatened to keep him awake all night. And there was no aspirin in the house. "My sister and I went to Fyffe to the grocery store about 7 o'clock to get some Alka - Seltzer Plus," recalls Mrs. Saylor, a resident of the Grove Oak community near Fyffe, Alabama. "About 7:30, when we were two miles from our house, we saw this bright, white light in the sky just over the trees. We watched it as we drove home, and it didn't appear to be moving. We kept trying to figure out what it was." Cathy commented that it must be a street light, but Mrs. Saylor pointed out that they were on top of a mountain, in a rural area that had no street lights, and with no towns or houses any higher up than their community. Besides, the closer the women got to the object, the larger it appeared. It was not until they turned off County Road 76 onto the dirt road where the Saylors live that they realized just how big it was. "We stopped the car at a clearing at the beginning of the dirt road, about two - tenths of a mile from our house," recalls Mrs. Saylor, who had just moved into her new log home at the time. "We hadn't realized when we first spotted it that it was so close to our house. It seemed to be hovering between ours and the one across the road. It was so big, it was like viewing a satellite dish from about 50 yards away. It wasn't really round, though. It was an oblong, white light, enormously bright." An eerie stillness enveloped the women when they turned off the car's motor. Even the crickets were silent, as if listening for any sound from the sky. They heard nothing. Suddenly, the light blinked out, as if a light switch had been turned off. The object vanished, instantly and noiselessly, and without so much as a vapor trail. It left two stunned women in its invisible wake. "It just about scared my sister to death," Mrs. Saylor says. "My comment was, 'Where the heck did it go?' My sister said, 'I don't care, let's just get to the house right now.' " More aggravated than scared, Mrs. Saylor wished she had had more time to study the object. Her thoughts were jumbled as she drove the short distance to her house, but she knew she was not crazy and she had not been hallucinating, either. "When we got to the house, Cathy jumped out and ran inside to tell our husbands what we had seen," Mrs. Saylor says. "They were on the couch and in the recliner, watching television." While the men retrieved a pair of binoculars from the gun cabinet upstairs, Mrs. Saylor walked over to their pickup truck and got the two pair she and her husband used to check the livestock on the 600 - acre farm they managed. The group spotted the object again, way off in the distance. >From where they were standing, it looked like it was over Collinsville, about 20 miles southeast from Grove Oak and down off the mountain top. "In two or three minutes, it had gone that far," Mrs. Saylor says, incredulously. Passing the three pairs of binoculars around, the four took turns watching the object in the cold, clear, February sky. Although they could see the object and its colored, blinking lights without the binoculars, they could not make out its shape except through the lenses. "Everything we saw was so clear, and we watched it long enough that we had time to discuss it," Mrs. Saylor says. "It was long and had a slight curve to it, like a crescent moon. Every few minutes, it would turn, and we'd see that it had a bright light in the center, with a red light on each tip of its curve. "When it would turn, it looked like it was spraying green lights, like they were revolving around it or down its sides. We'd say, 'Oh, look, it's doing it again, can you see those green lights?' "We felt like it was turning away from us, and while it was turning, it looked like a big ball with green lights coming out of the bottom, kind of like fireworks." After staring at the object for 15 to 20 minutes, Mrs. Saylor decided to call the local police and find out whether anyone else had reported the strange light show. Five minutes after she hung up the phone, the dispatcher called Mrs. Saylor back to let her know that the police chief and assistant chief had left to check out her report, but might be delayed because they had spotted the object themselves and were following it. "She said that since I had called, she had received other calls about the lights," Mrs. Saylor says. "We were relieved about that. We knew we were seeing something, and we felt better that the police took it seriously, too." Fyffe Police Chief Junior Garmany, a 22 - year - veteran of the force, had just returned from making his early - evening rounds when the dispatcher took Mrs. Saylor's call. "Fred asked if I wanted to go with him and look for it, and I said okay," Garmany told a newspaper reporter. As Garmany and Assistant Chief Fred Works drove south on Alabama 75, their car radio started crackling. Law enforcement officers from Geraldine and Crossville, as well as the county sheriff's department, had spotted the brightly lit object, and were keeping each other informed as to its whereabouts. "It's headed your way, Junior," a voice spat out of the pastoral darkness. Garmany and Works were somewhere in the Gilbert's Crossroads area when they first spotted it, and they immediately gave chase. Twelve to 15 miles later, on County Road 43, they realized it was right up ahead of them. They stopped, turned off the engine and the radio, and got out of the patrol car. As the object approached, it seemed to be large, dark and flat. It flew right over them, without making a sound, flying so close the men could have read its identifying marks or numbers, had there been any. "We figured it was going about 300 or 400 miles an hour," Garmany told reporters. He estimated the craft's altitude at 1,500 feet. "It had three white lights along the bottom, shining up on itself." Finding the object difficult to describe, Works said it was sort of triangular - shaped. Garmany described it as more of a heart shape, or similar to a stingray. "The lights on the bottom illuminated it," he was quoted as saying. "They didn't shine down. I wasn't scared. It didn't act in an aggressive manner. If it wanted to get us, it had the drop on us. I don't know if it was from outer space, or if it was something the U.S. government was testing. But whatever it was, it wasn't a plane or a blimp or a helicopter. It was just an unidentified flying object." When comedian James Gregory says everyone who sees UFOs lives in a mobile home, he's poking fun at a stereotypical picture held by UFO skeptics. But Garmany, Works and the Saylors are not backward country hicks who have drunk too much of their own moonshine. They are sober, literate, hard - working people who saw some strange sights that they cannot fully explain. They were not alone. That same Friday night, the DeKalb County Sheriff's Department received 11 calls from excited witnesses in mountainous northeast Alabama. One such call came from a Lickskillet resident who told the dispatcher, "You better get a deputy over here quick. I don't know what it is, but it's scaring the hell out of my bird dogs." State Troopers and police officers in other DeKalb County towns also reported seeing the UFO. Like the Fyffe police, however, none of the area law enforcement agencies had an explanation. At first, they speculated about a weather balloon or a military aircraft. A check with the National Weather Service at Nashville, Tennessee, revealed that weather balloons, while sent up daily at 5 p.m. CST from various points, routinely would have burst by 7 p.m. Officials at Birmingham and Huntsville airports, Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery and at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville could add nothing to clarify the situation. The next night produced more sightings and more calls to the police. "Around the same time Saturday night, or maybe an hour later, we saw the same object again," Mrs. Saylor reveals. "Only this time, it was in the northern sky instead of to the southeast. That's when we thought it might be some kind of flight out of Huntsville, but it wasn't." Again, she called the Fyffe police. "I know you all will think I'm crazy, but we're seeing that UFO again tonight," she told the dispatcher. Fred Works and a patrolman drove out to the Saylor house, and they saw the object again, too. By this time, the Saylors had enlisted the aid of a neighbor who had a telescope, so they had an even better view. "The patrolman said it was probably a planet," Mrs. Saylor remembers. "I said that's fine, but an hour ago it was over here, and planets don't travel like that." Over the weekend, the local press called the Saylors, and a story about the sightings appeared in a Fort Payne daily on Monday. Larger newspapers picked up the story, and crowds started flocking to Fyffe in droves. Downtown took on a carnival atmosphere for the next few weeks, as UFO fever struck the small town (population 1,400) like the California gold rush. Over - enthusiastic teenage boys would whoop and point to the sky, shouting, "There it is. It's a UFO." Local entrepreneurs started selling UFO T - shirts, and one night, the local fire chief built a bonfire so people could warm their hands. By day, callers from all over the United States lit up the police department switchboard asking for directions. On Friday nights, traffic would be bumper - to - bumper, with license plates from Tennessee, Georgia, Florida and all parts of Alabama. Some nights, visitors outnumbered the locals more than two - to - one, as thousands of enthusiastic skywatchers lined the town's main thoroughfare like birds on a telephone wire. Sometimes, their vigilance was rewarded. "It was oval or round, and it had rotating lights in the center," one woman said in describing what she saw one Friday in late February. "It was hovering in the distance, with its lights changing from green to yellow or orange." Speaking for most of the people standing around her, she added, "We were all anxious and happy. Everybody was wanting to use the binoculars." It was the town's celestial mood that prompted the printing of the T - shirts, which depicted the UFO flying over a police car, with a red - haired officer pointing toward the sky. Fred Works just happens to have red hair. Several dozen shirts were sold for $10 each, with part of the proceeds going to the local fire department. Others were not so generous to the local authorities, who became the butt of several jokes. After a newspaper reporter misinterpreted Mrs. Saylor's UFO description as "banana - shaped," someone stuck Christmas tree lights into a banana and hung it by a string in the police station, right over Works's desk. "If I had known the kind of ridicule we were going to get, I'd have kept my mouth shut," said Chief Garmany. "And I'd have shot Fred if he'd opened his." About two or three months later, when she thought all the hoopla had quieted down, Donna Saylor was stunned to see the "Fyffe banana" resurface on TV's "Good Morning, America." The program broadcast a scene from a soccer game in Australia, where a stadium full of fans wore banana - shaped, foam hats with the word "Fyffe" printed across the front. "It blew my mind," Mrs. Saylor says. "I thought, 'What is this world coming to?' " Later that same day, she received several calls from radio stations in London, England, whose reporters interviewed her over the air. Patiently, she answered all their questions, but when the third station called, she could not suppress her bewilderment any longer. "I said, 'Why now? Are you that far behind on the news?' "He said, 'Ma'am, you don't understand, this is about the Fyffe banana.' "I said, 'Wait a minute,' and I corrected him about the crescent shape of the UFO. When I finished talking, he said, 'What kind of label do you have on your bananas?' "I told him Chiquita and Dole. He said the bananas in England had a label that said 'Fyffe.' That's why they were so interested in the story. I couldn't help but laugh." Over the next few weeks, at least 100 people reported seeing the UFO, some describing its white lights as "blinding." "It went over the Rodentown community where my sister lives, and she told me later that there was such a bright white light that it lit up the inside of her house and hurt her eyes," one woman told a newspaper reporter. Police dispatcher Shelia Smith saw the object one night, after a rescue squad worker called her to the front of the police station about 8 o'clock. "I couldn't see a shape, but I did see the lights - red and green," she told a Birmingham Post - Herald reporter. "They just flickered and then went away. It's weird." Ms. Smith, who said it was her second sighting but her first without binoculars, added that a radio station reporter spotted the UFO that same night, and that a television crew from Mobile also was at the police station when the object appeared. A gas station attendant said he saw the object flying toward nearby Geraldine. "I called the police there and told them to go outside and look, but they said they didn't see anything," Ms. Smith said. Teri Baker, co - owner of Rainsville's Weekly Post newspaper, snapped a series of four time - lapse photographs that caused a run on the issue in which it was published. "If you look at her pictures in sequence, the object moved right to left, then up," says Carey Baker, Teri's husband and co - owner of the newspaper. "What's funny about that, I believe people who saw it remembered it moving left to right, instead. Like everything else that happened up here, I don't have any idea what that meant." In one of the photos, there is an airplane coming across the sky, and because of the time - lapse photography, it looks like a piece of thread with knots tied in it, Carey Baker says. "The pattern of the light (UFO) and airplane were totally different," he says. "You can tell distinctly which is the aircraft. Its movement was a straight line, and the other object's wasn't." His only personal "out of the ordinary" experience was the time he saw a spiraling light moving across the sky. "We were fortunate enough that a fellow here videoed it," Baker says. "I thought I could probably identify the other things I saw." Baker only printed about 1 percent of the sighting reports he heard. "We tried to have some form of back - up before we went to press with a report - more than one, sometimes more than two people from different areas, or a group of people from one area that had seen basically the same thing," he explains. The sightings brought national and international media attention, too. Some of it was not very flattering. The television program "Inside Edition" aired an episode on Fyffe, but many townspeople felt it poked fun at them. Due to the number of sightings, the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) visited the small community. Headquartered in Sequin, Texas, MUFON is an organization of mostly civilian volunteers who investigate UFO incidents that happen near their communities. Alabama - based MUFON volunteer Jeff Ballard spent several days in Fyffe, watching the night skies and interviewing witnesses. "At first, I thought what the people were seeing was some type of lighter - than - air military craft," says Ballard, an electrical engineer who works in Huntsville. "But when I checked, I found we're still not much farther advanced with those than we are with regular blimps." Despite a lifelong curiosity with UFOs and six years as a MUFON investigator, Ballard has yet to have a personal sighting. "The general rule is the UFOs are seen when Jeff Ballard is not," he jokes. But he takes other peoples' reports seriously, and keeps an open mind. "There were a number of sightings in Fyffe, some fairly credible," he says. "There were a lot that were of the distant light type, which are hard to pin down. They could be planets or stars. But there were sightings of a 300 - foot craft hovering silently above ground. That's hard to dismiss." He says he found the progression of events in Fyffe very interesting. "These are small - town folks who are very open," he says. "We'd talk to one person, and end up with five more interviews out of one visit. For a while, I thought we would be talking to 100 people before we were through. Then "Inside Edition" threw a wet blanket over everything. Their report was so silly. You wouldn't believe the effect it had. It changed the town's whole attitude. People got suspicious and defensive, and began to clam up with any outsider." According to Ballard, MUFON has three categories for UFO sightings - military aircraft that may be experimental; stars or planets; visitors from other worlds. "There's the distinct possibility we're being visited by aliens," he says. Admitting such a prospect is unnerving and exciting at the same time, he says he's not alone in feeling that way. "I don't know what it was," says Donna Saylor. "I'm swaying between the possibility our government is experimenting with something, and visitors from outer space. I don't rule out intelligent life from other planets. I have a harder time not giving that theory some credit, because of the unusual circumstances around here." She says the sightings are still going on, but few people report them anymore. "My attitude is that if everyone hides it for fear of ridicule, we'll never get any answers," she reasons. "If lots of people report it, the authorities have got to investigate." Chief Garmany has mixed feelings, too. "No one was able to explain what me and Fred saw," he says. "I still say it's a UFO, and nobody has been able to explain it away." Garmany believes that, while hysteria may have resulted in some of the unsubstantiated sightings, the majority of the people who called his station really saw a UFO. "I think they might have seen aircraft or something man - made in some instances," he says. "The reports were so numerous at one time, we couldn't confirm all of them. I believe the people that called us really saw something, but in some cases our situation probably turned their heads toward the skies, and they might have seen objects they really didn't see or couldn't explain." As a Fyffe businessman pointed out, a UFO is a flying object that is unidentified or unusual in its actions or flight pattern. Fyffe's flying object certainly fit that definition. One thing is for sure. The people around Fyffe watch the skies a lot more these days. Like others who have had such encounters, they continue to monitor the heavens on clear nights, as if drawn by some invisible force. "Once you see something like that, you don't ever quit watching the skies," says Mrs. Saylor. "When I'm traveling at night, if I'm not driving, I'm looking out the window and up at the skies. I'm fascinated by what might be up there." To obtain this book, click here to order. Copyright 1997 Alabama Live LLC All rights reserved. Copyright 1997 Alabama Live LLC All rights reserved.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Solved Abduction Cases? From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:04:11 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:49:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:34:16 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Steven Kaeser <steve@konsulting.com> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >>Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:02:12 +0000 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction Cases? >>>From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereaux] >>>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:53 -0500 (EST) >>>To: updates@globalserve.net >>>Subject: Solved Abduction Cases? >>>>>Ufology is now two generations old in its present form.... >>>>In my understanding a generation is fifty years, taking it that >>>>"modern" ufology started with Kenneth Arnold, how do you make >>>>it two generations?? >>>So if I am 50, and my son is 25, then we are the same generation? >>Paul if you are an archaeologist as you claim you will know that >>when a "generation" is referred to is means fifty years. >I am not an archaeologist, and also not quite 50 (but too close >for comfort), and have never heard that a generation is defined >as 50 years. If you could quote a source on that, it would be >interesting. >There may well be an accepted definition involved here, but it's >not listed as such in "The American Heritage Dictionary". The >closest that I could find was "5. The average time interval >between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring". >However, I would add that the definition for "generation gap" is >probably more relevant, and is defined as "The differences in >values and attitudes between one generation and the next, esp. a >generation of adolescents and that of their parents." Given the >metamorphosis that UFOlogy has gone through in the past 50 years >in regard to changes in how it is generally viewed, IMHO there >may be several "generation gaps" that could be identified. Hi Steven The term "generation" when applied to generations of ancestors comes, believe it or not from the bible. Back in the days of the old testament God gave man a life of "three score years and ten". I'm not eactly sure why twenty years has been knocked off , probably something to do with your first tens years are growing (up) and your last ten years are in retirement. Who knows? But in ancient terms a generation was the average useful life span of a man ( sorry ladies but the bible is horrendously sexist in places). This of course does not mean that two generations cannot exist at once, as Paul correctly pointed out both him and his son are alive today so there is in effect two generations alive and co-existing. The generation gap on the other hand is a fairly recent expression, (from the sixties I belive) and it refers to about twenty to twenty five years. -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | steve |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Debunker's Bogus Explanations From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:10:48 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:51:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Debunker's Bogus Explanations >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:07:12 +0100 (MET) >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hundreds of them..... >>>Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:57:44 +0000 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> >>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hundreds of them..... >>>22) Abnormal weather conditions >>29) Weather Balloons >>30) Venus >>31) The source is a fruitcake >32) Geese >33) American White Pelicans >34) Jupiter >35) Triangular balloons (sometimes with supersonic capability) >36) American secret aircraft >37) Atmospheric diffractions >38) Lies >38) Convoluted memories I'm sorry Henny but 32 and 33 are the same *birds*. <G> and 37 is the same as 22) Abnormal weather conditions, although for you I might change it to 22) Anomolous weather conditions But you have list two reason with the same number 38) which are both the same thing anyway so I'll let you off <huge G> -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:38:37 +0000 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:58:01 -0500 Subject: Re: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis >From: DevereuxP@aol.com [Paul Devereux] >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:15:19 -0500 (EST) >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: That Ol' Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis Paul you are long-winded..... >Having said that, yes, indeed, I did see a craft, in the early >1950s. You'll recall that it appeared and disappeared >anomalously, but when 'present' it could be seen by a friend and >I as seemingly very physical in appearance. It was a >dirigible-type airship of huge proportions. I could see the >ribbing in the sunlight, the gondola and the steering tackle in >detail. It was a several hundred feet up in the air, about half a >mile away. But not only did it disappear oddly, there was also no >such craft flying in Britain >at that time. Paul, who apart from you has researched this case? >(Also, as an aside here, geophysical phenomena can look like >metallic disks and even lumps in the daylight sky too - so these >are another phenomena that might get mixed in with some genuine >sightings of this even more exotic kind. There is also a pitch >black aeroform, that I suspect is linked with earth lights >phenomena.) Is this your argument for why (in your opinion) earth lights are the cause of most if not all of the "unexplained" ufo sightings? >This is bad logic. The ETH doesn't have to be disproven. It has >to be proven. I disagree, logic has nothing to do with it. An argument has to be proven or disproven to be proved valid. That is a logical answer. >Phenomena like earth lights that can be as big as a house, that >have been photographed dozens of times, that have caused >radar-visual effects, that can last for over an hour, that have >been seen emerging from the ground, that have yielded >instrumental results, etc., etc., cannot be dismissed as not >having much to do with ufology. Not by anyone remotely claiming >to be a ufological researcher. (Different rules apply for >believers.) It is as simple as that. I doubt that anyone on this list would argue that it is not a valid phenomenom but it does not explain the majority of unexplained ufo cases like you seem to think that it does. >But I am not aware I have ever said we should disregard >high-strangeness cases. If I did, it was a slip. We all make slips Paul. >I entered a fully-3-Dimensional space, and I could touch objects >in my environment, and feel their texture. I knew who I was, I >had full memory of my life up to that point, and all my senses >were working. In other words, the experience was as 'real' as any >I have had in normal waking consciousness. I approached a >humanoid entity from behind, to within about 20 feet. It was clad >in a one-piece tunic. It was engaged in some activity. I did not >want it to turn round and see me, because at that time I was >uneasy about a confrontation, and so I quietly moved away. This also could be discribed as an abduction, I am not saying it is, only that it could be discribed as one. >So where was I? I was in a mental state that had been >deliberately induced by manipulation of my REMs. I was neither >asleep nor hallucinating, but rather my entire sensorium was >*replaced* by another as completely realistic as the one I call >my waking consciousness. How do you *know* this Paul? >So -- the abduction phenomenon is being heavily worked on, but >outside the ufological frame. Indeed, one of my projects is to >abduct an alien! I wish you the very best of luck with this endeavour Paul. >Good for you. Excellent. First class. Nice to see that you can give out compliments as well as insults Paul. >And do please try to >understand that I am attempting to coax ufological thinking into >some deeper areas, so we may yet get a grip on the "core" mystery >as you perceive it. I don't think that you come across like that Paul, perhaps you might want to try a different approach. >Ufology really does need a revamp, you know. Perhaps the first step could be forming a "qualification" that validates a person to call themselves a Ufologist/UFO researcher?? >Anyhow. Thank you, Geoff, for your thoughtful questions and views, >and civil manner. This is the way to conduct debate. You could do with taking a leaf out of your own book here Paul. >Best wishes, >Paul Devereux the same to you. -- Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! Sean Jones reply to--sean@tedric.demon.co.uk Homepage--http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/1745/index.htm Reasearch page --http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/ Search for other documents from or mentioning: tedric | devereuxp |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Video Evidence 'Valueless'? From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 09:09:06 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:03:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Video Evidence 'Valueless'? >Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 09:19:00 -0500 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >From: Bob Shell <bob@bobshell.com> >Subject: Video evidence valueless >There is a very interesting article in the November issue of Advanced >Imaging magazine. (Page 59). <snip> >After this, a virtual camera can traverse the generated model, >executing entirely new camera moves, at a new focal length, >optionally different tilt........." >This means that just about any motion sequence could be generated >with this program, and if done properly would be undetectable as >an artificial sequence. This message by Bob Shell shows that complete "convincing" fakery methods/hardware/software is available to anyone who wishes to become rich and famous by showing UFOS, reconstructing the death of JFK or showing Clinton "doing it" with an alien. As far as UFOs are concerned, imagery of any kind photo, movie, video, has rarely, if ever been sufficient proof of the unexplainable. It all falls back on the witnesses.... unless there is some very sophisticated physics captured in the imagery, which would not have been known to a hoaxer. At any rate, the ability to create convincing fakes (each year, more convincing) amounts to throwing more rocks in the path toward the truth.... it takes time to climb around the rocks but we do it! So, if anyone sends me an electronic fake... or even a real...anonymously, I hope they don't expect much action from me. If a hoaxer wants to go the whole 9 yards and provide a story along with the fake, he/she had better be prepared forn a long and thorough grilling, complete with life story, etc. THE BETTER IT IS THE HARDER I LOOK..... and I take my time... investigations can last weeks, months, even years. So, if you've got a lot of $$$ invested in a fake, you better be able to wave it bye bye.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 UFO Forum chats with Ufologist/writer Greg Sandow From: "Yvonne Hedenland" <VONNI_H@classic.msn.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 97 17:37:00 UT Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:04:00 -0500 Subject: UFO Forum chats with Ufologist/writer Greg Sandow Join MSNs UFO Forum with Ufologist/writer Greg Sandow, Tuesday, December 2nd, 6pm, PT. This chat is available at http://forums.msn.com/UFO. Sandow has provided the UFO Forum with a never before published article regarding his journalistic investigation into the world of Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and abductees. You can find this article by taking the link to the Guest chat announcement from the top page. The Briefing Room chat can also be accessed by any IRC client. The chat server name is publicchat.msn.com and the room or channel name is #briefing.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: FYI - Boylan Wriggling From: ufo1@juno.com [Jack Sargeant] Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 14:21:23 EST Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: Re: FYI - Boylan Wriggling On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:54:03 -0500 UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> writes: >Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo sent the following, yesterday. It is >posted for your information only and for follow-up posts from >subscribers who were involved with the Boylan posts in the early >days of this List and over on Fido's UFO & Odyssey/BAMA. >(Ed. Stewart, John Powell, Don Allen & John Velez) >Geoffrey's heart is in place - I'm not sure about his >access to _all_ the information regarding Boylan's 'Case'. >The Boylan Ban still applies on this List - none of his >messages will be posted - no Boylan-based discussion. >For further info see: >Boylan loses license to practice psychotherapy. Reports >in Sacramento Press, Aug. 7, 1995 at: >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/license.txt >California Board of Psychology report detailing Boylan's >license revocation at: >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/revoke.txt >You can also check out the reasons for the Boylan Ban >starting at: >http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/ >Errol Bruce-Knapp, >Moderator. Greetings to the list and Errol. As current moderator of Fido UFO, and also having an involvement with BAMA, I can assure you Richard Boylan remains banned from both Fido echoes. Mr. Boylan's removal from practice goes a lot deeper than his excuse of harassment. The outcome of his appeals will not affect his status on either Fido echo. Sincerely, Jack Sargeant
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:52:09 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 15:21:06 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:14:02 PST >To: updates@globalserve.net >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >> >Bob, >> >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, >> >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly >> >endorses occult and demonological notions which no >> >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility >> >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO >> >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses >> >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- >> >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven >> >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific >> >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with >> >medieval speculation about demons, unless one >> >believes late 20th century science is in no significant >> >manner different from 12th century theology. >> >Jerry Clark <Comments by Mike snipped> >Mike, >You make a good point. In fact, fundamentalist >Christian writers on UFOs often cite Keel's work, >and he gets quoted not infrequently in such >literature. Of course such writers ignore Keel's >further assertion that God is just another ultra- >terrestrial. >I have no quarrel with anybody's religious beliefs >so long as I'm not being compelled to agree with >them. Of course Keel is not propounding religious >doctrine but offering what is supposed to be a >serious hypothesis about the nature of anomalous >and paranormal phenomena. In that secular >context his ideas are profoundly irrational and >deeply paranoid. >Jerry Clark Keel's medieval keep is no doubt without a computer and modem (for all I know it may not even have running water and electricity), so permit be a brief response in the old man's "behalf." As illogical as it might appear at first glance, the "problem" with Keel's theory is not that it is the product of an irrational and paranoid mind, but that it takes UFO accounts literally and tries to find an overarching theory to explain every aspect of the phenomenon. The search for underlying factors, or commonalities, is known as phenomenology, and it's the same approach Vallee ultimately applied to the phenomenon, thus mystifying his critics after the appearance of his first two "classic" scientific treatments of the subject. Vallee, too, took eyewitness accounts literally, even when they began to include a growing variety of seemingly physical impossibilities -- such as the ability to change shapes, beam people through solid objects, appear larger on the inside than exterior dimensions would indicate, associated paranormal effects (psychokinesis, telepathy, etc.), and so on. When the infamous Dr. X told investigators that he saw two UFOs float down the valley in front of his house, shooting out sparks and beams of light (one of which healed an old war injury), merge together and disappear in a fireworks display, one's options are relatively limited. One can assume that the witness is making most (or all of it) up, merely misperceived mundane phenomena, or is literally telling the truth as best he could. Once you adopt the (in my opinion incautious) latter approach, even the ETH is going to have a terrifically difficult time making sense of the good doctor's alleged experiences (of which the above are only the half of same). My point is that the "conservative ETH" is largely a hypothesis in name only; when the ETH is actually excercised in practice, it's used to gloss over a whole host of grievous scientific "sins." In other words, the aliens are endowed with every god- (or demon)like ability in the book. At the same time, while possessed of all these miraculous technological advances (FTL travel, transporters, invisibility, etc.), the picture that emerges from mainstream abduction research is of a frail species on the verge of decline, if not extinction, needful of human genetic material -- as if their scientists, each of whom is to Einstein as Einstein is to a Neanderthal, couldn't create or manufacture genetic material on their own. Philosophically and/or logically, in other words, at least two "givens" of the hell-on-wheels ETH are diametrically opposed to one another. Put another way: the gods of the air (who abduct humans at will and with impunity) have been revealed to have feet of clay. If I didn't know better, I'd almost be inclined to believe that such a hypothesis was the product of profoundly irrational and deeply paranoid minds. Don't take that personally, Jerry, unless you're feeling particularly paranoid at the time you read this. I'm not referring to your expression of the ETH, of course, just to that of mainstream ufology, you know, the sort of ufology that issues major titles like "The Threat" -- nothing paranoid there! In fact, as far as any self-respecting phenomenologist is concerned, Jacobs wouldn't necessarily be any "righter" or "wronger" than Keel. True, he might have identified the mechanism a little more accurately, but the reality of the situation, in either case, would be that we're presently under invasion by gods/demons/aliens, the planet's inhabitants are being routinely kidnapped and abused, and there is absolutely nothing either you or I (or the Air Force) can do about it. If ET actually turns out to be the culprit, then Keel simply fingered the wrong suspect. Other than that -- phenomenologically speaking, of course -- he and Jacobs occupy the same world. Phenomenologically, the "message" is the same, and so are any implied consequences. The difference is that if a Jacobs alien abducts you some night and slaps on the old Mindscan, you'll be able to say: "See, I told you that Keel guy was a nutter!" Under the circumstances, that may be the only (small) consolation you'll have. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: Boylan Wriggles From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:24:22 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:24:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Boylan Wriggles I don't usually quote Shep Gordon, but I found this one this afternoon on alt.paranet.ufo: ebk ______________________________________________________ From: sheppard.gordon@relaynet.org (SHEPPARD GORDON) 5:54, November 29, 1997 Subject: Boylan = Frager Richard Boylan is using the alias of "smcqueen@cyberhighway.net, RHD RICHARD X FRAGER" to press his idiotic, conspiratorial views. Boylan, for those who don't know, is a psychologist who lost his license in California for unprofessional, unbecoming conduct -- former patients testified that he urged them to engage in nude hot tub sessions with him, and one that he traded therapy for massages in which he explained that it was okay if she touched his genitals. Boylan has also accused me of actually being multiple "intelligence agents" set out to "destroy" him, and claimed in 1992 that a "triangulation" hit team of government agents attempted to murder him in the Southwest (yet, perplexingly, chose nevertheless to allow him to live these subsequent 5 years). Now we see Boylan hiding behind an alias as part of a pathetic self-promotion campaign. Search for other documents from or mentioning: sheppard.gordon |
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 29 Re: FYI - Boylan Wriggling From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:23:33 -0500 Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:23:33 -0500 Subject: Re: FYI - Boylan Wriggling Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:07:23 -0800 From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: FYI - Boylan Wriggling Hello Errol and List members, UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote: > Geoffrey Stewart Nimmo sent the following, yesterday. It is > posted for your information only and for follow-up posts from > subscribers who were involved with the Boylan posts in the early > days of this List and over on Fido's UFO & Odyssey/BAMA. > (Ed. Stewart, John Powell, Don Allen & John Velez) > For further info see: > Boylan loses license to practice psychotherapy. Reports > in Sacramento Press, Aug. 7, 1995 at: > http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/license.txt > California Board of Psychology report detailing Boylan's > license revocation at: > http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/revoke.txt > You can also check out the reasons for the Boylan Ban > starting at: > http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/b/boylan/ > Errol Bruce-Knapp, > Moderator. Attached is an integral part of the public record that people interested in this matter should be aware of. It is the ruling decision by Superior Court Judge Cecil on Boylan's appeal. Boylan for whatever reasons of his own has zero mention of going before the Superior Court of the State of California on his "open letter" for money, support and sympathy. I would appreciate the widest dispersal of this attached file. It is a public record very much germaine to why Boylan is no longer allowed his licenses to practice within the state. Included are also the news coverage of this sordid case. boylanap.txt Superior Court of the State of California ruling boylan3a.txt TV-CH 3 Reports on Superior Court ruling boylansb.txt Sacramento BEE newspaper update on Boylan case Ed Stewart ps. when I first loaded the above into Fidonet, Boylan accused me of duplicity in posting false misleading documents and charged that the above decision was not a final one or even SIGNED by the Judge. Consequently, I posted the following GIF files of the three pages that constituted the actual document. Clearly, one can see that the original document was signed by Judge Thomas Cecil and that my text rendition was accurate as per the originals. Those files for your inspection are: boylan01.gif, boylan02.gif, and boylan03.gif -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stewart egs@netcom.com | So Man, who here seems principal alone, There is Something | Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown. Going On! ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal, Salvador Freixedo ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole. --------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man ------- THE SUPERIOR AND MUNICIPAL COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ------------------- RICHARD J. BOYLAN, PH.D. ENDORSED Petitioner FEB -8 1996 By R. ROUSE, Deputy MEDICAL BOARD OF CA, ------------------- BBSE, DCA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Respondents DECISION ON SUBMITTED MATTER Case No. 95CS02187 This Petition for Writ of Mandate came on regularly for hearing on January 19, 1996, in Department 7 of the Sacramento Superior Court, the Honorable Thomas M. Cecil presiding. Petitioner was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Richard S. Linkert. Repondents were represented by counsel, Mr. Arthur D. Taggart. The matter was argued and deemed submitted. For reasons set forth below, as well as those stated during the hearing of January 19, 1996, the Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied. This Petition was filed under the authority of section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is undisputed that vested rights of petitioner are at stake. Accordingly, this court has reviewed the administrative record and exercised its independent judgment. With the exception of one of respondents' findings, the court has determined that the findings are supported by the weight of the evidence. Specifically, the court finds the evidence relative to Determination of issue II insufficient. With regard to each of the other Determinations found true by the ALJ (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10), the court finds the evidence in support overwhelming. Further, separate from the issue of whether evidence in support of the acts comprising the Determination of issues was presented, the court specifically notes that in each instance, expert testimony was presented in support of these determinations. Petitioner's contrary assertion is not supported by the record. 1 Petitioner accurately asserts that basic concepts of due process requires certainty and clarity of the accusations being filed as well as the need for fundamental fairness in the hearing process. Contrary to petitioner's assertions, however, the court finds no prejudice occasioned by the amendments to the accusation. Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to address the amendments with the presentation of his evidence and in cross examining respondents' witnesses. In his moving papers as well as during oral arguments on January 19, petitioner referred to the "thrust" or "focus" of respondents case, asserting that the resulting "moving target" was constitutionally defective and required reversal of the administrative decision. As already noted, the record demonstrates that petitioner was afforded substantial leeway in terms of responding to changes made to the accusation. Moreover, the mere fact that petitioner misconstrued the "focus" or "thrust" of respondent's case, does not diminish or negate the end product. It is commonplace for arguments originally envisioned to be "winners" to be tossed aside during the course of trial. Concepts or tactics first deemed unwise often blossom before the eyes of the litigants. In no respect does this court find any violation of the due process rights of petitioner nor has petitioner been able to demonstrate any prejudice stemming from the amendments to the accusation. Petitioner takes issue with the "delay" in pursuing the complaint originally lodged with BOP by KG. It should be noted that KG advised the board of her inability to go forward - alone. It appears that the BOP acceded to her wish until such time as additional complaints were filed against the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is unable to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay. Lastly, petitioner has challenged the level of discipline ordered by the boards. It is well-established that a penalty determination will not be disturbed by a reviewing court absent a finding of a manifest abuse of discretion. The fact that reasonable minds could differ as to the propriety and necessity of a given sanction is insufficient justification to overturn a penalty decision. The court concurs with the analysis of respondents, both legally and factually as set out in respondents' Points & Authorities in Opposition. Moreover, notwithstanding petitioner's efforts to demonstrate that he poses no risk to the public, his own "Responsive Brief" forcefully reinforces the position of _respondents_. Petitioner consistently references the notion that his patients "misconstrued" his intent, or that it was "misunderstood", or that the risk was "minimal." 2 Obviously, petitioner holds licenses that confer upon him substantial obligations. His chosen professions require that he exercise good judgment, respect his patients' feelings and their needs. Contrary to the position of petitioner, this court finds almost no evidence of insight into the inappropriateness of his conduct. To the extent that it exists, it appears to relate solely to the potential ramifications on his licenses rather than an acknowledgement of misconduct or grossly inappropriate behavior. Petitioner does not comprehend what all of the experts clearly understood. Petitioner continues to assert that this case is about his beliefs in alien encounters. It is not. Petitioner fails to grasp the significance of the expert testimony and the findings as to matters completely unrelated to aliens. Petitioner's conduct was outrageous, especially in the light of the underlying reasons for treating these particular patients. His conduct fell well below the standard of care expected of his professions and constituted gross negligence. Revocations are appropriate. Respondent is directed to prepare an appropriate order in accord with this decision, obtain approval as to form from petitioner's counsel and submit it to this Court. Dated: 2-8-96 [handwritten] By: [signature] --------------------------- Thomas M. Cecil Judge of the Superior Court [Superior Court County of Sacramento, California] seal 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHANNEL 3 REPORTS - 6PM NEWS February 16, 1996 - KCRA-TV Sacramento CA Sarah Gardner Reporting: And a Superior Court Judge has ruled Dr. Richard Boylan will never get back his license to practice psychology. Boylan lost his license last August on seven counts of gross misconduct. They include nude hot tubbing and exchanging nude massages with people he was suppose to be treating. The 56-year-old Boylan claimed he was being persecuted for his beliefs in UFOs, but the judge said Boylan's conduct was outrageous and Boylan's UFO story was simply irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SACRAMENTO BEE Saturday, March 23, 1996 Section B, METRO, Page B1 Update: The Follow-Up Report "Psychologist Loses Bid To Regain His License" *THEN: In 1993, Sacramento clinical psychologist Richard J. Boylan was sued by three patients. They alleged that Boylan, president of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association, had used his belief in extraterrestrial life and UFOs to diagnose and treat their emotional problems. The women claimed Boylan's counseling left them dependent upon him as a "father-like figure," and that he asked them to sit with him nude in hot tubs and join him in nude exercises. Boylan denied the sexual allegations and defended his therapy as meeting acceptable standards.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:47:51 +0100 (MET) Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 08:58:09 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:22:21 -0800 (PST) >From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 17:46:58 +0100 (MET) >> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >> From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl> >> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] >> Guys, >> There is no proof whatsoever that the US is the focal >> point for alien abductions, whatever they are. Unless >> a comparative study is done, involving countries such >> as the USA, Brazil, France, Togo, Pakistan and Japan, >> we know nothing. >> What I know is that here in the Netherlands there >> is an abduction therapist who has 80 abduction >> cases. I have read a book by German writers Lammer and >> Sidla that mentions German children who claim to be >> abducted who recognize the little grays. Meanwhile >> abduction reports come in from technological countries >> like Australia and the UK as well as underdeveloped >> Colombia and stone age Papua New Guinea, where they >> will probably rather buy a few sets of underwear >> before they'll settle before their first television >> tubes with a bag of popcorn. I.e. no media contamination >> there and no "Americana". >> While the American mass media have spread the word about >> the abduction situation in the US, the reverse was not >> true so far. >Hello Henny, > >You're right, the proof isn't there, and these were just my >impressions. Have you any UFO patron there like our Robert >Bigelow here in the U.S. who might fund a very similar poll that >would ferret out UFO abductees? >Jim Deardorff Jim, Sorry for the delay. I was thinking how can I answer this question without opening a king size can of worms. I won't, not because I am not willing to, but I don't have the time now. The short anwer to your question is 'no'. __________________________________________ / Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \ Henny van der Pluijm hvdp@worldonline.nl Technology Pages http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp \______________________________________/
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:17:17 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:13:25 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:52:09 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > As illogical as it might appear at first glance, the "problem" > with Keel's theory is not that it is the product of an irrational > and paranoid mind, but that it takes UFO accounts literally and > tries to find an overarching theory to explain every aspect of > the phenomenon. > The search for underlying factors, or commonalities, is known as > phenomenology, and it's the same approach Vallee ultimately > applied to the phenomenon, thus mystifying his critics after the > appearance of his first two "classic" scientific treatments of > the subject. Vallee, too, took eyewitness accounts literally, > even when they began to include a growing variety of seemingly > physical impossibilities -- such as the ability to change shapes, > beam people through solid objects, appear larger on the inside > than exterior dimensions would indicate, associated paranormal > effects (psychokinesis, telepathy, etc.), and so on. Actually, my understanding of phenomenology is that it simply sets aside any interest in the objective reality of a particular phenomenon. It is neither hostile to an objective reality nor supportive - but simply considers it irrelevant. As I understand it, the fundamental postulate is something like " if people believe it exists, they will act like it exists, and therefore it might as well exist." The problem with this is that it also makes the idea of "proof" or any other epistemological process irrelevant. Phenomenology in this sense is a philosophy more well suited to the sociology of UFO reports than to determining objective existence, uncovering physical properties, or analyzing the veracity of accounts. As Haines [1980] points out in "Observing UFOs", we not only have to contend with the possibility of the witness misperceiving a conventional phenomenon as a UFO, but we also have to contend with the possibility of a witness misperceiving an actual unconventional phenomenon, such as a UFO, due to the novelty of the perceptual input, and the lack of categories for matching incoming perceptions. Thus, as the reports become stranger, we must become more and more cautious in verification and acceptance. The problem with Keel, Vallee, and for that matter, Fort, is one which Vallee is aware of but doesn't always apply: just because two things are strange doesn't mean that they are the same thing, are generated by the same cause, or have any connection whatsoever. Vallee has asserted the presence of telekinetic and telepathic aftereffects from UFO encounters - but has never, to my knowledge, scientifically substantiated any of those. > When the infamous Dr. X told investigators that he saw two UFOs > float down the valley in front of his house, shooting out sparks > and beams of light (one of which healed an old war injury), merge > together and disappear in a fireworks display, one's options are > relatively limited. One can assume that the witness is making > most (or all of it) up, merely misperceived mundane phenomena, or > is literally telling the truth as best he could. The Dr. X case is certainly fascinating, but let's keep in mind a few cautions. First, the case is a single witness case. Thus, according to Hynek, it can never be accorded more than a probability of 3. That doesn't mean ignore it, but it does mean: don't weight it heavily - especially when it represents a seldom repeated part of the UFO pattern. Second, we do not have access to the witness or the witness medical records, so there are a number of things we can't verify about the supposed healing. Third, we do have an apparently unusual "merging" of the objects. But we cannot be sure if the witness correctly perceived this. For instance, could the objects have passed behind each other? Could some sort of lighting distortion made it appear that there were two objects? Is there no technological explanation (such as a holographic image) which is as or more credible in light of current knowledge than a paranormal explanation? Fourth, the objects may have disappeared, or they may simply have accelerated too fast to be observed, especially given that the witness was blinded by a bright beam of light prior to the object departure (night vision reset under those conditions certainly would not be rapid). Of all the medical evidence, that of the triangular rash is certainly the most compelling. But it is hardly unusual. We have similar accounts all across the UFO literature. Most of them are attributable to radiation of one sort or another. There are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of UFO reports. Of these, relatively few suggest any paranormality. Of those, some percentage are of questionable veracity, some represent sufficient strangeness to potentially represent misperception of a very unusual phenomenon (not necessarily paranormal), and a very few are extremely strange and suggest no immediate answers. Given this fact, I consider it best to concentrate on the core of the UFO phenomenon - the kind of reports which make up the bulk of the UFO phenomenon as we know it. We can't ignore the "paranormal" cases, but neither should they receive abnormal weight. Cases such as the Dr. X case are interesting, but they do not yet represent material sufficiently compelling that we should overthrow the entire edifice of modern knowledge in favor of a non-objective universe or paranormal phenomena. > Once you adopt the (in my opinion incautious) latter approach, > even the ETH is going to have a terrifically difficult time > making sense of the good doctor's alleged experiences (of which > the above are only the half of same). As a fiction writer, I can easily come up with any number of reasonably plausible "technological" and perceptual psychology-based explanations which could make an ETH or at least non-paranormal kind of sense out of the case, some of which I have outlined above. Let's see what we have to explain: 1) Two UFOs with light beams from the bottom. 2) The two UFOs appear to merge into one. 3) The "merged" or remaining object swings its base up toward the witness and the light beam hits the witness, at which point the object disappears. 4) The witness discovers that a hematoma has been healed and the effects of an old war wound (right hemiparesis) have been eliminated. 1) is not unusual in the context of the UFO phenomenon and does not require a paranormal explanation. ETH would contend that these were physical objects, piloted or unpiloted, of a technological nature, from an extraterrestrial source. 2)There are several possibilities: a) The objects did indeed merge together and both were physical solid objects prior to merging. This would indeed be extraordinary. b) One of the objects was an image, while the other was a solid object. The flashes between the two objects represented the physical object maintaining the image. c) Or, the non-physical object was generated on a "mirror/lens" that was a side effect caused by the object's propulsive or protective system. The merging, which occurred after the second object had moved even with the side of the first object (from behind) was simply the projection moving in front of the physical object. d) Neither object was physical - they were both images created from some other source. e) The second object moved back behind the first, but the witness incorrectly interpreted this as merging, due to the unusual lighting conditions, the lack of distance referents, and the intense rain which was occurring during the sighting. Of course, none of these explanations except (a) are paranormal, and any of (b)-(e) are compatible with ETH or weaker hypothesis. 3) Again, this is hardly unusual in the UFO literature. Many reports contend that the object "disappeared", but as Paul Hill pointed out, it is not accurate to say (as Vallee does in "The Invisible College") that the object dematerialized or otherwise vanished. As Haines points out, this contention is particularly suspect at night, when a UFO has simply to become non-luminous to "disappear". Or, one can contend that the object simply departed with the required speed while the witness was momentarily blinded by the light beam. 4) The disappearance of a hematoma is not necessarily medically inexplicable. Since we do not know the size of the hematoma, we cannot determine if the hematoma might have disappeared through some unusual stress effect, a radiation effect, or through some other cause. As for the hemiparesis, we do not know the cause of the problem in the witness. Some references indicate that stroke, brain blood vessel calcification, or even virus activity can cause hemiparesis. It may also be, since the hemiparesis was the effect of a war wound, that there was no organic cause, and that it simply was at least partly psychosomatic. Without access to more detailed medical information it is hard to assert that its cure is "miraculous". But let's say it actually happened and there is no known medical explanation. What would an ETH say about it? I would suspect it would lean toward a radiation effect of some kind. > My point is that the "conservative ETH" is largely a hypothesis > in name only; when the ETH is actually excercised in practice, > it's used to gloss over a whole host of grievous scientific > "sins." In other words, the aliens are endowed with every god- > (or demon)like ability in the book. At the same time, while > possessed of all these miraculous technological advances (FTL > travel, transporters, invisibility, etc.), the picture that > emerges from mainstream abduction research is of a frail species > on the verge of decline, if not extinction, needful of human > genetic material -- as if their scientists, each of whom is to > Einstein as Einstein is to a Neanderthal, couldn't create or > manufacture genetic material on their own. Philosophically and/or > logically, in other words, at least two "givens" of the > hell-on-wheels ETH are diametrically opposed to one another. Put > another way: the gods of the air (who abduct humans at will and > with impunity) have been revealed to have feet of clay. Some ETH proponents accept abductions, and some even accept them uncritically. Others reject them. Again, any reasonably good fiction writer could provide scenarios for the apparent contradiction between advanced "craft" engineering and much less sophisticated medical work on humans, including: 1) Humans only deserve veterinary level treatment. 2) The aliens did not engineer the vehicles, but obtain them from a technologically more sophisticated species. 3) The aliens find human pain and suffering entertaining and / or instructive. I would say however, speaking only for myself, that the jury is still out on the validity of any particular abduction experience as one which is objective and caused by the same source as more conventional UFO reports. In summary, I remain unconvinced that the paranormal hypothesis is justified by the best UFO data. And I am not prepared to reject evaluative criteria and accept any report at face value. By the same token, ETH represents a potentially valid framework. And it _is_ a hypothesis, since it predicts: 1) UFOs are physically solid technological objects. 2) UFOs are controlled, piloted or used by animate intelligent beings. 3) UFOs have come from some physical source at a distance from earth. Of the three, there are numerous physical trace cases which testify to the validity of (1). These include landing traces which indicate weight and contact with the object either directly by touch, or indirectly by the use of rocks, bullets, or radar. There are numerous occupant cases which testify to the validity of (2). Some of these include physical traces by occupants, including apparent footprints and injury to witnesses. Only (3) remains undemonstrated, since we do not have any unambiguous cases of UFOs outside the atmosphere of earth, nor, though UFOs frequently arrive and depart from the sky, do we have any unambiguous indication that they are based in space. Anti-ETH proponents recognize these as the fundamental supports of the ETH. Thus, the attempts to use reports of merging or separating objects as proof of non-solidity, and the attempts to claim occupants and abductions as mental (subjective) phenomena. Short of successfully accomplishing disproof of (1) and (2), PNH (paranormal hypothesis) adherents must contend that UFOs look like products of the ETH, but that this appearance is simply a ruse. That, in fact, the UFO source is simulating ETH-style UFOs for some other purpose. Unfortunately, this is a much less productive avenue than disproving solidity and occupants. Why? Because once one ventures down this path, one can multiply deception in any desired direction. A final avenue which PNH supporters often take is to look for cases which are anomalous and on the fringes of the UFO phenomenon. As I have shown in another essay, this style is often used by Keel, for instance with regard to the famous Mothman. Despite the fact that Mothman was never seen entering or leaving a UFO, or that most UFO occupants lack the distinguishing characteristics of Mothman (wings, glowing red eyes, apparent "headlessness"), Keel asserts that the unusual Mothman events must be related to UFOs, because UFO sightings occurred in the area around the same time as Mothman sightings. Yet we can all respect the possibility that correlation in time (within wide limits) does not represent causation or a mutual source. I think that if PNH proponents consider their alternative to be a better one than ETH, they need to demonstrate that with better and stronger predictions, and these should be predictions which are such that, if they are demonstrated, ETH _must_ be false. ------ Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman - Original digital art, writing, and UFO research - Author of SF novels available at... http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront ------
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:46:35 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:16:53 -0500 Subject: Re: [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:52:09 -0600 (CST) > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy] > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark] > >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:14:02 PST > >To: updates@globalserve.net > >Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c > >> >Bob, > >> >If you're not endorsing John Keel's half-baked ideas, > >> >you ought not to be using his vocabulary. Keel explicitly > >> >endorses occult and demonological notions which no > >> >post-Enlightenment thinker would find of any utility > >> >whatever in trying to make sense of what the UFO > >> >phenomenon is about. As I said, nobody endorses > >> >the use of theory-driven words (whether ET or ultra- > >> >terrestrial) in anything other than hypothesis-driven > >> >discourse. In any case, I would not equate scientific > >> >speculation about the possible nature of ET life with > >> >medieval speculation about demons, unless one > >> >believes late 20th century science is in no significant > >> >manner different from 12th century theology. > >> >Jerry Clark > <Comments by Mike snipped> > >Mike, > >You make a good point. In fact, fundamentalist > >Christian writers on UFOs often cite Keel's work, > >and he gets quoted not infrequently in such > >literature. Of course such writers ignore Keel's > >further assertion that God is just another ultra- > >terrestrial. > >I have no quarrel with anybody's religious beliefs > >so long as I'm not being compelled to agree with > >them. Of course Keel is not propounding religious > >doctrine but offering what is supposed to be a > >serious hypothesis about the nature of anomalous > >and paranormal phenomena. In that secular > >context his ideas are profoundly irrational and > >deeply paranoid. > >Jerry Clark > Keel's medieval keep is no doubt without a computer and modem > (for all I know it may not even have running water and > electricity), so permit be a brief response in the old man's > "behalf." > As illogical as it might appear at first glance, the "problem" > with Keel's theory is not that it is the product of an irrational > and paranoid mind, but that it takes UFO accounts literally and > tries to find an overarching theory to explain every aspect of > the phenomenon. Sorry to butt into this discussion, but since Keel isn't able to defend himself, I felt I had to say a few things in his defence (I don't know him, I've only read some of his books). Isn't it much more irrational to uncategorically state that Keel has an irrational and paranoid mind? Has this been proven? Are you a psychiatrist? Have you done the appropriate tests? Or are you trying to brainwash people to think that they are paranoid just for encompassing some of Keel's theories as possiblilities? It is very encouraging that at least someone tries to develop theories out of the data as they find it, rather than trying to fit the data into some preconceived notion. > The search for underlying factors, or commonalities, is known as > phenomenology, and it's the same approach Vallee ultimately > applied to the phenomenon, thus mystifying his critics after the > appearance of his first two "classic" scientific treatments of > the subject. Vallee, too, took eyewitness accounts literally, > even when they began to include a growing variety of seemingly > physical impossibilities -- such as the ability to change shapes, > beam people through solid objects, appear larger on the inside > than exterior dimensions would indicate, associated paranormal > effects (psychokinesis, telepathy, etc.), and so on. There you go again, with your preconceived notions that if they are "seemingly physical impossiblities" they shouldn't be taken literally. A good scientist or theorist should have an unbiased attitude towards the data. I won't try to defend Vallee, since in my opinion, he tends to present his work more as scientific fact than opinionated theories. > When the infamous Dr. X told investigators that he saw two UFOs > float down the valley in front of his house, shooting out sparks > and beams of light (one of which healed an old war injury), merge > together and disappear in a fireworks display, one's options are > relatively limited. One can assume that the witness is making > most (or all of it) up, merely misperceived mundane phenomena, or > is literally telling the truth as best he could. > Once you adopt the (in my opinion incautious) latter approach, > even the ETH is going to have a terrifically difficult time > making sense of the good doctor's alleged experiences (of which > the above are only the half of same). > My point is that the "conservative ETH" is largely a hypothesis > in name only; when the ETH is actually excercised in practice, > it's used to gloss over a whole host of grievous scientific > "sins." In other words, the aliens are endowed with every god- > (or demon)like ability in the book. At the same time, while > possessed of all these miraculous technological advances (FTL > travel, transporters, invisibility, etc.), the picture that > emerges from mainstream abduction research is of a frail species > on the verge of decline, if not extinction, needful of human > genetic material -- as if their scientists, each of whom is to > Einstein as Einstein is to a Neanderthal, couldn't create or > manufacture genetic material on their own. Philosophically and/or > logically, in other words, at least two "givens" of the > hell-on-wheels ETH are diametrically opposed to one another. Put > another way: the gods of the air (who abduct humans at will and > with impunity) have been revealed to have feet of clay. > If I didn't know better, I'd almost be inclined to believe that > such a hypothesis was the product of profoundly irrational and > deeply paranoid minds. While I agree (my opinion) that there seems to be serious problems with the ET Hypothesis, I don't see how there is a direct one-to-one connection with a belief in the "theory" and having a "profoundly irrational and deeply paranoid mind". Has this really been proven? I haven't seen any documentation regarding the proof. Could you point us to the scientific literature? > Don't take that personally, Jerry, unless you're feeling > particularly paranoid at the time you read this. I'm not > referring to your expression of the ETH, of course, just to that > of mainstream ufology, you know, the sort of ufology that issues > major titles like "The Threat" -- nothing paranoid there! Wow! There must be a lot of paranoid people on this List. Just think, people, if you have had a supernatural experience, or if you believe in the ETH, then it's a proven fact that you're paranoid! I guess we should all just pack it in and have ourselves committed. > In fact, as far as any self-respecting phenomenologist is > concerned, Jacobs wouldn't necessarily be any "righter" or > "wronger" than Keel. True, he might have identified the mechanism > a little more accurately, but the reality of the situation, in > either case, would be that we're presently under invasion by > gods/demons/aliens, the planet's inhabitants are being routinely > kidnapped and abused, and there is absolutely nothing either you > or I (or the Air Force) can do about it. Relax! They are still only theories that have a long way to go. People who have had unusual experiences are likely no closer to knowing the reason for their experiences than those who have not had them. And not all of the theories are explained in terms of gods/demons/aliens. If we're going to find answers, at least _some_ of the theories should at least assume that experiencers are not "paranoid" or "irrational", and that the experience may be exactly as related. Since there doesn't seem to be many (or any?) scientific tools for dealing with these type of experiences, can you really blame Keel's theories for being a little far-fetched? Instead of dismissing Keel altogether, it would be more encouraging if some researchers would take the "old man's" pioneering work out of his "medieval keep" and nourish it with some of the modern scientific tools that seem to make so much difference. > If ET actually turns out to be the culprit, then Keel simply > fingered the wrong suspect. Other than that -- phenomenologically > speaking, of course -- he and Jacobs occupy the same world. > Phenomenologically, the "message" is the same, and so are any > implied consequences. > The difference is that if a Jacobs alien abducts you some night > and slaps on the old Mindscan, you'll be able to say: "See, I > told you that Keel guy was a nutter!" Under the circumstances, > that may be the only (small) consolation you'll have. > Dennis And what would you say if a mothman approached you instead? <G> John Koopmans
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:33:55 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:34:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:57:28 -0500 >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Regarding... >>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:45:08 -0500 >>From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> >>Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony <snip> >>Now start at Mineral, Washington and draw a line toward Mt. Baker, >>which is at the Washington- British Columbia border. This sighting >>line of arnold intersects the hypothetical roughly 170 straight path >>about 50 miles from Arnold's plane. I suggest that this is the more >>likely distance than the 130 miles from Arnold to Mt. Baker. Now, >>if Arnold's sighting line had actually been some degrees south of Mt. >>Baker then the objects were closer. >>(get map, try yourself). >Bruce, >I had already looked at a map and tried to plot the courses, >essentially as you suggest. Although I could make some sense of >Arnold's statements, I found it impossible to quantify what the t>rue perspective was. As noted, there seems either a >contradiction or, if you prefer, maybe an error in distance >estimate here. Quantify: it depends upon how much youb want to quantify...how accurately do you need quantitification to arrive at a reasonable answer. In this case, I assumed the objects were on a straight track as suggested by Arnold, as they flew from Rainier to Adams. Projecting that track backwards gives a track north-northwest of Rainer. If Arnold first saw these objects when looking toward or just to the south of Mt. Baker, then the sighting line crossed the track about 50 miles from the plane. >And that's indicative of the overall problem with Arnold's >estimates of distance and speed. >>>Could a flash have reflected off Arnold's plane from an object over >>>100 miles away? >>Let's make it 50 miles away. >Which again, is changing Arnold's evidence. How much change? Arnold didn't indicate any way of determining how far they were from him at the time he first saw them, whereas after they flew south of Mt. Rainier he DID indicate a way in which he was able to determine their distance. In this case, while they were still northeast of him roughly in the direction of Mt. Baker they could have been at any distance. In other words, I'm not really changing Arnold's "evidence" only his immediate opinion about the available evidence (which was the sighting direction). <snip> >>Was it so bright that he actually saw light reflected off his plane? >>I doubt it since this was full daylight and the objects were very >>distant. >Well, that's another problem then. >I agree Arnold's later claim seems improbable, if not impossible, >and I wonder if a more realistic account is given in the early i>nterview when he said, "they seemed to flip and flash in the >sun, just like a mirror, and, in fact, I happened to be in an >angle from the sun that seemed to hit the tops of these peculiar >looking things in such a way that it almost blinded you when you >looked at them through your plexiglass windshield". >Noticing flashes of light through his windshield, is somewhat >different to light reflecting on his aircraft from objects over a >hundred miles away. Initially, Arnold didn't mention any "flashes" >reflecting on his aircraft at all. >>On the other hand, if the light entered his eye directly it could >>be quite bright IF THE OBJECTS REFLECTED LIKE MIRRORS, which is >>what Arnold seemed to imply. [...] >Appreciate you taking time to set out the calculations, however, >if we are accepting the objects were probably some 50 miles, or >approximately half the distance closer than Arnold later claimed, >then we're still speculating. Even at 100 miles the objects would still be qhite bright if reflecting sun like mirror surfaces (see calculation in previous message; divide brightness ratio of mirror to sun by 4 for inverse square decrease of intensity) >The crux of the argument is what would rule out Arnold's objects >being a formation of birds. Yes. >Arnold is timing the apparent speed of the objects by observing >their relative distance between two mountains, Mt. Saint Helens >and Mt. Adams, some 50 miles south of Mt Rainier. >In order to make accurate calculations, Arnold needs to be >consider his own position relative to these mountains, his >airspeed, how distant the objects are and their altitude. >At best, he can only guess the relationship between all of these >factors. Yes, but how accurate does he have to be? If he knew his position to within a few miles he would be accurate enough to arrive at a very high speed for the objects. >Is there evidence he may have miscalculated. Sure, he wasn't perfect. As I wrote in my paper, "Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? The answer to this question lies in the fact that Arnold inferred the altitude by observing that the objects appeared to be almost exactly on his horizon (i.e., level with his altitude). But it is very difficult to determine the exact horizon from an airplane. In this case, the angle (the "depression angle") between exact horizontal and his downward sighting line to the mountain peaks south of Mt. Rainier was very small. The depression angle from Arnold's plane at 9,200 ft altitude to the top of a 5,500 ft high mountain at a distance of 20 miles (105,600 ft) was about 20. Such a small angle would be difficult to detect from an airplane. So the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects. Perhaps if he had looked up the actual altitudes of the mountain peaks south of Mt Rainier he would have revised his statement". >Which we must assume he didn't. >You also note: (What I wrote in the paper:) "Arnold provided an estimate of size in an indirect way: he stated that they appeared to be comparable to the spacing of the engines on a DC-4 (4 engine propeller driven, 117 ft wingspan, 94 ft length, 27 ft height) which he had seen at a distance which he estimated as 15 miles. He estimated the engine spacing to be 45 - 50 ft, although 60 ft would have been a better estimate. By this means he was essentially providing an angular size for the objects: the equivalent of about 60 ft at 15 miles. He reported the size of the objects as 45 - 50 ft by comparison with the airplane as if the plane had been at the same distance as the objects. However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a correction for the distance difference is necessary." >And further that: "In his letter Arnold included a sketch which shows the leading edge being nearly a semicircle, with short parallel sides and with the rear being a wide angle convex (protruding) V shape that comes to a rounded point at the trailing edge. His drawing suggests that the objects were nearly circular overall. He wrote on the sketch that "they seemed longer than wide, their thickness was about 1/20th of their width." His suggestion that their width (or length) was about twenty times greater than their thickness may be an exaggeration. The sketch he drew of how they appeared "on edge" has the dimensions 4 mm wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to 1/11. (It is typical for people to overestimate length to width ratios.) Although he did not mention it in his letter, he later stated (e.g., in his book) that one of the objects had a somewhat different shape. His book shows an illustration in which the object has a semi-circular front edge and a read edge that consists of two concave edges that join at a rearward pointing cusp at the center of the rear edge. >This is the problem... "he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in estimating the altitude of the objects" "However, the plane was not at the same distance, so a correction for the distance difference is necessary". "The sketch he drew of how they appeared 'on edge' has the dimensions 4 mm wide by 45 mm long (approx.) which suggests a ratio closer to 1/11." >And if we're also saying it's improbable that light reflected onto >the aircraft from objects over a hundred miles away, or they were >originally observed at that distance at all, it just gets worse. >>Let's see, now. Arnold had the impression the length of the chain >>was the same as the length of a 5 mile ridge at a distance of about >>5 miles. >Impressions aren't science and as we've seen, Arnold's impressions, >albeit with the best intent, are highly questionable. >>If the Superpelicans were at 3,000 ft then the length of the line was >>about (5/20) x 3000 = 750 ft. >This is also appreciated, but it's conjecture. <snip> >>Incidently, you should check with the bird experts to find out how >>high the pelicans typically fly....or maximum height and speed. >According to some folks who work with wildlife projects monitoring >pelicans, the typical airspeed is 20-25 mph, although they, "soar >marvellously on thermals and glide effortlessly". >It was also confirmed that, "These birds are quite reflective when >flying overhead - big bodies and wingspans 9 - 10 feet and white >except for wingtips makes for quite a reflective area". >>>>If mistaken by Arnold for distant aircraft flying (apparently) >>>>nearly at horizon level to him, then they would have been >>>>essentially at his level. >>>Not necessarily. >>Oh yes, necessarily, unless you want to reject Arnold's claim that >>the objects seemed to be at about his altitude (but were actually >>more like 2 degrees below his local horizon). >>"Is it reasonable to assume that he could have made an error of >>several thousand feet in estimating their altitude? [...] >>."the answer is yes, he could easily have made an error of 4,000 ft in >>estimating the altitude of the objects". >Your own conclusions, Bruce. Hold it!! Let's be sure we are not mixing birds up with saucers. It is reasonable for him to make an error of 4000 ft in altitude IF AND ONLY IF the objects were 20 or so miles from him. If they were large birds only 1 mile from him the same angle error (2 degrees depression angle) would correspond to 1/20 of the height error at 20 miles, i.e., about 200 ft at 1 mile. In other words, birds at 1 mile would be only 200 ft below Arnold (roughly). >Thank you for taking the time to discuss this cordially. >I don't mind in the least if anyone thinks the evidence is sufficient >to scoff at the very likelihood that 50 years of belief is undermined >by a new, and contentiously fitting candidate for the media's "flying >saucers". <snip> >Pelicans are exceptionally large birds which show an expanse of white, >likely to be reflective from a brilliant light source. >Comparative to Arnold's comments that the objects, "flipped and >flashed against the snow and also against the sky" and "fluttered and >sailed, tipping their wings alternately and emitting those very bright >blue-white flashes from their surfaces". >It's a compelling correlation. >Is it not? It is not. If Arnold had been able to catch up with and pass these objects/pelicans, which would have been less than 1 mile from his aircraft, while he was flying southward, then it would be "compelling", perhaps, and you can bet that someone would have proposed the ornithological explanation years ago. However, until we can rationalize that, and why Arnold would think that light reflected from a pelican would be "blindingly bright" (not his words)..even if the pelican were a few feet away, we are far from "compelled" to accept the pelican explanation. >But maybe they were indeed, in this instance, flying saucers from >outer space. Yeah, just maybe.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Brookings Report Re-examined From: "Keith Woodard" <qwoodard@worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 06:28:45 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:20:05 -0500 Subject: Brookings Report Re-examined The 1960 Brookings Institution Report is these days on the lips of everyone from aging ufologists to Johnny-come-lately Art Bell listeners. The popular impression, partly rooted in sensationalized press reports of the time, is of a document prepared for NASA's 'Committee on Beings in Space', part of NASA's "research project to look into UFO phenomena". According to conventional ufology, Brookings concluded that society could well "collapse" were the public to learn of intelligent aliens, and warned that all such evidence must be suppressed for the sake of civilization itself. The truth is quite different, albeit to some degree open to interpretation. The Brookings Report was actually prepared for NASA's Committee on Long-Range Studies. (I feel confident no 'NASA Committee on Beings in Space' ever existed, despite its mention in a UPI dispatch.) The report's purpose was to assist in the development of "a comprehensive and long-term program of research and study regarding the social, economic, political, and international implications of the use of space for peaceful and scientific purposes." It is large: 219 pages, with another 100 pages of footnotes. (The full text can be extracted from: http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/nasa_brookings then: nasa_bell.html A direct route exists, but can't be here revealed because of a conflict between the posting rule on line length and that on complete URL's.) In the report is a section, occupying scarcely a page and a half, entitled, 'The Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life'. (There are also three-and-a-half pages of footnotes to this. All the relevant portions of the report body and footnotes are conveniently found on Richard Hoagland's website at: http://www.enterprisemission.com/brooking.html What the report actually recommended with regard to these "implications," was "continuing studies to determine {the public's} emotional and intellectual understanding and attitudes -- and successive alterations of them if any -- regarding the possibility and consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life." It did raise the possibility of withholding information, but took no position on its advisability. "Questions one might wish to answer by such studies," intoned the report, "would include: how might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends? What might be the role of the discovering scientists and other decision makers regarding release of the fact of discovery?" Those two sentences comprise the report's entire commentary on the subject of covering up the truth. Lamenting the paucity of data on which to base predictions, the report pointed out that public reaction could become both extreme and transformational. However, the authors did not view this in purely unfavorable terms. "The knowledge that life existed in other parts of the universe," they observed, "might lead to a greater unity of men on earth, based on the oneness of man or on the age-old assumption that any stranger is threatening." The report did find the POSSIBILITY of severe disruption worrisome, most forcefully expressing this with the remark, "Whether earthmen would be inspired to all-out space efforts by such a discovery is a moot question. Anthropological files contain many examples of societies, sure of their place in the universe, which have disintegrated when they have had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways; others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behavior." It seems to me this passage contains much room for interpretation. Was the dissolution of primal cultures invoked only to dramatize the disruptive potential inherent in first contact, or were the authors actually considering this a realistic possibility for our own civilization? I find it significant that this sentence (and one summarizing it, if we consider the report and the report summary) contains the sole reference in the entire report to any sort of large-scale calamity menacing the public. (Ironically, the authors, in a footnote, seemed more anxious about the "devastating" psychological effects "it has been speculated" might befall scientists and engineers rather than risk to the public at large. Including this latter concern, then, I count three sentences. In a fourth, a footnote predicts that fundamentalists would find the news "electrifying.")
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: Hundreds of them..... From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:32:23 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Hundreds of them..... > Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 15:57:44 +0000 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Hundreds of them..... <snip> > I'll tell you what Jim, everyone for that matter, I'll put my > money where my mouth is, if anyone can name one hundred seperate > explanations for UFOs either individually or collectively I > will buy them a bottle of thier favourite drink! > The first person to email me with a hundred plus list gets the > bottle, being that you now have the first thirty that should'nt > be too difficult. > -- > Are you a man or a mouse, come on squeek up! > Sean Jones Here's the best I could come up with - a total of 105 explanations. No bottle expected - glad to be able to help. John Koopmans 1) Spacecraft from another planet/planets 2) Time travellers 3) Hollow Earth 4) Hollow moon 5) Atlantis 6) Multi-dimensional craft 7) Earth Lights 8) Glowing Bugs 9) Swamp Gas 10) Hallucinations 11) Secret military/governmental/research aircraft 12) Day dreams/ Night dreams 13) Earth's etheric analog (opposite/mirror Earth) 14) Interdimensional beings/craft from alternate futures 15) Ball lightning 16) Psi Phenomenon 17) Demons/Angels 18) Reflections of light ( ie car headlights off a cloud) 19) Laser Lights 20) Meteors 21) Cumulous/lenticular Clouds 22) Abnormal weather conditions 23) Apparitions 24) Kites 25) Model aircraft/helicopters 26) Ice crystals 27) Phosference in the atmosphere 28) Falling satellite/space debris 29) Luminescence - plate tectonics 30) High flying seed pods 31) Holograms 32) Weather balloons 33) Venus 34) Mars 35) Jupiter 36) Moon 37) Plasma craft (i.e. Carlos Diaz) 38) Advertising airplanes 39) Mirages 40) Optical illusions 41) Hysteria/Dimentia 42) Ionized air 43) Atmospheric plasma effects 44) Orbitting Satellite 45) Meteors/meteor showers 46) Migratory birds 47) Atmospheric inversion 48) Dummy parachute 49) Search lights 50) Lighthouse 51) Fireflies 52) Jupiter 53) Saturn 54) Mars 55) Air bubbles 56) Atmospheric "blue jets" 57) Atmospheric "red sprites" 58) Lightning 59) Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) 60) Ice crystals 61) Volcano 62) Parhelia (sun dogs) 63) Research balloons 64) Weather balloons 65) Blimps 66) Kites 67) Zeppelins 68) Jettisoned spacecraft junk 69) Street lights 70) Car headlights 71) House lights 72) Fraud 73) Advertising balloon 74) Helicopter 75) Ultra Light 76) Flares 77) Distress signal 78) Rocket 79) Mothman (John Keel) 80) Mind control 81) Archetype (Carl Jung) 82) Fairies/elves 83) Spirits 84) Film defect 85) Biblical prophecy 86) Gaia's revenge 87) Cloud altimeter (Aime Michel) 88) Gliding hailstones (Aime Michel) 89) Gossamer 90) Reflections in glass 91) Vega (star) 92) Angel's hair 93) Ezekial's wheel 94) Specks of dust before eyes 95) Red blood corpuscles inside eyes 96) Cobwebs flying high 97) The Perseids 98) Glider 99) Distant fire 100) Foo fighter 101) Jet trail 102) Ghost rockets 103) Lubbock lights 104) Refracted starlight 105) Spook bombs
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 46 From: Masinaigan <Masinaigan@aol.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 11:23:01 EST Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 13:57:52 -0500 Subject: UFO ROUNDUP, Volume 2, Number 46 UFO ROUNDUP Volume 2, Number 46 November 30, 1997 Editor: Joseph Trainor CIGAR-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN NORTH CAROLINA Two UFO sightings were reported this week in western North Carolina, about 275 miles (440 kilometers) west of Raleigh. The first sighting took place on Monday, November 24, 1997, in Lake Junaluska, North Carolina, N.C. (population 1,200). Two UFOs hovered over the Lambuth Inn, located about three miles from Highway 40 on the Junaluska Methodist Assembly property, local resident M.B. reported. "The ships were cigar-shaped and very shiny-- silver-colored. They hovered in the sky in the area above the old hotel, and then disappear in the blink of an eye," M.B. reported. "At least three other folks have seen these UFOs. The objects merely hovered, not moving at all, and vanished as quickly as you can blink your eye." On Wednesday night, November 27, 1997, four people in nearby Clyde, N.C. (population 1,008), four miles south of Lake Junaluska, spotted a UFO "with red, blue and green lights" hovering near the summit of Chambers Mountain. M.B. said this sighting took place at 10 p.m., adding that there are several TV transmission towers on top of the mountain, located about 25 miles south of the Tennessee state line. (Email Interview) JETLINERS ENCOUNTER UFOs OVER NEW JERSEY On Monday night, November 17, 1997, ham radio operator John N. Gonzalez, N2IXW, picked up a UFO report while listening to radio traffic on the air. According to a MUFON report, Gonzalez heard the conversation between the tower at Newark, N.J. airport and Flight 262 on 118.300 MHz. Two other unidentified air crews also joined in the conversation. Here is a transcript: JET #2: "Watch out! The two (UFOs) are coming up to you." FLIGHT 262: "Well, Captain, the two up here are coming down to meet with you." TOWER: "Flight 262, what is your status?" FLIGHT 262: "We have 236 souls onboard and fifty thousand (pounds) of fuel. I think these damn things are going to hit us. We are over Morristown just in case there is a collision with them. (pause) They have taken off towards the northeast. And, by the way, towards the northeast, it also looks like a meteor or space debris is coming down." (Editor's Note: Monday night, November 17, was the tail end of the annual Leonid meteor shower.) TOWER: "Do you wish to report a UFO sighting?" FLIGHT 262: (Pause) No, we have nothing to report." JET #2: "We heard you. I am making sure the passengers are all right. And, no, I have nothing to report, either." JET#3: "You guys have seen more than your share of UFOs. I know I have." TOWER: "Who are you? Please identify yourself." (There was no response) "Flight 262, go to the emergency frequency. We will meet with the both of you there." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #47. Many thanks to George A. Filer of MUFON for letting UFO ROUNDUP quote from his report.) ANOTHER UFO SIGHTED IN NORTHERN NEW JERSEY On Monday, November 17, 1997, around 9:45 p.m., Heidi Coombs was driving on Highway 513 on Bearfoot Mountain, near West Milford, New Jersey (population 1,606). On a stretch of road overlooking the Monksville Reservoir, Ms. Coombs reported, "I was driving home from work, and a green light lit up my dashboard, the trees and nearly the whole reservoir...I looked up a little bit in the sky, and there was a bright green oblong 'thing' that just 'shot' up into the mountain. At first it appeared to hover, and then it was all over in a matter of seconds. Its altitude was too low to be a plane. The television news showed a meteor shower that went by, claiming that this is what caused the UFO reports. But the UFO (over the reservoir) looked nothing like those on TV." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #47. Many thanks to George A. Filer of MUFON for this report.) UFOs SIGHTED TWICE OVER BLUFF DALE, TEXAS On Tuesday night, November 18, 1997, residents of Bluff Dale, Texas (population 200), located on Highway 377 about 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of Fort Worth, spotted two unusual UFOs flying and hovering over the Paluxy River valley. Two objects appeared over the farm owned by Billy and Marionell Frizzell and were seen by their farmhand. "I think he saw something," Billy Frizzell told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "When we got home, he was really excited." "Yeah, and he is not the kind that would make up a story about this kind of thing. You can bet on what he tells you," Marionell Frizzell said. According to the Star-Telegram, the farmhand "told Billy that he looked north and two of the objects the size of round hay bales were right out at the edge of the field. Then one zipped down the fence row to a railroad bridge, followed the railroad along to the Paluxy River, (and) which looked like a dried brown bolt of lightning." "'He said one kind of hovered, and the other went around the field and over the hill and then came back. Then they both just disappeared in a flash,' Billy said, 'He said it scared his dog so bad that he put up a howl the rest of the night. I told Ray Baber about it, and he said he saw them, too.'" The Star-Telegram then interviewed Baber, "a retired truck driver, a lean, cowboy-looking man" who lives in a trailer near the center of Bluff Dale. "'I was in the trailer, and I know Dateline had come on when I saw the light outside,'" Baber told the Star-Telegram. "'At first I thought it must be the 8:30 Southern Orient (express train--J.T.) that comes by any time from 7:30 to 8:30. But I didn't hear a whistle or any noise, so I thought I'd go inspect and see what it was,' he said." "'Well, I saw the light coming again, and I thought it might be somebody headlighting (poaching--J.T.) deer in that pasture. Then it just leaped up and was gone,' Baber said, 'I wasn't going to tell anybody about it until Billy told me about what he had heard.'" (See the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for November 22, 1997, "Is UFO Tale the Biggest Bluff in Bluff Dale?" Many thanks to Mark Harman for this report.) WOMAN SPIES HOVERING UFO IN HAMMOND, INDIANA On Wednesday, November 12, 1997, at 11:30 p.m., Valerie V. was "laying in bed" at her home in Hammond, Indiana (population 93,714), a city on the Illinois state line 17 miles (27 kilometers) southeast of Chicago. "Looking up through my mini-blinds," she reported, "a moon-shaped object caught my eye. It was bright like the moon, sort of oval-shaped but more round. It was ten times or more bigger than any star. It was moving slowly like a plane in the western sky. It was very bright, and I said to myself, 'What the heck is that!?'" "When I did, it boomeranged back in the direction it had been traveling, but down just a little. It did that so fast that it left a streak of light behind it. I thought it was a plane going to crash." "There was no crash. I had never seen anything like that before. I wrote on my calendar that night-- 'Saw UFO, 11:35 p.m.' I sort of felt like it was spying on the world until it realized that someone (me) saw it, then it zipped super-fast backwards out of my view." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #47. Many thanks to George A. Filer of MUFON for this report.) TRIANGULAR-SHAPED UFO SEEN IN SOUTHERN OREGON On Thursday, November 13, 1997, at 1 a.m., Katie Caleb was driving on Oregon Highway 66 through Hayden Mountain Pass, heading for Klamath Falls (population 17,737) 20 miles (32 kilometers) to the east when she saw an unusual object in the sky. "I was driving along, and I stopped for a moment to look up at the stars," Ms. Caleb reported. "I saw an object with three bright lights. The object was shaped somewhat like a boomerang. It hovered over me for a minute, and then, all of a sudden, it shot off (to the north) towards Portland and was gone." (See MUFON Skywatch Investigations #47. Many thanks to George A. Filer of MUFON for this report.) (Editor's Comment: This is the second UFO sighting in Klamath Falls, Oregon in less than a month. On November 14, 1997, the same night as the "Seattle Lights" incident, Klamath Falls residents reported seeing "a broad streak of light" in the night sky.) UFOs ACTIVE IN ITALY On Thursday night, November 13, 1997, witnesses in Abruzzo reported seeing "a flying object that emitted a strong violet light." The UFO changed direction overhead and flew out to sea. (See the newspaper Il Centro for November 16, 1997.) Twenty hours earlier, at 1 a.m. on November 13, an alert was issued in the port city of Teramo when people heard "a sound similar to that of an airplane or a ship in difficulty." The Carabineri (Italian police--J.T.), the Captain of the Port, and the local Rescue Service were mobilized, and a diligent search was launched. But the source of the aerial disturbance was not found. (See the newspaper Il Messagero for November 15, 1997.) On Monday, November 24, 1997, at 11 p.m., three motorists driving on a highway near Siena saw "the apparition of a strong light in the sky, emitting a blue luminous glow, before it disappeared." (See the newspaper La Nazione, Siena edition, for November November 26, 1997. Grazie a Edoardo Russo, Marco Bianchini, Panfilo Pagliaro, e Frabrizio Degni di CISU per questi rapporti.) MYSTERY BOOM SHAKES UP IMMINGHAM, ENGLAND On Tuesday, November 25, 1997, at 10:35 p.m., a very loud mystery boom or "skyquake" sounded east of Immingham on the river Humber in northern England. Dozens of residents reported the same event-- a loud BANG accompanied by a vivid "flash of white, possibly bluish-white light in the east," over the North Sea. "People in homes facing west only heard the bang," resident Paul H. reported. "While those who, like us, were in a house facing the North Sea, also saw the flash of light." He estimated that the source was "probably in an area over the North Sea itself." (Email Interview) MYSTERIOUS SUBTERRANEAN BOOMS STARTLE RESIDENTS IN CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND Mysterious recurring subterranean booming sounds are alarming residents of the Glen Woods section of Cranston, Rhode Island (population 76,060), a city eight miles (12 kilometers) south of the state capital, Providence. "The noise, which residents say sounds like a thudding underground explosion, seems to be concentrated in a two-to-three block area affecting houses on Summit Drive and West Blue Ridge and Park Forest Roads." "It occurs day and night with an eerie irregularity that they say thwarts attempts to find a pattern. It may happen only once, or more than dozen times, during a 24-hour period, they say." "Finding out exactly what is causing the sound became a top priority for city officials after (Ed) Conway and Summit Drive resident Barbara Mendelsohn called the police early last week." "Last Monday (Patrol Captain William) Burroughs notified city officials, as well as the U.S. Geological Survey, the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency and the Providence Water Supply Board." (See the Providence Journal-Bulletin for November 24, 1997, page B-3, "Mystifying 'booms' bedevil neighbors.") By week's end, Rhode Island authorities said they had the answer to the subterranean booming. "After 10 days of sleuthing, engineers say they think they have found the culprit in the eerie audio occurrence that for months has haunted residents of the (Glen Woods) hilltop neighborhood overlooking (the) Garden City (shopping center). Before the city stepped in, Glen Woods homeowners were stymied by the thudding, shuddering sound which seemed to be emanating from their basements-- or below." "Now Public Works Director Peter Alviti says he believes the noise is coming from a 24-inch sewer line that makes some sharp twists and turns." "More testing still has to be done, but Alviti said he thinks the boom is caused when sewage-- which is pushed uphill through the pipe from a pumping station on Sherman Avenue--hits some of the 90-degree turns in the snaking sewer line beneath the streets and backyards of Glen Woods." (See the Providence Journal-Bulletin for November 28, 1997, page A-1, "The thing that goes boom in Glen Woods may be rumbling sewer line.") No sooner had Alviti made his statement than another sewer line in Cranston began erupting like a volcano. "A main sewer off Route 10 (in Cranston) near Spectacle Pond became partially blocked yesterday, sending hundreds of gallons of raw sewage bubbling up through a manhole cover." "The system overflowed into an undeveloped area for perhaps several hours before a police officer spotted it from Route 10. Most of the overflow was absorbed into a drainage ditch but an estimated 400 gallons flowed into Spectacle Pond." (See the Providence Journal-Bulletin for November 29, 1997, page A-3, "Raw sewage spews into Spectacle Pond." (Editor's Note: A triangular-shaped UFO was seen hovering over Route 10 in Cranston, R.I. in early October.) CHUPACABRA RETURNS TO CENTRAL PUERTO RICO Mysterious attacks on domestic farm animals around the town of Utuado, Puerto Rico, 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of San Juan, have triggered rumors of renewed predation by the Chupacabra or legendary "goat sucker." Forty-two large white rabbits, some chickens and a duck were found dead on a farm in Utuado on Thursday, November 20, 1997. The dead animals had twin perforations mostly in the stomach region and on their feet. Most of the perforations were triangular. According to researcher Scott Corrales, "One rabbit had its stomach split, an incision so precise as to only have been made by a surgical instrument or by an expert surgeon. No trace of blood remained in any of the dead animals." (Many thanks to Scott Corrales for this report.) PERUVIAN GIRL DEVELOPS SUPERMAN'S HEAT VISION On Saturday, October 25, 1997, Fire Brigade #26 of Chiclayo, capital of the department (state) of Lambayeque, 760 kilometers (456 miles) north of Lima, Peru, was called out at 8:30 a.m. to battle a house fire in the nearby town of Pajaten. Pajaten is 9 kilometers (5 miles) southeast of Chiclayo. By 8:45 a.m., the firefighters had "controlled and extinguished the blaze," after rescuing a three-year-old girl from her burning bedroom. Fire officials conducted an investigation but finally ruled that the blaze was "a fire of unknown origin." On Monday, October 27, 1997, at 3 a.m., Fire Brigade #26 was again called to Pajaten to battle a house fire. This fire took place less than 100 meters (330 feet) from the location of Saturday's fire. According to Jorge Pereira, owner of the property, the fire began in the bedroom where Giuliana Gutierrez Peralta, age 13, was having a sleep-over with her friend. Pereira told fire officials that he "entered the bedroom and turned on the lights. This caused the girl to wake up, with obvious irritation, and she opened her eyes, which seemed to shine in a variety of colors before turning glaring red. It was at this moment she looked at the curtains, which caught fire instantly." Investigating police did not believe Pereira's story and required him to take "a blood-alcohol test, the results of which proved negative." Peruvian newspapers ran feature stories on the incident. Giuliana soon became known as 'la nina del fuego" (the fire girl) and "la hija del diablo" (the Devil's daughter). Neighbors in Pajaten reportedly harassed the family, and, as a result, "the girl and her family went to the village of Uycampa," on the eastern side of the Cordillera Central, at the edge of Peru's rain forest, "where they are now living." (Muchas gracias a Raul Rios Centeno of Lima y tambien Scott Corrales para esas noticias.) (Editor's Comment: Cases of young teenagers developing heat vision or 'firestarter" powers are rare but not unknown. Here in North America we've had William Brough, age 12, of Turlock, California in October 1886; Jennie Bramwell, age 14, of Beaverton, Ontario in 1891; and Wanet Willey of Macomb, Illinois in August 1948. For more information on these cases, see MYSTERIOUS FIRES AND LIGHTS by Vincent H. Gaddis, Dell Books, New York, NY 1968, pages 166 through 170. Interestingly, Mama Ocllo Huallpa, wife of Manco Capac, the first Inca, is also said to have had these powers. As Garcilaso de la Vega remarked in his COMENTARIOS REALES DE LOS INCAS, "She was a witch, but she helped the poor.") from the UFO Files... 1733: DAYLIGHT DISC FLIES OVER DORSET On December 8, 1733, James Cracker of Fleet, a small town in Dorset, England, saw a silvery disc fly overhead in broad daylight. Here is his eyewitness account: "Something in the sky which appeared in the north but vanished from my sight, as it was intercepted by trees, from my vision. I was standing in a valley. The weather was warm, the sun shone brightly. On a sudden it re-appeared, darting in and out of my sight with an amazing coruscation. The colour of this phenomenon was like burnished, or new-washed silver. It shot with speed like a star falling in the night. But it had a body much larger and a train longer than any shooting star I have seen." "Next day Mr. Edgecombe informed me that he and another gentleman had seen this strange phenomenon at the same time as I had. It was about 15 miles from where I saw it, and steering a course from east to north." (See MYSTERIES OF THE UNEXPLAINED, Reader's Digest Association, February 1985, page 210.) FUN UFO WEBSITES: Fresh from his recent interview on Romanian TV, Manoliu Valentin of Bucharest has a new webpage devoted to UFOs. Entitled TERRA UFO TOURISM, it's available now in English and in a few weeks will be ready in French and Romanian. To check out the UFO scene in the Balkans, log in at this URL: http://cinor.starnets.ro/ufo/ And don't forget our parent site, UFO INFO, which has many features available at the click of a mouse. Drop by and visit at: http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/ For back issues of UFO ROUNDUP, visit our page at http://www.digiserve.com/ufoinfo/roundup/ Today's a day for celebration in Hannibal, Missouri and in Hartford, Connecticut. It's the birthday of Samuel Langhorne Clemens, the American author better known as Mark Twain. Old Sam was born in Florida, Missouri on November 30, 1835, right in the middle of a visitation by Halley's Comet. He died in 1910 at his mansion in Hartford when the comet made its return. One of his last short stories, "Captain Stormfield's Trip to Heaven," has eerie overtones that appeared to predict the coming of last year's Hale-Bopp Comet and the bizarre deaths of the Heaven's Gate sect in San Diego. We'll be back next weekend with more saucer news from "the paper that goes home--UFO ROUNDUP. See you then! UFO ROUNDUP: Copyright 1997 by Masinaigan Productions, all rights reserved. Readers may post items from UFO ROUNDUP on their websites or in newsgroups provided that the newsletter and its editor are credited by name and that they list the date of issue in which the item first appeared.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:21:45 -0600 (CST) Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:49:15 -0500 Subject: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:46:35 -0800 >From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ETH [Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis] &c >And what would you say if a mothman approached you instead? <G> >John Koopmans <Much, much, very much snipping> Dear John: I'd say a) you've confused Jerry Clark's remarks with mine; b) you seem to have completely misunderstood what I said, and c) need to go back and read the post again. Dennis
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: Open Letter To Senator Strom Thurmon From: Jim Griebel <71541.2124@compuserve.com> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:49:22 -0500 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:47:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Open Letter To Senator Strom Thurmon > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:26:58 -0800 From: pharaoh <pharaoh@web2000.net> [Dr. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo] To: UFO UpDates <updates@globalserve.net> Subject: OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR THURMOND < >snip< >if he did not want to preface a book about UFOs, he simply >would have said so and sent Lt. Col. Corso to look for another >sponsor. <more snip> Uh, the press release that I read made the point that Thurmond didn't _think_ he was writing a preface to a book about UFOs, but to another book altogether -- _I Walked With Giants_, an autobiography dealing with Corso's career in military intelligence.
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:26:40 -0800 (PST) Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:05:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:33:55 -0500 > From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > Sender: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:57:28 -0500 > >From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com> > >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Kenneth Arnold's testimony > >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > >[...]Noticing flashes of light through his windshield, is somewhat > >different to light reflecting on his aircraft from objects over a > >hundred miles away. Initially, Arnold didn't mention any "flashes" > >reflecting on his aircraft at all. [...] > Even at 100 miles the objects would still be qhite bright if > reflecting sun like mirror surfaces (see calculation in previous > message; divide brightness ratio of mirror to sun by 4 for > inverse square decrease of intensity) James, and Bruce, There's a point that hasn't yet been raised on this, because the "rational" skeptic might be offended. It could very well be that the initial flash that alerted Arnold to look around for its source was merely a bit of ET magic (alternate translation: advanced alien technology; alternate translation #2: non-primitive alien technology). We've all heard of many instances since then where certain UFO witnesses have been prompted one way or another to look in the right area of the sky to see a UFO, which they sensed was outside of their normal behavior. Arnold didn't make it clear if this initial flash was reflected off a wing of his aircraft or from within the cockpit somewhere, but he wasn't looking out at its source at this initial time. And it was bright enough to make him think it must have been a reflection of sunlight off of some plane that passed dangerously close. So this initial flash might have been purposely directed at his plane by one of the nine UFOs to attract his attention. The second flash that Arnold saw directly and described as having "reflected brightly on my plane" may have been of the same intensity and also enhanced over normal reflected sunlight. Since the craft were described as being generally round or ovate, those surfaces wouldn't present much area at all for specular reflection, but perhaps part of their unusual shape near the tail or rear had a larger flat section that could do better. I do need to let some know that I'm well aware of the argument that one looks for mundane 20th-century physical solutions to anomalies before evoking "ET magic." So we have no need to hear another lecture on that. However, it seems to need stressing that the aliens are not likely -- are not plausibly -- going to restrict themselves to our primitive level of scientific understanding, necessarily, when presenting themselves to us. So let's stick with the plausible and not insist that the first one or two flashes that attracted Arnold's attention and lit up his plane had to be from ordinary specular reflection off of a small planar section of one of the UFOs. Jim Deardorff
UFO UpDates A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena 'Its All Here In Black & White' Location: VirtuallyStrange.net > UFO > UpDates Mailing List > 1997 > Nov > Nov 30 Re: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 15:41:00 -0800 Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:08:24 -0500 Subject: Re: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder > From: Ktperehwon@aol.com [Karl T Pflock] > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:31:30 -0500 (EST) > To: updates@globalserve.net > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'Rand' Document - Backgrounder > >Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:07:05 -0800 > >From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET> > >Subject: Re: UFOR: Thorough vs paranoid.... (fwd) > >To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > >I guess ufology has no institution memory. About every six > >months someone "discovers" "THE RAND DOCUMENT"!!!! <Drum roll, > >trumpets!> >> > Anyone wanting the full story on why Kocher wrote his paper and > some of the significant material therein will find same in my > article in THE ANOMALIST 5. I interviewed Kocher at length for > the article; interestingly enough, I was the first UFO researcher > since 1968 to do so. Karl Pflock may think my posting was aimed at him. It wasn't. In the Archives of this list, earlier this year is an announcement of the "discovery" of the "The RAND Document." Recently, an Isreali scientist announced another discovery of the "The RAND Document" on the Current Encounters list. Here is the last message in an exchange I had with him: * * * Your quote at the end of your message, Sir, exactly describes the problem in Ufology: When our knowledge is not in order, the more which we have of it, the greater will be our confusion. Inspired by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) Please don't take my criticism personally. I have simply pointed out a failing in Ufology. We have no "Ufological Abstracts" and no index to government documents. Most other material is poorly organized and seldom indexed. The sighting databases which exist are helpful, but not representative. We had proposed a project to gather all known government documents into an archives and eventually place them on searchable CD-Roms. Such a project would have made this material easily avaiable to libraries and individual worldwide. This was the favorite project of one well-to-do patron. However, his interest has now changed. Some government documents are currently on CD-ROM, but these are mostly images of pages. People are unable to do keyword searches in the text for relationships. Efforts such as Ed Stewart's indexing projects get little or no support. If the 150 copies of the MUFON Journal Index and the FSR Index he produced were sold, he would than be able to recycle the money into printing the next index. * * * -- Jan Aldrich Project 1947 http://www.iufog.org/project1947/